Are there standards for surfacing a bridleway?

Probably buried in one of the Peak threads, but are there standards for how a bridleway can be surfaced?

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust have covered a short steep stretch of bridleway near me with loose 2-3 inch stones again – they did it last year and a few cyclists and walkers fell and hurt themselves, leading to a lot of complaints, so surprised they’ve done it again.

Looking for something to go back and challenge them over it.

(It’s on the Slack Lane bridleway, between Mapperley village and the Nutbrook Trail)

With new shared routes there is definitely a range of surfaces that can be considered, each with their suitability for different types of users including cyclists and horses.  Not sure if this is a requirement for bridleways though

I wonder if the Equalities Act (2010) is relevant. 

It makes it illegal to discriminate against disabilities – they may be doing this here with a poor surface.

“Cyclist Dismount” signs, stiles and narrow bollards are also barriers to disabled access by wheelchair and cargo bike (a local mother lugs two disabled children around this way – she tweets, I retweet and the council remove the offending bollard in fear of a £3k fine).

Not sure if this is a requirement for bridleways though

That’s what I thought, but presumably leaving a surface more unstable and dangerous than it was before has some repercussions.

Are you sure they just haven’t finished it and will be back to compact it and blind it with finer mixed stone or fines and compact?

That would be very odd to leave something as what sounds like lose clean stone from your description.

There are recommendations for width and construction detail, but specific materials used can vary locally. I’m pretty sure there no actual BS for it.

I can’t post it, but if you Google BHS bridleway surface recommendations there’s a PDF of what they’d like for horses. What they’d like is not what it has to be though.

but are there standards for how a bridleway can be surfaced?

Yes, the rules are that it must be done as cheaply and shoddily as possible ideally using non-local materials for maximum environmental “we don’t care” points.

Under no circumstances is a lasting repair to be considered if a cheap temporary one will suffice until the next storm washes it all down to the bottom.

Anything that is considered an impediment to cyclist speed is a positive because otherwise cyclists might “hurtle recklessly” and endanger pedestrians.
That said, sanitising the **** out of it also works because then no cyclist is actually interested in riding it again.

No-one understands horses so they can generally be ignored.

Congratulations, you have resurfaced a bridleway. Also, your company will now be given all future repair contracts as well as the contracts for repeatedly coming back and making good the cock-ups from the previous time.

Wait till they flexi-pave the lot. Ruined Roman Lakes with the ‘extended’ flexi-pave, might as well ride the road bike.

What he says ^^

See the bottom of Stanage Long Causeway for further details. Resurfaced needlessly 6 months ago; pan flat with no camber; next to no drainage. Funny old world, first storm and it’s utterly fubar. WAY more dangerous than it was with a deep wandering crevasse down most of it and the bottom section is just plain not there any more. 

Are you sure they just haven’t finished it and will be back to compact it and blind it with finer mixed stone or fines and compact?

They did the same 12-18 months ago, just left it. Was just bedding in nicely…..

Ah well that’s crap 🙄👎

Possibly, but it will be so tedious you’ll probably end up gnawing your own intestines out.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1179630/Technical_Standard_-_Public_rights_of_way_Redacted.pdf

And highways act.

(1)Where the surface of—

(a)a footpath,

(b)a bridleway, or

(c)any other highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway other than a made-up carriageway,

has been so disturbed as to render it inconvenient for the exercise of the public right of way, a competent authority may make good the surface to an extent not less than the minimum width nor greater than the maximum width.
(2)Where the surface of a footpath or bridleway was disturbed under the right conferred by section 134(1) of this Act, the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not become exercisable until the expiration of the period which is the relevant period for the purposes of section 134 or an extension of that period granted under subsection (8) of that section.

(3)Where the surface of a footpath [F2, bridleway or restricted byway] was disturbed under an order made by virtue of section 135 of this Act, the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not become exercisable until the expiration of the period which is the authorisation period for the purposes of section 135.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/schedule/12A?view=plain

You could try chatting to your local council rights of way team.

You would think so and if there are rules, these rules are absolutely ignored.
Some of our local bridleways are covered in flexipave, it’s washed away in places and ends up in watercourses.
The Rockier sections are covered in gravel and wash away in a few years, leaving the trails in a worse state.

I’d bear in mind that if we were to have standards for bridleways that the majority of things we consider ‘interesting’ and good on a mountain bike would fail and need to be paved…

I’d bear in mind that if we were to have standards for bridleways that the majority of things we consider ‘interesting’ and good on a mountain bike would fail and need to be paved…

I agree, although I accept that bridleways and public rights of way don’t just exist to keep mountain bikers happy.

This bridleway is actually a gated lane that gives access to a couple of farms, and Shipley Country Park as well as the Nutbrook Trail (NCN67), so is heavily used by horse riders, walkers and cyclists of all persuasions and abilities, so needs to be maintained to a standard suitable to all the regular users.

I’m surprised that the Wildlife Trust are resurfacing a bridleway. I would have thought that it’s the responsibility of DCC? Unless the nearby reserve is part of the event/activity/trail that they announced recently?

Yeah, as I understand it it’s ‘legally’ vandalism as the top two spits (spades) depth of the surface of most rights of way is the property of the local unitary authority.

Cheers MCTD, I’ll keep an eye out for that when we’re next out that way.

Some Sustrans suggestions here… https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/sustrans-traffic-free-routes-and-greenways-design-guide/

Cheers MCTD, I’ll keep an eye out for that when we’re next out that way.

Wave as you go past!

would have thought that it’s the responsibility of DCC?

It’s not clear, but local talk is that DWT have done it themselves when they’ve filled in some random potholes as well.

I don’t think bridleways are required to be surfaced at all, are they? Most of them around here are natural surfaces i.e. dirt, rocks, moorland or simply grass.

It may well be the Wildlife Trust.
We have a small Cheshire Wild life trust nature reserve locally, where there was a very muddy path through to a bird hide. This got (badly) resurfaced several years ago. It’s ok to ride on an mtb but not so pleasant on foot. As mentioned above, these works are mostly cheaply built and hardly ever maintained.

Wave as you go past!

Will do – about every other Tuesday night 🙂

It’s the landowners responsibility to make sure any PROW on their land is maintained. Obviously, the results vary!

I don’t think bridleways are required to be surfaced at all, are they

Agree, but if you create a man made surface there is almost certainly a duty of care/potential liability for it’s suitability, and there are probably don’t requirements/stipulations that apply.

It’s the landowners responsibility to make sure any PROW on their land is maintained.

I thought it simply had to be passable, which could be soft grass or mud. But I accept the point that if you were to create a surface it might require a certain standard.

I rode down an “other routes with public access” (white road with red dots) the other day. It had recently been used to cart the turnip harvest from several fields.

Whatever standards or responsibilities exist, they most definitely were not being met.

Landowner responsibilities – https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities

Council responsibilities – https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-local-authority-responsibilities

Fyi op

131A (1980 highways act)
Disturbance of surface of certain highways.
(1)
A person who, without lawful authority or excuse, so disturbs the surface of—
(a)
a footpath,
(b)
a bridleway, or
(c)
any other highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway other than a made-up carriageway,
as to render it inconvenient for the exercise of the public right of way is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(2)
Proceedings for an offence under this section shall be brought only by the highway authority or the council of the non-metropolitan district, parish or community in which the offence is committed; and, without prejudice to section 130 (protection of public rights) above, it is the duty of the highway authority to ensure that where desirable in the public interest such proceedings are brought.]
Textual Amendments
F1
S. 131A inserted by Rights of Way Act 1990 (c. 24, SIF 59), s. 1(2)

[molgrips]

molgrips

Full Member

It’s the landowners responsibility to make sure any PROW on their land is maintained.

I thought it simply had to be passable, which could be soft grass or mud

No clear definition for passable but for bridleways it’s generally accepted as passable on horse back so can be an absolute mudfest and still count as maintained. Only other proviso is must be at least 4 foot wide and no blockages e.g. locked gate.

It’s the landowners responsibility to make sure any PROW on their land is maintained.

I thought it simply had to be passable, which could be soft grass or mud

Only other proviso is must be at least 4 foot wide and no blockages e.g. locked gate.

The width thing only applies if the farmer is maintaining a FP/BW across or around a field of crops where they have to maintain certain widths.
In “the wild” there is no such definition of width which, in part, explains why you can have a “bridleway” that is a narrow boggy mess and a “footpath” that is a wide gravel track. Problem is that a bridleway is not a “thing”, it is a “right”. You have the right to pass along this path on horseback.

a bridleway is not a “thing”, it is a “right”

Init. Which can range from broad tarmacked road with “no vehicular accto peat bog minus distinguishing features