|
How wide is a public path?
by Chris Beney
revised September 2005
Note added June 2006: an interesting note on widths for diversion orders
may be found at
http://www.bbtrust.org.uk/width.html this only applies to diversion
orders or orders where a path is technically created, so it would not
apply to definitive map orders.
# Context
# Widths and Widths, what is the difference?
# How do path widths come about?
# How are widths shown on Definitive Maps?
# How wide should they be?
# What if they are not currently defined?
# Widths and Wildlife &
Countryside Act orders
# Town & Country Planning act orders
# Ploughing
# Bridges and other structures
# The use of limitations
to increase legal width.
# Ideas for action by those involved with path changes
Context
go to top
Very few paths, at least in Hertfordshire, have their widths properly
defined. Many paths are being restricted or fenced-in, often near urban
areas, this can greatly reduce the enjoyment and the physical security of
path users. Other paths are being diverted and the diverted path is
sometimes unreasonably restrictive on width compared with the undiverted
path.
Part of the government sponsored National Target is for all paths to be
legally defined: I suppose the minimum for legally defined is "it goes
from A to B". Of course it must give start and finish but I think it also
needs the route, any limitations like gates or stiles and the width.
A recent development of concern is that when paths are being added to the
Definitive Map and Statement* by means of claims under the 1981 Wildlife &
Countryside Act, the Inspectorate now urge inspectors to define the
widths, even where the width is not known. That will reduce many paths and
is of dubious validity, at least in cases where little evidence as to
width exists.
There is no reason to stick to 19th/20th century narrow paths, I have a
twenty five metre footpath and a thirty five metre bridleway both within
half a mile of my house.
*The Definitive Map is the record of
paths, produced by the Highway Authority, often the County Council, which serves to give those
paths that are listed on it a conclusive status as public paths in law.
Widths and Widths, what is the difference?
go to top
The width of paths is often considered, particularly by local council
officers, to be the width showing on the ground, whether it is the
walked width (the beaten track), the hardened surface, or in the urban
context the tarmac track. 1.8 metres is a typical standard width for
this.
But this is not the actual (legal) width of paths.
Leicester County has a 1.8 metre (6 foot) path policy but it actually
has the firm surface width in mind and normally requires three metres
of grass on either side. So the effective path width is 7.8 metres,
nearly 25 feet.
If their 1.8 metres were made the legal width then, as with any path,
it could be fenced in by the owners of the underlying land with six
and a half foot high security fences to that width without any
permission being needed. This would be quite horrid so when
considering widths of paths the overall width not the hardened width
should always be thought of.
|
How do path widths come about?
go to top
# The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road... Well
maybe; certainly they largely ignored the Roman attempt at rights of way
rationalisation. Widths probably varied greatly depending on soil
conditions. Many have their origins in people getting to work (like
motorways today) but leisure walking has been popular for centuries.
# Created by Enclosure Act.
# 19th Century diversions for the benefit of the 'big house', and the
magistrates were told the path was only three foot wide, they were not
told that it was a three foot strip whose exact route varied with the
state of the land and being unfenced allowed several abreast. Public
suffers for this now.
# Old roads (green lanes and white roads), cattle or carts or whatever
ensured reasonable widths.
# Presumed dedication, the 20 year rule.
# Diversion orders. These nowadays in Hertfordshire usually have the
width(s) stated. There is a tendency to adopt an arbitrary and minimum
width, often two metres. Sometimes these orders are used imaginatively to
create pleasant and practical route.
# Explicit dedication and creation agreements. These vary greatly. In my
local area they are quite good and always have width, widest dedication so far 25
metres for a footpath, narrowest is a short length at 1.5 metres.
# And there are various other ways for example adoption by the highway
authority, and court decisions which tend up till now to be restrictive
and based on minimum physical needs.
An important element often lost sight of is that by their nature many
non-surfaced paths are fairly narrow but where they cross pasture or heath
or meadow they 'wobble' about over a wider area dependent on surface
condition over the seasons and the years.
How are widths shown on Definitive Maps?
go to top
Current legislation marks paths as pure lines "the line coloured red",
fine for caterpillars but unsatisfactory for humans.
A nice thing is being done by Hertfordshire. They are showing the widths
on Orders by cross hatching wherever it cannot easily be said in words.
They don't just say "varies from three to five metres" but also say "as
shown cross-hatched on the map attached to this order". The Definitive
Statement also refers to this hatching. Thus serious enquirers are made
aware of the actual widths at any point on the path. It is my view that
the actual cross-hatched map should form part of the statement, since
words alone don’t cover it but Hertfordshire has not yet accepted that
view.
It should be noted that widths given in the Definitive Statement are
conclusive in law, but that actually only means conclusive as to minimum
width. There is no reason why a path should not be wider that the
Statement records, that could come about by 20 years usage, by dedication,
or simply because the original Definitive Statement makers simply recorded
the visible or trodden width rather than the legal one (see Widths and
Widths above).
How wide should they be?
go to top
It depends. My view is that until we have some legislation
restricting fencing-in and defining restrictions on land adjacent to them
(as in planning law), then one should simply go for a minimum of five
metres for footpaths (6 for bridle, 10 for Greenways) except on very firm
ground, subject to negotiation in any particular case. The actual trodden
width would probably be less.
It is important to recognise that a path may at any time in the future
legally be fenced in with tall opaque fences and that should be imagined
to have happened when considering a reasonable width.
In pasture or meadow the width makes little difference to the landholder.
On arable there is a real loss in greater widths. That might be resolved
by having a token diversion order giving a good width but with a
limitation allowing the owner to plough and grow crops on some part of that width.
I think this might sit OK with the ploughing law. From the public's viewpoint of
course an unrestricted but wider path is less likely to be ploughed-up at
all because of the cost of reinstating it, making this even better for the
public. The 1 metre (2 for bridleways) figure of HA80 for ploughing
purposes should always be substantially exceeded.
The only disadvantages of very wide paths to the public that I know are
firstly the difficulty of putting a public seat or somesuch actually on
the path in non-parished areas. Secondly in semi-urban areas there might
be restrictions on children playing (where that use could not be said to
be incidental to using the right of way) and some kind of 'public open
space' dedication might be better, probably CROW Act S16, though
technically a diversion or stop/creation would do it. My local group has
already enabled a local landowner to make one such CROW Act dedication (which also happens to be the
first such dedication in the country, despite others who have claimed
otherwise).
I would be interested to hear of other disadvantages (and advantages) of
wide paths. I have heard people say it just doesn't feel like a path if
too wide. I think that's like how chickens miss their cages when let free.
Am I wrong?
What if they are not currently defined?
go to top
They may well be unlawfully narrowed. If not then they
are at risk of this, relying on the goodwill or inertia of the underlying
land holder.
If there is evidence of width then WCA1981 s.53 should be used to record
it. If the evidence points to an unreasonably narrow path then either a HA
80 s25 creation agreement or failing that a HA80 s26 compulsory powers
order can make it suitably wide. I expect the cost of these, which is a
one off cost for fair compensation, could be treated as capital, not
revenue, spend. Some local authorities sometimes have such money
available.
|
Widths
and Wildlife &
Countryside Act orders
go to top
The inspectorate have recently been told to put
widths on orders before them (Advice Note 16).
When there is clear evidence as to the maximum width that is
commendable. Where there is little or no evidence, or where there is
evidence only of a narrow used width (perhaps because of lack of
clearance) then this new policy is quite wrong.
Although the definitive map is only conclusive as to minimum width not
maximum, most highway authorities assume it is conclusive for both.
And if an inspector has recorded a width, it places a further hurdle
to a claim for greater width.
Inspectors should be urged not to record widths that are not generous
unless there are cogent reasons to believe the width to be recorded is
no more than that width.
|
| |
|
Town & Country Planning Act
orders.
Planning Opportunities.
go to top
Planning applications sometimes directly impinge on
public paths with talk of stopping up or of diversions. Planning
applications sometimes create opportunities for path improvements.
Sometimes both. Increasing the width, or even a rededication at a
given width for the avoidance of doubt are things you may get at
planning consent time. At other times this tends to be a very low
priority. Keep an eye on local planning
applications for path impact or opportunity and ask for conditions to
be applied or an agreement (Section 106) to be negotiated by the
planners. Get a few key councillors on side too if possible.
And I suggest you don't
just oppose bad planning diversions and stoppings up, but try to
negotiate improvements overall as a price for non-objection.
Note: it is helpful to get statements or policies in
the Local Authority's formal plan which support wide and comfortable
paths. Even a statement in the plan that paths must be and seem safe
would be helpful. Better still get a good width e.g. four or five
metres legal width (see widths & widths, above) in the plan as
an aim, or better still as a policy. This makes it far more likely
that the planners will take some useful action when a suitable case
comes up.
The way Local Plans are done seems to be changing,
local plans remain in operation until replaced by the Local
Development Framework (LDF). Each authority must
first to produce a 'Statement of Community Involvement' (SCI)
document which
explains how the authority takes into account the public's view.
This document is subject to formal objections from the public, and
referral to an inspector. The inspector's decision is binding on
the authority. It would be very helpful to get a reference in the
SCI to consulting local path groups before planning permission for a
development affecting a path is given.
|
| |
Ploughing
go to top
The Highways Act 1980 s.134 rules on ploughing are
useful and well known in rights of way circles. Dimensions called 'minimum
width' and 'maximum width' are defined when the width is not known (and
only then). The rules give as I expect was intended a realistic chance of
avoiding crop and furrow obstruction.
There rules do not lay down standards for widths. I am told they might
influence the courts when considering widths of paths not specifically
covered by these rules, they should only do so in the context of 'paths
just might be OK as narrow as the minima' and then only for unfenced
paths, one or two metres should be added if fenced are a possibility in
the future.
Bridges and other structures
go to top
No one would expect a motorway to narrow down to
one lane whenever it crossed a stream or another road. Somehow it is OK
for bridges on rights of way to be much narrower than the right of way
they carry.
Pedestrian bridges can be places to play Pooh sticks, things to lean over
and look for trout or shopping trolleys from, depending on location. Room
to pause with pushchair (or wheelchair) without blocking the way.
Other structures such as gates inevitably restrict widths. British
Standard BS5709:2001 defines minimum widths through or over such
structures and for new structures should always be specified as a minimum
standard.
The use of limitations in Path Orders to
increase legal width.
go to top
Where there are trees or shrubs on a path line it is
sometimes suggested that the width should be narrowed to fit between them.
There is no reason why the width should not be wider, but stated to be
e.g. “subject to trees, so long as at least two metres clear width
remains”. I have used that to good effect on some orders I have been
involved with.
Ideas for action by those in any way involved with path changes
go to top
# Except when there are clear reasons against (e.g. a risk
of very narrow width being recorded), ensure all diversion etc. orders
define widths. Where not physically bounded by walls etc. these should
normally be stated as minima e.g. "at least four metres" rather than "four
metres". Assume they will be eventually fenced in and get as wide a width
as possible.
# Some orders have been made with the word 'unfenced' That may help inhibit
fencing or ensure it is put up away from the edge of the path.
# Ensure that widths are appropriate for the long term and for possible
land use changes.
# Get spacious bridges.
# Get gap, gate, stile structures to be required to be to
BS5709:2001
# Use limitations (see above) to get wider overall paths.
# Initiate or encourage mini-schemes where landholder, council and public
all gain something (larger schemes have a habit of failure and wasted
effort and should be avoided).
# Above all don’t be conned into accepting the hardened width as
necessarily representing the full legal width of a path, see “Widths and
Widths” near the start of this paper.
I would be pleased to get
comment on
this paper or by phone or post.
Chris Beney
12 Woodlands Road
Bushey, Herts, WD23 2LR
Phone: 01923 211113 / 240107 E mail: chris@beney.org
|