Is it legal to block a bridleway with padlocked gate…..

…when there is also a stile, next to the gate?

The locked-gate is at the start of the bridleway, leading from a road that serves some houses (unsure of it’s exact status of the road – appears as just a track on the OS map).

can horses climb stiles?

No

Nope, not legal. But then you can’t cut the padlock off either the person who locked it should or ROW should take it in hand.

Just pick your bike over it and carry on.

Bit like putting a gate over a main A Road..

Quick answer – No

(Long answer – the might be some stuff behind the scenes like a change of status etc. but the answer is 99% certainty illegal, theres pretty extensive caselaw on this with a recent judgement at the highest level, even an open and unlocked gate could constitute an illegal obstruction)

Complain to Rights of way Dept

you can’t cut the padlock

I don’t really accept that – you could, there is a recognised common law right of abatement to an obstruction or nuisance on the highway, though the chance of having a pair of bolt croppers on you would be slim

Thanks jam bo for the sarcy reply. What something is described as doesn’t always equate to what it actualy IS, especially when it comes to the law.

And thanks to everyone else. Normally I would just climb over and smile but this particular land owner seems to be on a bit of a power trip of late (again). Seemingly he thinks he can get away with anything, being a Baron. In recent history he managed to effectively get off a speeding charge, having been caught doing 113mph on a local dual carriageway, due to ‘important public duties’.

Anyway, reported to Rights of Way and I’ll see what they come back with.

I do believe that if it is a public right of way, then you are allowed to remove the obstruction i.e. cut the padlock off. I have read this somewhere and some research may be required before you nip down with the bolt cutters 😉
In the first instance I would go with Rights Of Way Officer as you have done.

Found it http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/obstructions-and-out-of-repair-rights-of-way-england-wales

I remember being told the same, a while back by Highways dept. that you can legally do this BUT this was in referance unpaved road ie a track I could legally take my car on. Not sure what the situation is with bridleways?

This recently came up over the road closed at Stonehenge, even though EH have closed the road off and dug it up, it has been classified as a Restricted Byway. EH took it upon themselves to put gates in and lock them when they close up. They have now had their wrists slapped by Wiltshire Council for this.

Given that you don’t know the status of the road it joins be aware there may be no right of access along the road in terms of bridalway, the country is littered with bridal ways which go nowhere or spontaneouslyturn into footpaths, sometimes within spitting distance of another bridalway but with no legal access between the two.

If the definitive map shows the bridalway finishing on the other side of the gate he’s perfectly within his rights to lock it, even if you have a separate right of access on the track you might not have the right to cross the boundary wall between the two of they end or pass either side of it

Although as a general rule of law, a terminus ad quem is not essential for the existence of a right of way, there is a clearly recognised common law and common sense dictum within the law that unless there are special circumstances (such as a viewpoint or feature), a Highway generally terminates at another highway of equal or higher status.

It would be a tortuous argument indeed to assert that a Right of way terminated on one side of a gate without joining the highway, such an claim would undoubtedly fail at court or PINS inquiry – even if the map indicated it fell just short of the gate it would be a clear case of de-minimis and seen as such, the very nature of a highway is that it leads from one place to another

I think I’ll now give up saying “^^ what ninfan says” – as I’m once again beaten (both in speed and I daresay quality!) to a RoW question 🙂

sorry, dropped a bit off the end there:

the very nature of a highway is that it leads from one place to another – To parapharase the judge in Eyre vs New Forest Highway board, – who on earth would drive or ride up to the gate just to turn round and go back again? it defies common sense!

Schnor, I am truly honoured, thank you 8)

do I get bonus points for terminus a quo and ad quem?

You are Stephen Fry and I claim my five guineas.

Indeed ninfan; bonus points for terminus a quo and ad quem! Unfortunately all cancelled by de-minimis because it made me want trifle, and the only thing in the house vaguely similar was a huge packet of fizzy cola-bottles. Which have now all gone 😳

I have always wondered about shoplifting some sponge fingers, jelly, cream and tinned fruit 😀

can horses climb stiles?

Red Rum wouldn’t have had any problems 😉

<slightly disappointed that “easement” wasn’t used in the opinion offered by ninfan, being about one of the few terms I remember from tedious land law lectures>

No it’s not legal
And I recently complained about such to the local ROW people who investigated, spoke to the farmer and got it removed all within a week
They then followed up a few months later to confirm to me they had again checked and made the farmer put a more user friendly latch on the gate

Shame really as I now have no excuse for taking the more interesting adjacent but unblocked footpath instead

Thanks all. I await to here from the local ROW people……

“Given that you don’t know the status of the road it joins be aware there may be no right of access along the road in terms of bridalway, the country is littered with bridal ways which go nowhere or spontaneouslyturn into footpaths, sometimes within spitting distance of another bridalway but with no legal access between the two.

If the definitive map shows the bridalway finishing on the other side of the gate he’s perfectly within his rights to lock it, even if you have a separate right of access on the track you might not have the right to cross the boundary wall between the two of they end or pass either side of it”

Years of trying to work out vehicular RoW tells me that this is a very valid argument. I have come across quite a few BOATs for example that have a gap or end in the middle of no where. Locally we have a UCR that pre CROW was a through route. As there was some shenanigans when the definitive map was created there is a section that was classified as RUPP. Of course this went when RUPPS were down graded. RoWs in mid Wales often stop at the mountain wall. They were classified as roads, often by the local landowner who was also a councillor, to put the responsibility of maintaining it on the council. There was no need to do this into the hill so the RoW stops.
Check it out. Best to be correct. Keep copies of correspondence and enjoy waving it in peoples faces when incorrectly confronted.

As there was some shenanigans when the definitive map was created

I’d agree that this happens, often on a parish boundary – however theres a long history of caselaw on the issue, and very much towards a cul de sac like this revealing that either one side or the other of the route being recorded in error.

if there are two bridleways forming a continuous route with a short stretch of footpath in the middle without any overarching explanation/reason (like a farm or feature) behind the difference then the caselaw recognises it as being misrecorded – As I said above, a road to nowhere defies common sense.

One of the beauties IMO of rights of way law and the development of the caselaw on which judgements are now settled is that when it actually transcends the bureaucracy and gets to the point of judgement, the rule of law becomes applied in a very Denning like fashion (ie. the law is bent to fit the course of common sense and justice – though IMO we see an ongoing tragedy as more and more cases are settled by PINS inspectors rather than by judges as in the old days, and the common sense is gradually leaking, but the caselaw within which they work was still set in this fashion)

Don’t forget that he definitive map is without prejudice to the existence of higher rights, it is merely a formal documentation of those that are proven to exist – Just because a bridleway finishes one side of a fence on the map, it doesn’t extinguish your right to carry on over the other side (I’ll qualify that comment as ‘unless you’re in a motor vehicle’)

On a similar (tenuous) situation I recently rode a section exits between a couple of houses.
Someone had decided to stack a wall of cobbles two high across the run up to the exit every three foot (three stacks).

This seemed to have been done to slow bikers down exiting between the houses but the end is a blind bend between two low walls so its very dangerous as your on top of them before you even seem them.

Not sure the legal stand point of it but I scattered the cobbles off to one side before someone hurts themselves…

Bit complex, in theory wouldn’t be anything you could do about it, as the local authority don’t have to maintain bridleways in a condition for cyclists (we’re second class citizens in that regard) – in reality though there would still be a duty of care owed regards anything that was plainly dangerous.

however if the loose cobbles posed any problem or inconvenience to walkers or horse sit-on-tops, then it would be a council issue…

So perhaps, in retrospect, you noticed it and nearly tripped over it when you were out for a walk 😉

The duty of care angle would be the one I would also take; even though there is no obligation to maintain BW’s to a standard appropriate to cyclists, all highways should be suitable for their expected use whilst acting reasonably to make sure that normal users are safe. IME something that’s ‘unsafe’ for horses will also be ‘unsafe’ for bikes, so in practical terms there’d be no problem really in reporting it so I would definitely do so. There are better ways to slow cyclists down than cobbles across the path 🙂

If anyone’s still listening at the back, case law is fairly limited; in Burgess v Northwich it was found that there is a duty for the Highways Authority to keep the way “in such a state as to be safe and fit for ordinary traffic”, but in Kind v Newcastle it was found that – although pertaining to vehicular users the principle is the same – there is no duty for the Highways Authority “to maintain up to an appropriate standard … along the whole width of the highway” (which in fairness isn’t really applicable as the cobbles were across the BW).

Although the last one sounds boring (which in fairness it is) it’s important as whilst the HA’s duty to remove obstructions applies to the entire width of a highway, another similar duty to ‘maintain up to a certain standard’ might only apply to a particular part (e.g. there is no duty to maintain roadside verges full of holes, unless the verge is capable of use by horsies).

Schnor – A thought here, but I predict that at some point a council will try a Valentine defence. (ie. the gravel case) whereby the council claim that the fabric of the highway was correctly maintained and that loose debris on the surface could not be found to be part of the fabric of the road, and not their responsibility – thus absolving themselves of a duty to deal with the obstruction.

😕

A Valentine defence would only be applicable for a dressed / metalled surface (i.e. not FP’s / BW’s with natural surfaces) with debris having accumulated for a non-specific reason (i.e. a gradual accumulation, not from a specific event like a flash flood); in other words a highway with a sufficiently distinguishable fabric / structure with which one could differentiate the debris on top – like grit on top of tarmac, not smaller rocks on top of larger rocks.

But yes, I suppose it could be possible to argue it for something like I had last year when round marble-sized pebbles were slowly spreading across a tarmacced BW – which TBH was lethal even on foot. If I was feeling particularly mean I could have used Section 161(1), but an hour with a shovel and brush sorted it 🙂

Ah, that makes sense, thanks!

So the local ROW officer came back to me with this:

Further to your email below, I have now inspected Castle Rising BR19. Although there is a locked gate evident, there is a sufficient gap beside the gate to allow passage through. We would not look to take any further action on this issue.

This confuses me because surely a bridleway needs to be accessable via horse? ie if there is a gate it shouldn’t be locked and the ‘sufficient’ gap is actually a stile.

Mebbies a thin horse?

At least the ROW Orrifice went and took a look.. 😛

Ask him if he’ll pop along and give you a lift to carry your horse over the gate or stile next time your out, as last time when you had to do it single handed you think you pulled a muscle in your back 🙂

Photo ?

Strike – have just now seen this update

Is this the place?

is it still like that, or has the gap been replaced with a stile

I’m suspecting that the “I have now inspected Castle Rising BR19” may have involved google earth…

There’s also this earlier on that lane

But that leads to a footpath so perfectly OK as is.

Danny Mac wants to know what the issue is, that gate’s perfectly flippable.

Allthepies – from your picture, you follow that path to the other end, then turn right and it’s down that road.

Can you tell us where it actually is please, grid reference or link

http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=567054&y=325490&z=115&sv=567054,325490&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=745&ax=567054&ay=325490&lm=0

If you use this, you can tell us exactly which bridleway you’re talking about:

http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/highways/

The council say they have inspected BR19, and my pic was of the end of bridleway 19

Are you saying its at the end of Bridleway 5 (that appears to be a dead end bridleway, finishing at a public footpath and an old lane by “night marsh”

OK, so that’s Nightmarsh Lane then. Which, as ninfan mentions, turns into a bridleway which then ends at “Night Marsh” where it magically morphs into a footpath which turns sharp right leading to the Northern part of Castle Rising Wood (were it joins a bridleway [BR19] ).

So at the point the bridleway ends and the footpath starts then a locked gate + stile would be OK. Although a bridleway that stops being a bridleway is a moot point.

The ROW officer was looking at the wrong track though 🙂

allthepies – yes, its perhaps unusual, but it would depend on the historical context – ‘nightmarsh lane’ leads to ‘night marsh’, we can only presume that it was once common grazing or similar, which may explain the context of historic public use of the lane being recorded (however if it was called ‘church lane’ and there were signs of an old bridge over the river, then my spidey senses would be looking at there being a map anomaly)

Edit: Wahey

The other major business of the Court Leet was to oversee the management of the Common land. In previous centuries the leet presumably organised the distribution of land in the common ridge and furrow fields such as the one which was located inland from the pre-Norman sea-wall, but there is no evidence of this in the years for which we have records. Although the precise boundaries of the Commons changed over time, in general we have a good idea of their locations both from the 1588 and 1732 maps and from an understanding of the present vegetation. The main areas were the Day Marsh and the Night Marsh, which occupied the area of low land to the north and north-east of the village.

http://castlerising-historygroup.co.uk/manorial%20court.html

So, theres your context – the bridleway led to the common grazing, thats why it doesn’t link into anything else, Night Marsh was a legimitate terminus ad quem 8)