Government invents public-path law and misleads landowners

Over the last few months the familiar websites of agencies such as Natural England have been sucked into a generic government website The detailed information has been severely reduced and dumbed down.  In the case of public rights of way it is plain wrong.

The web page for ‘Public rights of way: landowner responsibilities’ says:

You should leave fields with cross-field footpaths uncultivated (not ploughed) unless users can easily walk around the edge of the field (my emphasis).  The legislation says no such thing.  

Section 134 of the Highways Act states that in the case of cross-field footpaths and bridleways the occupier of a field may plough or otherwise disturb the path surface if it is not reasonably convenient to avoid doing so.  There is nothing about deciding whether people can walk (or ride) round the edge.  It goes on to say that the disturbance must not render the path inconvenient for the exercise of the public right of way.  Still nothing about users going round the edge of the field.  This is a myth.

A farmer obeying the law on Turville footpath 24

A farmer obeying the law on Turville footpath 24 in Bucks.  It is reasonably convenient to avoid disturbing its surface.

The website continues:

If you have to cultivate, and users can’t walk around, you should ensure that the path is:

  • apparent on the ground, to at least the minimum width, at all times, and not obstructed by crops
  • made good to at least the minimum width, so that it is reasonably convenient to use, within 14 days of first being cultivated for that crop, or within 24 hours of any subsequent cultivation (unless a longer period has been agreed in advance in writing by the highway authority)

But again, this has nothing to do with whether users can walk (or ride) around the field edge.  Owners and occupiers must ensure that the path is apparent on the ground and made good to at least the minimum width regardless of whether users can follow the field edge. Someone is inventing the law.

Great Marlow footpath 61 illegally blocked with oil-seed rape in 2012

Great Marlow footpath 61 in Bucks,  illegally blocked with oil-seed rape in 2012

Whoever wrote this should read the excellent booklet for farmers, produced by the Countryside Commission and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Rights of Way Act 1990 took effect and amended the law on ploughing of paths.  This booklet spells out the law clearly and accurately.

RoW Act 1990 booklet

Moreover, a Countryside Commission household survey in 1986 showed that 88 per cent of people walking in the countryside used public rights of way which were clearly signposted and waymarked (Enjoying the Countryside, Countryside Commission 1987).  The figure is unlikely to be very different now.  If paths are cultivated and not marked, they won’t be used—making the problem even worse and denying people their rights.

The abuse of public paths is one of the most commonly occurring crimes in the countryside. The government’s advice will ensure that it becomes even more common.

The Open Spaces Society is calling for the website to be corrected immediately.  I am indebted to OSS local correspondent for Hampshire, Dave Ramm, for spotting these egregious errors.

PS I am pleased to report that the website has now been corrected, 24 hours later.





About campaignerkate

I am the general secretary of the Open Spaces Society and I campaign for public access, paths and open spaces in town and country.
This entry was posted in Access, Defra, Natural England, Obstructed path, Public paths, riding, walking and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Government invents public-path law and misleads landowners

  1. Reblogged this on Over The Hills and commented:
    Sadly, there are rambling groups I have seen merrily going round rather than sticking to the definitive map route.

  2. Thank goodness it has been discovered and corrected.

  3. Christopher Whitmey says:

    Well spotted. Thanks for acting and getting it remedied.

      • Christopher Whitmey says:

        Not at all. We may differ on what we think about the law on TVGs, but as one who was involved in farming and now walks in the Wye Valley I think the PROW laws are very clear and should be followed. NREOR (no reply expected or required).

  4. Glad to see that error has been corrected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s