Why would anyone chain up a gate on the NCN??

bungle73

Coming back from a pub lunch yesterday, using a part of the NCN. There's a section that uses a gravel track to pass a marina, skirt a creek, then enter a track through farmland passing through a large metal gate. Never had any problems with it before, only when I tried to gain access yesterday, when I tried to open the gate it wouldn't move. I looked down to find someone had placed a chain and combination padlock on it. And they really meant it too, because it was a long chain wrapped around quite a few times. What gives? Obviously, I reported it.

redvision

Who have you reported it to?
If it is definitely a NCN route make sure you contact Sustrans

Mad_Malx

Not all sections of the NCN routes are legal rights of way.

Landowners can and occasionally do shut down sections, temporarily or permanently. Happened near me when farmer decided he no longer wanted cyclists crossing about 200m on his land, resulting in a 5km section of ncn being shut.

Also, IIRC owners have to close sections of permissive path periodically to re-establish their rights to avoid it becoming an established right of way, although often they just say the path is closed on particular dates but don't enforce.

bungle73

redvision wrote:

Who have you reported it to?
If it is definitely a NCN route make sure you contact Sustrans

Kent County Council.

Do you think that is necessary then?

bungle73

Mad_Malx wrote:

Not all sections of the NCN routes are legal rights of way.

Landowners can and occasionally do shut down sections, temporarily or permanently. Happened near me when farmer decided he no longer wanted cyclists crossing about 200m on his land, resulting in a 5km section of ncn being shut.

Also, IIRC owners have to close sections of permissive path periodically to re-establish their rights to avoid it becoming an established right of way, although often they just say the path is closed on particular dates but don't enforce.

The section is a public bridleway.

Mad_Malx

If it's a official public bridleway then it cannot be chained up without applying to the local authority for a closure.

bungle73

It's here:

Untitled by Graham West 2014, on Flickr

Mad_Malx

The sections running along the creek are public footpath though (short dashes) so the use of cycles is permissive.

redvision

Bungle73 wrote:

redvision wrote:

Who have you reported it to?
If it is definitely a NCN route make sure you contact Sustrans

Kent County Council.

Do you think that is necessary then?

As it looks like it's a public bridleway reporting to the local authority is the right move, however, if there are any NCN signs indicating it's part of a route then you need to let them know as well.

Mad_Malx

is this the same gate?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pedalpushers/26478119927

bungle73

Mad_Malx wrote:

The sections running along the creek are public footpath though (short dashes) so the use of cycles is permissive.

What's that got to do with access to the bridleway the gate leads to?

bungle73

redvision wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

redvision wrote:

Who have you reported it to?
If it is definitely a NCN route make sure you contact Sustrans

Kent County Council.

Do you think that is necessary then?

As it looks like it's a public bridleway reporting to the local authority is the right move, however, if there are any NCN signs indicating it's part of a route then you need to let them know as well.

OK, will do.

bungle73

Mad_Malx wrote:

is this the same gate?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pedalpushers/26478119927

No, it's a large gate at the other end.

Mad_Malx

Bungle73 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

The sections running along the creek are public footpath though (short dashes) so the use of cycles is permissive.

What's that got to do with the bridleway the gate leads to?

You have a legal right to ride on a public bridleway. On this particular section the West to East bridleway is a dead end, so there is no legal right to pass that point on a bicycle or horse. The landowner does not have to allow you to cross the boundary.

Mad_Malx

Also - the orange dots shown on the map indicates that it is a permissive path.
So it appears to be a legal public footpath but a permissive cycle way.

Mad_Malx

Mad_Malx wrote:

Also - the orange dots shown on the map indicates that it is a permissive path.
So it appears to be a legal public footpath but a permissive cycle way.

^but it should still be reported to sustrans who may try to re-establish access.

bungle73

By what right can the deny access to a public bridleway? And that I was on a bike is neither here nor there. The route is a Public Right of Way so should not be obstructed.

imposter2.0

Bungle73 wrote:

By what right can the deny access to a public bridleway? And that I was on a bike is neither here nor there. The route is a Public Right of Way so should not be obstructed.

The only legal way is by a TRO, but if it's a TRO then it should also be supported by signage.

Mad_Malx

Bungle73 wrote:

By what right can the deny access to a public bridleway? And that I was on a bike is neither here nor there. The route is a Public Right of Way so should not be obstructed.

Could you have passed on foot? that is your legal entitlement.

bungle73

Mad_Malx wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

By what right can the deny access to a public bridleway? And that I was on a bike is neither here nor there. The route is a Public Right of Way so should not be obstructed.

Could you have passed on foot? that is your legal entitlement.

Through a locked gate? Via some sort of temporal flux?

imposter2.0

Bungle73 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

By what right can the deny access to a public bridleway? And that I was on a bike is neither here nor there. The route is a Public Right of Way so should not be obstructed.

Could you have passed on foot? that is your legal entitlement.

Through a locked gate? Via some sort of temporal flux?

Via temporal flux - or if that fails, just climb over it.

bungle73

Imposter wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

By what right can the deny access to a public bridleway? And that I was on a bike is neither here nor there. The route is a Public Right of Way so should not be obstructed.

Could you have passed on foot? that is your legal entitlement.

Through a locked gate? Via some sort of temporal flux?

Via temporal flux - or if that fails, just climb over it.

A lot of people wouldn't be capable of climbing over it.

Mad_Malx

I asked a reasonable question. It's fairly obvious why you get so much flack on your threads.

For all I know there it could be a low barred gate, squeezer gate or a stile - all common and allowable on footpaths.

imposter2.0

Bungle73 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

By what right can the deny access to a public bridleway? And that I was on a bike is neither here nor there. The route is a Public Right of Way so should not be obstructed.

Could you have passed on foot? that is your legal entitlement.

Through a locked gate? Via some sort of temporal flux?

Via temporal flux - or if that fails, just climb over it.

A lot of people wouldn't be capable of climbing over it.

Then they'll have to put their trust in temporal flux...

Why are you like this..?

bungle73

Imposter wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

By what right can the deny access to a public bridleway? And that I was on a bike is neither here nor there. The route is a Public Right of Way so should not be obstructed.

Could you have passed on foot? that is your legal entitlement.

Through a locked gate? Via some sort of temporal flux?

Via temporal flux - or if that fails, just climb over it.

A lot of people wouldn't be capable of climbing over it.

Then they'll have to put their trust in temporal flux...

Why are you like this..?

Maybe it's got something to do with the way I've come to expect to be treated on here. Maybe I thought I would fit in.

But if there was another way through don't you think I would have said.

Mad_Malx

If you genuinely want to engage in an online discussion you need to do a lot of work on the way you express yourself. I've tried to engage in discussion, but your responses suggest you feel these are a personal attack and you only seem to want responses that are in complete agreement with your assertions. You repeat this pattern in just about every thread.

FWIW I agree that locking the gate is not a nice thing to do, but it may not be illegal for the reasons I suggested.

Maybe a cycle for a pub lunch somewhere is in order.

Alejandrosdog

Maybe he just didnt want you bungle.

orraloon

If this is part of NCN then def report to Sustrans. They will have sorted out the legals before making it officially part of the network. If down the timeline some d1ck decides to be one of them, Sustrans will sort.

(Said as an (ex) Sustrans Ranger)

bungle73

Nearly three weeks,the chain is still there, and KCC don't seem to have moved an inch to do anything about it.

bungle73

Oh, and I tried reporting it to Sustrans. I cannot find any mechanism on their website to report a blockage, so I tweeted them about it. They didn't reply, so I guess they are not interested.

asprilla

Bungle73 wrote:

Oh, and I tried reporting it to Sustrans. I cannot find any mechanism on their website to report a blockage, so I tweeted them about it. They didn't reply, so I guess they are not interested.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/contact-us/