‘Resolved’ has a new meaning in Buckinghamshire

Buckinghamshire County Council has an annoying habit.  When you submit a public-path problem online it may send you an email, after an improbably short period, to tell you that your problem has been ‘resolved’ (Oxford Concise English Dictionary: ‘clear up, settle’).  The chances are that it hasn’t been resolved at all.

Missing waymark
Last August I reported a missing waymark at the junction of Piddington and Wheeler End footpaths 3/1, 3/2 and 6/1 (grid reference SU 801 934) since it is not obvious where the paths run.  I tracked my query on the website and discovered that the matter had been ‘resolved’.

When doing my Ramblers’ path-check of the parish again this year I noticed the waymark was still missing.  I reported it on 6 August and received an email from Bucks CC on 8 August to say it had been resolved:

Dear Miss Ashbrook,
Reference report number 40045236.
Thank you for your enquiry. This has been fully assessed and resolved and this enquiry is now closed.
If you wish to raise a new report please do so using our Report It website. Please provide as much detail as possible to assist in resolving your report.
Transport for Buckinghamshire

Just in case it really had been resolved I checked it on 11 August, but there was nothing there.

31 FP3&6 no WM, looking NW small

Footpath 6/1 is to the left and 3/1 to the right: waymark needed

Shoddy stile
Last year I reported a stile on FP 25 at SU 811 199.  It is not to British Standard 5709.  The tracking report says:

Thank you for your report of ROW style (sic) issue at PIDDINGTON AND WHEELER END FOOTPATH 25, PIDDINGTON AND WHEELER END which is now resolved.

Here is the problem at the time I reported it last year.

19 Stile at jct 25 & 24 in 2016

On FP 25/1 in July 2016

And here it is a year later, having been ‘resolved’.  Can you spot the difference?

18 FP25 & 24 jct in 2017

FP 25/1 in August 2017

No signpost—despite duty
There are other reports which have been concluded with no action and no explanation. And some with very bizarre explanations.  Last year I reported a missing signpost at the junction of footpath 16 and Piddington Lane at the path’s northern end (SU 811 939).  I heard no more so I tracked this on the website and was dismayed to read:

We have reviewed/inspected a ROW sign issue at PIDDINGTON AND WHEELER END FOOTPATH 16, PIDDINGTON AND WHEELER END and at present this does not meet our criteria to be fixed. However, we will continue to monitor it during our routine inspections to assess any deterioration.

I don’t know what it means by ‘deteroriation’: there isn’t a signpost to deteriorate—but the website didn’t give ‘missing signpost’ as an option.

And of course the response is rubbish.  The county council has a legal duty, under section 27 of the Countryside Act 1968, to erect a signpost where a footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway leaves a metalled road, unless the parish council considers it unnecessary.  However, the council has not said that the parish council has asked for it not to be installed.  In fact it is necessary because people are tempted to walk up the narrow lane which runs parallel to the path, rather than walk inside the hedge which looks private.  I have reported it again.  (Since I visited last year the steps have been put in, so that’s progress.)

30 FP16-1 N end no SP paint

Footpath 16 heading south-west from Piddington Lane, along the black line

I know Bucks CC rights-of-way staff are hard-pressed and do their utmost to give a good service, but I think the reporting system needs an overhaul and the language needs changing.

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, Bucks, Public paths, Ramblers, Ramblers' path-check, walking and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to ‘Resolved’ has a new meaning in Buckinghamshire

  1. County Councils may well have a legal duty to sign where a PRoW leaves a road, but try telling that to Lincolnshire County Council. They have a policy of removing such signs where the path indicated is unwalkable due to obstructions, fallen bridge etc. In 2013 I surveyed a small agricultural area near the coast and listed 85 such removals, 19 in one parish alone. The response from LCC was that “people get annoyed when they follow a sign and find they can’t walk the path further along.” Of course, now, nobody walks the path as only the locals (mostly the landowners whose fields the paths cross), know of their existence. In most cases, it is ‘too costly’ to sort out the obstruction.

  2. ceridwen says:

    Very “creative” use of the English language indeed. Sounds like time for a local newspaper to have an article about there is English language and there is their version of the English language. Looking at that last photo too – I wouldnt guess for a second there is a footpath there – as it looks just like someone’s garden iyswim (ie private). So it does need making plain that there is a path there indeed.

  3. Hugh says:

    The path alongside Piddington Lane looks interesting—an old wet weather path through the former fields alongside, now covered in front gardens and driveways.

  4. Chris B says:

    Lincolnshire’s failure to carry out a statutory duty is bad enough, but to actually remove a sign sounds like malpractice.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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