Regularly used footpath now closed!

On 18 Oct 2004 08:37:29 -0700, [email hidden] (Phil Allen) wrote:

| Hi,
|
| I have been away on business and then on holiday for 3 weeks. On my
| return I have found that a footpath which I use regularly, and is a
| main access to an area of Common Land with full public access, is now
| closed. The notice states that there are still 2 weeks in which this
| can be appealed against.
|
| Is there anything specificaly which I should be looking at doing to
| try and get this kept open?
|
| The footpath which is being closed starts at SU 4565 7047 to 4568 7048
| and then to 4577 7041
|
| I appreciate any help on this

Is it a Right of Way?
How long has it been a footpath?
Go to your local public library. Which old OS maps is it marked on.
Which organization is closing it?
Are the local Ramblers Association aware and playing merry hell?

--
Dave F

Dave Fawthrop said:

On 18 Oct 2004 08:37:29 -0700, [email hidden] (Phil Allen) wrote:

Quoted message said:

| The footpath which is being closed starts at SU 4565 7047 to 4568 7048
| and then to 4577 7041

Quoted message said:

Is it a Right of Way?

Yes. Marked on the current OS Landranger and Explorer as such.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:08:47 +0100, Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:07:58 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| >On 18 Oct 2004 08:37:29 -0700, [email hidden] (Phil Allen) wrote:
|
| >| The footpath which is being closed starts at SU 4565 7047 to 4568 7048
| >| and then to 4577 7041
|
| >Is it a Right of Way?
|
| Yes. Marked on the current OS Landranger and Explorer as such.

Then your local council has a Footpaths Committee. Find out when it meets
to consider the issue and turn up well prepared with good arguments. I
have done this myself and it was a fairly pain free experience. They were
very willing to hear my part of the argument. The statement that I have
used this path for ???? years got me a hearing. Be polite.

Other things:

Ring round the local walking clubs and find out if they know about it.

Print up some notices, the more colour and pictures, and maps the better,
laminate them (laminators are 10 a penny, borrow one) Stick them on
telegraph poles on the local villages. Trim the paper to under A4. Put
drawing pins outside the paper area, if you pin into the paper area the
lamination leaks.

Organize a demonstration, and invite your local rag and local BBC & ITV
news programs. Send them all a Press Release stating your case.

--
Dave F

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:07:58 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| On 18 Oct 2004 08:37:29 -0700, [email hidden] (Phil Allen) wrote:
|
| | Hi,
| |
| | I have been away on business and then on holiday for 3 weeks. On my
| | return I have found that a footpath which I use regularly, and is a
| | main access to an area of Common Land with full public access, is now
| | closed. The notice states that there are still 2 weeks in which this
| | can be appealed against.
| |
| | Is there anything specificaly which I should be looking at doing to
| | try and get this kept open?
| |
| | The footpath which is being closed starts at SU 4565 7047 to 4568 7048
| | and then to 4577 7041
| |
| | I appreciate any help on this
|
| Is it a Right of Way?
| How long has it been a footpath?
| Go to your local public library. Which old OS maps is it marked on.
| Which organization is closing it?
| Are the local Ramblers Association aware and playing merry hell?

Other questions I forgot before.

Is there a good reason for the closure?
Something heavy may fall on the path, other real danger.
Is there a poor reason for closing the path?
Some theoretical danger identified by some surveyor afraid of legal action.
I have seen a path closed because of a slightly dodgy wall.

I would walk the path, with care, and risk getting turned back.

Will it be reopened in the near future?
You would look a real Charlie making a fuss about a short reasonable
closure.

--
Dave F

"Dave Fawthrop" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:07:58 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| On 18 Oct 2004 08:37:29 -0700, [email hidden] (Phil Allen) wrote:
|
| | Hi,
| |
| | I have been away on business and then on holiday for 3 weeks. On my
| | return I have found that a footpath which I use regularly, and is a
| | main access to an area of Common Land with full public access, is now
| | closed. The notice states that there are still 2 weeks in which this
| | can be appealed against.
| |
| | Is there anything specificaly which I should be looking at doing to
| | try and get this kept open?
| |
| | The footpath which is being closed starts at SU 4565 7047 to 4568 7048
| | and then to 4577 7041
| |
| | I appreciate any help on this
|
| Is it a Right of Way?
| How long has it been a footpath?
| Go to your local public library. Which old OS maps is it marked on.
| Which organization is closing it?
| Are the local Ramblers Association aware and playing merry hell?

Other questions I forgot before.

Is there a good reason for the closure?
Something heavy may fall on the path, other real danger.
Is there a poor reason for closing the path?
Some theoretical danger identified by some surveyor afraid of legal

action.

Quoted message said:

I have seen a path closed because of a slightly dodgy wall.

I would walk the path, with care, and risk getting turned back.

Will it be reopened in the near future?
You would look a real Charlie making a fuss about a short reasonable
closure.

--
Dave F

It could of course be due to damage caused by walkers, as it is a well used
path.

In article <[email hidden]>, Phil Allen
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The footpath which is being closed starts at SU 4565 7047 to 4568 7048
and then to 4577 7041

I appreciate any help on this
Phil

Hi Phil

The section you mention appears to about 200 metres long and passes very
close indeed to a large property!

Does the owner of the property happen to have some local clout?

Maybe the owner is fed up with people walking close to his/her house, or
may have had some trouble with walkers using the path.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Phil Allen
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The footpath which is being closed starts at SU 4565 7047 to 4568 7048
and then to 4577 7041

I appreciate any help on this
Phil

Hi Phil

The section you mention appears to about 200 metres long and passes very
close indeed to a large property!

Does the owner of the property happen to have some local clout?

Maybe the owner is fed up with people walking close to his/her house, or
may have had some trouble with walkers using the path.
--

...maybe, but should have had no effect whatsoever on getting it closed (A
PROW Officer)

In article <[email hidden]>, Trevor
Appleton <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does the owner of the property happen to have some local clout?

Maybe the owner is fed up with people walking close to his/her house, or
may have had some trouble with walkers using the path.
--

..maybe, but should have had no effect whatsoever on getting it closed (A
PROW Officer)

Very true, but some "celebrities" do try.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

W. D. Grey <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Trevor
Appleton <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does the owner of the property happen to have some local clout?

Maybe the owner is fed up with people walking close to his/her house, or
may have had some trouble with walkers using the path.
--

..maybe, but should have had no effect whatsoever on getting it closed (A
PROW Officer)

Very true, but some "celebrities" do try.

I'm not a celebrity Bill, <cough>, <pause for contradictions>......

But I wish I could get the footpath alongside my garden fence closed!
I sympathise with anyone who suffers vandalism or invasions of their
property, as I have done over a number of years. :-(
--
Gordon

Quoted message said:

But I wish I could get the footpath alongside my garden fence closed!
I sympathise with anyone who suffers vandalism or invasions of their
property, as I have done over a number of years. :-(
--
Gordon

But whacking the law abiding will not necessarily solve your problem.
I did not have a PROW running through my house, but some of the locals
would occasionally walk through and leave withthe odd bit of shiny
metal.

Richard Webb

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Trevor
Appleton <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

> Does the owner of the property happen to have some local clout?
>
> Maybe the owner is fed up with people walking close to his/her house,
> or
> may have had some trouble with walkers using the path.
> --

..maybe, but should have had no effect whatsoever on getting it closed (A
PROW Officer)

Very true, but some "celebrities" do try.

I'm not a celebrity Bill, <cough>, <pause for contradictions>......

But I wish I could get the footpath alongside my garden fence closed!
I sympathise with anyone who suffers vandalism or invasions of their
property, as I have done over a number of years. :-(
--

Can never grasp the thinking on this one. People seem to want to close PROW
by their houses but I have never ever heard anyone moan about wanting the
road closed outside their house. There's no difference between the two.

Trevor Appleton <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I'm not a celebrity Bill, <cough>, <pause for contradictions>......

But I wish I could get the footpath alongside my garden fence closed!
I sympathise with anyone who suffers vandalism or invasions of their
property, as I have done over a number of years. :-(
--

Can never grasp the thinking on this one. People seem to want to close PROW
by their houses but I have never ever heard anyone moan about wanting the
road closed outside their house. There's no difference between the two.

The road in front of my house is not a problem. People do not kick
holes in my fence from their cars, and this is purely a foot passageway
at the side, not a road.
--
Gordon

"Trevor Appleton" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Trevor Appleton <[email hidden]> writes
>> Does the owner of the property happen to have some local clout?
>>
>> Maybe the owner is fed up with people walking close to his/her
>> house, or
>> may have had some trouble with walkers using the path.
>> --
>
>
>..maybe, but should have had no effect whatsoever on getting it
>closed (A PROW Officer)

Very true, but some "celebrities" do try.

I'm not a celebrity Bill, <cough>, <pause for contradictions>......

But I wish I could get the footpath alongside my garden fence closed!
I sympathise with anyone who suffers vandalism or invasions of their
property, as I have done over a number of years. :-(
--

Can never grasp the thinking on this one. People seem to want to close
PROW by their houses but I have never ever heard anyone moan about
wanting the road closed outside their house. There's no difference
between the two.

Quite. I have a very busy PROW outside my front door. It's called
a pavement and it runs along a busy road popular with people
walking back to bedsitland after a few too many shandies. Our front
garden area becomes a kind of landfill site.

--
Adrian

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:17:46 +0000, Gordon <[email hidden]> wrote:

| But I wish I could get the footpath alongside my garden fence closed!
| I sympathise with anyone who suffers vandalism or invasions of their
| property, as I have done over a number of years. :-(

AFAIK The planning rules now allow six foot fences (not sure how that
metricates) The fence between a footpath and a one year old residential
development close to us is this height, and *very* substantial.

--
Dave F

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:17:46 +0000, Gordon <[email hidden]> wrote:

| But I wish I could get the footpath alongside my garden fence closed!
| I sympathise with anyone who suffers vandalism or invasions of their
| property, as I have done over a number of years. :-(

AFAIK The planning rules now allow six foot fences (not sure how that
metricates) The fence between a footpath and a one year old residential
development close to us is this height, and *very* substantial.

IMO it's the fence that is the problem. Plant a hedge or build a wall
:-)
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:13:19 +0000, Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 07:07:54 +0000, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| >On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:17:46 +0000, Gordon <[email hidden]> wrote:
| >
| >
| >| But I wish I could get the footpath alongside my garden fence closed!
| >| I sympathise with anyone who suffers vandalism or invasions of their
| >| property, as I have done over a number of years. :-(
| >
| >AFAIK The planning rules now allow six foot fences (not sure how that
| >metricates) The fence between a footpath and a one year old residential
| >development close to us is this height, and *very* substantial.
|
|
| IMO it's the fence that is the problem. Plant a hedge or build a wall
| :-)

Same six ft rule applies to walls, ten ft to hedges. Beware Leylandii, It
grows to 100ft high. Leylandii trimmed to 10ft every year is IMO a poor
option.

--
Dave F

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Fawthrop
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Same six ft rule applies to walls, ten ft to hedges. Beware Leylandii, It
grows to 100ft high. Leylandii trimmed to 10ft every year is IMO a poor
option.

Hedges grow taller as you get older. Hedges a definite No No.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Phil Cook <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:17:46 +0000, Gordon <[email hidden]> wrote:

| But I wish I could get the footpath alongside my garden fence closed!
| I sympathise with anyone who suffers vandalism or invasions of their
| property, as I have done over a number of years. :-(

AFAIK The planning rules now allow six foot fences (not sure how that
metricates) The fence between a footpath and a one year old residential
development close to us is this height, and *very* substantial.

IMO it's the fence that is the problem. Plant a hedge or build a wall
:-)

I should have done that 30 years ago of course, then the kids would have
had a great time in the 90s when the sport of dashing through hedges was
invented. Wall painting is another problem. Easier to cover
graffiti on a fence than to remove it from a wall.
--
Gordon

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I should have done that 30 years ago of course, then the kids would have
had a great time in the 90s when the sport of dashing through hedges was
invented.

I can remember indulging in "hedge diving" in my 80s childhood. Great fun.
"Greenhouse diving" not so fun. (Must write a general letter of apology to
the residents of my old village one day, still can't look some of them in
the face.) Everytime I bump into someone I haven't seen for twenty years,
it's "I remember you, you little [censored]. You hung my gate up that lamp post."