A medieval highway in North Yorkshire is to be reopened for horse riders and cyclists after a nineteen-year battle against stiles obstructing the route. We’ve just heard from a happy Byways & Bridleways Trust about it:
This route has been promoted as a Classic Coast to Coast mountain bike route since 1994 — as per the sign by this stile. A public bridleway almost four miles long, linking Clapgate Bank, near Marske, and Richmond, has been obstructed by stone stiles near the hamlet of Applegarth for as long as anyone can remember. On theface of it, these stiles suggest that the track was wrongly recorded as a bridleway when the definitive map of public rights of way was first surveyed, back in 1952, and that the correct status is just public footpath. Indeed, the track is part of A A Wainwright’s famous ‘Coast to Coast’ walking route. But local horse riders and mountain bikers did not accept that the stiles were ‘ancient’, and almost twenty years ago started complaining to North Yorkshire County Council, asking for their replacement by gates, while continuing to use the route, finding ways around the blockages as best they could.
After years of complaints, investigations, and reports to committees, North Yorkshire County Council decided not to open-up the route, but instead to make an order downgrading most of it to a public footpath. The Byways & Bridleways Trust objected to this order, as did the British Horse Society and the Swaledale Outdoor Club, and other local people.
On 2 March 2010 the issue was argued out at a public inquiry, with the Byways & Bridleways Trust’s Robert Halstead and Catriona Cook leading for the opponents of the closure. When the bridleway was first surveyed for the definitive map, in 1952, both surveyors regarded it as a through route from Swaledale and Marske to Richmond, and one described it as “an ancient highway from Richmond to Marske.”
There was a lot of documentary evidence of the route being used by packhorse traffic, but Catriona Cook’s researches had found the crucial item: a short record from an Assize in 1304, stating “Thomas de Applegarth and Isbell his wife obstructed a certain road in West Applegarth… leading from the town of Richmond to the pasture in Marske and beyond into Swaledale, in which plaintiffs had right of way for horses and carts [etc].”
This was sufficient to persuade the Secretary of State’s Inspector, Mr Barney Grimshaw, that no mistake had been made back in 1952, and that the recorded status of bridleway should not be overturned. Mr Grimshaw issued his decision letter to this effect on 7 April. The Byways & Bridleways Trust welcomes this decision and is looking forward to North Yorkshire County Council getting the stiles replaced by gates in the near future so that the public on horseback and on pedal cycles, and walkers who can manage gates, but not difficult stiles, can once again enjoy this ancient highway.
Comments (7)
Comments Closed
I can’t believe it took all that, though I’m glad the decision went the right way eventually. England’s ROW system is ridiculous and needs urgent reform I think.
Im sure this is great news and all, but the way this case was settled shows how out of date the ROW system is in this country.
Using evidence from 1304 is ridiculous.
As far as I can make out landownership and ROW in this country seem to start from the point that the monarch owns and has ROW to everything, while everyone else has no right of access to any anywhere.
Concessions have then slowly been brought in giving ROW and ownership first to the lords and aristocracy and then middle class and finally some ROWs to everyone.
However I think we should totally rewrite laws starting from the point that everyone has access to everything and writing laws banning access to areas for certain groups, activities and with respect to privacy.
Imagine if other areas of life were managed in this way.
You would assume people had no right to do any activity unless the government said you could. Instead of the current system were some illegal activities are specifically banned.
Or say food, drink and drugs were managed this way and all substances were considered illegal unless the government had specifically cleared them. Where as the current system is that all substances are assumed illegal except for certain drugs which have been banned.
Imagine if everytime a new type of food or drink was mad the government had to give clearance to it ridiculous.
I would be interested to know why cycling was not represented as a group in objecting? I thought the CTC and IMBA took an interest and action in these issues. Was this not well publicised locally?
We are pathetic as a user group at mobilising ourselves in this regard. I would volunteer help, but dont know where it would be accepted. any ideas??
unfortunately, nobody is going to rewrite the laws on access. open access leads to trails like chapel gate in the peaks where motorcrossers have completely roosted the trail and water run off has created a massive gulley.
the problem is not so much the access, but the fact that it is based on a transport network rather than a recreational system. If the emphasis could be shifted, then we would be able to build the case for more appropriate access.
“I would be interested to know why cycling was not represented as a group in objecting? I thought the CTC and IMBA took an interest and action in these issues. Was this not well publicised locally?”
Colin Palmer, former Chair of IMBA, is a pretty active member of BBT, IIRC.
There would seem little point, on the face of it, for IMBA and CTC to be there so long as the representations by BBT achieve the same outcome for MTBers (and it is not purely an MTB access issue).
It’s an assumption that they are not involved and that could esily be incorrect or poorly founded.
I agree, however, that generally speaking MTB is poorly represented. However, you get out what you put in. If there were loads of people keen and enthusiastic to do so it would, most likely, happen. Example; loads of people love trail centres but volunteer numbers at trail building days are pants, go figure ;-S
If you want to help, find your local trail building / rights of way / advocacy group and ask them. Or email BBT / IMBA / CTC and offer. Karl Bartlett for the former and Ian Warby for the latter would be good starting points. Or just do it yourself? Daunting but the whole thing, in many cases, isn’t rocket science (but does have a glacial pace 😉
Congratulations to BBT and all those involved. If folks don’t want to do it themselvees I’m sure they would appreciate a few sheckles / donation to help with fighting funds.
Actually two of the most vocal objectors at the inquiry are keen mountain biking members of the Swaledale Outdoor Club. John Deighton, our President, has been involved with this problem for over twenty years and Alan Jackson (long time mountain biker and super fit Mojo riding super vet) presented historical evidence that was a key factor in the Planning Inspector’s decision. Swaledale Outdoor Club (based in Richmond, North Yorks)has a very active mountain biking section, we’re out every weekend, every Wednesday night and you’ll see a whole bunch of us out in Les Arcs this summer as well (we’re hoping for a few less broken bones in the Alps this year).
Interestingly, the Lib Dem manifesto want to reform the RoW into something similar to the Scottish access policy…could be good news for MTBers who want more access
Problem is those who recognise the value of the BBT and helping it’s funds to maintain fights like this do not include many mountain bikers, Motorbike Trail Riders, often derided here, have in the past given it much more support even recognising work saving bridleways from counties as poor as NYCC do not benefit them much. It seems a new CK headset is of more importance to many MTB riders rather than investing in getting their ride network open and protected. AK of BBT enjoys riding a MTB as much as trail riding as much as walking and is supported by a great number of horseriders