Brabyns Preparatory School -Scholarships

Author Topic: Rights of Way  (Read 5866 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2017, 11:53:06 AM »
ide the opportunity for enjoyment of the countryside and traffic free routes in towns by pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders.

What the existing rights of way system does not provide is a structure for cycle or horse usage at a pace faster than running speed about 5mph. Routes are generally too narrow and surfaces are too rough (unless you have a robust mountain bike). Improve the bridleways to a level that they can be easily used by cyclists wishing to travel at commuting speed of 10mph+ and the route becomes dangerous inaccessible to pedestrians and horse riders.

Horse only routes seems to be totally impractical because walkers and cyclists cannot be banished from existing bridleways. It would be prohibitively expensive/ absolutely impossible  to set up a new additional route network for horses.

The cyclist takes his choice. If he wants a speedy traffic free route he fights for cycleways, if he wishes to share the bridleways he travels at the same low speed as the walker and horserider.
As a horse person of some 60+ years experience, this sounds perfectly sensible - I don't know anyone in the horse fraternity who would wish to deny cyclists and walkers access to bridleways. I always took care both on bridleways and roads to ensure my horse behaved himself and was sensible and steady enough to cope with most things he might come across and if walkers (especially with dogs) and cyclists also take sensible precautions there isn't a problem.




CTCREP

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2017, 09:00:39 AM »
Landowners are already being encouraged to create Wildlife Corridors through their fields as well as Bank Erosion Free Zones alongside rivers. If these were incorporated with the land used for horses, and there was some cooperation between interested parties, that “dream” might come true.

You may be interested in this quote from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee :-

“The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee launches an inquiry into the role of tourism in supporting rural growth in England. Rural Tourism provides around £17 billion a year to the English economy. “


Several representatives are giving evidence including the British Horse Society, the Ramblers Association and Cycling UK.  They obviously recognise that Tourism is a major industry.  It is hopeful that outdated RoW rules will be replaced with something more relevant to 21st century society.

Meanwhile is it too much to ask Stockport to recognise that some Urban RoW’s should be properly surfaced  enabling the residents of Stockport to get to schools etc without resorting to the car.


To see what others do without relying on outdated legislature see http://www.digmcr.com/fjmtb/

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2017, 10:49:09 AM »
I didn’t suggest the Council should pay for new Horse Trails, I said they could be achieved by the cooperation of those involved in the horse riding industry

OK, so are  riding stables going to be able to buy connecting strips of land from farmers and golf clubs to make these new 'horse trails'? Dream on!

  just as the local mountain biking fraternity have done for their pastime.

Have they? Tell us about it.

CTCREP

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2017, 09:06:42 AM »
Dave;  I didn’t suggest the Council should pay for new Horse Trails, I said they could be achieved by the cooperation of those involved in the horse riding industry,  just as the local mountain biking fraternity have done for their pastime.

What I suggested was that some Urban Bridleways should be surfaced to allow walkers and cyclists to contribute to the Government’s Active travel Initiative. Dave says any available money should be used to cater for the elderly and the infirm who are taking up hospital beds. He  doesn’t realise that Active Travel will encourage many people, particularly children, to realise that there is an alternative to the car which will result in reducing the number of NHS beds taken up by those suffering from obesity, and also reduce the number of people suffering from infirmity, as well as reducing pollution etc etc.

Stockport Council wastes thousands of pounds on schemes such as that on New Bridge Lane, supposedly for the benefit of cyclists, but in reality making life more inconvenient, even dangerous for cycling. Money is already being spent on little used footpaths - welcome though it is - but could be better spent on upgrading Urban Bridleways to allow residents to access schools and shops etc. on foot, by bike or with a pushchair in comfort, and without having to dress as if going on a country expedition.

If anyone wants more information on these points I can provide them.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2017, 10:19:20 AM »
In the real world the idea that local councils could find the money for new horse-only trails, or high-speed cycle routes, is pie in the sky!  After all, local authorities have got so little money they can't even afford to look after the elderly and infirm, who are therefore left occupying hospital beds which they don't need, thereby blocking access to the NHS for those who really need it. 

I think Marplerambler and CTCREP are making too much of this issue.  We just need to learn to use the bridleways in a civilised and responsible way, respecting the rights and the safety of other users. There is no reason why horse riders should not trot or even gallop, where conditions permit and there are no cyclists or pedestrians around. Similarly I don't see why cyclists should not go fast, as long as they slow down for pedestrians and horses.   

marplerambler

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2017, 09:07:30 PM »
It is time for Rights of Way to be reconsidered and a distinction made between what could be called Rural and Urban Rights of Way where Urban RoW can provide access to schools, shops etc  by being made acceptable for everyday use.


The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act first set up the legal framework of Rights of Way with legal maps/statements being drawn up in the early 1950s. Marple and the Urban District Councils did a thorough job recording and legalising usage of rights of way. The County Boroughs and Cities often argued that the legal recording system for the towns and cities was not appropriate: many towns and cities disagreed with the legal concept of urban rights of way. The consequence was that the recording of footpath, bridleways and other routes in towns which were not predominantly motor routes were sometimes overlooked and the Ramblers Association and Bridleways groups have to provide proof of continuous usage with no objection from the landowner for twenty year for routes to be added to the definitive map.

There is no proposed statute in the pipeline to change the structure of who can and who cannot use existing rights of way. I believe the current system of division between roads and rights of way generally works well. The roads and adjacent cycleways provide routes for the speedy passage of cyclists, public footpaths provide a safe route for the pedestrian to enjoy a leisurely walk, public bridleways and higher status rights of way provide the opportunity for enjoyment of the countryside and traffic free routes in towns by pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders.

What the existing rights of way system does not provide is a structure for cycle or horse usage at a pace faster than running speed about 5mph. Routes are generally too narrow and surfaces are too rough (unless you have a robust mountain bike). Improve the bridleways to a level that they can be easily used by cyclists wishing to travel at commuting speed of 10mph+ and the route becomes dangerous inaccessible to pedestrians and horse riders.

Rights of way provide access to shops, bus stops, stations and the workplace as well as providing a facility of simply walking/cycling/riding for pleasure. If changes were to take place it would be very wise to follow the excellent example of speed limits such as those imposed on canal towpaths and on the canals themselves. A 6mph/jogging pace would guarantee safety for everyone on the public rights of way in exactly the same way as safety for users of canals is guaranteed by a single digit speed limit on canal boats.

Horse only routes seems to be totally impractical because walkers and cyclists cannot be banished from existing bridleways. It would be prohibitively expensive/ absolutely impossible  to set up a new additional route network for horses.

The cyclist takes his choice. If he wants a speedy traffic free route he fights for cycleways, if he wishes to share the bridleways he travels at the same low speed as the walker and horserider.

CTCREP

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2017, 06:45:44 PM »

I am glad  Marple Rambler has clarified the law about Rights of Way, however you will note 1968 is still virtually 50 years out of date, and long before present transport problems had occurred.  As you may be aware I am a cyclist - as well a motorist and walker, but my main concern is improving life in general, particularly here in Stockport.  Today on Radio 4 there was a discussion about Traffic congestion - Britain being one of the worst countries for this in Europe. I was appalled that there was no mention of the contribution cycling can make to alleviate this.  We all know that The School Run makes a notable difference to the congestion in the area and promoting cycling could reduce this congestion. There are some Rights of Way that could be made suitable for cycling to school , to work and to the shops, as well as benefiting others as well, It is time for Rights of Way to be reconsidered and a distinction made between what could be called Rural and Urban Rights of Way where Urban RoW can provide access to schools, shops etc  by being made acceptable for everyday use.

I fully recognise that horse riders want access to the countryside and locally there are many landowners providing accommodation for horses. It would benefit everyone if these landowners were to cooperate in creating new Horse Only routes between their fields.  If developed nationwide then new Horse Trails would create a Tourist industry that benefitted the horse riders and the rural communities that would provide food and accommodation along the way.

I know there would be opposition to this idea but we could lead the way if Stockport MBC recognised the need to change how Urban Rights of Way are  treated in this Borough, and local landowners were willing to think of the future of the country as a whole..

marplerambler

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2017, 06:13:31 PM »
"cyclists have since 1968 had the legal right to use bridleways"

Marple Rambler, when the new bridlepath in Charlesworth was being planned we were told by the police and Derbyshire CC that cyclists can only use bridleways with the permission of the landowner and this permission may be withdrawn. Was this incorrect?

Countryside Act 1968 section 30 (1) states 'Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle...on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback' . If the route has legal status of bridleway the cyclist has a legal right to use the bridleway full stop. I am astonished that a member of staff at Derbyshire CC without a basic knowledge of public rights of way law commented in this way as Derbyshire, for decades, had one of the best informed Public Rights of Way Sections in the country.

ringi

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2017, 05:56:44 PM »
"cyclists have since 1968 had the legal right to use bridleways"

when the new bridlepath in Charlesworth was being planned we were told by the police and Derbyshire CC that cyclists can only use bridleways with the permission of the landowner and this permission may be withdrawn. Was this incorrect?

I assume this was a permissive bridle path, so the landlord could withdraw the permission for anyone to use it in anyway at anytime they chose.

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2017, 04:05:01 PM »
"cyclists have since 1968 had the legal right to use bridleways"

Marple Rambler, when the new bridlepath in Charlesworth was being planned we were told by the police and Derbyshire CC that cyclists can only use bridleways with the permission of the landowner and this permission may be withdrawn. Was this incorrect?

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2017, 03:51:40 PM »
Be very aware cautious when completing this questionnaire that this survey has absolutely nothing to do with most roads and metalled pavements in Stockport MBC : these roads and pavements with a legal status of 'adopted highway' have a very separate legal status and body of law from 'public rights of way' ie public footpaths and public bridleways.  Stockport MBC first of all has neither the legal authority or the resources to maintain public bridleways to a standard appropriate for cyclists - roads ie adopted highways are the legal routes which should be maintained to a standard appropriate for safe usage by cyclists - cyclists have since 1968 had the legal right to use bridleways but it must be emphasised that the Council has absolutely no legal right to maintain bridleways nor does it have the resources to maintain bridleways to a standard appropriate for cyclists. Many private roads in Marple, Marple Bridge, Mellor and Strines also have the legal status of bridleway - unauthorised cars or motorbikes trespass upon the land: the Council is not responsible for maintaining them to a standard appropriate for usage by car or bike. If the landowner wishes to maintain the route to a high standard it is up to him - ditto if he wishes to neglect the route to prevent unauthorised usage he need not spend his own money.

The survey is deficient because this is not made clear. Bridleways became accessible to cyclists in 1968 when bicycles were not generally built to cope with the poor surfaces of bridleways. The popularisation of mountain bikes has resulted in the mass destruction of the surfaces of many routes by the vandalism of mountain bikes. Bridleways are an asset for the quiet enjoyment of the countryside by walkers and horses and not for mountain bikers who care little for the safety of other users.  The survey should also include a further question ensuring the safety of users by excluding speeding mountain bikes - if a cycle wants fast and easy access between points the solution is construction of bicycle lanes adjacent to our busy roads and not an increase in the number of bikes on our public rights of way network.

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2017, 03:47:17 PM »
Marple Rambler is correct when he?she says that Stockport Council doesn’t have to cater for cyclists on bridleways, but these rules go back to the 19th century, and most other Councils have moved on since then.

The Government has been trying to encourage more active travel as well as trying to reduce obesity in our population, particularly in the younger generation, and now it is concerned about pollution in our major towns.

Stockport needs to keep these aspects in mind when it is proposing to make improvements to our Rights of Way.  Where possible urban bridleways that can provide access to schools, shops and stations, as well as linking different districts should be made useable for people going about their normal daily business on foot or by bicycle without having to cope with poor surfaces, mud and worse.

It is now the 21st century and it is time to end Stockport’s antiquated way of thinking and do something to benefit the town and the majority of its tax-payers.
The law still states that cyclists may use bridle ways ONLY with permission of the land owner. (This, obviously, doesn't have to be granted for each cyclist individually). As far as I know, the permission may be revoked when the land-owner wishes. Nothing to do with the council unless it is the landowner.

CTCREP

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2017, 05:40:51 PM »
Marple Rambler is correct when he?she says that Stockport Council doesn’t have to cater for cyclists on bridleways, but these rules go back to the 19th century, and most other Councils have moved on since then.

The Government has been trying to encourage more active travel as well as trying to reduce obesity in our population, particularly in the younger generation, and now it is concerned about pollution in our major towns.

Stockport needs to keep these aspects in mind when it is proposing to make improvements to our Rights of Way.  Where possible urban bridleways that can provide access to schools, shops and stations, as well as linking different districts should be made useable for people going about their normal daily business on foot or by bicycle without having to cope with poor surfaces, mud and worse.

It is now the 21st century and it is time to end Stockport’s antiquated way of thinking and do something to benefit the town and the majority of its tax-payers.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2017, 10:56:43 AM »
Good points made by rsh.  That said, and to be fair to SMBC (why not!), last summer they did some serious work on drainage and ditching on the bridleway between Windybottom and Greenclough, next to the railway line near Strines, and I think that may resolve that long-standing and recurring problem. 

rsh

  • Guest
Re: Rights of Way
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2017, 09:37:34 AM »
The popularisation of mountain bikes has resulted in the mass destruction of the surfaces of many routes by the vandalism of mountain bikes.

Sorry but I've never heard such rubbish! Mountain bikes cause practically no damage whatsoever. Why must you immediately try to turn this into another "us vs them" topic? Can't you see you're actually better off banding together to improve these assets?

I despair at the terrible state of bridleways around here, but I'm quite confident that's down to poor drainage and poor upkeep. Most of them (good examples around Roman Lakes and Strines) seem to have sadly become streams rather than pathways, with water completely washing away the surface, especially with sudden heavy rains in recent years. In some cases, new surfacing has even been laid only for it to be completely washed away! We need a major programme of installing proper drainage channels along these routes to ensure they aren't lost forever.

Edit: In the final "suggest any other improvements" I put:

"Resurfacing Middlewood Way between Torkington Lane and A6, plus providing a proper link across to SEMMMS A6 link road, allowing residents of Marple to quickly and cleanly access this major new cycle route. Major programme of drainage channel improvements to bridleways around Strines, Roman Lakes and Marple to fix longstanding issues of surface wash-away. Working with Canal and River Trust, resurfacing terrible (in parts) Peak Forest Canal towpath from Marple to Stockport border and promoting as the "green gateway to the Peak District" for walking and cycling."