A couple of weeks ago I asked the public rights of way (PROW) team to inspect the Black Path to assess the need for overgrown grass, trees and bushes to be cut back. This followed contact from a resident who had reported overgrowth at some locations along the pathway.
I took a walk along the path myself on the same day I'd raised concerns with the PROW team on behalf of the resident, and although it was mainly passable with ease there were a few locations where overgrowth was encroaching onto the pathway, potentially causing an obstruction for people using mobility scooters and pushchairs if cutback works weren’t carried out soon. I reported this back to the PROW team for their attention.
Yesterday afternoon I received the following response:
Good Afternoon
I have been out to Monk
Hesleden FP 6 following your email and have managed to cut back the entrance to
the footpath and some sections where there was potential narrowing of the
footpath, with the hand tools I am able to use/carry. The footpath is accessible
over its entire length having a width of 1.2 to 1.5 metres of tarmac surface.
There is no specific criteria which would mean a path “need”
cutting back and we would consider a path is overgrown if it is not
accessible as the vegetation growth is so great. Monk Hesleden FP6 is not in
this condition and is in fact one of the best footpaths in the area.
While I was cutting back some of the growth at the entrance
to the path, I met a member of the public who informed me that he had
reported to yourself. I spent a considerable amount of time discussing
the footpath with him and explained what the expectations for a public right of
way are in terms of surface etc. This footpath has been urbanised and has a
very good surface but, as rights of way are inherently rural, we would not want
this to be the case for every right of way. While speaking he mentioned a few
other paths being impossible to access. One is a permissive path which I am
unable to help with as this is a path that the landowner has provided access to
and this can be taken away at any time without notifying the general public.
The other footpath was Monk Hesleden FP3 which he stated has crops growing on
it and that it is often left in a ploughed sate., I inspected the footpath
today as I was in the area and the footpath runs through a field which is
currently in grass which is below ankle height and there is no evidence of
ploughing at all. Therefore this path is in a good condition and no action is
required. Bridleway 2 was also mentioned and, while this bridleway is narrower
than normal due to summer vegetation, the width is 1.2m wide and is accessible
by foot, horse or bike. The bridleway also passes through the same grass field
and is accessible. I believe the reporter may be confused about the bridleway’s
line and I am more than happy to chat about this with him.
In summary, the footpaths 3 and 6 are in acceptable
condition with no immediate action needed. Bridleway 2 is also in an acceptable
condition for the time of year and therefore no further action is needed at
this time. The reporter can be informed that all the public rights of way
mentioned to me today are accessible and open for use. Should he have any
further comments or concerns he should let us know.
Kind regards
