Hi all

just had a note through from Derbyshire CC about a proposal to close a bridleway in Grindleford Parish, specifically this one

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=426212&Y=378307&A=Y&Z=115

The given reason is that the ground is boggy and a such is unsiotable for horses. Unfortunately the law specifically states that no consideration should be made for bicycles in terms of surfacing, although some councils like Cheshire are actively overruling this and have publicly stated they will consider cyclists when looking at surfacing issues. Anyway, I digress.

It's not all bad news – the route will remain open as a footpath, and the bridleway will be re-routed slightly to the north, following the "white road" and subsequent trail to White Edge Lodge

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=426082&Y=378382&A=Y&Z=115

The council claim this will not significantly affect anyone and will make things better all round. I am ever so slightly sceptical as I remember being out for a ride with Max Headset in the Ceiriog valley where a similar stopping up order had closed a perfectly useable unsealed track, re-routing bikes and horses down a lane and back up a steep grassy bank that was completely unrideable. Any comments from local riders would be very much appreciated – positive or negative comments are welcome, but please keep it constructive

thanks

Anyone in th

bump for those just arriving in't t'office

I'm pretty sure I've ridden down that once before. I don't remember it being that bad, probably quite fun, but I haven't been back so it can't have beeen that good.

It is certainly boggy there and there is alot of tussock grass in places. There is another route in the vicinity that emerges onto the road close by so it is not exactly a massive loss.

I don't suppose there is any chance of giving that one up and having the descent through Oak's Wood upgraded as pay-off 😉

have walked up there – don't remember it being that bad. might go do some research tonight 🙂

Hi NBT – similar to Lodge Moor I guess – read the annual report for the Sheffield local access forum and noticed that the Rivelin valley/Lodge Moor review is very much a trial for whole of area

– one question ref legal status
now as i understand it if left as a bridleway the local authority has a responsibility to maintain it as suitable for horse riding? – though some only seem to react to requests and pressure rather than being proactive

to maintain as a ROW for cyclists what happens if local authority changes status to a concessionary bridleway with the landowners permission – is there any requirement for LA or landowner to maintain a concessionary bridleway? or are there any other alternatives that increase rather than reduce the ROW network for MTB's?

antigee, short answer is "dunno". will see what I can find out though

On quick reading of this (would have to look into it a bit further) I think Antigees point is correct, that the council have a duty to maintain it in usable condition for Horses, and are trying to duck out of that by moving the route, I don't think thats a valid reason in law.

Initially, the main one is going to be making representations that it would be significantly less convenient for a body of users, and although suitability of the surface for cyclists is not an issue, the convenience of the line should still be a relevant factor for inquiry.

wait out and I'll try and find more info

Can you not suggest to the council that if they ae using 'surface' as a criteria for closing bridleways they could also use it as a criteria for upgrading footpaths.

You could also point out that there have been massive increases in the numbers leisure cycling over the past 20 years or so, which is pretty much positive all round – health, local economy, helping address the obesity trend, reducing impact on NHS drone Z blah (better wording reqd).
During this period, ramblers who already had 100% access to 'tracks(footpath, BOAT, Restricted BOAT, RUPP, Bridleway – and whatever other acronym, and classification the **** have come up with)' have actually got even more – they got the right to roam and are likely to get coastal access. The amount for cycling/horeriding has remained static at about 21% of total tracks, it seems appropriate that to meet the public need that the council should be looking at expanding the bridleway network by upgrading footpaths.

As a more cynical point you may wish to point out to the anti cycling cvnts that when a RUPP/BOAT was overused by vehicles it was selectively restricted by a TRO (sometimes with a date range specified) specific to vehicle users, they could do the same with horses on bridleways that are overused or unsuitable….

Right, rather than acres of cut and paste, see points 19-29 on the following guidance note

http://www.bbtrust.org.uk/an/an09.pdf

Especially point 24!

Basic gist, and having looked at the map but obviously not seen the ground, I'd suggest that unless the original bridleway was especially scenic, or good for MTB'ing or walking along (in which case you could argue that it would substantially detract from the overall enjoyment of the route by a significant proportion of users) then its quite likely to be confirmed, the argument that it would be better for horse riders would only hold sway if the new route was not spoiling it for everyone else, with a view taken 'on the whole' rather than just based on considerations over surfacing for horse riders and ignoring cyclists (lack of) surfacing rights.

Not perfect, but given it looks like its moving it onto a better surfaced track rather than through a bog its probably a reasonable diversion

hope that helps

k

Gusamc – they might be relevant points for inclusion in the ROW improvement plan, however on a S119 diversion order they would bear no relevance, its a technical judgement made on specific grounds laid out in law, common sense, like so many things ROW orientated plays no part in it…

nbt – out of interest the ceriog diversion you mention, its not this one by Llangadwaladr is it?

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=318040&y=330130&z=120&sv=318040,330130&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=585&ax=318040&ay=330130&lm=0

chunkypaul – umm, dunno. Looks about right, it was a couple of years back though and I was following Max Headset round. Pootle along a farm track or drop down on the road then carry the bike up what felt like a grass covered cliff!

Kie, I would argue that the point you highlight is not relevant in this case: it's not a diversion, it's a stopping-up order and the creation of a new bridleway along a track which has a good case for presumed rights in any case.

antigee – Member

to maintain as a ROW for cyclists what happens if local authority changes status to a concessionary bridleway with the landowners permission – is there any requirement for LA or landowner to maintain a concessionary bridleway? or are there any other alternatives that increase rather than reduce the ROW network for MTB's?

Ok, I asked the question of people who know more than me and this is the answer I got

it is the landowner who is responsible for the maintenance of a concession path / b/w. If the path deteriorates, his recourse is to close it. If however the Local Authority is keen to retain the concession, they may agree some maintenance with the landowner.

ON the basis of the feedback from here and elsewhere I shall be putting in an official objection to the stopping-up

thanks NBT still pondering this as i suspect as ROW reviews proceed the issue will come up again

and thanks Zulu-eleven for the link

liked

gusamc – Member
Can you not suggest to the council that if they ae using 'surface' as a criteria for closing bridleways they could also use it as a criteria for upgrading footpaths.

plenty of farm tracks designated footpaths out around Penistone way

see the Peak Park have got a reaonably large grant for improving access for cyclists – hope some gets spent on linking areas for those that prefer something more interesting than flat gravel

http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/index/news/news-display-page.htm?id=20324

Hi again NBT – Right, I'd misunderstood what they were doing then!

As a stopping up order, it seems they're on sticky ground (sorry..) there anyway if they want to keep it open as a footpath, which might amount to an abuse of process anyway, let alone the fact that they are trying to essentially reroute a bridleway by stopping it up on one line and creating a new one, which is a clear abuse of process with decisive case law on it:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1718.html

BB Trust guidelines here:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:oqu-Ce36-zEJ:www.bbtrust.org.uk/pdf/diversion-by-creation.pdf+hertfordshire+county+council+2006+v+secretary+of+state+civ+1718+public+path&hl=en&sig=AFQjCNF7zJjPCoWYsDQIzqkvZkulMSKVng

The case law seems to strongly suggest they're going about this the wrong way, and the quotes from the appeal court regarding this are pretty strong! sock it to em!

44. There are no such safeguards in section 25. As Mr Morshead (for the Secretary of State) put it, whilst the public could object to the (Council)'s stopping up order under section 118, they were presented with the alternative routes in the agreement on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If, as in the present case, a public path creation agreement under section 25 is used in conjunction with section 118 stopping up order to effect what is in reality a diversion of a path, the public is not merely deprived of these procedural safeguards and presented with the proposed diversion element of the package on a take-it-or-leave it basis, it is also deprived of the safeguards in subsections (1), (2), (3) and (6) of section 119: that the diversion must be expedient in the interests of those interested in the land or the public; that the points of termination must remain the same (subject to the flexibility afforded by paragraph (b) in subsection (2)); that the old path is not extinguished until the replacement is in a fit condition for the public to use it; that the diverted way will not be substantially less convenient to the public; and that the diversion must be expedient having regard to the effect of the diversion on the public enjoyment of the path as a whole.
45. There are therefore powerful policy reasons for requiring section 119 to be used where what is proposed is not in reality the creation of a wholly new path, but the re-routeing of an existing path.

NBT – have they said what power they intend to create the new route under? S25 or S26?

Your comment that the suggested new route might have strong evidence towards being a bridleway in its own right is interesting, as its commented further down in the Herts judgement that:

He submitted that it was not possible for the Council to use a public path diversion order if the proposed new path was already a public path, citing R v Lake District Special Planning Board ex p. Bernstein (1982)

interesting one this – the Herts judgement seems to be very relevant!

I have riden that route and it is fine in summer but the re-routing to the North seems reasoable to me.

It's being made under section 116 of the highways act 1980. My email's in my profile, drop me a line and I'll forward the message