Landowners across the UK are blocking the delivery of 117 miles of traffic-free active travel routes, forcing locals to take matters into their own hands, according to campaigners behind a new toolkit designed to help rural communities push for greenways and active travel routes.
This week a new toolkit was launched by active travel campaigner, journalist, and road.cc contributor Laura Laker, entitled ‘Rural path campaigns: Where magic meets tarmac’, containing useful tips and case studies which aim to “empower” locals to create greenways in their areas.
According to Laker, the author of ‘Potholes and Pavements: A Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network’, rural communities are resorting to delivering their own traffic-free paths thanks to a lack of both funding and political will – and the work of some obstinate landowners.
A Freedom of Information request submitted as part of the project found that of 73 local authorities responsible for delivering greenways, land access is holding up delivery for 23 of them, totalling 117 miles of routes.
Laker also pointed out that “most councils simply aren’t trying to deliver any paths”, with community groups struggling to push for more than 200 miles of paths across the UK, across at least 50 areas. Many of these routes have been held up or blocked for years, even decades.
“To convert a typical railway path takes a great deal of effort: a resistant landowner can hold things up for years and it can be better to consider an alternative route. We can’t spend time on more than one difficult route at once. It takes all our effort to progress it an imperial inch per year,” one council officer told Laker.
As a result of this stalemate, a number of communities, Laker says, are “identifying creative solutions, building support and driving projects forward”.
For example, on Kent’s Isle of Sheppey, the Sheppey Light Rail Greenway group cleared brambles from a disused railway path after a hoped-for traffic-free route, allegedly promised by successive council administrations for 40 years, failed to materialise.
With no alternative to driving on the island, the path enjoys strong community support. A new council officer helped revitalise the project, while bramble clearing volunteer events built momentum and support, with construction support and funding soon coming from local businesses and the government, with the backing of local landowners.
And in the village of Curry Rivel, in Somerset, residents planned and built a short 200m path alongside a busy main road, as part of their aim to create a safe active travel route to the nearest town of Langport.
They then won climate emergency funding from Somerset Council, topped up by a local landowner, and are currently working on extending the route.
In rural Dumfries and Galloway, the Kier Penpont and Tynron Development Trust (KPTDT) identified a 4km traffic-free path linking villages as the top local priority for residents. Raising funds for the project from a range of different sources, including the local windfarm.
Laker’s toolkit hopes to build on these examples by breaking how to approach creating your own traffic-free route down into steps, from an initial idea to path building, taking users through working with landowners and councils, understanding relevant policies, identifying potential funding, and managing volunteers.
The toolkit has been supported by a range of groups, including the charity behind the National Cycle Network and the Canal and River Trust.
“Working on this project for the past year has been one of the great privileges of my career so far,” Laker said.
“In both the book, and in this toolkit, I have been constantly inspired by the efforts of small groups of people, sometimes over decades, absolutely committed to achieve something positive for their communities, not least for children.”
“However, the case studies in the toolkit underline how ludicrously hard it is to build traffic-free routes in this country. While our road and rail networks are delivered by national bodies on multi-year funding cycles, retired engineers, veterinarians and civil servants are left to cobble together the land access, funding and political will needed to deliver walking, wheeling and cycling routes.
“This leaves communities effectively stranded on transport islands, which it is only possible to enter or leave by car. With fuel price shocks driving up the cost of motoring, this situation is far from sustainable.
-1024x681.jpg)
“Seemingly everything, from the planning process to a lack of funding for rural active transport, is stacked against communities wanting a greenway – but they refuse to give up. I hope the words of those who have succeeded can inspire, inform and initiate more of these routes nationally – and bring delivery time down to years, not decades.
“I also hope they shine a light on the benefits of these paths to local communities. Some of those words are incredibly moving, such as from groups in Somerset and rural Scotland where local mobility scooter users can finally access nature unaided for the first time – or children can cycle to school.”
“With government funding largely focused on urban areas, rural communities can feel left behind. These traffic-free paths are arguably most valuable where people have the fewest transport choices, however – boosting local economies, health and accessible routes into nature. Funding for rural paths exists, it just takes a bit more creativity in accessing.
“Traffic-free inter-urban paths are hugely popular local resources, giving communities low-cost, sustainable transport options as well as benefiting health, rural economies and the environment.
“With fuel prices remaining high, and growing cost of living and health crises, there has never been a greater need for alternatives to car dependency for short trips.”
-1024x683.jpg)
20 thoughts on ““Resistant” landowners blocking 117 miles of traffic-free cycle routes as rural greenway plans held up for decades, new report finds”
If only the money they’ve spent on HS2 could have been spent on compulsory purchasing disused railway lines to repurpose into cycle tracks.
Our town has a disused line that would provide an excellent traffic-free connection to two larger towns, but it’s currently a mix of overgrown brambles, dubious legality footpaths and a Sainsbury’s that was plonked on the route 😡
What town?
Here in South Oxfordshire we are trying to get two reluctant land owners to agree access through their fields to fix a missing link between Wallingford and Goring on Thames. The total route is 6.5 miles and the missing link is about half a mile. The route would be a game changer for less experienced cyclists and kids. The problem here, as history tells us, that landowners call the shots, and are happy for kids to brave the. 50mph main road, rather than allow access. We are getting ourselves organised and have the support of our local mp, County and District Cllr and no less than four parish/town councils along the route. Articles like the one attached are starting to have an effect and negotiations are now taking place. My message is, get a campaign going and stand up to the car lobby and land owners who are indifferent to active travel.
Henley Standard 29.11.25
@stuntbutt – I agree that it (currently) *requires* campaigns. However even if you can get that going you need more (and frankly lots of luck).
First … you better make sure you’ve got several decades left on your clock! Here’s one to the east of Edinburgh that’s into its 3rd decade:
https://dgcorepath.wixsite.com/website
Surely though that scenario is just an example of the problem. Why are these landowning buckets of bumgravy being “negotiated with” at all? If this was a roads project the highways agency and the government would simply go to the landowners and say “here is a fair offer of cash to run a lane through one of your fields, you can accept it or we’ll use compulsory purchase and take it anyway for much less, you have two weeks to decide”.
If the path enjoys widespread support as you you describe and the landowners and a few carbrained grumps are the only antis, why is the council not being more aggressive? Why are they not being supported to be more aggressive by central government? Kid Starver can wax lyrical about “building for growth” all day every day if the subject is a road for cars or a plan to conduct a study to consider the feasibility of a future potential expansion of electrification of two miles of railway line, and a pox on any bats or rare foliage that happens to be in the way, but there’s no appetite to push for cycle lanes even when the only obstructive wildlife is a landowning twerp who his party’s base would cheer him giving the middle finger to.
It’s what a compulsory purchase order is designed for and should be used as a bargaining tool. Most landowners ended up with the old railway on their property gratis anyway so shouldn’t complain that it’s converted into a right of way.
The irony is that the people who complain the loudest about cyclists clogging up the roads will be the same restricting access to the old lines.
Now that ‘the team’ of Putin and Trump now have the world at their mercy, the ‘oil ransoms’ might just kick in a new era of active travel development.
Out of necessity this time !
Sweet Jesus the amount of popups on this site make it almost unreadable 😩
Yes. But… if you subscribe (for a quite small sum) they all go away.
(The site remains a bit clunky though following their recent update).
Of course, someone will no doubt be along shortly with a more … piratical … solution.
Not sure how wearing an eye patch is going to help.
Compulsory purchase might solve planning problems on paper, but it comes at a very real human cost.
I feel for landowners, whether it’s someone simply living in their home or a farmer trying to make a living, who suddenly find themselves in the path of a project. We’ve seen it before with High Speed 2: businesses given notice with outdated valuations, families forced out of homes they’d lived in for decades, and people losing not just property, but their surroundings, their views, and their sense of place.
“Market value” sounds fair, but it rarely reflects reality. You can’t always replace what’s been lost, especially rural homes, established communities, or working farmland. And while decisions drag on for years, people are left in limbo, unable to move forward as their communities slowly unravel around them.
For farmers, it’s even more than land; it’s access, infrastructure, and livelihoods built over generations. For others, it’s the emotional toll of uncertainty, stress, and watching everything familiar disappear.
Yes, infrastructure matters, and the future may benefit from it. But that doesn’t justify leaving those most affected to carry the burden alone.
If compulsory purchase is to be used, it needs to be done properly: Not just market value, but true replacement cost.
Not just land, but livelihoods.
Not just property, but wellbeing.
People shouldn’t be left worse off, or stuck for years under the threat of losing their home.
So today I stand for those that fight and block.
Maybe try and use paragraphs and comments would be easier to read.
Or maybe throw it in a TikTok – this text stuff is just too hard for people these days.
We’re not talking about HS2 or motorways here, or indeed any form of compulsory purchase (does anyone know of a single cycle route that has used compulsory purchase and driven people out of their homes? I certainly don’t). We’re talking about greenways, generally nothing more than asking landowners to allow cyclists to use a very narrow strip of uncultivated land at the edge of fields to ride across. Your screed has no applicability to the establishment of new cycle routes.
Did those landowners purchase all those disused railway lines and historical pathways? How many pathways have been lost because a landowner has blocked the access or intentionally put bulls in the field to discourage public use? How much of that land is actually used for farming versus being paid by the acre to not farm it? I think if we need to build infrastructure, including new housing estates, we should be reclaiming the millions of acres given out by past Kings to people who supported the King in some nefarious endeavour and now belongs to a descendant sucking on a silver spoon.
Boo hoo. Every time I’ve seen compulsory purchase used it’s been as a last resort against people who have already refused all reasonable offers and accommodations, so sod them. These aren’t people interested in “true” anything, they get an offer of replacement cost and they demand millions, the government accounts for more than just the raw cost of the property but they insist their view is worth a fortune. If they’re going to cause a big costly legal ruckuss and drag things out for years, of course they’re going to get the bare minimum the government can legally get away with giving them, maybe they should have accepted the initial offer instead of digging their heels in and chucking a hissy fit because they simply couldn’t be bothered moving.
Unfortunately this is not always the case, frequently is with landowners but CP can also be used very unfairly, e.g. quite near me the Heygate estate at Elephant and Castle was demolished to make way for new development and residents who didn’t want to leave (some of whom had lived there thirty years) were offered the most derisory compensation under compulsory purchase, IIRC in one case an 80-year-old woman was given £68,000 for her two-bedroom flat in an area where now (admittedly after redevelopment) two-bedroom flats go for £500,000 and upwards.
I live in Wittering, the place is road locked by main roads, I just came back from Stamford and the cycle path is a joke, it doesn’t run all the way, its on the edge of the A1 and is covered in glass shards that glint in the sun, there is a good surface in one part (that is covered in glass shards and road grit) and then it extends to pathways where the different surfaces are pitted and covered with road grit and the edges need chopping out as grass and muck has encroached so on on bike can now pass. There are no drop curves over two of the main accesses across it. The surface on some of the path is very bumpy and the litter in the borders is horrific. So if you are a biker, is there anything at all that would attract you to use it, nothing!, except it’s cheaper than buying fuel presently, unless you end up with numerous punctures or skidding off you bike (which is highly likely). As a driver I’d much prefer to see bikes off roads where possible, and as someone who likes to exercise want to cycle if I can, but if money is not spent on these resources then people aren’t going to cycle.
@robclane – yeah, there is a high proportion of inadequate or even laughable infra in the UK.
BUT … that – plus the existence of lots of places where there is “good enough” infra and a large proportion of short journeys are cycled – is just more evidence for adequate (or better) infra.
Some “UK quality” infra *can* be good enough to get cycling off the start line. For example in the north of Edinburgh the “network-ish” shared-use former railway paths (sustrans) plus quieter streets plus some actual on-road cycle path infra … really does help.
There are issues: it’s not socially safe, there are occasional niggles between pedestrians (dog walkers…) and cyclists and “flow” is not prioritised. It’s not well-connected to the south, the city centre needs work also. And of course “shared use” in urban areas has “low levels of cycling” baked in…
… but it’s probably good enough to take a place from the national average of around 1% of journeys cycled to say above 5%.
Here in Alnwick Northumberland a local group has created the first phase of a truly spectacular greenway, called ‘The Borderline Greenway’ utilising a section of the old Alnmouth Borders railway track.
https://www.borderlinegreenway.com/
They’re currently struggling with just this problem.