Pennine Bridleway Relay

[marrow]

I think I am right in saying that rights of way only apply to individuals - not to organised events. Permission still has to be sought from the landowner for events.

If I'm wrong, doubtless someone will be along shortly to correct me.

Yes, I think you are wrong. A bridleway is, amongst other things, a highway to which the public have access on foot. It matters not whether your perambulation is as part of an organised event. CROW is irrelevant, as that deals with open land, as opposed to a highway (in case someone else invokes CROW in response to this).

It is only a matter of courtesy to ask the owner of land over which a bridleway passes for permission to run an event along that bridleway. Perhaps a discussion with UU, pointing this fact out and adding to it a reassurance that steps will be taken to prevent gate mishaps occurring in the future, will result in 2012's event going ahead?

It seems a bit defeatist to throw the towel in at this early stage.

[Half Seven Buzzer]

Until someone from Rossendale (the organising club) is able to tell us how/why it came to this, we are effectively wasting our time speculating over what we would/could do next regarding UU. As am I, posting this, I expect.

Alan

[Brummy John]

A tletter to the council offices tasking for the status of the route might prove useful:

"County councils must keep maps showing all footpaths, bridleways and roads used as public paths, which in their opinion are public rights of way (section 53(1), Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981). Where the public has enjoyed a right of way over a piece of land as of right and without interruption for 20 years then the way is presumed dedicated as a highway (section 31(1), Highways Act 1980)"

[john doe]

Until someone from Rossendale (the organising club) is able to tell us how/why it came to this, we are effectively wasting our time speculating over what we would/could do next regarding UU. As am I, posting this, I expect.

Alan

see my post 692. As far as future events at the moment,yes the club could hold the event again next year,but without permission from UU the FRA will not provide insurance,a risk Lefty understandably is unwilling to take.

[simgreen78]

Yes, I think you are wrong. A bridleway is, amongst other things, a highway to which the public have access on foot. It matters not whether your perambulation is as part of an organised event. CROW is irrelevant, as that deals with open land, as opposed to a highway (in case someone else invokes CROW in response to this).

It is only a matter of courtesy to ask the owner of land over which a bridleway passes for permission to run an event along that bridleway. Perhaps a discussion with UU, pointing this fact out and adding to it a reassurance that steps will be taken to prevent gate mishaps occurring in the future, will result in 2012's event going ahead?

It seems a bit defeatist to throw the towel in at this early stage.

UU's line, second paragraph. Albeit brief...

http://www.unitedutilities.com/Recreationpermits.aspx

[Mark L]

I must admit, if I were the UU person making the decision - after reading all the rationalisations and resistance to the simple act of shutting a gate, I would make sure the event stayed well and truly cancelled.

[Witton Park]

see my post 692. As far as future events at the moment,yes the club could hold the event again next year,but without permission from UU the FRA will not provide insurance,a risk Lefty understandably is unwilling to take.

I also tend to agree with Alf and I hope that Lefty hasn't given up hope to host again.

Run it as a trail race and permit it through UKA - no issue with insurance then.

There is a wider problem here though for fell running full stop. If UU can throw off the PBR for an isolated breach of a requirement then this can be done anywhere for a variety of reasons, such as the regularly debated gel wrappers, maybe a lost runner going where they shouldn't - there must be countless reasons.

Gate closure is desirable and yes it should be done, however, even if walking up through Witton's woods with the dog, if I have someone coming towards me or following on close behind I leave the gate, unless there is a clear reason not too, such as livestock in close proximity.

I would call that common courtesy and common sense.

On leg 2, at the point in question, there must have been a team coming through on average every 20 secs - with such a gap I would close the gate. But some of those gaps would be much less, sometimes perhaps 4 or 5 teams in that same timespan.

Would anyone really shut a gate they had opened on somebody just a few metres behind whether in the PBR or any other race?

What about gates that were open before any runners got there?

It's a can of worms.

[ironmanuk]

Having been a organiser for the Rivington Triathlon for 5 years I know all about dealing with UU ,basically their agenda is to stop all events taking place on their land and they will use any excuse they can to do this,I understand the issues and arguments taking place but common sense should prevail,even one gate left open for a fraction of a second would be enough for UU to stop the event.
It is pointless trying to discuss and reason with them, I banged my head aganst a brick wall for a year trying to persuade them to let us continue our event which had taken place incident free for 5 years and all the income generated helped Bolton Triathlon club develop the junior section and to buy kit and equipment , they blamed a unconnected incident where a scroat jumped in the reservoir after necking a bottle of cider.
I fear this is the end of the event which is such a shame, it was my first time this year and I really enjoyed it,as I said at the time when they cancelled the Triathlon ..this is the thin end of the wedge.....it would appear so.

[TheGrump]

I must admit, if I were the UU person making the decision - after reading all the rationalisations and resistance to the simple act of shutting a gate, I would make sure the event stayed well and truly cancelled.

IMVHO absolutely spot on. This was not an "isolated breach of a requirement", but judging by the wording of PBR Rule 19 has been a cause of concern in previous years for UU and presumably for the tenant farmers they represent.

It is worth reminding those who have criticised UU and other bodies e.g. NT in the past, that this is a public forum, which may well be browsed by those organisations from time to time. Although we know the forum is unrepresentative of the majority of fell runners views, the ill informed attempts at justification simply put more races at risk. Chris K has a hard enough task as it is without undermining his efforts on our behalf. We do not have a right to go wherever we want, whenever we want, regardless of the consequences. Leave it to the RO, he's the one who has had the detailed discussions with UU, and other interested parties along the route.

I await the next salvo of conspiracy theories, justification, slagging off etc.
The bottom line is that we lost the PBR ourselves, no-one else.

[Rodders]

IMVHO absolutely spot on. This was not an "isolated breach of a requirement", but judging by the wording of PBR Rule 19 has been a cause of concern in previous years for UU and presumably for the tenant farmers they represent.

It is worth reminding those who have criticised UU and other bodies e.g. NT in the past, that this is a public forum, which may well be browsed by those organisations from time to time. Although we know the forum is unrepresentative of the majority of fell runners views, the ill informed attempts at justification simply put more races at risk. Chris K has a hard enough task as it is without undermining his efforts on our behalf. We do not have a right to go wherever we want, whenever we want, regardless of the consequences. Leave it to the RO, he's the one who has had the detailed discussions with UU, and other interested parties along the route.

I await the next salvo of conspiracy theories, justification, slagging off etc.
The bottom line is that we lost the PBR ourselves, no-one else.

I'm with you on this Grump. More power to your elbow!
May the crusade continue.