What I think is based upon what I know! Rollins Lane was upgraded from Public Footpath to Public Bridleway not as a consequence of action from the CTC Rep but as a consequence of a phenomenal amount of work by the then Chairman of Stockport East Area Bridleways Association (SEABA) proving that bridleway rights existed along Rollins Lane which had a legal designation of Public Footpath (FP111 Bredbury & Romiley) when the route became a public right of way in 1952. The Chairman of SEABA was the person who took the appropriate legal action to require Stockport MBC to redesignate this route as a bridleway or waste money by on a legal battle it could not win.
I attended every User Forum for Public Rights of Way in Stockport from 2004 to 2011 and the only user group reps who ever attended these meetings were Ramblers Association, Peak & Northern Footpaths Society, Open Spaces Society, Stockport East Area Bridleways Association (SEABA) and Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association. The CTC never came near, the CTC totally ignored all invitations sent to the CTC rep for Stockport and played absolutely no part in any discussions about this route so don't start making statements that you have been fighting for cyclists in Marple for years. Quite simply, whoever your predecessor was, he didn't give a toss about cycling in Marple or if he did he never turned up to voices his concerns at the Public Rights of Way Access Forums. The only person fighting hard for the cyclist in Stockport up to 2011 was the Stockport MBC Cycling Officer.
The unadulterated rubbish you speak when you imply that the Council has a responsibility to ensure that the route should be maintained to a standard enabling the route to be ‘visited by people wearing everyday shoes and often with pushchairs and infant's cycles’ indicates you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
The legal status of a route which can be used in poor weather by people wearing everyday shoes and by infant’s cycles is ‘pavement’ which is maintained to a high standard as part of the general road network, not the public footpath network.
Do you not think that this same argument has not been made ten thousand times over the last hundred years as lots of people have tried to increase the value of their property by attempting to get the Council to do the work of paying to improve the track to their land? Just what the Council is required to do is not just laid down in Act of Parliament. It is dictated by case law and such case law dictates that it is not unreasonable that public footpaths cannot be expected to be maintained in a pristine condition on flat lanes such as Rollins Lane which are susceptible to waterlogging. Case law has set precedents about just what is and what is not a ‘reasonable state of repair’. Most importantly it is not considered to be unreasonable that there will be times when you will get muddy boots or have to paddle through puddles on a Public Bridleway. Winter rainfall on soggy ground does not just magically evaporate away.
Where is the water on a long flat surface shaded by many trees and bushes expected to vanish to, ensuring that the infant’s bike and your shoes don’t get dirty on a wet January day? There is only one answer for Rollins Lane and that is ‘down a grid adjacent to a convex metalled surface.’
The Public Rights of Way budget is miniscule compared to that for the general road and pavement network. Just this one project would use up a large proportion of the annual budget for Public Rights of Way section of the Council. The Council's answer is not there is no money available, it is that all expenditure is open to the scrutiny of the Council Tax payer, that the Council doesn’t have a statutory obligation to carry out the work you request and I, as a Council Tax payer, would then be totally justified in stating that my money was being squandered on work which should be directed to work it does have a statutory obligation to carry out.
The Council has a responsibility to maintain this route to a standard appropriate for usage by walkers and horseriders only. As well as being a public bridleway Rollins Lane also has a legal status of a private road facilitating vehicular access to those with legal access (plus authorised visitors) to adjacent property and land. Just as at Lakes Road, the landowners choose whether they want to maintain the route to a standard appropriate for usage by motor vehicles (and cyclists). If they are prepared to pay for it that is up to them.
Cyclists have had a legal right to use bridleways since 1968 but the Council has absolutely no responsibility of any kind for maintaining a bridleway to a standard appropriate for cycles.
Countryside Act 1968 section 30 Riding of pedal cycles on bridleways para (3) The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the highways authority , or any other person, as respects the maintenance of the highway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists.
It sometimes happens that there may be a cash injection from an organisation such as SUSTRANS enabling the construction of a new bridge such as that at Chadkirk. The real problem is that there is no provision of funding for future maintenance of the bridge.
The most useful thing that you could do is stop whingeing and adopt the same attitude as the Ramblers, realise the Councils have suffered massive cuts, cannot wave a magic wand to repair anything and everything and set up voluntary work parties of cyclists to fill in the holes in just the same way as Ramblers groups are now repairing and clearing footpaths and Friends of Parks / Railway stations etc groups are carrying out work on Brabyns Park, Chadkirk and Rose Hill station.
Topic: Rollins Lane (Read 4316 times)