Arcane rights of way issue – does logic ever apply?

In brief, a local bridleway cannot be accessed from any direction without using a footpath. The owner of land which the bridleway crosses gave me grief for cycling on it. In her words, (clearly a well-rehearsed patter) “Unless you came in by helicopter you must have used a footpath to get here.”
On the definitive map, where th bridleway crosses her drive it changes number. It is entirely possible from the DM that the path is not continuous – ie one path goes west, the other goes east but they never meet; her driveway providing a break.
Now – would it stand up at an inquiry to argue that if it is impossible to access a Public Bridleway without using footpaths that higher rights must exist over at least one of those paths? Otherwise, how did it ever come to be a BW used by the public?
Also would it be reasonable to argue that if the 2 paths do not meet, there must be a right of access over her drive since it is not reasonable to assume that riders have got as far as her driveway from either direction and then turned round? – or would I have to go down the path of collecting user evidence?

The owner of land which the bridleway crosses gave me grief for cycling on it.

I don’t understand your post. It sounds like you’re saying you’re unsure whether the bridleway exists across her driveway.

If she doesn’t own the footpath that you’ve ridden across, surely she can sod off? If you’re trying to ride across her driveway and there isn’t a bridleway, surely you can sod off?

You are allowed to use footpaths.

Just ride it and ignore her. If the FP accessing the BW isn’t on her land, then it’s nothing to do with her how you got there – she is factually incorrect, you could have the permission of the landowner. If the FP is on her land, then I’d tell her it must be misclassified.

I’ve never come across a BW like that, but we have a dead end one here – the continuation is a FP. I’ve ridden that a few times. I couldn’t care less what a landowner thinks about me using what is clearly a misclassified RoW.

OS map link?

Do you know anyone with a helicopter and a spare afternoon?

+1 – sounds like an interesting place to ride 😈

Now – would it stand up at an inquiry to argue that if it is impossible to access a Public Bridleway without using footpaths that higher rights must exist over at least one of those paths? Otherwise, how did it ever come to be a BW used by the public?

You need to contact the local British Horse Society rep.
Firstly, they probably know what the real situation is.
Secondly, IIRC as a cyclist you can’t challenge an existing FP status, though evidence you provide can be used in conjunction with a horse riders claim.

“The recording of a right of way as a footpath on the definitive map is without prejudice to the existence of higher rights – S56 WACA 1981, So put that in your pipe and smoke it :D”

On a more technical basis, I would suggest a look at the list of streets maintainable at public expense, and the local enclosure/1910 finance act maps – as the only justifiable reason for it ceasing/changing number where it crosses her driveway would be if the driveway was a highway, otherwise there’s no terminus for the two paths.

Come on, grid reference so we can see.

If you are on a bridleway then you are on a bridleway, not much need to debate how you are there.

Cycling on a footpath isn’t illegal, and we really do all need to stop acting like it is. Ride responsibly and with courtesy to other users of the path, if challenged by the landowner ask them in what way you are creating a public nusiance anymore than cycling on a bridleway.

Unofficial Guidance on the CTC …

Are you allowed to push a bike along a footpath? Surely that would be the first thing to say to her, I just assumed you could push along a FP but I may be wrong?

If I’m correct in assuming the paths looks like: –

BW Drive FP
xxxxxx| |——

If it’s an issue where the paths are clearly contiguous (e.g. a common or shared physical feature) but with a minor gap of the Definitive line – with a ~7ft driveway being minor – then it’s generally accepted that the RoW’s link (for walkers in essence) and the gap is what’s called an ‘anomaly’ (chances are your RoW team know of it). Don’t ask me to find case law / statute as it’s Sunday evening and my brain is mush 🙂

That the BW is effectively land-locked and only accessible via FP’s then this is an unfortunate and far too common problem. Chances are the BW is in a different Parish, which were surveyed in the 1950’s by different people and sometimes recorded as different types of PROW. For my last similar case a few weeks ago, clearly the Parish surveyor didn’t walk the line they marked on the map as it goes off a cliff. It was probably raining and he just went “meh, goes sorta this way when I walked it last 30 years ago”. Thanks. ^^ the gap could have also happened this way too.

Most of the time when the maps were collated as Draft maps these anomalies were picked up on then corrected in the final Definitive map. If not it unfortunately requires a legal order to correct it, which takes time and money. Speak to your RoW team and see if it’s on ‘the list’.

[edit]

Yes, the ‘gap’ might also suggest that the driveway is also a highway. Need a Grid Ref!

Now – would it stand up at an inquiry to argue that if it is impossible to access a Public Bridleway without using footpaths that higher rights must exist over at least one of those paths? Otherwise, how did it ever come to be a BW used by the public?

BW and Footpaths were never originally divided up by whether people rode or walked on them, but by what someone ‘thought’ and/or what they’d heard (or been told).

What they originally created the OS mapping they were told to ignore who/what and just put all ‘features’ on to the map – only later were RoW ‘mapped’ out.

Now – would it stand up at an inquiry to argue that if it is impossible to access a Public Bridleway without using footpaths that higher rights must exist over at least one of those paths? Otherwise, how did it ever come to be a BW used by the public?

Higher rights can be argued for any path that has not been through a claim for higher rights already

as stated above find the local BHS Access group and have a chat, hopefully it will suit one of them to get a claim in

Is there a change in parish boundaries at that point – quite common when the draft definitive map was originally put together in the 1950s for one parish to survey and record one thing and another parish to record as something else hence the change from fp to bw on the boundary.

“Unless you came in by helicopter you must have used a footpath to get here.”

Yep, and….?

carry your bike across the footpath

take a jet was , leaf blower, strimmer, hedge trimmer and do her garden for her, she will be so pleased

Loads of examples of such things around here. Apparently there was once a moratorium(?) issued whereby land owners could reclassify BW into footpaths. Some of our neighbours did. My grandparents didn’t. Situation now exists where isolated BW run across my farm but end in footpaths on either side. To the south of us the BW continues across my next neighbour too but then the final field before joining the road belongs to another farm and that is now a footpath. Perhaps 50 metres. Completely daft really. Even worse, there is a RUPP just down the road which is in essence an old cart track between 2 walls servicing several old dwellings. During a public enquiry a few years back it was decided that this be down-graded to a footpath to stop the pony trekkers from using it. I got shouted at by a fellow farmer for riding my bike along it recently. 🙂

Usual situation is a right of way changes status at a parish boundary. A few of them near here – courtesy and consideration to other users goes a long way. And they chew up horribly when wet.

Ride wherever and speak French to anyone like that woman.

I will try to post a link later when I get home.

If I’m correct in assuming the paths looks like: –
BW Drive FP
xxxxxx| |——

It is BW drive BW with the added interest that the drive is also a FP joining perpendicular. It is very hard to tell from the definitive map whether the BW is continuous but the fact that the 2 parts have different numbers suggests that they are not.

The drive is not an adopted highway by the way. I checked on the online map.

Can you give us a rough pointer? Where is it? Name of village?

Have a look at the website on the South Pennine Packhorse Trails Trust if you want an understanding of the difficulty of re-classifying a FP as a BW. The silly thing is that many FPs were once BWs used by packhorses to carry all the goods around the country.

My understanding of the rights is that you don’t have a legal right to cycle on a FP but it’s not illegal. Otherwise how are farmers allowed to drive on unsurfaced roads and tracks that are classified on the map as footpaths?

Its not illegal to cycle on footpath, ignore move on.

A highway does not need to be adopted to be maintainable at public expense.

There are many unadopted highways which have public access rights over them, these may be recorded on the definitive map or not. There are often differences between the ‘List of Streets’ the Adopted Highway records.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it’s not permissible to ride on a footpath,

There is absolutely nothing to stop you from pushing a bike along a footpath, any more than there would be to push a pram or for that matter carry a bag of shopping. The moment you get off the bike you’re a pedestrian (legally, a “foot passenger”) like anyone else.

Otherwise how are farmers allowed to drive on unsurfaced roads and tracks that are classified on the map as footpaths?

If the farmer is the landowner, he can drive wherever he likes (although if he damages a ROW he might have to repair it).

ROWs give access rights to people other than the landowner, without needing the landowner’s permission.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it’s not permissible to ride on a footpath,

I’ve found a nice write-up of this. http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

Cyclists have no right to cycle on footpaths away from the road but only commit an offence where local by-laws or traffic regulation orders create such an offence. Cyclists can ride on bridleways, but not on countryside footpaths. To do so is a civil tort, ie not a criminal matter, the landowner has to sue the transgressor for damages (of which there’s likely to be none).

So, basically, riding on footpaths is trespass against the land owner. (It’s only actually prohibited by criminal law on footways – ie, pavements next to roads – but we all knew that already, right?)

this.. you will never in a million years be able to get a footpath made into a bridleway no matter how strong your argument.. the simplest option is posted above.. ride your bike.. get stopped.. tell landowner to sue you provide name and details.. the landowner would have to show that you caused more damge riding your bike than you would if you had simply pushed your bike..

one path goes west, the other goes east but they never meet; her driveway providing a break.

You need to build a gap jump over her driveway.

neil the wheel – Member
It is BW drive BW with the added interest that the drive is also a FP joining perpendicular. It is very hard to tell from the definitive map whether the BW is continuous but the fact that the 2 parts have different numbers suggests that they are not.

I’ll wait until later for the link just to confirm, but if it’s a case of a BW being bisected by a FP (that the FP is also her drive is irrelevant) then you’re fine to ride along the BW – beyond issues relating to riding on FP’s – as in essence the hierarchy of Highways rights are like layers of a cake, so the higher rights apply when they cross.

Byway Open to All Traffic
Restricted Byway
Bridleways
Footpaths

e.g. If a BOAT crosses ‘over’ a BW you can lawfully drive (albeit briefly) on the BW where the two cross, as the rights of the higher status highway takes precedence.

That the BW’s have different numbers isn’t really indicative of their being a gap in the definitive line between them. It’s a bit fiddly how paths were originally numbered but it’s normal for higher status paths to have different numbers where they cross lower status paths. It goes the other way too as I’ve got two paths with the same name but are both FP and BW (no idea why, they should really be different numbers *shrug*)

[edit]

butter fingers

There’s a classic example of two parishes defining a single right of way differently back in the 60’s when the legislation was introduced near Castle Combe, a route that runs along the side of the valley to a hamlet called Long Dean. There’s a bridleway that runs down into Long Dean from the Ford road to Castle Combe, and which then runs towards Castle Combe, but at the point it meets the parish boundary it suddenly becomes a footpath.
One imagines that any horse rider tackling the route would get off and carry their horse at that point…
I just rode the whole thing for around twenty years, although not for the last three or so. You can clearly see it just below Grains Quarry Plantation, it’s part of a Macmillan Route:

[/url]Untitled by Adrian Hillier[/url], on Flickr

Lots of useful input folks, sorry to keep you all speculating. Here’s the link to the definitive map:
http://www.durham.gov.uk/definitivemap

From the drop-down list, select “Esh”. Once loaded the interesting bits are bridleways 22 and 34, and footpath 60 around Esh Hall. If you search around you will see the bridleways all lead to footpaths.

You will notice that another bridleway, 33, heads south, straight through the complaining woman’s garden. I think I may have to go and ride that until she orders a helicopter to come and lift me out.
I had a look at the OS historic maps as well which don’t shed much light. The 1923 map shows22 as a “BP” (Bridle Path) leading to an old drift mine; but gives no indication of its status beyond Esh Hall.
There are no parish boundaries involved.
ninfan –

the local enclosure/1910 finance act maps

– any idea where these are to be found? County records office pr’aps?

Well here’s the one I referred to earlier: http://binged.it/1UQ7cxz

…which is strange as whilst there is a parish boundary at the change, it doesn’t cross the obvious continuation of the BW.

Thats an impressive one Neil – considering its length, it really is isolated isn’t it:

Yup, and you’ll notice the bridleways heading south to Hag Wood and to Heugh are also blind.
The question is, in a theoretical sense, how do you demonstrate which of these footpaths is/are unrecorded bridleways? Is it enough to say “well, it must be at least one of them, let’s choose the most obvious line?” or do you have to go through the rigmarole of producing historical and/or user evidence?

I see now, the four BW’s are all landlocked by FP’s. No idea why this is the way it is sorry.

The BHS are good at picking up on these so I’d be surprised if they haven’t asked your PRoW team to investigate. I’d suggest contacting the PRoW team and asking if they’re on their list to investigate upgrading at least one of them to make the BW a link route.

Not sure either why in aracers map the BW changes, but not at the parish boundary. There’s also a lonely little north / south FP (you can just see two green dashes) ~500m to the West, just West of the ’67’ contour text.

Dunno on both counts, sorry 🙁