NCN1 Being Kiboshed by Awkward Landowner

[Bmblbzzz]

But is the landowner closing it to protect the countryside? The only evidence we have is the letter from the council RoW officer, which doesn't give any reason from the landowner's perspective.

More broadly, why is countryside being wrecked by overuse? Perhaps in part because so little of it is accessible (only 8%, and that's on foot; the percentage will be lower on bike).

Curiously, there's a similar potential situation just been highlighted locally: A train station is to be made accessible to wheelchair users by building a lift. Currently, that platform is only accessible by a fairly long flight of steps to the road. What about the other platform? It has a parallel set of stairs – but it also has level access through a supermarket car park. I don't know what legal agreement exists between Network Rail and the supermarket (Lidl) but no RoW is shown on an OS map even at 1:2,500, so I presume there is some agreement between the parties. At some point, the supermarket might (will) change hands; then the process has to begin again.

[freiston]

I think that is good that there is the ability for a landowner to close access where it is concessionary. Too much of the countryside is wrecked through over use. This is just one element of looking after our world.
Re the NCN .
Is it anyway?

I find it difficult to agree with any of that. Sweeping statements without context or specifics. And a perspective that would make it even more difficult for the NCN to be an NCN.

I suspect that there are instances and circumstances where the withdrawal of concessionary access makes sense but most of the time I'd be very surprised if it did - and I certainly don't think it is absolutely good that a landowner can unilaterally withdraw concessionary access on a whim (or whatever).

In this specific instance, the landowner is not closing access and cannot close access - the land remains open to pedestrians. The landowner is not allowing cycling on the path - though I think I'm right in saying that he cannot stop cyclists dismounting and wheeling their bikes along the path (as long as they can get it over the gate).

I don't know the specifics about the nuisance of motorbikes but I do wonder to what end the gate was locked - if I'm right about which gate it is and my interpretation from maps/streetview and the OP, then the path is along the bank of a piece of marshland isolated by banks, possibly fit for grazing but otherwise of little to no use.

Notwithstanding a serious problem posed by the motorcyclists (rather than it being an inconsequential irritation), I really don't understand the cause to say "I can't stop you walking but I will stop you cycling".

[AndyK]

Curiously, there's a similar potential situation just been highlighted locally: A train station is to be made accessible to wheelchair users by building a lift. Currently, that platform is only accessible by a fairly long flight of steps to the road. What about the other platform? It has a parallel set of stairs – but it also has level access through a supermarket car park. I don't know what legal agreement exists between Network Rail and the supermarket (Lidl) but no RoW is shown on an OS map even at 1:2,500, so I presume there is some agreement between the parties. At some point, the supermarket might (will) change hands; then the process has to begin again.

Not necessarily. There's a fair chance that station access was baked into the planning permission for building the Lidl in the first place, making it a legal obligation for the owner, not just an agreement.

From a quick glance at the council's website, it was certainly an explicit undertaking in a later planning application to expand the car park ("pedestrian access to the station will be retained"), but the online records don't go back as far as the original application for the supermarket.

Planning conditions continue to apply to the property even if it changes hands, so a new owner wanting to remove that access would have to go through their own planning application process. That's not to say they wouldn't succeed, of course, but perhaps only at the cost of paying for alternative step-free access to that platform.

Coming back to the topic, though, that's very different from cases where Sustrans WWCT or the local council has made an informal agreement with a landowner without the planning process being involved.

[Bmblbzzz]

Well, it would have been good if Sustrans had obtained something similar on the NCN routes!

[mjr]

Well, it would have been good if Sustrans had obtained something similar on the NCN routes!

They were probably under too much pressure of time and money to hit their NCN lottery grant target to either pay how much it would cost for a perpetual access or wait long enough for either landowner or council to act otherwise.

[awavey]

what happens when its actually the council doing the kiboshing ? like who do we complain to then ?

as I believe theres now a section of NCN51 in Felixstowe, Suffolk, which passes by the local cemetary, that is now only open for the times the cemetary itself is open, which means from October to April it will only be open from 8:30 am to 4pm, and at all other times access is barred by a locked gate.

apparently the issue that caused this is some local kids on mopeds were using the route/access it gave and being a nuiscance in the evenings on their mopeds, so the councils way of handling that is to block everyones access, rather than just deal with the actual problem.

now yes there is a way around, but its not sign posted obviously and adds extra distance and thats not the point of NCN is it ?

[Bmblbzzz]

Is this the same situation, ie it's a RoW on foot but cycle access is permissive?

[bungle73]

Yes that is the gate in question. It actually got locked once before, a few years ago, and a report to the RoW officer got it unlocked.

I've come across quite a few people using that route.

Digital routing may, or may not, get updated, but the on-site signage will still be directing people along that route, won't it.

[mjr]

Digital routing may, or may not, get updated, but the on-site signage will still be directing people along that route, won't it.

The council or their delegate, possibly WWCT, should sign a different route.

[mattsccm]

Is not the point being lost in political opinion?
If anything is concessionary it is being offered when it doesn't have to be. A favour if you like. Thus it can be removed. It didn't have to be offered in the first place and possibly the conditions of offer, even if not public or stated might have been unfulfilled.
I'll buy into the idea that access is ridiculously limited when a significant amount of people can say that they have managed to use , repeatedly , everything available. Until that time why ask for more?
As for the motorbike menace. Nothing can be done. A youngster on a motorbike is way more agile than someone on a mobility trike so can easily over ride all but the most severe restrictions. In the "caring" society we live in the Police are not allowed to take kids off their bikes with a stick in their wheels or around their necks and thus cannot effectively stop illegal riding. As one 10 year old told me in school a few years ago, "we don't wear helmets because then the Police won't chase us. " We acn't have it all ways. Want better access, put up with the idiots.
I know, why not be fair and open up everything for everyone? Hmm

[Bmblbzzz]

I think the point is whether it's better for a path to be usable by right or by concession, which is a question that contains political elements but is fundamentally more philosophical in nature than political, applying equally to well used tarmac roads and overgrown tracks.