This footpath report covers the following topics:

• Resignation of Area Footpath Secretary
• Need for some case studies
• Planning Applications
• Any comments ?

Resignation

At the Mid Lancs Area AGM on the 21^st Jan the resignation of Joe Howard as Area Footpath Secretary was noted. After the meeting I discussed the situation with Eric and agreed that as an expedient I will become the Area Footpath Secretary, so that I am able to receive copies of footpath orders etc. I regard myself as the Acting Area Footpath Secretary, rather than being the Area Footpath Secretary.

In my note to CO, I commented that the active membership is slowly but surely getting older. By working together as a committee, we should be stronger than working as individuals.

My own thoughts are that we should be targeting people in aged around 50, for it is often a time when middle aged adults get some time back, as their kids become independent, or at least semi-independent. It is also a time when people still have plenty of energy. Thinking back to when I was 50, I was doing walks with double digit mileage, but such walks are now infrequent on the walks programme. Whilst seeking to recruit new area officials, we should also be looking at the walks programme. My days of leading long walks are in the past.

A Zoom type call took place on the 18^th Jan, to which all footpath secretaries were invited, with the following being the main points –

1) Several participants had problems with finding the right web address for the call.

2) Problems with Network Rail are continuing, for they want to remove all risk from their land by removing crossings, but this often increases risk elsewhere, sometimes significantly.

3) Mention of DMMOs (Definitive Map Modification Order - the record of public footpaths), for some seem to be stuck in a legal limbo. The RA is working with BHS (British Horse Society) and the OSS (Open Spaces Society).

4) Mention of Pathwatch in that the App is no longer supported and that it did not function as well as expected.

5) Mention of the Magistrate Court procedure and mentioned a couple of successes from a few years ago. (We need reports of some recent cases that have gone to Court.)

6) Solar Power Developments, the number of applications is increasing.

7) Mention of ‘Donate a Gate’ scheme as operated on the Isle of Wight –

The kissing gates are installed by a contractor, along with an Oak Plaque.

Cost to donor is £490, but the cost of the gate is £575. The difference is made up by using Gift Aid and donations

250 gates fitted so far.

The gates last about 15 years. Often it is the post that goes first, with the post going rotten at ground level.

8) The next call will be in April.

Need for some case studies

In early Feb I was out with Preston Group walking the FPs around Knott End. At grid ref SD37064943 we came across a collapsed stile on Preesall FP 03. A photo is attached. I have made a report to LCC. June use to be the Footpath Secretary for that locality, but June retired a few months before Covid started, so the RA has a vacancy which has not been filled. Ideally I would like some more information about Preesall FP 03, but in the absence of a known person who regularly walks in this locality this will be unlikely to happen.

It is my intention through the Lancs Footpath and Access to continue writing letters to Cllrs at probably at six monthly intervals. In order to do this I need the details of a few well documented issues that are causing walkers a problem. These examples ideally need to be in localities or near localities that are well walked.

I had thought about using Cuerden FP 18 as a possible example, which goes from near outside Matalan, Bamber Bridge to the A6, but it risks the reply from LCC that with scarce resources as a result of several years austerity, that FPs like this will be classed as a low priority because few people use them.

Planning Applications

I have received details of 3 applications to divert FPs as a result of planned developments, these all being within South Ribble District.

The first application involved a planned new cricket ground at Farington, which involved diverting Cuerden FP 02, Cuerden FP 01 and Farington FP 05, to be just outside the proposed new cricket ground. The proposed diversions looked logical. In my reply I added the caveat that these footpaths are sometimes waterlogged in winter, so any requirement to improve the drainage and to provide a good surface will be welcome.

The second application was on the site that was intended for Ikea, which was about Cuerden FP 08. This FP has an history of complaints about the vegetation, which is the result of it being used by few people, probably because it is next to the M65, and the A6, and not being a particularly pleasant place to walk. Given the history of this FP it would be difficult to object to the proposed diversion. It is planned to upgrade the FP to a BW, presumably to try to gain some support from the BHS.

The third application is also on the site intended for Ikea, which is about Cuerden FP 12. This FP presently goes from Old School Lane across a couple fields, across a spur of the A6 (which is the means of getting to the M65). Then around Places for People to reach Craven Drive. Crossing the spur of the A6 is often less than easy because of the volume and speed of the traffic. It is proposed to delete most of the existing FP. This FP has seen few complaints being made about it.

In its place they are going to create a BW going from the northern end of Old School Lane to Stoney Lane, with a spur to the middle of Old School Lane. The right of way has been effectively turned through a right angle. I understand the argument that you cannot have a FP or BW going through an industrial unit, and that this is a possible alternative to allow some access. At the northern end of Old School Lane is the A582 – Lostock Lane, which is a busy dual carriageway with only a gap in the crash barriers as a means of crossing the road. The photo below was taken on a Sunday morning.

The proposals have effectively removed the need to cross one dual carriageway (A6) and replaced it with a need to cross another dual carriageway (A582).

In my reply to LCC I commented that in order to encourage walking we need something better than this. My reply has been recorded as a formal objection.

The most likely route from Bamber Bridge to reach Old School Lane is down Todd Lane South, where the pavements are narrow as it crosses the River Lostock.

If this is intended to give members of the BHS a means of a short ride, then they will either have the problem of taking a horse along a busy road to get to this site, or finding somewhere to park a horsebox. Somehow, I cannot see many equestrians using such a facility, for I am not expecting a pair of BWs around an industrial estate to be an attractive facility.

The site that was intended for Ikea is now intended to become a mixture of industrial and commercial units. I am also aware that we are unlikely to see people walking around an industrial estate for leisure, but people may have a reason to walk to the estate, and that they may perhaps do this regularly, which will include the need to cross a busy road.

Any comments?

Looking ahead, when LCC publishes a diversion proposal we have 28 days in which to respond. Given that sometimes that I may not be able to react immediately this time period could perhaps be reduced to around three weeks. What I would like are contact(s) in each group with whom I can quickly discuss any potentially controversial proposals with. I am aware that some groups are presently without a footpath secretary. This is something we can discuss at the April meeting.

David Kelly