Private landowners closing/diverting PROWs?

[py_megapixel]

PROW = Public Right Of Way

I enjoy walking in my local countryside, but over the Covid period I've noticed that some landowners have started diverting PROWs - including footpaths and bridleways - around their land, or even putting up threatening signs informing walkers that the PROW is closed due to the pandemic.

Now I was under the impression that this kind of thing was illegal without a formal public path diversion order or public path extinguishment order, as applicable. I'm willing to be corrected on this. However, in the past whenver I've seen a closure or diversion, either it's apparent that the new route or the closure has existed for some time (and my map is simply out of date), or a copy of the order is clearly displayed somewhere at the start and end of the PROW. I am not sure if displaying it is a requirement or not, however.

Even if displaying the order isn't a requirement, surely any landowner who's been through the procedure to get one would want to display it anyway, to ensure that they aren't complained to and to minimise hassle? It seems to me like these landowners (and there are a significant number of them, not just one) haven't got one.

However I can understand the landowners' point of view here - they presumably don't want too many people walking through their backyard and possibly bringing the virus with them.

Anyone else encountered this? In a technical sense, is it actually illegal? How do people feel about it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe it is illegal to block a PROW, yes, just as it is to block the highway. However, I don't mind landowners putting up permissive alternative paths, such as avoiding farmyards, and TBH I think there should be an easy to use process for such "reasonable" diversions - the whole Ramblers thing about walking through peoples' houses out of principle is just a bit silly when the path could easily be diverted along the garden fence with no loss of utility.

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't mind landowners putting up permissive alternative paths, such as avoiding farmyards, and TBH I think there should be an easy to use process for such "reasonable" diversions

Indeed. As a matter of principle I always want the PROW to exist along that route, whether in diverted form or not, rather than it being implicitly downgraded to a permissive path. (That means retaining the original PROW through the farmyard, for example, until the diverted version becomes a PROW).
However I don't like walking through a farmyard and if a landowner provides polite, clear signage of a permissive alternative route - for example along a driveway or through a field - then I will take it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. As a matter of principle I always want the PROW to exist along that route, whether in diverted form or not, rather than it being implicitly downgraded to a permissive path. (That means retaining the original PROW through the farmyard, for example, until the diverted version becomes a PROW).
However I don't like walking through a farmyard and if a landowner provides polite, clear signage of a permissive alternative route - for example along a driveway or through a field - then I will take it.

I think that's reasonable. I don't like running the gauntlet of dogs and farm animals through the farmyard, and understand fully why the farmer might not like me walking through his front yard - so a sign saying "Please use permissive path avoiding farmyard" is reasonable for me. I think the process of changing the PROW to the permissive route in reasonable cases like this should be much easier, to be honest - I'd just make the criteria to allow that something like "a clearly signed alternative must be provided which remains on the same landowner's land", or something like that. I don't even mind if it's a bit further, e.g. walking round a field rather than trampling the crops, as people using public footpaths across farmland tend to be doing it as a leisure activity.

 

[DerekC]

There is a perfectly good process for diverting a public right of way, which has been used in our local area a couple of times recently. It involves applying to the Highway Authority (in our case Hampshire County Council) who advertise the change, consult the local parish council and (if no objections are received) confirm the order and amend the Definitive Map. The new route has to be not significantly less convenient for the public.

If objections are received then it has to go to the planning committee for a decision. The reason landowners don't like it is that they have to pay a charge, which in Hampshire is £3000. If this were reduced to a couple of hundred I suspect everybody would be happy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a perfectly good process for diverting a public right of way, which has been used in our local area a couple of times recently. It involves applying to the Highway Authority (in our case Hampshire County Council) who advertise the change, consult the local parish council and (if no objections are received) confirm the order and amend the Definitive Map. If objections are received then it has to go to the planning committee for a decision. The reason landowners don't like it is that they have to pay a charge, which in Hampshire is £3000. If this were reduced to a couple of hundred I suspect everybody would be happy.

Yes, £3000 is outrageous, I would agree about £200 would be reasonable.

 

[Bantamzen]

PROW = Public Right Of Way

I enjoy walking in my local countryside, but over the Covid period I've noticed that some landowners have started diverting PROWs - including footpaths and bridleways - around their land, or even putting up threatening signs informing walkers that the PROW is closed due to the pandemic.

Now I was under the impression that this kind of thing was illegal without a formal public path diversion order or public path extinguishment order, as applicable. I'm willing to be corrected on this. However, in the past whenver I've seen a closure or diversion, either it's apparent that the new route or the closure has existed for some time (and my map is simply out of date), or a copy of the order is clearly displayed somewhere at the start and end of the PROW. I am not sure if displaying it is a requirement or not, however.

Even if displaying the order isn't a requirement, surely any landowner who's been through the procedure to get one would want to display it anyway, to ensure that they aren't complained to and to minimise hassle? It seems to me like these landowners (and there are a significant number of them, not just one) haven't got one.

However I can understand the landowners' point of view here - they presumably don't want too many people walking through their backyard and possibly bringing the virus with them.

Anyone else encountered this? In a technical sense, is it actually illegal? How do people feel about it?

Why would closing or diverting public rights of way help reduce viral spread?

 

[birchesgreen]

Why would closing or diverting public rights of way help reduce viral spread?

The same mindset which has caused these ridiculous high street widening measures, people are afraid if they pass within a metre of an infected person for a second then they've got a death sentence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would closing or diverting public rights of way help reduce viral spread?

I think it dates back to when it was believed that a significant amount of contact spread was going on, i.e. from people touching gates to open them and the likes. And if a farmer can't work, he doesn't get paid. I think on that basis, just as during Foot and Mouth when pretty much all public footpaths were formally closed, it wasn't unreasonable, but understanding of the spread of the virus has improved since then, and contact spread is seen as pretty negligible and able to be dealt with by way of the use of sanitiser and not sticking your hands in your face, which if you've got hands covered in tractor oil and cow**** you're probably not going to do anyway.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think it is fair to say that some people (a small but measurable proportion) simply do not want the public crossing their land, full stop. Any excuse to temporarily close a path is jumped on.

Early on in the 'national emergency' some signs appeared on a small number of local paths - not actually closing them (if you read it carefully) but sailing very close to the wind on whether they were a 'threatening sign' intended to deter perfectly legal use. I was reminded of the similar signs which appeared during the early days of foot and mouth. As I recall on exactly the same paths now as then.

There is one local path which runs through someone's back garden and then their drive. Out of consideration, but no real risk reduction to them, I have avoided this path for the duration of the current situation - there are reasonably convenient alternatives, albeit along country lanes. Similarly, there is another through a farmyard which can be avoided with a longer route through the adjecent village. The signs 'suggesting' that I do not walk through a pasture, or that I 'must' wear gloves, I simply ignored as the rantings of the hysterical / terrified. Someone else (really it wasn't me) ripped down the laminated versions and smashed the hard plastic versions. A bit like all the 'interventions', some people become very polarised and lose all sense of proportion / perspective.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Bull in field" is a typical method of dissuasion - usually there actually isn't (and it's actually illegal to put bulls in fields with unfenced public footpaths in some circumstances anyway).

 

[adc82140]

When walking on a portion of the Thames Path last month we came upon a sign by some houseboats that said "path closed, do your exercise elsewhere". Needless to say the sign had been chucked in the bushes by someone.

 

[ChrisC]

I did see a few notices way back in the spring at the beginning of the lockdown. Most of them were fairly polite asking walkers to avoid certain paths which did pass closely to houses and gardens. They were mainly placed on gates and stiles. I didn’t really agree with them but I can understand why they were put there. The government were putting out the message about not touching surfaces or walking close to people and the locals who lived next to busy paths were probably genuinely frightened. I haven’t seen any of these notices recently.

I try to do a walk of between 5 and 8 miles every week. Most of the time I find farmers very friendly towards people walking on footpaths and I often give them a wave and even sometimes stop for a chat. I tend to use paths over fields in non tourist areas, many of which are not used very often especially midweek. In some areas the farmers have really tried hard maintaining paths and signs and make you feel quite welcome. Just occasionally there are areas where a particular landowner does welcome walkers, and try to make it as unpleasant and unwelcoming as possible, with keep out and do not stray off the path signs in abundance.

At the beginning of the lockdown when we were apparently not supposed to stray far from home and not walk for more than an hour, my local farmer was quite happy for people he knew from the village to walk around his fields. He knew we wouldn’t walk on crops or do any damage and actually if we had seen anything untoward most local people would have informed him.

 

[midland1]

Were not some PROW closed during the foot and mouth outbreak.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Were not some PROW closed during the foot and mouth outbreak.

Ultimately yes. As I remember, people were banned from walking on any path, but were allowed to walk on roads. We got shouted at for walking on a country lane. You could drive wherever you liked. The government had to confirm that 'the countryside is still open' after everyone followed the government advice and stayed away completely. It was later shown that the disease was being spread around North Yorkshire by ramblers agricultural delivery lorries. Does any of this sound familiar in 2020?

 

[eMeS]

I had an email to say it's happening in mid-Wales. I certainly remember the paths in mid-Wales being closed during the Foot & Mouth period, about a decade ago.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I had an email to say it's happening in mid-Wales. I certainly remember the paths in mid-Wales being closed during the Foot & Mouth period, about a decade ago.

Was 2001, wasn't it?

 

[eMeS]

Was 2001, wasn't it?

Doesn't time fly when you're retired...
I never did get to the top of a bump near the A470 in mid-Wales to inspect the stone circles on the top of Newydd Fynyddog (NW of the famous railway cutting at Talerddig).

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I had an email to say it's happening in mid-Wales. I certainly remember the paths in mid-Wales being closed during the Foot & Mouth period, about a decade ago.

Wales has given itself powers to close paths and access land, but in very limited circumstances, otherwise you can politely ask people to follow a voluntary diversion - but the official Right of Way must remain open.

Notes attached:

Guidance on Public Rights of Way / Access Land under the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020
In response to the events on the weekend of 21 and 22 March, when large numbers of people congregated at popular tourist routes in Wales, the Welsh Government introduced new legislation to limit the risk of spreading the Covid19 virus. This legislation enabled emergency closures of selected paths and areas of open access land by Local Authorities, National Park Authorities, National Resources Wales and the National Trust.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020 placed a duty on them to close certain rights of way or access land which they considered likely to attract large numbers of people and hence prevent effective social distancing. The duties also extended to keeping these closures under review and amending as necessary.
However, exercise is still important for people’s physical and mental wellbeing, so Welsh Government do not wish to discourage people from leaving their homes for exercise once a day. Hence these limited closures are targeted to prevent overcrowding in specific areas only, and widespread closures of the rights of way network are to be avoided.
Following the lockdown landowners have raised concerns about increased use of public rights of way on their property, increased numbers of dogs, and perceived risks of exposure to Covid19 for residents and farm workers, particularly where family members are either vulnerable and/or self-isolating.
To help address this we have published guidance: https://gov.wales/coronavirus-covid-19-stay-active-stay-healthy-stay-local and increased messaging around responsible recreation e.g. the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government, Hannah Blythyn AM has issued a statement appealing to people to exercise responsibly in the countryside and reminding dog-owners of the need to keep dogs on leads in the vicinity of livestock.
The risk of the coronavirus being passed on to others from people using public rights of way is considered to be very low as long as people follow the Government’s instructions to maintain social distancing and follow hygiene advice.
Landowners do not have the legal right to block or obstruct public rights of way or access land. However, in very limited circumstances where large numbers of people are using such routes or where residents are vulnerable or self-isolating, landowners may consider the following measures:
 temporarily displaying polite notices that encourage users to respect local residents and workers by following social distancing guidelines and consider using alternative routes that do not pass through gardens or farmyards.
 Note: this is a polite request only, and there is no power under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) or the Highways Act 1980
for landowners to close or obstruct a public right of way or use of access land
 offering an alternative route around gardens and farmyards only where it is safe to do so (you must gain permission from relevant landowners and make sure the route is safe for users and livestock) provided that the original right of way is maintained.
Key points to Note under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Highways Act 1980
 Under Section 137 the Highways Act 1980 and section 14 of CROW it is an offence to obstruct the free passage along a public right of way or Access Land.
 It is an offence under Section 57 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to display a notice that contains “any false or misleading statement likely to deter the public from using” a right of way.
 It is also an offence under section 14 of CROW to display a sign which deters the public from exercising their right to use that access land
 It is an offence under Section 132 of the Highways Act 1980 to display on the surface of a public right of way or on any tree or structure within the public right of way any unauthorised sign or mark.
 Land owners may be liable for personal injury under section 2 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and Section 1 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 if they are reckless or intend to create a risk – for example by offering a dangerous alternative.
This means that
 If a land owner offers an alternative route, they must ensure that it is safe to use and that the existing right of way or use of access land is maintained so that users with differing abilities have a choice.
 A notice must not imply that there is any doubt about the use of the existing right of way or use of access land.
These temporary measures must be lifted as soon as social distancing measures are relaxed.