- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Blackwater Valley Path (licensed by N Chadwick on Geograph.org.uk under CC BY-SA 2.0)Landowner defends right to close Hampshire cycle route
An Aldershot landowner who has blocked cyclists and walkers from access to part of the Blackwater Valley Path insists that he has the right to stop people from accessing his land, citing concerns over poachers, as well as his potential liability should someone be injured while using the path.
According to Get Hampshire, George Boulden installed padlocked gates in July last year to stop people using the path on the section passing through his property, which lies near North Camp Station. He told Rushmoor Borough Council that they should use Hollybush Lane instead.
His grounds for doing so, he maintains, lie in a document drawn up between the council and the previous landowners in 1989. He acquired the land in 2011, but has been embroiled in a dispute with the council over what it maintains is his unauthorised use of the land for his scrap metal dealership.
Mr Boulden said: “In 1989 RBC signed an official document giving them the right to pass and repass on foot, not cycle, over my property – a so-called permissive path. They also agreed in that document that the route of the permissive path can be diverted by the landowner at any time.”
He went on: “I own fishing lakes on either side of the permissive path and it is of great concern to me that the public are allowed access across my land, especially in the hours of darkness for the illegal activity of poaching my fish, and I am legally responsible for their welfare if they injure themselves on, or falling from, the antiquated bridges crossing the river.”
When access to the section of the path in question was blocked last year, one local cyclist, Alan Hilliar, said: “There are dozens if not hundreds of walkers and cyclists each week for whom this is an essential route, for work or for leisure.
"In the 10 minutes or so I was at the new gates, two other cyclists came along expecting to be able to use the path.
“To avoid the blocked off section, we have to either cycle an additional two miles via Ash Vale or take our lives in our hands by using the cycle track along the A331.
"I’ve certainly had a nasty accident on my bike along that section of the A331 caused by the poor maintenance of that section,” he added.
Bur the landowner maintains that that since cyclists are not permitted on the path according to that 1989 document, bike riders had “lost nothing.”
And according to Get Hampshire, a council official has agreed that while it is not familiar with the 1989 legal document, Mr Boulden could potentially be liable for the health and safety of visitors to his land and also has the right to close the path.
Separately, the council is embroiled in a dispute with Mr Boulden over the use of the land for his business, Universal Car Salvage.
Earlier this month, Get Hampshire reported that Rushmoor Borough Council’s development management committee had recommended that enforcement action be taken against Boulden due to his unauthorised use of the site.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Smoggysteve 1 hour 19 min ago
If a chain comes off and gets stuck. That has absolutely zero to do with the frame. ...
- lesterama 1 hour 50 min ago
Just don't turn up at road races expecting to ride it.
- Richbeck 2 hours 8 min ago
Take a look at spa cycles - plenty of choice and options.
- anke2 3 hours 44 min ago
Just for a perspective:...
- brooksby 4 hours 6 min ago
Asking the Bristol Post to do actual journalism? Ha! That's a good one!
- Destroyer666 6 hours 17 min ago
Yeah, not sure how to react to that. I know that's something that I can never afford and the same functionality can be had for a tenth of the price...
- mdavidford 8 hours 41 min ago
They were handed the victory on a Platea?
- chrisonabike 9 hours 20 min ago
I think the former is a fair summary. What's available guides buyers' choices BUT the common choices are reflected by the market here **....
- Dadams7378 10 hours 15 min ago
I'm not sure I agree they are 'promoting' this. It is a review, so unless you're suggesting the reviewer is biased towards Fizik, then it isn't a...
Add new comment
30 comments
Your community should find an attorney who rides and can litigate this. Make the landowner spend a fortune on legal fees and then offer some compromise where cyclist can use the path and divest him of liability. Or send an Italian named Guido to his house to pay him a visit.
litigate on what? it sounds like he may be get litigated over his use of the land, but as far as the permissive path goes, that is the point of permissive paths that a landowner can remove them, for what ever reason, or no reason at all.
there is no way of forcing this, compulsory purchase etc, Sustrans has a number of routes where they where unable to persuade landowners to sell or allow access.
In other words needs a charm offensive, as toothless saber rattling, is just going to entrench views.
Its a big problem up my way. East Europeans have tried to empty the ponds where i go fishing for carp as its part of their staple diet in their home countries. It was eaten here for many years after they were brought into the country by monks.
However a gate and padlock aint going to stop a poacher.
Threeh - England has the right to walk so I was told by the police.
I can understand this guy's concern, I have known of a number of similar instances in the past. Difficult to make judgement on only a handful of information.
If it's a permissive path, then yes he can do all that, as others do have to wounder if this isn't related to his other dealings with the council.
he may and almost certainly has other ways around the land than over bridges that need work, if the path is of no benefit to him, this may be yet another reason to close the path.
My understanding though was as a landowner you could remove the agreement and thats that.
Whatever his argument, he is fully justified to have a dispute with the council, but it seems a little unfair that, in the mean time, he can take it out on people legally using a public ROW (regardless of whether or not it should be an ROW). Bolt cutters? Kick down said fence?
... so now people can steal his fish without any fear of being noticed by a passing cyclist/walker.
scrap metal dealer vs cycling forum armchair warriors
let me just think about who to back in this one
Well, according to ukip.....
A bit difficult to fit in the jersey pocket tho
Just hammer him with a compulsory purchase of the path and two meters either side of it...
If it's a *footpath* people shouldn't be cycling on it.
Having said that, if the bridges are that dodgy he should be repairing them.
I'm all for access to the countryside and we should all be allowed to use it for pleasure or commuting but to be fair to him if the council agree he is allowed to close the route then is this really a story?
To call it a cycle route seems a little off the mark. A route cyclists have been historically using that isn't a bridleway or signposted right of way and a previous somewhat informal agreement has now been revoked by the current landowner within his rights is unfortunately the path users problem and not his.
It's unfortunate he feels this is his only course of action or he might just be selfish but if he bought the land with the facts available and with this in mind at the time then he's within his rights.
Looks like STW have it covered:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/blackwater-valley-path-response-...
Poaching? Is this the 18th century? England needs Scottish style rights to roam, it's hard enough finding routes to walk let alone cycle off road.
Poaching is big business here in Devon; fish, livestock, deer, rabbits you name it. I doubt if it is much different elsewhere, the Police hold up their hands and say, "what do you expect us to do?"
Sounds old-fashioned, but it still happens. Plenty of it around my way.
(want some venison?)
It's certainly a known problem that people of certain cultures regard carp and other river fish as 'fair game'.
So who thinks closing a "permissive footpath" is going to put a poacher off ?
Nothing a regular visit with bolt cutters can't resolve
Battery powered angle grinder...
If the D-lock shackle fits inside the padlock shackle it makes a very powerful lever... just saying.
I'm so disappointed we didn't get a "get orf moi land" quote.
The swivel-eyed will be delighted to find that along with red light jumping and pavement riding, they can now add poaching to the list of things we apparently do.
...using a bike fishing rod holder for example.
Wow! Now I can combine my two hobbies! Poaching and trespass!
Isn't there a rule that if a path is used for something like 20 years then it becomes a right of way?
Edit: thank you google, I don't know how his claim can stand up now
http://naturenet.net/row/makerow.html
yes and no, there are/were rules and I don't think bikes count.
edit
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/go-walking/the-expert-view/rights-of-way-and-...
Someone may be able to clarify, but I think that a law was passed??? about fixing the footpath and bridleway network and preventing new claims????
edit
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/england/campaign-with-us/dont-lose-your-way/h...
[quote=mrmo}
yes and no, there are/were rules and I don't think bikes count.
[/quote]
That's not true, it's perfectly possible for regular unopposed use by bikes to lead to the creation of a Right of Way. If there has been regular use and it meets the tests to be 'as of right' then it usually leads to the creation of a Restricted Byway rather than a bridleway.
In reply to oozaveared
Actually, if you read the final paragraph in the link it makes it clear that a landowner only has to state that there is no intention to dedicate the route as a ROW to prevent this. A notice on the route or a statement in the agreement to create a permitted path would probably suffice.
Use for 20 years is not enough; it has to be shown to be use 'as of right'.
The cynical view is that landowners often allow the creation of permitted paths to forestall the creation of a Right of way, because RoWs are permanent and permitted paths are not.
I don't know much about rights of way so not me sorry. I just commented on the way he has come out of the corner for round two with the council swinging with both fists. Admirable attitude, even if I don't agree with him.
Ah Leverage a wonderful thing to behold.
I disagree with his actions but you have to admire the sheer ballsy hutzpah of a man being prosecuted or in dispute with the council for running an illegal scrap metal business that then manages to end up holding a gun to their head.