Blocked footpath - The way forward?

Peter James said:

The local Ramblers seem reluctant to grasp this
particular nettle.

Each group has a Footpath Officer. Have you taken it up
with him/her?

Peter James said:

The footpath which is shown on the definitive map has been
blocked by the landowner. The County Council seems to be
reluctant to take any action that would force the
landowner to re-open the path.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

As I understand it, the County Council have a duty to
force the landowner into compliance. But as they will not
act what can individuals do?

Have a look at the material here:

defra.gov.ukwildlifeOpen ↗
countryside/cl/publicrow.htm

- under the heading "Removal of obstructions on rights of
way"

The law changed last Feb so as to allow individuals to
put the council on notice that something would have to be
done about the problem, with the sanction of taking the
case to the magistrates court. The new procedure
parallels one which has been in place for years regarding
the surface of the path.

However, there are a number of loopholes which could allow
the council off the hook, e.g. depending on the type of
obstruction. So have a read and see if the new provisions
are likely to be any use.

--
Pete Bland

In a recent message
<[email hidden]>, Peter James
<[email hidden]> wrote.

Quoted message said:

I wonder if the gurus of this NG could give me some basic
information on the problem of a blocked footpath, here in
Wadebridge, Cornwall.

[...]

Not a guru, but as I understand it you have the right to
remove an obstruction from a right of way. One little bit
of reassurance, though, the fact that the landowner has
blocked this ROW will never mean that it will cease to be a
ROW. Blocking a ROW is an offence and I think that in
English law it is not possible to establish a right by
committing an offence.

Regards, Nick.
--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England
<[email hidden]

In a recent message
<[email hidden]>, Peter James
<[email hidden]> wrote.

Quoted message said:

I understand that if I go out to the path specifically to
remove the obstruction, I commit an offence. If I remove
the obstruction whilst in the process of using the path as
a normal user, I am within the law.

Quoted message said:

The law is a strange beast isn't it?

Yes, but it's possible to see the thinking behind this.
It's the idea that we have the obligation to walk away
from trouble if possible and not go out looking for it.
Very English.

Very English and very different from, say. the USA: "Wake up
my darling Mary / and go and fetch my gun / I ain't no hand
at fighting / but I'll die before I run".

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England
<[email hidden]

In article <[email hidden]>,
Peter James <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The law is a strange beast isn't it?

It's called a Ass
--
Bill Grey billboy.co.ukbillboy.co.ukOpen ↗

pete bland said:

Peter James said:

The footpath which is shown on the definitive map has
been blocked by the landowner. The County Council seems
to be reluctant to take any action that would force the
landowner to re-open the path.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

As I understand it, the County Council have a duty to
force the landowner into compliance. But as they will not
act what can individuals do?

Have a look at the material here:

defra.gov.ukwildlifeOpen ↗
countryside/cl/publicrow.htm

- under the heading "Removal of obstructions on rights
of way"

The law changed last Feb so as to allow individuals to put
the council on notice that something would have to be done
about the problem, with the sanction of taking the case to
the magistrates court. The new procedure parallels one
which has been in place for years regarding the surface of
the path.

However, there are a number of loopholes which could allow
the council off the hook, e.g. depending on the type of
obstruction. So have a read and see if the new provisions
are likely to be any use.

Many thanks. I've book-marked the site and downloaded the
form requiring the council to remove the obstruction.
Very useful.
--

Peter James Change AT to @ and dot to . to reply

On Sun, 2 May 2004 17:52:51 +0100, Nick Hopton <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In a recent message
<[email hidden]>, Peter James
<[email hidden]> wrote.

Quoted message said:

I wonder if the gurus of this NG could give me some basic
information on the problem of a blocked footpath, here in
Wadebridge, Cornwall.

[...]

Not a guru, but as I understand it you have the right to
remove an obstruction from a right of way. One little bit
of reassurance, though, the fact that the landowner has
blocked this ROW will never mean that it will cease to be a
ROW. Blocking a ROW is an offence and I think that in
English law it is not possible to establish a right by
committing an offence.

I understand that if I go out to the path specifically to
remove the obstruction, I commit an offence. If I remove
the obstruction whilst in the process of using the path as
a normal user, I am within the law. The law is a strange
beast isn't it?
--

Peter James Change AT to @ and dot to . to reply

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Peter James <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The law is a strange beast isn't it?

It's called a Ass

On the subject of the Law, I just have to share this with
the NG. A quotation I came across that said "the weather
was so cold, that the lawyers had their hands in their
own pockets".
--

Peter James Change AT to @ and dot to . to reply

In article <[email hidden]>,
Peter James <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Peter James <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The law is a strange beast isn't it?

It's called a Ass

On the subject of the Law, I just have to share this with
the NG. A quotation I came across that said "the weather
was so cold, that the lawyers had their hands in their own
pockets".

:-)
--
Bill Grey billboy.co.ukbillboy.co.ukOpen ↗

Peter James wrote

Quoted message said:

I understand that if I go out to the path specifically to
remove the obstruction, I commit an offence.

This is because you do not own the land and therefore have
no right to affect the way it is used by other people.

Quoted message said:

If I remove the obstruction whilst in the process of
using the path as a normal user, I am within the law.

Because your rights to use the land are being
interfered with.

Quoted message said:

The law is a strange beast isn't it?

I think it's fair to say it has it's odd quirks :-)

Chris

Peter James wrote on Tue, 04 May 2004 09:54:50 +0100....

Quoted message said:

On the subject of the Law, I just have to share this with
the NG. A quotation I came across that said "the weather
was so cold, that the lawyers had their hands in their own
pockets".

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a rooster?

R: A rooster clucks defiance.

--
Tim Jackson [email hidden] (Change
'.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct) Absurd patents:
visit patent.freeserve.co.ukpatent.freeserve.co.ukOpen ↗

Peter James said:

The local Ramblers seem reluctant to grasp this
particular nettle.

Now that surprises me, I thought the whole raison d'etre of
the RA was to kick up a fuss about such things ;-)

In what way are they reluctant? Are they just ignoring you,
or have they given a reason for inaction? Have you tried
raising it at a higher level within the RA?

Anyway, my normal reaction to blocked footpaths is to (if
practical) remove the blockage to allow passage. If nothing
needs removing (eg a low fence has been erected across the
path) then I just step over it and get on my way.

Simon Caldwell said:

In what way are they reluctant? Are they just ignoring you,
or have they given a reason for inaction? Have you tried
raising it at a higher level within the RA?

The first step, as I suggested earlier (with no
response), should be to contact the Footpath Officer of
the local group.

In message <[email hidden]>,
Simon Caldwell <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Peter James said:

The local Ramblers seem reluctant to grasp this
particular nettle.

Now that surprises me, I thought the whole raison d'etre of
the RA was to kick up a fuss about such things ;-)

What, you mean the way they did when the blanket closures
were enforced during the Foot & Mouth outbreak?!!

--
Victor Meldrew

Use Reply-to address for e-mail reply.

Because of incessant spammage this address will only be
valid for a few days.

Victor Meldrew <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
Simon Caldwell <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Peter James said:

The local Ramblers seem reluctant to grasp this
particular nettle.

Now that surprises me, I thought the whole raison d'etre
of the RA was to kick up a fuss about such things ;-)

What, you mean the way they did when the blanket closures
were enforced during the Foot & Mouth outbreak?!!

Are you suggesting that they should have fought it? We
voluntarily stayed away from sensitive areas for twelve
months, as did most sensible walkers.

Or was it just another chance to snipe at the RA?
--
Gordon

In message <[email hidden]>, Gordon
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Victor Meldrew <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
Simon Caldwell <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 06:50:04 +0100, Peter James
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>The local Ramblers seem reluctant to grasp this
>particular nettle.

Now that surprises me, I thought the whole raison d'etre
of the RA was to kick up a fuss about such things ;-)

What, you mean the way they did when the blanket closures
were enforced during the Foot & Mouth outbreak?!!

Are you suggesting that they should have fought it? We
voluntarily stayed away from sensitive areas for twelve
months, as did most sensible walkers.

Yes actually I am. Could you see any sense in deliberately
keeping walkers out of purely arable areas (for a
ridiculously extended period in Lincolnshire for example) or
off canal towpaths or converted railtracks? Voluntarily
staying away is one thing but being forced to is another,
especially in non-sensitive areas, and especially when
farmers were still carrying on with their activities
(eg.muck spreading) which were far more likely to spread the
virus than walkers boots (in fact the latter has been proven
to be an insignificant risk). Nobody tried to stop cars from
zooming down country lanes, or trains pulling a huge vortex
of virus-laden air around the countryside. No, they picked
on the soft targets, the humble walkers. And they were able
to do so because we didn't have a voice; any real
representation. It was a crisis created by the farming
industry that the general public should not have had to
become a victim of. Walking in the countryside is a
fundamental freedom that is ours by right and not as a
concession of the farming industry.

And if you read my comment again you'll see that I was
talking about fighting "blanket closures" not suggesting
that the RA should have organised 'mass tresspasses' in
sensitive areas.
--
Victor Meldrew

Use Reply-to address for e-mail reply.

Because of incessant spammage this address will only be
valid for a few days.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 18:57:49 +0100, Gordon <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Are you suggesting that they should have fought it? We
voluntarily stayed away from sensitive areas for twelve
months, as did most sensible walkers.

Or was it just another chance to snipe at the RA?

The blanket closure was a pointless over-reaction and a
disastrous mistake.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site:

paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Victor Meldrew <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
Simon Caldwell <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 06:50:04 +0100, Peter James
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>The local Ramblers seem reluctant to grasp this
>particular nettle.

Now that surprises me, I thought the whole raison d'etre
of the RA was to kick up a fuss about such things ;-)

What, you mean the way they did when the blanket closures
were enforced during the Foot & Mouth outbreak?!!

Are you suggesting that they should have fought it? We
voluntarily stayed away from sensitive areas for twelve
months, as did most sensible walkers.

Why did walker voluntarily stay away. Is F&M spreadable by
walkers? I thought it was proved that it's simply not the
case. Nothing sensible in that, unlike some of the
landowners activities during the whole episode.

KRO

Victor Meldrew said:

Quoted message said:

Are you suggesting that they should have fought it? We
voluntarily stayed away from sensitive areas for twelve
months, as did most sensible walkers.

Yes actually I am. Could you see any sense in deliberately
keeping walkers out of purely arable areas (for a
ridiculously extended period in Lincolnshire for example)
or off canal towpaths or converted railtracks? Voluntarily
staying away is one thing but being forced to is another,
especially in non-sensitive areas, and especially when
farmers were still carrying on with their activities
(eg.muck spreading) which were far more likely to spread
the virus than walkers boots (in fact the latter has been
proven to be an insignificant risk). Nobody tried to stop
cars from zooming down country lanes, or trains pulling a
huge vortex of virus-laden air around the countryside. No,
they picked on the soft targets, the humble walkers. And
they were able to do so because we didn't have a voice;
any real representation. It was a crisis created by the
farming industry that the general public should not have
had to become a victim of. Walking in the countryside is a
fundamental freedom that is ours by right and not as a
concession of the farming industry.

And if you read my comment again you'll see that I was
talking about fighting "blanket closures" not suggesting
that the RA should have organised 'mass tresspasses' in
sensitive areas.

Spot on. The attitude of "Official" bodies like NTS
during ye Tyme of Dreaded Lurgy was pathetic. Thank God
for the Angry Corrie, the only sensible voice in a
wilderness of hysteria.

Bernie