# Loss of permissive bridleways (CSS/HLS schemes)



## Suechoccy (4 July 2013)

Just had notice from a local landowner that his Countryside Stewardship Scheme permissive bridleway will be closed permanently from 1 October 2013 when the CSS scheme ends.

(The CSS scheme is no longer available).

He wanted to transfer it into a HLS scheme but found that DEFRA have dropped the permissive bridleway option from the HLS scheme which would apply to him.

He can't offer it unbacked by HLS/CSS as a permissive bridleway as his insurers will not cover him for public liability.

What a shame when the will is there on the landowner's part to provide a permissive route, the route is well-used and provides a safe, direct, off-road access between two villages, that the UK government bureaucracy has brought this ideal arrangement to an end.  

Are the BHS going to lobby DEFRA/the government to do more to ensure permissive bridleways are included in HLS schemes?   

Are riders in England and Wales now facing wholesale loss of CSS and HLS permissive bridleways over the coming few years as each one comes to the end of its agreement and landowners find themselves unable to renew them because of the red tape changes?

To what ends are these red tape changes? What do the government/DEFRA achieve by these changes that is beneficial?   Permissive riding on carefully identified setaside areas has really helped with safe offroad access in many areas, with no detriment to landowners or wildlife or DEFRA or the government.   What a travesty to face losing it all.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (4 July 2013)

Have you notified BHS?  I suggest that you also write to your local MP, the minister of State at DEFRA and whoever took over from Jeremy Hunt after the post Olympics re-shuffle (sorry I can't remember who that was, or the official title, I just know that it's not just Sport) .  You are right it doesn't make sense, especially when there is a push to get more people to take up sport of all kinds.


----------



## Alec Swan (4 July 2013)

Suechoccy,

the loss of your permissive bridleway isn't the only abandonment.  Historically,  through the 1960s hedgerows were traditionally grubbed out,  never to be replaced.  There was an understanding of the enormity of such decisions,  and up until very recently,  before one could remove any hedgerows,  the applicant had to apply for planning permission,  from the local authorities,  who in turn would consult Natural England,  for advice.  That's all changed.

Now all that is needed is that those desirous of removing hedgerows,  have a chat with their local wildlife and conservation officer,  offer that person inducements,  and hey presto,  you have permission. 

It's wrong.

Alec.

ETS,  I also think that I should point out to you,  that the bridleways which you mention,  were "Permissive".  The land owner was being paid to offer that facility,  the payment has now been withdrawn,  so he's withdrawn his "Permission".  There is now no right of entry. a.


----------



## BHS_official (4 July 2013)

The BHS has previously - and continues to - lobby Defra and Natural England on this issue. A copy of our latest representation on it is available at http://www.bhs.org.uk/~/media/BHS/F...ental Land Management Schemes in England.ashx. It's entitled &#8216;New Environmental Land Management Schemes in England &#8211; opportunities to boost economic growth through support for
recreation and tourism - A shared approach from the Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council, the British Horse Society and the Open Spaces Society&#8217;.


----------



## Suechoccy (4 July 2013)

Alec Swann - I am well aware of your ETA bit.  I am also aware that the landowner was paid to provide this access - good for him, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

BHS-official - thank you for pointing out the BHS lobbying link to me.  What else can we do?

This issue unfairly divides landowners/farmers from horseriders/countryside access promoters.  It's a very clever ploy - get us all infighting against each other instead of addressing the bigger picture.  

Very sad and typically British.


----------



## Alec Swan (4 July 2013)

Suechoccy said:



			Alec Swann - I am well aware of your ETA bit.  I am also aware that the landowner was paid to provide this access - good for him, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

.......

This issue unfairly divides landowners/farmers from horseriders/countryside access promoters.  It's a very clever ploy - get us all infighting against each other instead of addressing the bigger picture.  

Very sad and typically British.
		
Click to expand...

Para 1.  If you accept that the land owner was paid to provide a service,  and when the payment dried up,  he ceased to provide that service,  then I fail to see your argument.

Para 2.  ..... Again,  and following on,  I fail to see your point,  except that you now seem to feel that there is a conspiracy which has been launched.  Perhaps you could explain to me about this "Bigger picture",  of yours.  

Alec.


----------



## Suechoccy (4 July 2013)

I feel it is a shame that the government/DEFRA have taken away/reduced/changed the criteria of these schemes, which gave many of us the safety of valuable offroad riding and also provided valuable extra income to the landowners.


----------



## Alec Swan (4 July 2013)

Suechoccy said:



			I feel it is a shame that the government/DEFRA have taken away/reduced/changed the criteria of these schemes, which gave many of us the safety of valuable offroad riding and also provided valuable extra income to the landowners.
		
Click to expand...

Now that I agree with,  without question.

Alec.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (4 July 2013)

Alec, I'm sure Suechoccy understands exactly why the permissive bridleway is to be closed.  As she explains the insurers will not cover public liability without HLS/CSS backing for the permission.  No-one can blame the landowner for deciding that it is in his best interests to withdraw the permission.  However we can all blame DEFRA for their short-sightedness and nonsensical actions.  Did someone mention 'joined-up thinking'?


----------



## Orangehorse (4 July 2013)

The CLA lobbied hard to keep this option in the Environmental Scheme, it is a great shame that it has been discontinued.

If the farmer is willing for the route to be used, why not contact TROT - toll rides off-ride trust and set up a toll ride, which will cover his insurance worries.  It will mean that the riders pay a subscription, so will have to pay whereas before the tax payer was paying the farmer! (quite lucrative too).  But if there is no alternative, isn't it worth paying a bit to have a nice ride to go on.  

Our local Permissive Bridlepath is due to close, and I would be willing to pay an annual subscription to use it, as it is so useful.


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (4 July 2013)

OMG, I'm not sure I understand all this........ but does it mean that the lovely little permissive bridlepath we've been using ever since 1997 is gonna be closed? 

I'm devastated if so

This is crazy. I almost wish I'd not opened this thread at all; but hey I guess better to know the bad news rather than it come as a surprise. Local people will be very very disappointed.

Re. opening it as a Toll Path; WHY is it that so many cycle paths are opening all over the country and yet as riders we don't get thought about? Ramblers too seem to get stuff done for them, but we are always sidelined. Whilst not knocking the BHS, and appreciating they're probably doing their level best, feel that maybe a more pro-active and indeed robust response is now needed?


----------



## Orangehorse (4 July 2013)

All the Permissive Paths were to last for 10 years, so it depends on when they opened as when they will close.

There is another one which opened - very, very quietly - in 2001 but I think it is still being used, as the farmer has horses himself and it goes round some arable fields, so he isn't bothered about people riding there.

As for the BHS re cycle paths, pro-active, etc. etc.  Well, this is EXACTLY what the BHS and its volunteers do ALL the time.  It is hard work, I am been in SO many meetings trying to get more access for horses and you end up wanting to scream at some of the stupid objections that people come up with, and why it is OK for a cyclist to ride somewhere and not a horse.

Only thing to make a difference would be for every rider in the country to join the BHS and have more numbers and money behind them to become a more powerful lobbying group.


----------



## Orangehorse (4 July 2013)

As for whether your Permissive Path will close - not necessarily, because it might have been created under a different scheme and not the DEFRA Environmental Stewardship one.


----------



## Suelin (5 July 2013)

The ramblers assoc are hugely powerful.  The BHS could do worse than pick their brains to see their methods of working.  I too have been wondering why the cyclists seem to have been singled out for paths/cycleways etc?  Since the Olympics it seems to me that the cycle medals were the only ones to count for anything.  Practically the whole world wants to be Bradley Wiggins.  Not saying that they shouldn't have these things, just that a fair crack of the whip for everyone else would be nice


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (5 July 2013)

IN Scotland pre the access act lots of traditional horse routes were getting closed off for cyclist and walker only access, thankfully once the act came in (which up here gives riders the same access rights as cyclists) that stopped but it wasn't retrospective so those routes already done funded by Sustrans or grants (our money in the end) were lost. 

Trouble is in England, the creator of a new track can choose who they want to allow to use it. There is also a naughty thing where there might be mud on a track, and horses go through it and leave big hoofprints, and then are blamed for the track being muddy...errr no it's muddy cos you didn't build it with proper drainage...plus where the track is in the countryside surely people should expect a little mud, apparently not! Even in the highlands peeps want to walk country and woodland walks in white trainers apparently :-((

Down south at our old place the old railway line had been multi user incl horses for 30 years, NO incidents of accidents etc, but the council still decided they wanted to close it to horses on h and s grounds!! Despite the fact it linked up lots of bridleways and snippets of off road routes. 

So the riders from the livery yard joined the police rural mounted volunteer section and now patrol it to protect kids going to and from school from being mugged - much harder for them to ban horses now hopefully! 

OP I would contact Trot and see if you can set up a scheme. The issue might be if the landowner will now lose payments if they allow such a scheme, which is mad but might be the way it works. But its worth a try. Also contact your council and ask them about their strategy for multi user routes and vulnerable road users (should be in their local plan under environment) there should be a section on what they are doing to improve things and it shouldn't just be relating to cyclists. Highlight this issue you are having and asks them how you as local riders and they can work together. Also ask what funding from eg landfill tax or developers section 106 contributions paid on getting PP for housing estates is being used for and how much is going on off road multi user leisure routes....))


----------



## mon (5 July 2013)

And lots of parks have skateboard/bmx areas but do we get safe riding areas provided in same way? Then have to risk all to ride on highways.


----------



## BHS_official (5 July 2013)

Suechoccy said:



			Alec Swann - I am well aware of your ETA bit.  I am also aware that the landowner was paid to provide this access - good for him, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

BHS-official - thank you for pointing out the BHS lobbying link to me.  What else can we do?

This issue unfairly divides landowners/farmers from horseriders/countryside access promoters.  It's a very clever ploy - get us all infighting against each other instead of addressing the bigger picture.  

Very sad and typically British.
		
Click to expand...

While the BHS is lobbying Defra and Natural England on this issue, the more riders who contact their MPs about the withdrawal of the funding and to say it should be reinstated in the new environmental land management schemes, the more it will bring the issue higher up the agenda. The consequence of these schemes closing is that riders are often pushed back onto the roads where they wouldn't otherwise be.


----------



## sywell (5 July 2013)

I think the issue of insurance is interesting as permitted paths which are registered with the local authority as public paths should be covered by the LA and as the land owner would have to cover third party liability in an case for his property even for people trespassing on his land it would be interesting to know what type of cover the applicant was applying to the insurance company for.


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (5 July 2013)

sywell said:



			I think the issue of insurance is interesting as permitted paths which are registered with the local authority as public paths should be covered by the LA and as the land owner would have to cover third party liability in an case for his property even for people trespassing on his land it would be interesting to know what type of cover the applicant was applying to the insurance company for.
		
Click to expand...

That's true but the numbers would be greater if made into a permissive path (and more horseriders which is classed as a higher risk activity) and also landowners would likely be deemed to have a greater duty of care to invited visitors - with trespassers its about avoiding having obvious hazards, whereas with invited people on a permissive path it would be a positive duty to make everything safe. So from an insurance perspective it might present a more onerous risk class.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (5 July 2013)

Orangehorse said:



			.

Only thing to make a difference would be for every rider in the country to join the BHS and have more numbers and money behind them to become a more powerful lobbying group.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, if *every* rider rode responsibly and politely, that might help.  Some of the objections come from people who have been mown down or had their property damaged by careless riders. 
There is a dispute locally about a path which has a garden bench next to it, owners would like to close the path to horses because one stupid teenager jumped the bench on her horse, damaging the surrounding flora (and possibly fauna).  Stupid girl also lamed her horse.  The local RC has been constantly promoting responsible use of the path for the last few years to aid our case.  Recently a prominent member of the RC was caught out cantering across the land, not on the path.  There are ground-nesting birds on the land.  Is it any wonder that the land-owners don't want horse-riders on their land?


----------



## elijahasgal (5 July 2013)

I wonder if these people would be able to help

http://www.tollrides.org.uk/

They run a large network in this country


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (5 July 2013)

BHS_official said:



			While the BHS is lobbying Defra and Natural England on this issue, the more riders who contact their MPs about the withdrawal of the funding and to say it should be reinstated in the new environmental land management schemes, the more it will bring the issue higher up the agenda. The consequence of these schemes closing is that riders are often pushed back onto the roads where they wouldn't otherwise be.
		
Click to expand...

Is there a sample letter or something we could use? Coz I don't understand the issues involved, and know that I wouldn't be any good at writing a letter because I just wouldn't be able to phrase it in the correct language, i.e. I don't know what the "HLS" thingey is the OP refers to, for instance.

I'd willingly write if I knew what sort of form of words to use.

So some idea of what to write would be helpful - anyone?


----------



## jrp204 (5 July 2013)

MiJodsR2BlinkinTite said:



			Is there a sample letter or something we could use? Coz I don't understand the issues involved, and know that I wouldn't be any good at writing a letter because I just wouldn't be able to phrase it in the correct language, i.e. I don't know what the "HLS" thingey is the OP refers to, for instance.

I'd willingly write if I knew what sort of form of words to use.

So some idea of what to write would be helpful - anyone?
		
Click to expand...

http://www.naturalengland.gov.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/hls/default.aspx, you have to be in the Entry Level stewardship before applying for HLS and not all areas will be covered. Some farms locally are in HLS as they are trying to boost numbers of Cirl Bunting. My families farm is in the scheme and they have a couple of fields in Open access, providing this gives them points towards their HLS, if the points are removed from the open access the fields will be put back into crops and the access finished.


----------



## Orangehorse (5 July 2013)

I had a very angry farmer on the telephone to me some time ago, about a local rider who was being a complete and utter *******************, she had a field adjacent to this farmer's land and used the bridlepath and his land for her training ground and if he said anything she telephoned the police to say he was threatening her.  It was a complete catalogue disaster as far as he was concerned with threats to his wife and family.

I told him to fence the bridlepath to keep her off his land, he wasn't sure this was allowed.
In the end, after a very long story,  he thanked me because he had spoken to someone whole sympathised with him and he could get it out of his system.

There are some terrible horse owners and riders who do the most appalling things when on other people's land, it sometimes makes me ashamed to be a rider - like jumping benches, riding where they are not supposed to - but they are a tiny minority and there are bad in all user groups.  Someone with a bridlepath through their garden says that at least the riders don't steal cuttings from the plants like the walkers do!


----------



## sywell (8 July 2013)

As a ROW volunteer we did prosecute a farmer for stalking. He used to drive alongside the riders on the bridleway shooting abuse and he was spraying his grass and drove alongside the bridleway so the wind drift blew over the horses. He also placed a water trough in the gateway for the cattle  so that it became impassable with mud but ended up on the front page of the local paper when a group on a Duke of Edingborough's Award scheme sank up to there waists in the mud and had to be rescued by the fire brigade


----------



## Alec Swan (8 July 2013)

sywell said:



			As a ROW volunteer we did prosecute a farmer for stalking. He used to drive alongside the riders on the bridleway shooting abuse and he was spraying his grass and drove alongside the bridleway so the wind drift blew over the horses. He also placed a water trough in the gateway for the cattle  so that it became impassable with mud but ended up on the front page of the local paper when a group on a Duke of Edingborough's Award scheme sank up to there waists in the mud and had to be rescued by the fire brigade
		
Click to expand...



Alec.


----------

