Filthy bridleway

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6389
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Various sections of the Ridgeway have such restrictions (and various other sections need them!).
basingstoke123
Posts: 202
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by basingstoke123 »

I also do not fully understand the difference between a public footpath and a 'normal' footpath within a town. Or a bridleway and a cycle path. You often get the odd public right of way in addition to all the usual footpaths (and very occasionally a cycle path). What's the difference? AFAIK the public rights of way existed before the area was developed and were never legally extinguished.

Public footpaths and bridleways are rights of way. Nothing more. They are great for leisure use, to explore the wonderful countryside that we have.

Generally they are not suitable for utility use such as commuting or getting to your local shops, whether walking or cycling.

To me, the issue is not that the bridleway is muddy but that there is a lack of a suitable cycle route (or footway?). I suspect that it will be unlikely to get a bridleway or public footpath improved, unless it is actually blocked. What is needed is a suitable cycle path and footpath which could run along the route of the bridleway.

Is the bridleway in HCC or Southampton? Is it an identified possible route in a relevant LCWIP? Could it be added?

Unfortunately HCC is not very cycling (or walking) friendly, although this is changing, slowly. The occasional major road scheme will now sometimes include cycle facilities with funding from central government. But there is no interest (or money) for anything minor.
Mykidsdad
Posts: 16
Joined: 1 Jun 2019, 11:04pm

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by Mykidsdad »

AndyK is right it's a restricted byway (I didn't notice the details on the green dashes on the OS Map...)
Will check with Jim to see if there's anything to report or anything needing help..
Thanks all, learned a lot.
Mykidsdad
Posts: 16
Joined: 1 Jun 2019, 11:04pm

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by Mykidsdad »

Also read a 1995 Hampshire CC report where it was proposed to redesignate the path as a restricted byway. Loved the determination shown by the landowner:

"I have been quietly working to try to stop cyclists from bicycling over the footpath, and at last the Forestry Commission have padlocked their gate. Mr Rathbone has approached the Administration Manager at the Chilworth Research Centre and asked for co-operation to inform their employees that they are not entitled to cycle along the track and this has had a considerable measure of success. I estimate I have reduced the incidents of bicycling from approximately a hundred a day to a hard core of about ten who dispute their right to cycle over the footpath.”

100 a day... Blimey.
mattsccm
Posts: 5133
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by mattsccm »

Bear in mind, if talking about Byways Open to All Traffic, (BOATS) they are part of the RoW dept, not highways. You get into that department when you move up a notch to unclassified roads which may be indistinguishable in condition and use to BOATs.
Going back to the OP , if the route is passable it is fine. Personally I despair at those who wish to change what is there and has been for centuries into something that suits their own use. The last thing we need is more gravelled, sanitised tracks.
mattsccm
Posts: 5133
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by mattsccm »

Just read the top of the page. Why on earth would we need more cycle ways? We have miles of them. The one in question doesn't need it, you can use it. You just don't fancy it.
As it is a RB it probably (I don't know the history) originated as a RUPP which should have been re categorised decades ago. The LAs were too lazy or busy and didn't and so when CROW etc came along they were all arbitrarily down graded and lost vehicle rights of way which many /most had. Yet another example of incomers and city dwellers affecting the local traditions and rights as they served a useful purpose. They could be reclaimed but the rules for such thing deliberately excluded use of evidence that would have provided definitive vehicle rights .
In this case why not just leave well alone?
Mykidsdad
Posts: 16
Joined: 1 Jun 2019, 11:04pm

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by Mykidsdad »

Point taken about leave well alone, but climate crisis, looking to get cars off the roads, get people moving, and nothing stays still does it really?
Roads have different priorities at different times, what was a great car route 20 years ago is more appropriate as a closed road now because of the volume of cars, what was a footpath may be more useful as a cycleway. The Dutch oven turn motorways into canals.
But yes, could really leave well alone. It's only mud after all. Nothing a hose can't sort...
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11127
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by Bonefishblues »

Jdsk wrote: 8 Mar 2024, 2:54pm
Bmblbzzz wrote: 8 Mar 2024, 2:39pm
Nearholmer wrote: 8 Mar 2024, 2:11pm I’d say that step one is to find out who the landowner is, and ask nicely, ideally as a club/group rather than an individual, and ideally showing willingness to, for instance, do the work on a voluntary basis, or get your employer to offer money or physical help.
Maybe joining/starting a Science Park Cycle User Group?
Yes, try to work with a group, either existing or new.

And find a friendly local journalist.

Jonathan
The local Parish Council is a good point of call. We/ours have worked with numbers of landowners to improve PROWs
AndyK
Posts: 1515
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm
Location: Mid Hampshire

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by AndyK »

Mykidsdad wrote: 10 Mar 2024, 8:56am Also read a 1995 Hampshire CC report where it was proposed to redesignate the path as a restricted byway. Loved the determination shown by the landowner:

"I have been quietly working to try to stop cyclists from bicycling over the footpath, and at last the Forestry Commission have padlocked their gate. Mr Rathbone has approached the Administration Manager at the Chilworth Research Centre and asked for co-operation to inform their employees that they are not entitled to cycle along the track and this has had a considerable measure of success. I estimate I have reduced the incidents of bicycling from approximately a hundred a day to a hard core of about ten who dispute their right to cycle over the footpath.”

100 a day... Blimey.
Ah, but things moved on after that.

Here's a formal report to the HCC Regulatory Committee in 2013, recommending that the Definitive Map of rights of way be redrawn to show Lordswood Lane as a restricted byway, ratehr than a footpath. It provides a potted history of the path dating back to 1755 to support its conclusion, which (I believe) was accepted by the Committee - and that's why HCC's Definitive Map now shows it as a restricted byway, as do current OS maps. https://www.hants.gov.uk/get-decision-d ... f&type=pdf

Incidentally, when a council does this, it doesn't mean it's decided to "upgrade" the path's status. What it means is that someone (either the council itself or a "claimant") has amassed enough historical evidence to show that it's always been regarded as a byway (or bridleway etc.) over many years, and should have been shown as such on the Definitive Map to start with. Marking it as a footpath was a mistake, so the Definitive Map needs to be corrected.
AndyK
Posts: 1515
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm
Location: Mid Hampshire

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by AndyK »

There are some good suggestions here about who to contact in general, but seriously, for this particular path I think Mykidsdad would be re-treading old ground. He's much better off contacting the local campaigners to start with to find out what's already happened, so he knows where to direct his efforts.
AndyK
Posts: 1515
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm
Location: Mid Hampshire

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by AndyK »

basingstoke123 wrote: 10 Mar 2024, 12:24am I also do not fully understand the difference between a public footpath and a 'normal' footpath within a town. Or a bridleway and a cycle path. You often get the odd public right of way in addition to all the usual footpaths (and very occasionally a cycle path). What's the difference? AFAIK the public rights of way existed before the area was developed and were never legally extinguished.

Public footpaths and bridleways are rights of way. Nothing more. They are great for leisure use, to explore the wonderful countryside that we have.

Generally they are not suitable for utility use such as commuting or getting to your local shops, whether walking or cycling.

To me, the issue is not that the bridleway is muddy but that there is a lack of a suitable cycle route (or footway?). I suspect that it will be unlikely to get a bridleway or public footpath improved, unless it is actually blocked. What is needed is a suitable cycle path and footpath which could run along the route of the bridleway.

Is the bridleway in HCC or Southampton? Is it an identified possible route in a relevant LCWIP? Could it be added?

Unfortunately HCC is not very cycling (or walking) friendly, although this is changing, slowly. The occasional major road scheme will now sometimes include cycle facilities with funding from central government. But there is no interest (or money) for anything minor.
It's in HCC territory (just). As soon as you cross the border into Southampton at the southern end, it becomes a tarmac road. At the northern end it also transforms into a tarmac road.

The relevant LCWIP is the Test Valley (South) LCWIP and as far as I can see it isn't identified as a route for development in that. The LCWIP recognises the importance of a properly-surfaced, safe cycle route to the Chilworth business park, but sadly not from that particular direction. It does propose a route from North Baddesley through to Chilworth vilage, passing through the science park on the way. Once you get to Chilworth village tyou're in Southampton City Council territory so it's presumably down to them.

To be fair, that route (no. 264 in the report) is in their top 5 high-priority routes, so there'/s every chance the nonexistent funding might go there first. :-)

If that route is established then it would offer a suitable route to Chilworth, but one that's not convenient for the OP or for anyone living on the west side of Southampton who wants to cycle-commute to the Science Park. That matters because it's a major employment area so it needs good active travel routes from surrounding towns and cities.
drossall
Posts: 6168
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by drossall »

basingstoke123 wrote: 10 Mar 2024, 12:24am I also do not fully understand the difference between a public footpath and a 'normal' footpath within a town.
Depends what you mean by a "normal" footpath. A public footpath is a right of way across someone else's land. A "footpath" alongside a road is the part of the highway devoted to pedestrians, and highways are shared facilities for the public to pass freely back and forth with their chattels, or some such wording. I assume that the land itself is, in that case, owned on all our behalves by the relevant highway or other authority. Basically these things all derive from different historic rights, and you have to figure out what you're dealing with as a first step. "Footpath" is too vague/generic a term for that purpose.
Nearholmer
Posts: 4251
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by Nearholmer »

If by “a normal footpath”, you mean what is commonly called the pavement, that is technically a footway, not a footpath, and is part of the highway, which is divided into footway, and carriageway. Different sets of laws apply.

There are often public footpaths in towns too, of course, typically narrow ways cutting between streets, and SFIU they are governed by the same laws as public footpaths in rural areas, but many seem to be vested in the councils, rather than the land belonging to private individuals.
basingstoke123
Posts: 202
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by basingstoke123 »

Thanks for this.

I was also thinking of footpaths that are separated from the highway, for example, running through as housing estate.

Some 'highways' are not adopted and so are maintained at private expense. For example, some roads on housing estates. I gather that there is a lot of politics (with a small p) behind some of these unadopted roads. Some housing developers consider that the standards and charges required by a local highways authority to take over the road(s) are too high.

Do 'private roads' have public access? A 'user' will often not know the difference.

Such roads can also be used to hold an adjacent development to ransom by preventing access, and thus access has to be made via a less ideal route than the obvious existing road. This has happened in Basingstoke. There are cases where not only motor vehicle access has been restricted but also pedestrian and cycle access. For example, the Golf Club housing development in Basingstoke. I suspect that some are hoping to get a significant payment for access to an adjoining field in case of future development.

Regarding ransom strips and the like: if I had my way, the parties involved would be locked in a room on a Friday afternoon, and only allowed out when they have come to an agreement. They would be allowed as much water to drink as they wanted.
tatanab
Posts: 5046
Joined: 8 Feb 2007, 12:37pm

Re: Filthy bridleway

Post by tatanab »

basingstoke123 wrote: 11 Mar 2024, 7:15pm Do 'private roads' have public access? A 'user' will often not know the difference.
Not necessarily. I recall a case back in the 1970s where police stopped a clubrun from entering a private road. Riders pointed to the bridleway sign, but the police obviously did not understand the difference (bridleway access was won by the CTC in 1968/9) and turned the riders away. A complaint was made to the chief constable, and a suitable apology received.
Post Reply