Branch groing across cycle track hit in the dark

[pwa]

In August my better half and I did two thirds of the Offa's Dyke Path (on foot, of course) and while most of it was in good order there were a few sections where it was overgrown to the point where we had to divert slightly. And around here, in the Vale of Glamorgan, I often carry a pair of secateurs to tidy up overgrown stiles. I don't want paths to go out of use due to neglect.

Many moons ago I considered putting in a tender for PROW maintenance in the neighbouring Bridgend County Borough. Then I saw how much work and materials they expected and how little they were paying.

[Randy_Butternubs]

Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick but aren't the vast majority of rights of way (footpaths, byways etc) not 'permissable'? I.e. the land is privately owned but the land owner has no right to stop people using them.

I was under the impression that in this case users are allowed to clear any obstacles, even if put there by the landowner.

[meic]

You are right and as this one is along the A590, it probably isnt a permissive route.

Permissive routes are a minority but they do exist. As I had just said we are well within our rights to take out the secateurs, it was rather necessary to say this wasnt always the case and there are some paths where we do NOT have the right to wield them.

[MikeF]

Doesn't the law state that branches growing over a boundary can legally be removed by the owner of the neighbouring land?

Yup, I looked into this a while back due to oversize tree in my neighbours garden. You can remove the branches but the wood belongs to the owner of the tree (so you chuck it back over the fence), and can only cut it back as far as the property boundary.

However I suspect that the OP doesn't actually own the land he is cycling over so this wouldn't apply!

No you do not. I think you will find you must ask if they want it. They do not necessarily have to accept. If you chuck it over the fence you could be causing damage to property.

[MikeF]

Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick but aren't the vast majority of rights of way (footpaths, byways etc) not 'permissable'? I.e. the land is privately owned but the land owner has no right to stop people using them.

I was under the impression that in this case users are allowed to clear any obstacles, even if put there by the landowner.

No the vast majority of rights of way are, well, .. public rights of way. In other words members of the public have a right to pass and repast over land in private ownership according to that right for the route. A permissive footpath/bridle way etc. is one where the land owner has formally agreed that members of the public may use the route according to the conditions of the agreement. There isn’t a right to use the route.

There can also be private rights of way eg rights over land for access by certain people to houses etc

[MikeF]

I'm not sure exactly what the legal situation is, ...

Highways Act s154.
IME the process usually starts with a polite request, which if ignored becomes a more strongly worded request and finally the s154 notice.

If a s154 notice is not complied with the Highway Authority may do the work themselves and send their bill to the landowner. Unfortunately may is not must .

I'm currently dealing with a case at the border of two authorities. One local authority owns the cycletrack and has issued a s154 on the neighbouring local authority who own the adjacent land.

Apparently they gave a somewhat apoplectic response upon receiving it. Unfortunately neither authority has yet done anything about the problem .

Thanks for the correct link.
Oh county boundaries - what fun! I’ve worked for a LA.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Not read all the posts.
Just watch out for the illegally parked car on a cycle path in the dark with door ajar and no lights

I contacted local authority about overhanging tree and a few days later it was cleared, but signs for a café which probably have no planning consent obscure the highway and are dangerous to cyclist are still there..............................

On a public right of way any obstruction which prevents you passing, you can go onto the adjacent land?
Not a lot of good if there a wall or fence with a bike.

[pwa]

To some extent I've given up worrying about the niceties of the law when it comes to PROWs. If there is an obstruction, deliberate or otherwise, I will feel free to shift it. If the landowner is watching, so much the better. If they come over to discuss it, better again.

Not all "cycle tracks" or "shared use" tracks are owned by councils. For example, the track going up the Garw valley from Brynmenin to Pontycymer has a Sustrans designation and it looks much like any other Sustrans track on a former rail bed, but the land is leased from Railtrack by a group trying to create a heritage railway to run alongside the cycle track. In all their correspondence on the subject of the cycle track they state their commitment to keeping it open, but they also mention that it is not a Right of Way. Having said that, I know people who work with that group and they would view anyone snipping away with secateurs as an ally.

[gaz]

It's an old story and the person involved was doing somewhat more than just snipping a few brambles with their secatuers but it illustrates the need for permission prior to clearing permissive paths: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-27481950

[pwa]

It's an old story and the person involved was doing somewhat more than just snipping a few brambles with their secatuers but it illustrates the need for permission prior to clearing permissive paths: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-27481950

Interesting, funny and sad. That bloke clearly meant well but went a bit too far. Selling off scrap metal from land that isn't yours is obviously dodgy. And vegetation clearance should be limited to the track and a narrow band alongside. If he had stuck to that I'm sure he would have been okay. You would hope that Sustrans would recognise him as a potential ally and just try to direct his energy in a way that suits their objectives as well as his.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Tis a charity and although this should be good we have seen many charity's corrupted, I don't see the bloke with railing did any harm at all.

To me too many charity's contain the wrong type of person no different from a business (charity's are a business), to day I read that a funeral director had taken cash and checks for charity's from well wishers and pocketed the money their self.................

Just because you work for a well meaning organisation does not mean you are not evil..............people don't or won't believe sometimes because people are some what naïve, probably because people want to believe that people are good and blank anything else that they don't want to think about.

The ex copper probably deserves a medal for doing work that I know local authorities will leave until the gov coughs up more dough..
My council want to put up council tax £ 70 for a council merge because the other council charge more than us

Another local council (not above) want an extra £ 70 to service toilets and library's.......................

[brooksby]

When I'm going to/from work, unless I'm in a real rush (not often!) I tend to stop and saw off any low-hanging branch or other greenery where I consider that I have nearly hit it with my face (I use the saw tool on my trusty old Leatherman multitool), on the belief that someone else might not notice it: I believe that I'm helping to protect the various landowners from a lawsuit should someone lose an eye...

[MikeF]

It's an old story and the person involved was doing somewhat more than just snipping a few brambles with their secatuers but it illustrates the need for permission prior to clearing permissive paths: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-27481950

Interesting, funny and sad. That bloke clearly meant well but went a bit too far. Selling off scrap metal from land that isn't yours is obviously dodgy. And vegetation clearance should be limited to the track and a narrow band alongside. If he had stuck to that I'm sure he would have been okay. You would hope that Sustrans would recognise him as a potential ally and just try to direct his energy in a way that suits their objectives as well as his.

Hmm! I suspect there's a bit more to this than has been written. The railings were at the bottom of his garden for a start and possibly marked a boundary. Removing them would enable encroachment or unentitled access for a start.

[pwa]

It's an old story and the person involved was doing somewhat more than just snipping a few brambles with their secatuers but it illustrates the need for permission prior to clearing permissive paths: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-27481950

Interesting, funny and sad. That bloke clearly meant well but went a bit too far. Selling off scrap metal from land that isn't yours is obviously dodgy. And vegetation clearance should be limited to the track and a narrow band alongside. If he had stuck to that I'm sure he would have been okay. You would hope that Sustrans would recognise him as a potential ally and just try to direct his energy in a way that suits their objectives as well as his.

Hmm! I suspect there's a bit more to this than has been written. The railings were at the bottom of his garden for a start and possibly marked a boundary. Removing them would enable encroachment or unentitled access for a start.

Yes, I thought we were only getting half the story. This is unlikely to have ended up in the hands of the police without more reasonable discussions having failed. Taking out and selling the steel railings without consent is something very few people would dare to do, and looks like theft. Daft at the very least. But I suppose what we have been looking at on this thread is merely pruning overhanging branches alongside a track, something that is very unlikely to bother anyone if done responsibly.