Footpaths that lead across farmers' fields

[Venod]

The law regarding ROWs is a minefield to understand and they can be a blessing or a nightmare that varies vastly from County to County and even Parish to Parish. Where the landowners and local council get on and there is no problem but you only need one awkward landowner or one awkward walker to upset the apple-cart and create havoc. I have seen cyclists crossing a local path over a golf course and when I pointed out to them that it was a path and not a bridleway I got a load of cheek off them. Happily they got bogged down in the field next to the golf course (never played golf but have jogged over our local one before the golfers come out to play). In reality all it needs is a little common sense and civility to enjoy our ROW net work.

The banning of cycling on some footpath's is one that should be challenged, there are many footpaths that are perfectly ok to cycle as long as common sense is used, surely we can all enjoy the countryside.

 

[Bollo]

Ordnance Survey maps carried the disclaimer that the evidence of a footpath did not indicate evidence of of a PROW.

I though the wording was underneath the key for public rights of way which says that the representation of any other path does not indicate a right of way. Happy to be proved wrong, but my understanding was that a PROW on an official OS map does constitute evidence.

[QUOTE 3664620, member: 9609"]in my earlier posts I was talking about England, North Northumberland is quite bad for farmers making life difficult for walkers etc - very different on this side of the border, both in the law on access to the countryside, and culturally in how farmers / land owners seem to be far more welcoming. I have never had a "Get Orf my Land Moment" north of the border, but have had a number of heated arguments with the pompous twats that farm just south of the border, one even tried to stop me "pushing" my bike along a path![/QUOTE]
Nowt much has changed there then. I did a chunk of growing up on the Northumberland coast and was often invited to leave legitimate PROW by the local gamekeeper. I could have refused, but he tended to walk around with his shotgun over his arm and was a known nasty piece of work, so I usually left it there. I heard he eventually got his comeuppance a few years after I moved away when he managed to poison the wrong dog in the shape of the local lord's spaniel (poisoning was a favourite of his) and over-egged one of his frequent beatings of Mrs Gamekeeper, landing her in hospital in him in the big house.

 

[Levo-Lon]

Lots of bridal and public footpaths around here and ive used lots of them.farmers seem quite happy to leave a metre or so along the edge of fields.. tho i do take note of private land signs..

 

[Poacher]

.
Might sound completely daft, suicidal. But if you find yourself in such a field, don't attempt to try and outrun the bull. Turn, face it and run at it.

Classic demonstration:

 

[classic33]

Classic demonstration:

Before ANYONE asks/says anything, that's not me despite the description given to the piece!!!

 

[Bollo]

Lots of bridal and public footpaths around here ...

Rites of way?

 

[classic33]

I though the wording was underneath the key for public rights of way which says that the representation of any other path does not indicate a right of way. Happy to be proved wrong, but my understanding was that a PROW on an official OS map does constitute evidence.

Your wording was closer than mine. They do indicate PROW on their(OS) maps with details taken from the Definitive Maps, date given for this information along with
"Later information may be obtained from the appropriate County or London Borough Council.
The representation on this map of any other road, track or path is no evidence of of the existence of a right of way." Is the actual wording used.

 

[Fnaar]

Lots of bridal and public footpaths

Rites of way?

 

[Deleted member 23692]

The law (Rights of Way Act 1990) relating to the ploughing of rights of way is quite simple. It's illegal to grow a crop on a public highway, unless that crop is grass (hay/silage)

You cannot plough or disturb the surface of...

• a cross-field footpath or bridleway that you can conveniently avoid
• any field edge right of way
• any Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT)

Should a cross field right of way be ploughed, the surface needs to be made good (to the legal minimum width) and the line of that path made apparent with 14 days of the first disturbance and within 24 hours of any subsequent disturbance, unless you have written authority from the Highway Authority.

And this particular act is the only legislation which sets out the legal minim widths for path, but only in relation to ploughing. Which is a godsend!

@Drago Whilst it may not be a criminal offence to cycle on a footpath, it is still a civil one (tresspass) and as bicycle is not classed as a 'usual accompaniment' in law (even when pushed) there is no defensible argument for being found with a bike on a public footpath. Whether anyone can be arsed to pursue in the courts is another matter BUT it does make it bloody hard to negotiate increased cycle access when the only experience of cyclists that a landowner has are negative ones.

Granted rights of way legislation is arguably ill-conceived, clunky, disjointed and vastly out of date but it's what I and my counterparts across the country are currently stuck with.

 

[Arrowfoot]

ROW is probably the most difficult piece of legislation to enforce. Not that the law is unclear but property owners become very emotional on trespass ranging from being possessive to paranoia over security. More so when strangers take a path. Local law enforcers find it difficult to handle as the local community tends to side with their own. The civil courts are loaded with such cases. Even our ever lovable Clarkson had a go on with courts over ROW for a number of years.

Farmers intentionally ploughing the path, missing styles, high fences, fencing in bulls etc are all part of the show.

I rather avoid it then be killed by a nutter who becomes overly precious.

 

[MontyVeda]

...
It's also illegal on the part of the landowner to place a bull in a filed crossed by a PROW.
Might sound completely daft, suicidal. But if you find yourself in such a field, don't attempt to try and outrun the bull. Turn, face it and run at it.

...

A friend of mine was telling me the very same thing as we were strolling through a field inhabited by a small herd of 'feisty heifers'. I was getting a little worried as the heifers were taking a bit of interest in us and trotting casually in our direction, and 'Mr know-it-all' was telling me how cattle should be treated (run at them), right before he began running in completely the opposite direction from the now galloping herd of heifers. Why oh why didn't Mr Know-it-all follow his own advice i wonder??

 

[Deleted member 23692]

It's also illegal on the part of the landowner to place a bull in a filed crossed by a PROW.

Not strictly true.

Dairy bulls over 10 months of age are not allowed in a field crossed by a right of way at any time. Any beef bull is allowed in a field crossed by a right of way, but if it is older than 10 months, it must be accompanied by cows/heifers.

I'm far more wary of cows with a calves these days than bulls. The vast majority of land managers are well aware of the legislation regarding bulls and are simply not daft enough to flout it. However even the most placid cow can, and will, turn psycho if it thinks it's calf is threatened.... in the vast majority of cases it's the presence of a dog that triggers it

 

[Drago]

@Drago Whilst it may not be a criminal offence to cycle on a footpath, it is still a civil one (tresspass) and as bicycle is not classed as a 'usual accompaniment' in law (even when pushed) there is no defensible argument for being found with a bike on a public footpath. Whether anyone can be arsed to pursue in the courts is another matter BUT it does make it bloody hard to negotiate increased cycle access when the only experience of cyclists that a landowner has are negative ones.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a civil offence, the nearest thing is a tort.

Second, if somebody is where they otherwise have a right to be, but there is a dispute over their presence due to their activity then ultimately that is for a court to decide. This is an especial problem with cycling, as the moment the rider ceases riding (usually when challenged) then the activity ceases. In addition, if they continue riding then ultimately they will leave the property, which makes the use of force to eject questionable as the use of force is supposed to be a last resort. How can it be a last resort if, when left to be on their way, the rider will eventually leave the land? Furthermore, they can't just grab Bold of you and throw you off, they have to ask you to leave and give you reasonable opportunity to comply. Ask a cyclist to leave, and what will they do? Carry on riding until they have left...

This is why there is in all these decades no case law on the matter specifically pertaining to cyclists, because the circumstances where a rider may be lawfully ejected from a public right of way are very particular. The problem is, thus far, after over a century still a theoretical one.

And finally, and most importantly, I did say that it was not a good idea.

 

[young Ed]

It may be their land, but the right of way almost certainly existed centuries before they owned it.

@young Ed is a farm type bloke, I wonder what his experiences may be?

i am indeed a farmer type bloke! and also a hiker who has used many, many footpaths of all sorts ranging from 'where the f' is the supposed footpath?!' to ones where the farmer has been down there with a 9ft wide topper (mower on the tractor) and cut a 9ft wide path especially for the footpath or fenced very well along either side of the footpath

from a farmers point of view footpaths are a pair as one really 'should' keep them open and useable but it takes time and almost always money. those who use the footpaths often bring problems, just ask my boss who has had people peering into his yard, 'losing' the foot path and ending up on the opposite side of the field, damaging fences etc, electric fence energisers nicked (the bit that makes an electric fence zap!) (well too often are energisers nicked being worth over £100 easily and not hard to pick up and walk off with so he has had 20 or more nicked in just the last 5 or so years ), people scaring/chasing sheep for a laugh???!!! BIG very BAD consequences if these sheep are pregnant and dog walkers dogs chasing and attacking sheep (he has one sheep that looks like half her face if rotten and all manky and horrible from a dog attack a few years ago!)

there is of course the odd person that doesn't realise they are in a field full of rams and end up knocked over in sheep shoot and bruised! haha


so in general we don't like footpaths as they are another thing to maintain and repair etc out of our own pocket to then get trashed and CERTAIN* members of the general public to then come and damage and also not only damage the foot paths but also our farms, livestock etc and they provide a place for utter scum to legally scout about to see what might be in our yards. it is like almost everything, a few people ruin it for every one

* only a select few idiots, generally as thick as two short planks with nothing better to do! not everyone

sorry for the negative post but as most public footpaths run through farm land i thought it would be best to show the other side of things as well
Cheers Ed

 

[Deleted member 23692]

@young Ed Whilst I fully agree with your comments, the counter argument is that those rights of way were there long before you were so you simply have to accept it, and accept that you have a legal duty to keep them open and available. Added to that your're quite happy in accepting public money in the way of single farm payment and all those ELS HLS grants and other such schemes, so why am I being prevent in legally accessing you land to see what it's being spent on? Cross compliance is quite a handy word when dealing with the non-cooperative element

Having said that I find the majority of landowners are perfectly fine to deal with, and enjoy doing so. I can't normally say that about the network users