A Foot Path in Ipswich that belongs to the council is now used solely
for vehicular traffic. The reason pedestrians no longer use it is
because of the danger from vehicles. The Foot Path is classed as a
Foot Path and not as Byway Open To All Traffic. What section of the
HA1980 (or any other law) can I use to force the council to make the
Foot Path safe for pedestrians again?

If it's definitely a footpath and not a BOAT, then it's the police you
need.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:50:04 +0000, wrote:

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:30:07 +0000, "Gorf"
wrote:

A Foot Path in Ipswich that belongs to the council is now used solely
for vehicular traffic. The reason pedestrians no longer use it is
because of the danger from vehicles. The Foot Path is classed as a
Foot Path and not as Byway Open To All Traffic. What section of the
HA1980 (or any other law) can I use to force the council to make the
Foot Path safe for pedestrians again?

If it's definitely a footpath and not a BOAT, then it's the police you
need.

It is definitely a Foot Path. However the owners, Ipswich Borough
Council have opened a Country Park at the end of it and already there
were 2 established caravan site along the Foot Path and now it just is
not safe to walk along. There must be some law I can use to get the
Foot Path re-established or get the vehicles stopped?
pete

I doubt it.

The best you can hope for now is to get a pavement added.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:50:03 +0000, wrote...
Getting a pavement added would solve part of the problem but what law
do I use to cause the owners to add a pavement?

Why is the law your only possibility? In my experience, the way to get
local councils to do things is by a combination of politics and
publicity. Involve your neighbours in a campaign. Get your local
councillors on your side. Feed your local newspaper a story about how
worried you all are that kids are going to get run over by the traffic.
And so on.

--
Tim Jackson
lid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

In message , at 20:50:04 on
Tue, 28 Nov 2006, wibbled

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:30:07 +0000, "Gorf"
wrote:

A Foot Path in Ipswich that belongs to the council is now used solely
for vehicular traffic. The reason pedestrians no longer use it is
because of the danger from vehicles. The Foot Path is classed as a
Foot Path and not as Byway Open To All Traffic. What section of the
HA1980 (or any other law) can I use to force the council to make the
Foot Path safe for pedestrians again?

If it's definitely a footpath and not a BOAT, then it's the police you
need.

It is definitely a Foot Path.

But this does not exclude other uses of the same route by either the
landowner or those to whom the landowner gives permission.

However the owners, Ipswich Borough Council

But do they own the actual land that the footpath crosses? I suspect not
as you said in another post that the RA have written to the landowner.

The mere fact that there is a PRoW does not grant ownership of the
underlying land to the Council BTW.

have opened a Country Park at the end of it and already there
were 2 established caravan site along the Foot Path

So there was prior (and obviously documented) vehicular use of the route
before the Section 53 application for the re-instatement of the PRoW.

and now it just is not safe to walk along.

From what has been said and from a look at a couple of maps: tough.

At a [very good] guess, the person/group who applied for the original
Section 53 Order did not do a thorough job by not taking into account
that the line of the PRoW was an existing vehicular access route for
2 caravan sites plus other property.

This current scenario is a perfect example of what I was talking about
in the previous footpath thread as regards applying for both a Section
53 Order and an accompanying diversionary PPO when necessary. It's far
harder to fix things at a later date.


There must be some law I can use to get the
Foot Path re-established or get the vehicles stopped?

In this case: precisely none.

Points that may have escaped you:
a) The PRoW hasn't actually been extinguished so there is nothing to
get re-established;
b) In the very unlikely event you did succeed in getting the vehicles
stopped then the owners of the caravan sites would, of course, be due
compensation for loss of livelihood and, if there are other properties
serviced by the (private?) road then the owners would have a claim for
the significant devaluation of their worth - IBC would be almost[1]
certain to go down the route of a compulsory extinguishment PPO before
they allowed that to happen.

[1] Only almost: the cynical might suggest that they could go the route
of cutting services by $compensation or just put up Council tax next
year by $Compensation / # of households and put the blame for it on
the footpath lobby ~ thus ensuring far smaller public support for any
agitating over footpaths in future.


The logical solution here is to go for a diversionary PPO for the PRoW
a few metres N of the existing route between the A1189 and the bridge
over the A14 and, similarly, to the S for the section between the bridge
and the CPCP (Country Park Car Park).

I suspect that, for the bridge itself, the only solution is a separate
footbridge attached to / parallel to the road bridge. To get the council
to cough up the funds, the diversionary PPO application has got to be
bulletproof.

As I indicated in previous discussions, far better to get the agreement
of the relevant landowners before going for a diversionary PPO. I would
suggest that, to get the bulletproof PPO application here then you do
need the willing co-operation of the landowners.


Incidentally, the scan of the text of a Notice that a Footpath Order has
come into effect is, to all intents and purposes, useless. In general
for this sort of thing, it is absolutely essential to have the precise
wording of the actual Order itself as a minimum.

In this specific case, someone will have to provide a bit of shrapnel
and purchase a copy of the Order before anyone does anything further.
It may even be necessary to at least read the original Section 53


--
Pedt

In message , at 00:35:02 on
Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Pedt wibbled

In this specific case, someone will have to provide a bit of shrapnel
and purchase a copy of the Order before anyone does anything further.
It may even be necessary to at least read the original Section 53

Sorry, hit 'post' too quickly. Was going to add

It may even be necessary to at least read the original Section 53
application, and perhaps get a copy of it if the arguments are lengthy
(or just long winded / poorly written!), to find out exactly what was
actually said, how much consideration (if any) was given to existing
usage of the line of the PRoW and what points were made and evidence
submitted in respect of the consideration given, etc.

It's not going to be an easy one to get a positive result AFAICS. I'd
be tempted to put it on the back burner, get a bit of experience under
your belt with one or two of the other Section 53 applications you were
considering, and then come back to it at a later date.

--
Pedt

In message , at 01:15:13 on
Fri, 8 Dec 2006, wibbled
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 00:35:02 +0000, Pedt
wrote:

The land belongs to IBC Pedt. The RA telephoned IBC about gates across
another FP on the land.

The mere fact that there is a PRoW does not grant ownership of the
underlying land to the Council BTW.

Of course but IBC do own the land and FP.

OK. IBC owning the land the PRoW runs over makes it simpler.

BVTW, they don't "own" the footpath in the usual sense of the word. They
merely have a legal duty regarding access.

have opened a Country Park at the end of it and already there
were 2 established caravan site along the Foot Path

So there was prior (and obviously documented) vehicular use of the route
before the Section 53 application for the re-instatement of the PRoW.

It used to be an airport perimeter road and I don't think any S.53
order has ever been applied for.

and now it just is not safe to walk along.

From what has been said and from a look at a couple of maps: tough.

At a [very good] guess, the person/group who applied for the original
Section 53 Order did not do a thorough job by not taking into account
that the line of the PRoW was an existing vehicular access route for
2 caravan sites plus other property.

It was a FP before the caravan sites were there.

Quite, or the Section 53 application would have been rejected.

As we now know it was the airport perimeter road as well then vehicular
access was, de facto, permitted and *must* be taken into account. The
person who applied for the Section 53 order got it wrong. They should
have gone for a BOAT.

The logical solution here is to go for a diversionary PPO for the PRoW
a few metres N of the existing route between the A1189 and the bridge
over the A14 and, similarly, to the S for the section between the bridge
and the CPCP (Country Park Car Park).

Yes of course and that would be an answer.

It's the only sensible answer to resolve the situation.

It would be even more
acceptable to divert the vehicular way though to that route and that
would not require any public enquiry either as it would be their land
and it would not interfere with FP rights.

No.

There's 3 solutions that actually resolve the problem whilst leaving
access for all current users:
a) move the footpath;
b) add a pavement;
c) move 1km of road.

a) is the easiest and quickest, causes least disruption and has minimal
expense;
b) costs more, takes far longer to do and with most disruption to
non-footpath and footpath users alike whilst the work is carried out;
c) costs the most, more disruption than (a) and is almost certainly
going to finish up at a public enquiry which will delay things for at
least a year.

Put yourself on the other side - which sounds best to you now?

Incidentally, the scan of the text of a Notice that a Footpath Order has
come into effect is, to all intents and purposes, useless. In general
for this sort of thing, it is absolutely essential to have the precise
wording of the actual Order itself as a minimum.

In this specific case, someone will have to provide a bit of shrapnel
and purchase a copy of the Order before anyone does anything further.
It may even be necessary to at least read the original Section 53

I am pretty sure there was no original S.53 Pedt.

It is referenced in the title of the Notice document which you scanned
(first of the three links to scans that you posted earlier).

--
Pedt