One Show - Bridleway?

I think the farmer was angry because it will cost him lots of money but the man from the BHS nothing. I would imagine if the bridleways on his farm have been unused in living memory he will have farmed his land accordingly, now he will lose so much ground for the actual bridleway and then have the maintenance and perhaps problems with fencing and gates.
The man from the BHS while being correct in his rights, in his responsibilities in public relations terms he was totally in the wrong, this is how wars are started. He certainly made horse riders look stuck up and pompous, BHS please note keep him away from the general public.
Where I live there are droves which were put in place when there were no cars and you walked your flock of sheep perhaps twice a year, now everyone with a 4x4,usually when its wet because they love the challenge of getting stuck in the mud are out every weekend but they do not have to pay to repair them. These bridleways were probably the same, I have ridden on some over the moors that no one ever used as they were so stony and remote the communities they served long gone but in a built up area they would have been kept in use in some form.
We live on a very small island and we have to share space but I don't believe the landowner should have to pay for our pleasure, and that communication and negotiation are far better tools, than 'I am in the right so there'.
 
jrp204 said:
A 'right of way' is not necessarily a public right of way, the farm may have been in his family for generations with old bridleways, footpaths being used in the past for farmworkers but being out use for many many years this does not make them public footpaths.
Click to expand...
I didn't know a 'right of way' could be 'non public right of way' ?
How is this shown differently on an OS map ?
 
Hairy Horror said:
The route in question was not a footpath it is an old bridleway and surely once a bridleway always a bridleway. I can really understand the farmers frustration but why should it not be used as a bridleway just because he objects. To be honest we don't know the full story from either side, but if its marked out on map which it clearly is he has no leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

There is a difference though, if it was a public bridleway being reinstated fair enough but if it was a bridleway providing access to the farm for farmworkers etc then why wouldn't the farmer object. Just because it is on a map doesn't make it public access.
I think it is very easy when you are not the farmer/landowner to sit back and think how unfair they are but just try to put yourself in their shoes.
 
jrp204 said:
"A Right of Way is a right of way, it is nothing to do with whether it is "tolerated" or not, it is there and the public have the right to use it. The Definitive Map held by the County Council is the place to check the status of the path. "

So if you had a path through your garden, you would tolerate it but if they wanted to add another would you be keen? That is what I meant, I agree the public have a right to use it and I couldn't think of 'definitive map' so said council, but many people look at their OS and assume every path is a public one.

" in 1949 when of course the idea of leisure riding was a long way in the future and horse were only used for work, and some hunting."
Leisure is the issue, we want to pursue our leisure activities within a working/business environment where we expect the business owner to provide, free of charge safe access across land that in many cases will be taken out of production, also losing income. So, you can perhaps see why landowners are not keen.
Click to expand...

I did say that having a right of way over the land is at best a nuisance and at worst a nightmare, and there is no advantage to the farmer at all. But they are there. A right of way cannot be added without agreement, but there is nothing to stop a member of the public from pointing out that there is a route that has gone out of use. We have public footpaths crossing our land so we know how the public misbehaves and how awkward it can be for farming.
 
jrp204 said:
There is a difference though, if it was a public bridleway being reinstated fair enough but if it was a bridleway providing access to the farm for farmworkers etc then why wouldn't the farmer object. Just because it is on a map doesn't make it public access.
I think it is very easy when you are not the farmer/landowner to sit back and think how unfair they are but just try to put yourself in their shoes.
Click to expand...

If its on the map it's a right that's that.
 
For the avoidance of any doubt - my video featured a byway open to all traffic. I only rarely ride bridleways and then I have to have either landowner permission, local authority permission (or both).
 
jrp204 said:
There is a difference though, if it was a public bridleway being reinstated fair enough but if it was a bridleway providing access to the farm for farmworkers etc then why wouldn't the farmer object. Just because it is on a map doesn't make it public access.
I think it is very easy when you are not the farmer/landowner to sit back and think how unfair they are but just try to put yourself in their shoes.
Click to expand...
Yes it was being reopened, like I said before I do understand the farmers frustration, he found out about the proposal from a notice on his gateway which I truly believe was wrong, and should not have been done that way. They should have made contact by letter, but have the council already done that and got no response, is that why the Bhs took the case on? But one of his excuses that the bridleway should not be opened was because you had to ride under a railway bridge that was noisy when a train went over.
 
Gingersmum said:
I didn't know a 'right of way' could be 'non public right of way' ?
How is this shown differently on an OS map ?
Click to expand...

It could be a permitted route, one which the farmer has allowed the public to use but is not a prow. They usually close them one day a year to prevent them from becoming a prow.
 
Goldenstar said:
If it was a old closed bridleway the BHS has every right to take steps to have it opened as do I and any one esle interested the bridleway is a right if it's an ancient one getting them reopened is sometihing I am happy the BHS works to achieve this
I did not see the piece however having some experiance of bridleway work from what I have read its miles away from what i experianced the bridleways officers I knew tried to resolve issues without confrontation .
A bridleway is an old road and farmer may own the land but they don't own the bridleway and they have no right to prevent the public passing along a right of way which is an ancient right every person in this country has .
Who knows what the truth of the matter is is was the BBC and we all know you can't trust them in the journalistic field anymore
Click to expand...

I totally get your point but I'd still be narked if the BHS slapped a load of posters on my gate demanding access, civil communication helps so much more than what's apparently happened via that OneShow piece...

I'm not convinced though that old bridleways remain as a right of way though? You can't place old rights of way onto modern day property law surely?
 
TigerTail said:
Do we know how to propose a bridleway? which bodies to address it to?
Click to expand...

This needs a new thread really. First contact your BHS Bridleway Officer. You then together find out its status on the Definitive Map and whether there is any possibility that it already has "higher rights" and is a bridlepath already. This would be done from historical records usually kept at the County Council. OR if it has been ridden as of right for the past 20 years, in which case you can apply for a DMO to the County Council (Definitive Map Modification Order) who then have to contact the landowners, who would probably object and generally a Public Enquiry follows. This can easily take 10 years. Sometimes you are lucky and the landowner is the council in which case it should be easier, although not neessarily.

There is another method, called Express Dedication which has been used to create 80 new bridlepaths in the Somerset area. Here a willing landowner will dedicate a new right of way. The only snag here is that the Council have to agree to it, as they are the ones who are taking on the responsibility of maintaining it and recording it. Find out from the Cross Trails Trust how it is done - they publish a book with many case studies. I think that in many cases a footpath has been upgraded to a bridlepath.

Sometimes a Council will create a bridlepath where they want to allow cylists to use what is currently a footpath. There is one being created near here, and it includes building a bridge over a road, so it is a big project and it couldn't have gone ahead it if wasn't going to be a bridlepath as the council will have to take over responsibility for it.
 
"There is another method, called Express Dedication which has been used to create 80 new bridlepaths in the Somerset area. Here a willing landowner will dedicate a new right of way. The only snag here is that the Council have to agree to it, as they are the ones who are taking on the responsibility of maintaining it and recording it. Find out from the Cross Trails Trust how it is done - they publish a book with many case studies. I think that in many cases a footpath has been upgraded to a bridlepath."

That is a much better way of going about things, thankyou for posting.
 
Chan said:
The lack of hand shaking was SO rude! That alone really turned me away from the farmers point of view. Those who can't control their fury in situations like that...I don't know, I just don't want to acknowledge their point of view until they've calmed down.

Though I do understand why he's upset. I would not be best pleased to find a notice on my gate.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I completely disagree with this - completely pig headed of the BHS to stick up a warning on a gate like some spineless cowards instead of engaging in face to face interaction like other human beings.

I'm with the farmer, our farm is absolutely riddled with rights of access which were historically created for farm labourers to get to work. Now they are occupied mostly by hapless people who seem to have a complete inability to either read a map of stick to the paths.

Why anyone would want to ride under that railway bridge on a horse is beyond me anyway - as usual it is just an example of people exercising their divine right to do as they please.

This week I have found two horse riders absolutely nowhere near where they should be, one man on a motocross bike and four geocachers where they shouldn't be. It's not like farmers have to make a living off of the land or anything...
 
Have watched people do this type of work I find it very difficult to believe that a notice was the first interaction it just so different to what I experianced .

Some farmers so I know hate the fact the public have right of acess onto the land .
However until the farmers are farming without subsisties from the tax payer I have little sympathy .

I have done some bridleway work locally and the first thing I do is knock at the farmers door .
 
Totally agree RtE, the funny thing is we are finding more and more farms are being split up, the farmhouses sold off with a few acres and it is the incomers that are creating more about footpaths than the original farmers. They know there is a footpath on the land but as soon as they buy the place they apply to, or in some cases just move the path. it appears that everyone wants the 'right' to go where they want to until it directly affects their property.
We graze our sheep on a farm that has 1 footpath going through it, well defined too but we are constantly finding dog walkers all over the place, they have absolutely no respect for the landowner or the farmers who share farm the land. We often find them walking their dogs through our sheep and of course their dog wouldn't chase them! They don't pick up their dogs **** either. Horse riders also seem to think they can tank up through the tramlines in the corn, any field is fair game. If you say anything you often get the response of we have nowhere to walk/ride, well actually there are miles and miles of footpaths where we live and all of them are stunning but they still have to take the mick, and if you know you have nowhere to ride you should take that into consideration when you pick a place to keep your horse. It does seem farmers have to feed the country, provide leisure spaces and at some stage attempt to make a living.
 
I don't understand the difference between a Right of Way and a Public Right of Way. If its not public, who gets to use it?

Luckily for our local farmers, its so wet around us that noone bothers to use the bridleways for 9 months of the year!!!
 
RunToEarth said:
I'm sorry I completely disagree with this - completely pig headed of the BHS to stick up a warning on a gate like some spineless cowards instead of engaging in face to face interaction like other human beings.

I'm with the farmer, our farm is absolutely riddled with rights of access which were historically created for farm labourers to get to work. Now they are occupied mostly by hapless people who seem to have a complete inability to either read a map of stick to the paths.

Why anyone would want to ride under that railway bridge on a horse is beyond me anyway - as usual it is just an example of people exercising their divine right to do as they please.

This week I have found two horse riders absolutely nowhere near where they should be, one man on a motocross bike and four geocachers where they shouldn't be. It's not like farmers have to make a living off of the land or anything...
Click to expand...

Err...I did actually say I can see why he was upset. So I don't know why you're disagreeing with me, because I agree with you :S
He just went about it the wrong way. You don't get people on your side by stamping your feet and not shaking hands. Just a messy situation that could have been easily solved with a sit down and a chat.
 
Goldenstar said:
Some farmers so I know hate the fact the public have right of acess onto the land .
However until the farmers are farming without subsisties from the tax payer I have little sympathy .
Click to expand...

My taxes go towards all kinds of things, perhaps I should start walking through the gardens of people who have their rent subsidised through a government benefit?

Farmers still have to work land, which is made a lot more difficult when you factor in the time it takes you to work footpaths into things, and the health and safety implications of having Joe public everywhere when you are operating large machinery. Land is at a premium at the moment, the only way you can pick up a cheap bit is if it is riddled with PROW - says a fair bit.
 
RunToEarth said:
My taxes go towards all kinds of things, perhaps I should start walking through the gardens of people who have their rent subsidised through a government benefit?

Farmers still have to work land, which is made a lot more difficult when you factor in the time it takes you to work footpaths into things, and the health and safety implications of having Joe public everywhere when you are operating large machinery. Land is at a premium at the moment, the only way you can pick up a cheap bit is if it is riddled with PROW - says a fair bit.
Click to expand...

Path paths etc are rights of way we need to get people walking more using the countryside more and why should individuals ( like me ) or charities like the BHS not work to open up routes so people can use them .
There is no right in law to roam across people's gardens but there are rights to acess to rights of way.
I have make sure I use ALL the bridleways round here and repair gates cut back hedges etc etc .
I have not had to involve the council ( who have enough to do ) however a new framer to the area has built a silage pit and blocked a very ancient bridleway I think I might need help with that but I will do battle until its open again .
 
jrp204 said:
No, we have a ROW over a lane to our field, it is on the map marked by a black dotted line, it doesn't make it a public ROW.
Click to expand...

I thought that just denoted a 'track' on the definitive map or 'path' on OS maps not a right of way. The ROWs are shown differently.

With the notice on the gate - would it have been the BHS or the council who put up these signs? It wasn't clear from the piece whether this was a bridleway on the definitive map which needed to be reopened of if they were applying for a modification order in the belief the path was an unrecorded path or a bridleway misclassified as a footpath. I always thought the procedure was that an individual or the BHS contacts the council who then tell the landowner to reopen.


Just that it seems to be standard practice for the council to inform people with this method. It's what they do round here when planning applications go in rather than put letters in letterboxes. Annoying as you have to check soggy virtually unreadable notice on lamp posts but seems to be their approach.
 
"however a new framer to the area has built a silage pit and blocked a very ancient bridleway I think I might need help with that but I will do battle until its open again . "
Is this BW on the definitive map?
It would suggest then that since the farmer would have to apply to planning to erect the pit and if the path was a PROW he would have had to apply to move it that although an ancient bridleway it was not on the definitive as a public one?
"
I thought that just denoted a 'track' on the definitive map or 'path' on OS maps not a right of way. The ROWs are shown differently"
.http://s113443122.websitehome.co.uk/TT/Navigation/TT-Nav_OSMap_Symbols.htm, a black dotted line denotes a path/ other road, drive track, not necessarily a ROW, whereas PROW are shown in pink/red.
 
Last edited:
jrp204 said:
"however a new framer to the area has built a silage pit and blocked a very ancient bridleway I think I might need help with that but I will do battle until its open again . "
Is this BW on the definitive map?
It would suggest then that since the farmer would have to apply to planning to erect the pit and if the path was a PROW he would have had to apply to move it that although an ancient bridleway it was not on the definitive as a public one?
Click to expand...

It is a definative bridleway and in use and signed by the council.
IMO it needs moving which would mean it would not run through the farmyard which IMO would be better all round , I think they assume runs below the farm but it does not .
I need to see them when I get a moment and get to grips with it when I have more time in the spring .
 
Goldenstar said:
It is a definative bridleway and in use and signed by the council.
IMO it needs moving which would mean it would not run through the farmyard which IMO would be better all round , I think they assume runs below the farm but it does not .
I need to see them when I get a moment and get to grips with it when I have more time in the spring .
Click to expand...

If it is on the definitive map then fair play although you would have thought the council would have objected. I agree it would be better if it is moved away from the working farm.
 
Goldenstar said:
It is a definative bridleway and in use and signed by the council.
IMO it needs moving which would mean it would not run through the farmyard which IMO would be better all round , I think they assume runs below the farm but it does not .
I need to see them when I get a moment and get to grips with it when I have more time in the spring .
Click to expand...

Are you sure they have not altered the route of the path as a planning condition on the consent - you can usually find out on the district council website? I agree it is pragmatic to work with all parties to agree which parts of ancient paths need reopening, and making sure the countryside is accessible.

Our problems with PROWs at present seem to be that there are a huge amount of people completely incapable of sticking to paths - when ruins it for everyone. When you take serious time and effort to comply with the law in making sure PROWs and open and accessible, it is infuriating to see people walking/riding/cycling down a flipping tram line, and when that happens BHS/local walking groups/council do not want to know.
 
jrp204 said:
a black dotted line denotes a path/ other road, drive track, not necessarily a ROW, whereas PROW are shown in pink/red.
Click to expand...


Exactly so at the risk of being pedantic the black dotted lines are simply paths or tracks so not right of way public or otherwise.

There are not ROWs and public ROWs:-there are ROWs that the public have access to (level depending on the weather fp, bp, boat etc) and there are tracks, paths, drives etc which are not ROWs but are marked as part of the landscape.

Note there are also permissive bridleways which are not on the definitive map but on some OS maps. Here the landowner has given permission but it's not a ROW. These should be signposted as permissive and there are legal processes like closing one day a year.


We don't actually know what the status was in this case. The one show talked generally about bridlepaths being reopened but didn't say whether these were

Marked on the definitive map as bridleways but not accessible and needed work to get them reopened
Incorrectly marked as footpaths in the 2006 map but the bhs were applying for a DMO to get them reclassified
Not on the definitive maps at all but marked on OS as bridleways so being challenged on that basis
Not on the maps as a ROW but in continuous use a bridleway so a DMO being applied for on that basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top