[bazzais]

Its been wet and windy this year, we want the best for our little girls.  We want to divert the footpath round our house and not through the yard, as our yard is about the only hardstanding area left - its not a problem for walkers to go round if they take the thumb out their arse.

How do you think I should approach the signage - a direct command or a polite  notice - or just an arrow?

[xillent]

polite notice wins every time

[Factotum]

Strictly speaking, a landowner can't just re-direct a public footpath - they have to consult with their local council first. There's probably a public rights of way officer/team at your local council.

See: http://www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=1626,109&parent_directory_id=646&id=17882&pagetype=&keyword=


You may get away with putting up a polite notice especially if you explain the reason - but you might get complaints from some walkers...

Sue

[stufe35]

You certainly cannot just divert a public right of way at your own will,  you knew it was there when you bought the property,  if it did not suit your needs you should not have bought it.

That said it is possible in certain circumstances to divert rows....you might try posting what you hope to do on the gardenlaw website where there are people who might well be able to give you an informed opinion of your chances of success.

[SallyintNorth]

You absolutely cannot just divert a public footpath because it suits you.

However, there is nothing to stop you creating a 'permissive path', being the path you would like walkers to take, and offering it to them as an option with a friendly sign explaining what you have done and why.  The majority will be happy to comply I'm sure, provided they don't feel that they are being bullied or that the official path is being obstructed or quietly eradicated.

There may well be a local Rights of Way group.  Personally I would try to get them onside with the permissive alternative path approach.  They will almost certainly work with you - after all, you are creating a new path and not attempting to remove an existing one - and, being organised, they can ensure that the existing path is used sufficiently often to maintain the public right of way (but hopefully without unnecessary disruption to you when the land is waterlogged.)

If you do feel you have a case for a permanent diversion of the route you will need to follow a legal process.  I remember a little about all this from when I was Secretary of the local Rights of Way group near Devizes.  Most people chose the 'alternative permissive path' approach as it cost nothing and solved the majority of the problem, whereas the costs for an official permanent diversion began with a £1200 statutory application fee (in 2005), payable to the Council, which covered the costs of the publication of the proposal in the local papers, which was a legal requirement.

If your local RoW group and/or Ramblers or other walking organisation is/are a bit militant towards landowners, then of course they will regard any obstruction, whether physical or verbal, as a call to arms .  However there is nothing to take umbrage at in the creation of another, permissive alternative path, provided the original remains usable. 

You may wish to take some advice on how to ensure that your alternative permissive path doesn't become a permanent public right of way in addition to the existing one - I think it will be something along the lines of you close it for one day a year, but do check.

[pgkevet]

Health & Safety Notice

We cannot exclude undetected hazards from this pathway e.g Anthrax, Bolutism, Typhoid, Fluke, Cholera, Toxoplasmosis, Toxacara etc.
Please use the environmental suits and metal detector provided to relay your party over this section.



Then place three pegs labelled:

If pegs are empty items may be in use or at the other end (or stolen)



 

[bazzais]

Not really bothered about the law side of things - they have no money and resources to do anything other than sending a hollow stern threatening letter if anything at all

Managed to get it so people can walk through without climbing too many hurdles and ripping the crotch out their  jeans - but we have put an advisory sign up for people with dogs - they have to go round another path round the back of the yard.  Which to be honest has less sheep s**t on it too

[SallyintNorth]

Not really bothered about the law side of things - they have no money and resources to do anything other than sending a hollow stern threatening letter if anything at all

Charming! 

[stufe35]

 but we have put an advisory sign up for people with dogs - they have to go round another path round the back of the yard. 

'They' have to do no such thing, anyone can come and use the legally defined route anytime; you have to accommodate that.

[Me]

But does the dog have a right to pass and re-pass?

[stufe35]

 If under the control of its owner, yes.

[SirDoolb]

You only need one person to complain. Someone like me. I've had footpaths cleared and reopened when the land owner has tried to close, divert or obstruct.
Also BiL had local council officials visit unannounced re a footpath over his land that he had inadvertently blocked. (Had an incorrect map c/o third party).
If you clearly mark a path, people will be happy to use it. Just make sure it is usable and kept clear, otherwise they will quickly revert to the defined route.
Users who are familiar with the route may stick to the defined path. Users who feel that you are trying to infringe on their rights may stick to the defined path. Users who believe that we should have a 'right to roam' in this country may just get arsey about it and use the legally defined path on a point of principal. walkers don't have your best interests at heart, only their own. What may appear sensible to you, may appear nonsensical to another.

If you want to create a diversion that people want to use, it needs to be attractive, more attractive than the current path, not a muddy, sodden. bramble covered route round the back of a barn, with obstacles to climb.

[Penninehillbilly]

Being a Parish Councillor this attitude is infuriating, a Local Council has a DUTY to keep footpaths as per the difinitive footpath map, any local walking group worth it's salt would raise hell at you trying to force them onto a different path, would have every right to cut wire or remove any obstructions, and your attitude will just make them more determined to use the original RIGHT OF WAY!
A polite 'alternative route' suggestion would be much more likely to be acceptable. (While leaving the official route still accessable).

[SallyintNorth]

I agree with you phb.  I have been shocked and very disappointed at some of the views expressed in this thread.  So many people here on TAS have strived to achieve a little bit of rural life, I would have thought they would be more understanding and sympathetic towards those who don't have their own countryside and want to walk - perfectly legally - through some of ours.

I don't enjoy the disruption the tourists cause us here - we have 4 rights of way crossing the farm, one of them a national route, plus we are predominantly in a World Heritage Site attracting tens of thousands of visitors each year - but I will defend to my last breath their right to use the defined paths and enjoy the spectacular scenery and archaeological remains I am lucky enough to wake up to every day.

[bazzais]

Sorry Sally - did listen, didnt want to offend.

So far been panicking about nothing - sheep seem to just lay there and watch the walkers and dogs go by or have their head so far in a bale they dont notice.

I'd do anything for my sheeps safety - even breaking the law like a rebel

So all good.