2026 Historic Rights of Way deadline scrapped.

[boxelder]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60418555

Got to be good news, right?

Smug Scotch folk can ignore.......

[whitestone]

Given how untrustworthy this lot are I suspect the main aim of the change is related to this paragraph from that piece:

As well as repealing the 2026 cut-off the government plans to introduce a "right to apply" for landowners to divert or extinguish rights of way in certain circumstances.

All the rest is just

[riderdown]

To be honest I'm quite happy if footpaths are diverted out of people's gardens and farmyards. As long as the reroute is done well it makes life easier for all.

Obviously some will seek to take advantage but a robust process should sort that

[Lazarus]

I disagree and i once lived somewhere with a Footpath in both directions outside so accept its a pain [but its the price you pay for living somewhere lovely folk want to be].

Secondly its says divert or extinguish - if you really think Tories, and the landowners who fund them, are just going to alter the bits through folk gardens then you are going to be very very surprised.

Tories dont do robust process they do backhanders for their friends be it PPE contracts , museum bodies ,public office or this.

[whitestone]

To be honest I'm quite happy if footpaths are diverted out of people's gardens and farmyards. As long as the reroute is done well it makes life easier for all.

Obviously some will seek to take advantage but a robust process should sort that

There's procedures and processes to do that now. Does cost a fair bit of money but it's doable.

Someone only needs to "extinguish" that part of a RoW through a farmyard and you end up with two paths/BWs that are dead ends and of no use to anyone and die from lack of use.

[RIP]

To be honest I'm quite happy if footpaths are diverted out of people's gardens and farmyards. As long as the reroute is done well it makes life easier for all.

Obviously some will seek to take advantage but a robust process should sort that

There's procedures and processes to do that now. Does cost a fair bit of money but it's doable.

Someone only needs to "extinguish" that part of a RoW through a farmyard and you end up with two paths/BWs that are dead ends and of no use to anyone and die from lack of use.

A slight digression (as ever) but do you remember that bridleway near Doogaloo which we were going to send Stu to on the Virtual Winter Event - it was the opposite of "two dead ends" in as much as it was totally isolated and didn't seem to be accessible short of actually helicoptering a horse and rider onto it.....

[boxelder]

Given how untrustworthy this lot are I suspect the main aim of the change is related to this paragraph from that piece:

As well as repealing the 2026 cut-off the government plans to introduce a "right to apply" for landowners to divert or extinguish rights of way in certain circumstances.

I guess the next step then, is to lobby and fight to have that bit of legislation blocked or changed. The right to apply bit is presumably akin to planning permission, and open to appeal/consultation.

[In Reverse]

Given how untrustworthy this lot are I suspect the main aim of the change is related to this paragraph from that piece:

As well as repealing the 2026 cut-off the government plans to introduce a "right to apply" for landowners to divert or extinguish rights of way in certain circumstances.

This already exists tbf, although it's very long-winded. I've been involved in "extinguishing" a footpath and diverting a couple of bridleways through work in the past. The devil will be in the detail I supppose.

edit - I see you covered this.

Someone only needs to "extinguish" that part of a RoW through a farmyard and you end up with two paths/BWs that are dead ends and of no use to anyone and die from lack of use.

This would still be under the remit of the PRoW officer so this scenario feels unlikely.

[Bearbonesnorm]

I know that this is something of a romantic notion but it's a shame common sense can't prevail. There's a few FP locally that the landowner has diverted without gaining the appropriate permissions. Generally, the new section is beneficial to all involved, well signed and helps remove the uncertainty of walking straight past someones front door. I do know of a couple of examples where a landowner has tried to get a path / RoW removed entirely without offering an alternative - in both cases, it's cost them a lot of money and ultimately failed. This obviously leaves them feeling somewhat bitter which makes for unpleasantness.

[riderdown]

I know that this is something of a romantic notion but it's a shame common sense can't prevail. There's a few FP locally that the landowner has diverted without gaining the appropriate permissions. Generally, the new section is beneficial to all involved, well signed and helps remove the uncertainty of walking straight past someones front door.

I'm sure it could be done, you will always get outliers. A dog bit the girlfriend on a footpath which runs close to a farmyard occupied by "local characters". They regularly block it and are generally nasty because, well because. Council is proposing to reroute, my view is they should dig in and enforce with support of the police. The flip side I'm very supportive of sensible reroutes where there is cooperation and no detrimental loss of access to wherever the footpath goes. We need a system that supports cooperation and development of access which at the same time tackles the abusers

[boxelder]

I know that this is something of a romantic notion but it's a shame common sense can't prevail. There's a few FP locally that the landowner has diverted without gaining the appropriate permissions. Generally, the new section is beneficial to all involved, well signed and helps remove the uncertainty of walking straight past someones front door. I do know of a couple of examples where a landowner has tried to get a path / RoW removed entirely without offering an alternative - in both cases, it's cost them a lot of money and ultimately failed. This obviously leaves them feeling somewhat bitter which makes for unpleasantness.

Surely the best course for a landowner is to provide a better alternative, that everyone then uses and accepts, and then go official. As you say, common sense.
Didn't Wainwright get caught up in something similar?

[Rob S]

I know that this is something of a romantic notion but it's a shame common sense can't prevail. There's a few FP locally that the landowner has diverted without gaining the appropriate permissions. Generally, the new section is beneficial to all involved, well signed and helps remove the uncertainty of walking straight past someones front door. I do know of a couple of examples where a landowner has tried to get a path / RoW removed entirely without offering an alternative - in both cases, it's cost them a lot of money and ultimately failed. This obviously leaves them feeling somewhat bitter which makes for unpleasantness.

Surely the best course for a landowner is to provide a better alternative, that everyone then uses and accepts, and then go official. As you say, common sense.
Didn't Wainwright get caught up in something similar?

The 'extinguish' part is concerning. When there is a RoW going through a farmyard (where you take your life in your hands at harvest time) hopefully an offer of a sensible diversion agreed by the landowner and other interested parties would be easier and thus cheaper than the extinguish option. This would then make it the more attractive option.

The Ramblers and all who signed the partition deserve a pat on the back for this. There's a short article on UKC if anyone is interested.