Applying for a public right of way - anyone done it?
Discussion
Wondering if anyone has successfully completed the process of applying to make a path a recognised right of way or public footpath.
This page suggests "If you know of a path or way that has been used for 20 years or more, and it is not recorded as a public right of way, you may be able to apply to your council to have it recorded."
https://www.oss.org.uk/need-to-know-more/informati...
My initial thought is that it is a near impossible task; but anyway here is the backstory. I live in an area that backs onto open farmland, with numerous public footpaths. The 'core route' through this area seemingly has 2 directions you can take:
1. public footpath recorded on the OS map - through the middle of a crop field (wheat has recently been harvested). Goes through and around 3 more fields, but is so close to the edge that every year the path itself gets ploughed or cultivated or at least re-seaded etc, so needs re-walking to develop the path. A very tricky one to navigate as and when it is ploughed!
2. mixed gravel / concrete path around the edge of the field; and across the hill eventually joining where the previous route emerges. It also takes the physically highest route across the top of the hill. NOT A PUBLIC FOOTPATH. The potential benefit of this route is it is a fairly direct route to a main road.
The official route, number 1 above, goes via a low part of the field, gets boggy/muddy, and results in foot traffic walking a wider and wider route. Fine - it is what it is. Some years the field has cows in, and can require a brave pill to cross, as they're often fed right next to the pedestrian gap in the electric fence. (not coincidence I'm sure).
Route number 2, whilst not a public footpath, would appear to be the correct route to the eye if you didn't have a map and someone asked you which way is 'correct'. It is a little bit further as it goes around the edge of the field. It is part gravel, part concrete. Seemingly the most sensible route for everyone involved - walkers don't get stuck in the mud, and whoever is working the land doesn't get people wandering a wiggly line through the middle of the field. It also takes the high ground so never holds water. It is also never ploughed or cultivated.
Route number 2 has been used for as long as I can remember as part of the local schools cross country running route, certainly when I was at that school which was circa 22 years ago, and also used by the majority of local people traversing that area, dog walking etc. (This appears to be noteworthy from the link above which references use for 20 years or more). I appreciate the answer might be "well that was just wrong" - but when you're younger you typically don't use an OS map to go for 5km walk/run, you just go where you're shown.
Recently the farm is being worked by new people (I'm unsure if it's ownership or rent) and route 2 (the INCORRECT route) is frequently fenced with an electric fence, or has 100's of tonnes of muck piled on it.
This leads to the inevitable Facebook post on one of our local pages "why is this route blocked? Who do I contact" etc. I do reply when I notice it with a link to the map showing that despite what everyone has known for 20+ years, it is unfortunately not the correct route, nor is it a public footpath.
This has got me thinking - is "the 20 year rule" really a thing, can anything be done? I can't help but think that if all parties sat in a room to discuss this, the route which doesn't go through the crops is the best route for everyone (as long as you put aside the principle of the current legal route).
It would be great to hear anyone's experience, positive or negative, of this.
Thanks,
Scott.
This page suggests "If you know of a path or way that has been used for 20 years or more, and it is not recorded as a public right of way, you may be able to apply to your council to have it recorded."
https://www.oss.org.uk/need-to-know-more/informati...
My initial thought is that it is a near impossible task; but anyway here is the backstory. I live in an area that backs onto open farmland, with numerous public footpaths. The 'core route' through this area seemingly has 2 directions you can take:
1. public footpath recorded on the OS map - through the middle of a crop field (wheat has recently been harvested). Goes through and around 3 more fields, but is so close to the edge that every year the path itself gets ploughed or cultivated or at least re-seaded etc, so needs re-walking to develop the path. A very tricky one to navigate as and when it is ploughed!
2. mixed gravel / concrete path around the edge of the field; and across the hill eventually joining where the previous route emerges. It also takes the physically highest route across the top of the hill. NOT A PUBLIC FOOTPATH. The potential benefit of this route is it is a fairly direct route to a main road.
The official route, number 1 above, goes via a low part of the field, gets boggy/muddy, and results in foot traffic walking a wider and wider route. Fine - it is what it is. Some years the field has cows in, and can require a brave pill to cross, as they're often fed right next to the pedestrian gap in the electric fence. (not coincidence I'm sure).
Route number 2, whilst not a public footpath, would appear to be the correct route to the eye if you didn't have a map and someone asked you which way is 'correct'. It is a little bit further as it goes around the edge of the field. It is part gravel, part concrete. Seemingly the most sensible route for everyone involved - walkers don't get stuck in the mud, and whoever is working the land doesn't get people wandering a wiggly line through the middle of the field. It also takes the high ground so never holds water. It is also never ploughed or cultivated.
Route number 2 has been used for as long as I can remember as part of the local schools cross country running route, certainly when I was at that school which was circa 22 years ago, and also used by the majority of local people traversing that area, dog walking etc. (This appears to be noteworthy from the link above which references use for 20 years or more). I appreciate the answer might be "well that was just wrong" - but when you're younger you typically don't use an OS map to go for 5km walk/run, you just go where you're shown.
Recently the farm is being worked by new people (I'm unsure if it's ownership or rent) and route 2 (the INCORRECT route) is frequently fenced with an electric fence, or has 100's of tonnes of muck piled on it.
This leads to the inevitable Facebook post on one of our local pages "why is this route blocked? Who do I contact" etc. I do reply when I notice it with a link to the map showing that despite what everyone has known for 20+ years, it is unfortunately not the correct route, nor is it a public footpath.
This has got me thinking - is "the 20 year rule" really a thing, can anything be done? I can't help but think that if all parties sat in a room to discuss this, the route which doesn't go through the crops is the best route for everyone (as long as you put aside the principle of the current legal route).
It would be great to hear anyone's experience, positive or negative, of this.
Thanks,
Scott.
SS427 Camaro said:
How about if someone deliberately blocks off access to a public right of way ( an alley way wide enough for a car ) running between their house & the neighbouring house ?
The houses were built in 1934.
If it's a public right of way tell the council and they will sort it out (eventually)The houses were built in 1934.
If it's a right of way for specific people you will have to go legal privately if you can't get it open though discussion.
Unfortunately there are far too many militant walkers/ramblers who will not countenance replacing an established RoW with an alternative, better, one. The only RoWs that I know of being extinguished are those where the land is being built on. In the OP's case it could well be that the landowner would prefer the old, difficult, route to be extinguished in exchange for allowing a new RoW along the more natural, better, route - but the ramblers will object to "losing" the long-established path shown on the map.
This situation arises not just where the terrain is difficult but also where a path goes through a farmyard, for example.
The argument is often advanced that a path has "always" been there, but then so what ? That does not mean it cannot be moved. Things move on.
If the path is being used for its original purpose such as going to church, school, market, work then fair enough, let it stay as it is. But in many many cases the RoW is only used for leisure and that should not be allowed to impinge on a landowner's livelihood.
I would go as far as to suggest that permanent diversion of a leisure-only footpath should be allowed by default if it improves privacy or prevents efficient use of land for crops or livestock as long as it is not changed in length (up or down) by more than say 10%.
This situation arises not just where the terrain is difficult but also where a path goes through a farmyard, for example.
The argument is often advanced that a path has "always" been there, but then so what ? That does not mean it cannot be moved. Things move on.
If the path is being used for its original purpose such as going to church, school, market, work then fair enough, let it stay as it is. But in many many cases the RoW is only used for leisure and that should not be allowed to impinge on a landowner's livelihood.
I would go as far as to suggest that permanent diversion of a leisure-only footpath should be allowed by default if it improves privacy or prevents efficient use of land for crops or livestock as long as it is not changed in length (up or down) by more than say 10%.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff