OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION TO DIVERT PART OF FOOTPATH NUMBER 19 RAMSBOTTOM
PUBLIC PATH DIVERSION ORDER
HIGHWAYS ACT 1980
WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981
The Metropolitan Borough of Bury (Part of Public Footpath SD number 19 Ramsbottom) Public Diversion and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2023
On behalf of Greenmount Village Community Walking Group’s walk leaders, I object most strongly to the proposed diversion.
Greenmount Village community walking group work in partnership with Bury council, promoting walking in Bury North by delivering 50 annual countryside guided walks, including 14 Friday evening walks in the spring and summer months with an average of 30 walkers of all ages taking part. On some of these walks, we use Ramsbottom footpath no 19, which you intend to divert.
The original concessionary way – see photo 1 on the attached sheet, went from grid ref. 77042 15626, halfway between A and D on your map, in a diagonal line downhill direct to the stile at B on your map. Photo 2 shows how good a route this was.
In Nov./Dec. 2020 this original concessionary way was blocked up – photo 1 shows this. It was moved another 40m along Redisher Lane, away from the house, with a new notice attached to the stile, see photo 3.
This new way is totally unsuitable for a definitive footpath. Since it moved we have had to revert to using the definitive footpath straight across the lawn from A to B on the map, as the new way is so hazardous.
We strongly object to this proposed diversion on the following grounds:
1 The stile is next to a dip in Redisher Lane where water collects and drains under the stile. In wet weather there is deep mud around the stile, particularly on the land side of the stile – see photo 6. There is no kissing gate there.
2 The path does not go straight down from D to C as shown on your map. It first goes right – see photo 4, the walker is on the present concessionary path.
It is noted that you have put ‘going down a set of aggregate timber steps’, if this is done the steps will be very steep and hazardous, especially in bad weather. See photo 5 which shows the steepness needed to get from point D to the gate which is at point C on the map.
3 From point C to B along the boundary fencing the path goes through mud and uneven surface as well as two open drains. This is very wet even in dry weather. See photo 7.
4 You state that the original definitive footpath is 83m in length and that the new path is 85m in length but you fail to add on the 85m of walking along Redisher Lane to get to the proposed definitive path, from point A to point D on the map.
Your statement is therefore wrong as the new path will be 166m from point A to point B.
Our Walking Group do use concessionary ways where they are good, such as at Springside Farm, off Walmersley Road, Bury on footpath 160 Bury and at Sheep Hill Farm Tottington on footpath Tottington 68. Both of these, a good few years ago, created a good alternative to going straight through their properties.
Anyone wishing to alter a definitive footpath should have to create a good alternative for people to use for several years before it can even be considered as a replacement for a definitive footpath.
We are very willing to meet, on-site, representatives from the Engineering Services of Bury Council to show them our concerns about your proposal.
On behalf of Greenmount Village Community Walking Group Leaders, Brian Allan, David Royle, Sue Platt, Martin Knowles, Alan Couldridge, Mark Hoban, Simon Yates, Roxanne Bretherton, Sue Rothwell, Rebecca Jackson, Liz and David Archer.
I do hope you refuse this most inappropriate diversion of a definitive footpath in our local area.
Christine B. Taylor,
Walk leader of Greenmount Village Community Walking Group
Click Objection Photos to view or download a copy of the photos which support our case.