I'm surprised there hasn't been a mention of this on here yet, so excuse the repost if it is one.

Basically the council in there wisdom are extinguishing a bridleway in Fox Hagg to turn it into a footpath.

This is after they've mullered some sizeable sections, converting them into 3m wide gravel paths, which they must think is what horseriders and cyclists want.

The reason they give for doing this is because they are "not needed for public use", I'm assuming is because I now get to ride on their wide smooth path instead. great.

Anyway, the info is on the council website, and there is 45 days to launch an objection (starting from the 4th of May)
Maps and info (see second last pdf)

already been on here months ago and ride Sheffield or whatever they are called are on the case.

what you've also missed is that they are upgrading 2 footpaths to make a loop of bridalways, fox hagg being part of that loop

I saw these signs last week but have known the work was planned for a while and started a thread about it some time ago.

I'm coordinating the response/objection to the council from the Ride Sheffield group (link to the facebook group below as that's the main thing we have at the moment). I've spoken at length with the guy at the council about these works and objections can only be made on certain grounds based on the legislation/order being used to close it (similar to planning permission), the council are sure of their grounds for the closure and are concerned about the potential upgrade cost in the future.

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=137235627849&ref=ts

ah, the search function is basically useless then!

Thanks for that Steve, good to hear someone is on the case. What do they mean by potential upgrade cost? more bulldozing and surfacing?

Sorry just seen your reply. Basically the council are concerned that they might have to spend lots of money in the future to make the paths passable by horses. I believe their views are wrong but they are of the view that they have a duty to make them passable to horses if asked.

No one likes the surfacing work they're doing much, horse riders aren't keen, cyclists don't like it, the national park (where they have an input) don't like it as it's not in keeping etc but the council seem to love it.

what Steveh won't tell you, is that he's been working very hard to preserve this bridleway.

whatever the outcome, thankyou Steve.

FWIW – It looks to me like there's probably a significant procedural error on this one – they're proposing an extinguishment (of BW) and creation order (of new FP) rather than a formal "downgrade" of the existing route (DMMO)

Doesnt appear to sit well with the judgement R(Hertforshire) vs DEFRA – in fact their proposal to make it into a footpath sort of shoots away their own argument that the path is not needed.

The sooner Osbourne cuts their incomes by a considerable amount the better.

Like we don't all ride footpaths anyway

That's almost the only legal section on my local loop

to echo what ahwiles said, many thanks to Steve for putting our case forward.

and yep, complete waste of money as far as I can see, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the section they've surfaced coming straight down from Redmires road. It was naturally 'erosion proof' as it was made of rock (most of which are now lying half way down the gulley to one side), and a large portion of the new surface washed off within a few weeks of it being put there!

some people* might ride footpaths, but downgrading it is effectively going to criminalise all of us because, lets face it, everyone is going to continue riding that section.
…and it makes me think it would be amusing if someone turned it into a long bolehills style pumptrack section, in for a penny in for a pound!

I would send a copy of your post to the Ramblers web site and if there are national horse riding associations, perhaps to them too, just so they are all aware of this decision and can choose to action or not.

Zulu eleven – That's potentially very useful information, I may drop you an email to find out more if that's ok. Will do some more digging too.

Walkers and horse riders already know about it, hallam horse riders have been particularly vocal on the matter.

Its not an issue of erosion, basically all bridal ways must be wide enough to allow two horses to pass side by side, hence the width, and be suitable for prams / wheelchairs, hence the surfacing. Its more complex than that but you get the idea

Yes this has been ongoing for some time. These are my local trails and as such I'm interested in what they're doing.

From what I can see, there's some downgrading going on, but also some footpaths being changed into BWs. It seems the council is trying to form some kind of compromise to pacify all interested groups. For my part, the top bridleway over Fox Hagg is actually better than the one through the nature reserve, should it remain unsanitised.

IIRC there's time to get your objections in. I don't know if you can object in part to the plans, or if an objection raised must include all the plans. Worth checking. I think the deadline is mid June.

basically all bridal ways must be wide enough to allow two horses to pass side by side, hence the width, and be suitable for prams / wheelchairs

Podge, I know this is an argument that gets put forward a lot, however it really, really isn't the case legally. There are desirable widths and surfaces for creation of new bridleways – but its got very little to do with any aspects of specific ROW law (unless through fields) and even less to do with a justifiable reason in law for downgrade or extinction.

It seems quite clear that what they're trying to do is a consolidation of routes – again thats not a legally justifiable reason – ROW law is complex and arcane, and primarily down to aspects of evidence and proof, not what is desirable to the council or the people who run a nature reserve.

I never said anything about the law. The details above are what the council have said..
Allbeit in a shortened form.

and be suitable for prams / wheelchairs, hence the surfacing

you're having a laugh, right?

I even think some cycling groups are up for this type of resurfacing. I remember the porter clough valley tracks being resurfaced. There was a sheffield cycling group at the end of the track doing a survey. They were incredibly surprised when we told them we thought they had just made the track incredibly crap and boring when compared to what is was like previously.

The Roman road from ringinglow has also suffered a little from some covering which has meant that motox and off road vehicles now drive faster on that section creating a dust storm etc. Some consolation is that the rain/water run off does erode these surfaces quicker than the natural geography.

Hopefully my two fave dh tracks leading off hathersage road on blacka moor will not suffer any resurfacing fate!!!

I can't remember the exact wording on prams and such but no, the BW has to be accessible to all, but that throws up the "why not footpaths" argument

Remember though that all though poorly thought out and executed, they are providing access for people who wouldn't normally be able and that not everyone wants to ride super tech stuff… I prefer natural but the wife prefers easier going stuff

The details above are what the council have said..

Ah, you see, thats where you're going wrong – believing what the council say 😉

and be suitable for prams / wheelchairs, hence the surfacing

you're having a laugh, right?

If only he was!

See, the DDA imposes a duty that provision of services must not be discriminatory, the main application of this in ROW law is the placement and design of new gates/stiles etc.

That magically transfers within some councils into an interpretation that new ROW must be suitable in their entirety for all disabled users, that then spreads through chinese whispers within council departments that all ROW must be suitable for disabled users – so you get it put forward as justification for sanitising or even downgrading routes, although it carries no weight in law or common sense.

Yeah I suspected the council might not be particularly clued up on the matter

oops, wrong thread – deleted