- This topic has 20 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by ninfan.
-
10 years to record unrecorded rights of way
-
oldnpastitFull MemberPosted 8 years ago
Apparently we’ve got 10 years to record any rights of way which date from before 1949 and haven’t been recorded officially.
After that, they’re gone, and the landowner can do whatever they please with the land.
I can’t think of any off-hand near to me but I bet there are loads around the country.
ninfanFree MemberPosted 8 years agomeaning that we have nine years to perfect a way of handing over the Strava database en masse in an effective format to make millions of ROW claims in one go.
MoreCashThanDashFull MemberPosted 8 years agoOr 10 years to get a proper access bill through parliament.
Time for mountain bikers, horse riders and ramblers to make an effort rather than just take things for granted.
piemonsterFull MemberPosted 8 years agoTime for mountain bikers, horse riders and ramblers to make an effort rather than just take things for granted.
Not bickering amongst ourselves about who does the most harm would be a good starting point.
Topic shared.
colpFull MemberPosted 8 years agoI suspect the group doing the most to protect and record RoW for everyone is the TRF.
The group doing the most to restrict access being the ramblers.schnorFree MemberPosted 8 years agoSorry its a bit late, but as I’m temporarily back in the office – and now know what it’s actually called – I’ve found a copy of Alan Kinds (Byways and Bridleways fame) thoughts: –
Anyone familiar with his work shouldn’t be surprised to see it’s pretty much the only realistic proposal out there. The TRF and British Driving Society consultations (which aren’t yet public) aren’t nearly as considered, although my copies are dated ~ March 2015. Other than these three I’ve not seen anything similar from any other group / organisation.
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoHow can a right of way be unrecorded? Does it mean a path customarily used?
schnorFree MemberPosted 8 years agoAn unrecorded RoW is a route walked by the public but not on the Definitive Map. The route may then be claimed and added to the DM via a legal process
thecaptainFree MemberPosted 8 years agoDoes anyone know if/how this law applies to private rights of way? A property in my family has one of these. I don’t think it is registered anywhere, it’s just been a customary path since the house was built (neighbouring properties have similar paths).
schnorFree MemberPosted 8 years agoPrivate rights of way or easements are unfortunately not applicable, this only applies to routes that have been or are currently being used by “the public at large”.
gordimhorFull MemberPosted 8 years agoI suspect that this legislation doesn’t apply to Scotland. Still a worrying development though.
stilltortoiseFree MemberPosted 8 years agoWadey has made some 400 applications, called definitive map modification orders, or DMMOs, in Hertfordshire alone, including 30 for unrecorded urban alleyways in one district of Bushey.
😯
big_n_daftFree MemberPosted 8 years agomeaning that we have nine years to perfect a way of handing over the Strava database en masse in an effective format to make millions of ROW claims in one go.
As you know we need the horse riders on strava too, then the claims for bridleways can be initiated, bike riding is only supportive information for a claim
Nipper99Free MemberPosted 8 years agoAs above, an unrecorded right of way is a right of way that satisfies the criteria of dedication as a public right of way, by the presumption of long use or other means of dedication, but that is not recorded on the definitive map. The above applies only to those ‘dedicated’ prior to 1949 and which were missed off the original review in the 1950s.
If I were the type that wanted to cause mischief then and excellent place to look for these would be the numerous inclosure awards and acts which quite often contained within the award various inclosure roads that were given the status of public highway – once a highway always a highway etc. I can think of loads of these near to me.
ninfanFree MemberPosted 8 years agoSchnor – I quite like Alan’s suggestion there, I think that the elephant in the room however, at least for cyclists, remains an emphasis on evidence of long use, rather than a vision towards the future.
Imagine if in his draft map process there was some way that new routes/upgrades could be formally proposed (eg. having regard to S26(1) considerations)?
(Hell, I might even go so far as to agree that if upgrades/creations were permissible on S26(1) considerations, I might even be willing to consider an opportunity for landowners to apply for downgrades/deletions on the same basis, but that would be utterley explosive)
molgripsFree MemberPosted 8 years agoStrava heat map would be a great place to start. There are tons of trails on the tops in the South Wales Valleys left over from various industrial enterprises that are commonly used by bikers and walkers. Many are quite busy.
Come to think of it – a lot of homemade MTB and DH trails are pretty busy – do they qualify? That;d cause some controversy 🙂
Nipper99Free MemberPosted 8 years agoWere they mtbing before 1949?
You can apply to downgrade. Same dmmo procedure but the presumption is that once the prow is on the dm it is there correctly.
ninfanFree MemberPosted 8 years agoWere they mtbing before 1949?
They were certianly riding bikes off road, but if you read point 6.11 of Alan’s proposal he suggested that DMMO’s under ’81 rules were done as part of the draft map process – my point was that it would be very useful if that was extended to Creation orders as well as DMMO, and if there was a way for public to put routes forward for consideration under S26 principles*
You can apply to downgrade. Same dmmo procedure but the presumption is that once the prow is on the dm it is there correctly.
Yes, you can but not applying S26 principles*
*That would be:
(a)the extent to which the path or way would add to the convenience or enjoyment of a substantial section of the public, or to the convenience of persons resident in the area,
Offset against:
(b)the effect which the creation of the path or way would have on the rights of persons interested in the land(Which, personally, I think is a fair test/balance upon which most rights of way issues, eg. DMMO’s, should be decided)
schnorFree MemberPosted 8 years agoNinfan – (Hell, I might even go so far as to agree that if upgrades/creations were permissible on S26(1) considerations, I might even be willing to consider an opportunity for landowners to apply for downgrades/deletions on the same basis, but that would be utterley explosive)
For your first point – and I’m probably reading far too much between the lines here – but I can’t help but think he’s alluding to something like this when he says in Section 6 “that takes parts of the 1949, 1968, 1981 Acts”.
Re. your latter point, I completely agree that as long as it met the requisite reasonableness test, I wouldn’t object to some sort of model of quid pro quo between creations and deletions (and 99.5% of the time I stand firmly in the ‘once a highway always a highway’ camp!).
Nipper99Free MemberPosted 8 years agoI think just using the above section 26 criteria as a test of the public putting forward what would be desirable as a prow is going to give rise to justifiable claims for compensation by the landowner concerned – the current system works, in most cases, on an evidential/legal test of presumed dedication so compensation is not an issue.
ninfanFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI think that’s a fair point, I wasn’t trying to suggest the end of compensation (though IMO it would benefit from clearer guidelines). – I had knocked off mention of S28 above as I thought it was an irrelevant diversion when discussing the wider application of the test criteria.
The topic ‘10 years to record unrecorded rights of way’ is closed to new replies.