If a council has adopted a road does this imply a right of way for pedestrians?

I had a whine at NYCC about a road closure for bridge repairs that forces pedestrians and cyclists onto a 5 mile detour using the A59, and was told that there’s no public right of way across the bridge.

The email basically says “piss off” and I don’t think I’ve helped by enquiring about the usefulness of the taxpayer funding a multi-million pound repair on a private* bridge with no right of way.

I’ve invited him to walk his planned detour along the A59 but doubt he’ll bite.

*I say private but it shows as adopted by NYCC.

The email response:

Thank you for contacting us in regards to the works at Broughton Bridge. The pedestrian access you are referring to is not an alternative access for pedestrian or cyclist use and has not had signs erected deliberately. The access onto the land has been put in place for estate use and is located on private property which has no public right of way. We have since placed a sign on the gate to state this.

There is no official pedestrian diversion in place as there is no public right of way across the bridge and all pedestrians looking to use the bridge are urged to find their own alternative access. As cyclists are road users they are required by law to adhere to road closures and diversions, which has been in place and has adequate signage since the works have started [not from bloody Gargrave there isn’t]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ERTrGQocKAmvoU5A9

I think I’d prefer chancing my arm with a bit of mild trespass on one of the other bridges to riding that stretch of the 59. There’s plenty of stuff at Broughton which requires public access, not just estate use. Loads of folk work there, there are holiday lets, all sorts. Surprised they’re not making it obvious what the alternative way through is for the sake of their legitimate customers.

I take it you were roadying?

If a council has adopted a road does this imply a right of way for pedestrians?

Unless there’s a no pedestrians sign I’d think so.

Possibly lost in translation/incompetence that the person responding to your email doesn’t see a footpath marked on the map, and isn’t joining the dots that pedestrians are road users too.

As for cyclists, I think this is just one to file under “suck it up”.

I think I’d prefer chancing my arm with a bit of mild trespass

I think the council are even suggesting it: 😈

all pedestrians looking to use the bridge are urged to find their own alternative access.

I’ve no idea what the council is on about. Bug I woulx suggest using any of the estate paths woulx be fine. From memory the easiest is going upstream to the mill offices and back. Roger, lord of the manor, is a genuinely nice guy despite being a guesquillion-aire.

Slide your keyboard towards you a little, Neal. 🙂

on google maps, I can see 4 bridges over the river within ~250yds of the road bridge. use one of them?

IANAL but I’ve always understood that an while unadopted road can have a right of way, or not, an adopted road maintainable at public expense is a public highway and a right of way. Pedestrian is the lowest use class, so unless the law provides otherwise (eg, motorways) any right of way is a right of way on foot.

IANAL but I’ve always understood that an while unadopted road can have a right of way, or not, an adopted road maintainable at public expense is a public highway and a right of way. Pedestrian is the lowest use class, so unless the law provides otherwise (eg, motorways) any right of way is a right of way on foot.

That was always my belief – pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists have an automatic right to use the public highway unless a law specifically alters that, eg motorways. Drivers, on the other hand, a license to use a vehicle on the highway.

Loads of people rode through the estate even before the bridge closure, nobody has ever been stopped and I doubt they ever will. It’s the same with the bike track in the woods, supposed to be estate workers use but nobody has ever been stopped using it or questioned whether they work here.

If you go into the car park at the Bull and look up to your left you will see the track that leads to the road up to ‘Eden’ (the nice house in the field), follow road round to right at Eden into the estate, cross the cattle grid then left then right and carry straight on through to the lane which goes to Elslack.

If you don’t fancy the dirt track out of the Bull car park you can go a little further east of the A59 and through the gate at the lodge which joins on to the track out of the Bull car park.

Ooooh my old headquarters was there. do the peacocks not just chase you away if you do somethign wrong?

joshvegas
Free Member
Ooooh my old headquarters was there. do the peacocks not just chase you away if you do somethign wrong?

Only 1 peacock left now I think.

Still leaves enough of it’s foul smelling faeces all over the place – as bad as foxes !

All much appreciated, thank you. Hadn’t noticed the track by the pub. 🙂

We got caught by this on the other side of the bridge coming down from elslack. As you stand at the gate to the estate just off the bridge, there is no hint of a possible route through there, and quite an obvious sign saying this is private property. I guess if you know, it’s an obvious short cut, but if you are not familiar with the lie of the land then it’s not very inviting.
We went all round the diversion, but it was a quiet Saturday morning so not too horrible, but anything other than quiet time and I don’t think we’d have done it. Probably just gone back up the hill and down to Carleton. 35 weeks is a long time for repairs too!

Word is 35 weeks is if everything is wrong with the bridge – it’s not expected to be. Surfacing has been off for 2 weeks so far.

Slide your keyboard towards you a little, Neal

nurse will just tighten the restraints again

How about the footpath to the West?

Loads of people rode through the estate even before the bridge closure, nobody has ever been stopped and I doubt they ever will. It’s the same with the bike track in the woods, supposed to be estate workers use but nobody has ever been stopped using it or questioned whether they work here.

With uninterrupted use, it could be a right of way now under statute or common law.

Doubtful, there’s always been subtle private road /land signage

Unless there’s a no pedestrians sign I’d think so.

Supported by a bye-law or TRO, otherwise the sign is just expensive litter. (See also 20mph zones outside schools).

there is no public right of way across the bridge and all pedestrians looking to use the bridge are urged to find their own alternative access. As cyclists are road users they are required by law to adhere to road closures and diversions

It’s probably just a mistake, but there’s an interesting choice of words here. They’re not claiming that the bridge doesn’t have pedestrian access, they’re claiming that the bridge doesn’t have public access. Last I looked, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians were all the “public”.

Are there road signs directing what’s on the other side? If there are then your correspondent is clearly misinformed; if there aren’t and it actually is a private bridge then as you say it does rather prompt the question as to why taxpayers’ money is being spent on maintaining it, and I think that’s the point I’d be getting my local MP and newspapers involved. You might want to suggest this to the council first. (-:

Also,

It’d be interesting to see what reply you’d have received if you’d said ‘horse’ rather than ‘bicycle’. Have you got a second email address?

I think in the OP “The pedestrian access you are referring to is not an alternative access for pedestrian or cyclist use and has not had signs erected deliberately.” means the new temporary footbridge put in to allow estate workers to access the bus stop on the A59 easily not the road bridge.

@cougar – It’s a private contractor doing the work but I don’t know who’s paying for it. There are diversion signs at both ends – these are standard council style yellow background – on the “non A59” side they are as far back as Elslack since there’s no other way out from that road unless you take the estate road around the back of the hall.

Is the road on the bridge “adopted” or “permissive”? If the former then I believe there should be alternatives, if the latter I don’t know.

A bit of a pain for me since that back road’s one of my standard ways back home on road rides but the A59 round by Elslack isn’t too bad.

@lots_of_hope – the driveway through that gate does get used by local cyclists on a regular basis. The estate is generally cycling friendly, or at least not the usual “if you aren’t an estate worker then eff off!” attitude, they are looking to be a cyclocross centre of excellence and hold training sessions/camps and races. I’ve ridden on various tracks on the estate with no “public” access, spoken to estate workers and farmers and nary a word about my being there.

[url=https://postimages.org/app]pc screenshot[/url]

It’s on the list of streets therefore public highway