Footpath from Wadsley Bridge station to Claywheels Lane

[Planner1 428]

Your understanding is correct as far as it goes. However, the current owner is not the person who originally purchased the land from British Railways Residual Property Board, and there has been some suggestion that this current owner's strongly asserted belief that he controls access to the right of way has been taken at face value with no documentary evidence.

 

That may be wishful thinking, but when the PROW Group seem unaware from whom the land was originally purchased (British Railways not Network Rail) we kind of infer they haven't done any checking. Some people are also thinking that the current owner is known to be, shall we say, difficult when it comes to matters such as these and would of course claim what he claims (*)

 

So all-in-all it could be a wild goose chase, but then again, he could just be trying it on and getting away with it.

 

(*) yes, I know hearsay is not evidence, but court records are!

 

No right of way can ever have been established whilst it was railway land. BR had Crown Immunity, which means they were immune from any such claims.

 

I understand the PROW group were in discussion with the previous owner about setting up an alternative path, when that owner sold it to the current owner.

 

I'm told that there was not enough time between BR selling the land and the owner stopping up the path for any rights to have been established over it.

 

So, it doesn't appear there is any evidence of it being anything other than a permissive route, which, like it or not, the owner is perfectly within their rights to discontinue public use of.

[Bradley-St 10]

Re: previous post. Crown immunity was abolished by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The railways were nationalised in 1948, prior to this one can presume that the land was in private ownership. The footpath existed from 1923 as shown on Ordnance Survey maps of that time. Under the Rights of Way Act 1932 if the public had enjoyed uninterrupted access for 20 years then the path would become a public highway, UNLESS the landowner had erected signage to the contrary or had deposited documents with the local authority stating that the path was not dedicated for public access (i.e. if it was a permissive path rather than a right of way). An inspection of council records would confirm if this was the case.

For those interested in re-opening the path the Open Spaces Society have a good track record in restoring public access in instances where it has been withdrawn.

[birley 10]

Planner 1, now that Bradley-St has explained what I believe you should have known, will you instruct the landowner that he must now open the public right of way at the top of the station approach?

If this right of way is available I can see no reason for clearing and reopening the path at Carrwell Lane which Michael Hanson is now telling me never existed.

These links clearly show the path:-

 

http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/download/EAW021907

 

http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/download/EAW021909

[vincentb 10]

No right of way can ever have been established whilst it was railway land. BR had Crown Immunity, which means they were immune from any such claims.

 

I don't think that's right, is it? There are plenty of other rights of way which cross railway land, for example the footpath between Twentywell Lane and Poynton Wood in Bradway which goes straight across the 'railway triangle' between the junctions.

[Dannyno 19]

Re: previous post. Crown immunity was abolished by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The railways were nationalised in 1948, prior to this one can presume that the land was in private ownership. The footpath existed from 1923 as shown on Ordnance Survey maps of that time. Under the Rights of Way Act 1932 if the public had enjoyed uninterrupted access for 20 years then the path would become a public highway, UNLESS the landowner had erected signage to the contrary or had deposited documents with the local authority stating that the path was not dedicated for public access (i.e. if it was a permissive path rather than a right of way). An inspection of council records would confirm if this was the case.

For those interested in re-opening the path the Open Spaces Society have a good track record in restoring public access in instances where it has been withdrawn.

 

In fact the British Transport Commission Act 1949 s57 made it impossible to establish new rights of way over such land. The Act is no longer in force, but it remains true:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/easements-claimed-by-prescription/practice-guide-52-easements-claimed-by-prescription

 

Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (section 57 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commission must now be read to include successor rail authorities and the Canal & River Trust.

[herbiegrass 10]

Planner 1, now that Bradley-St has explained what I believe you should have known, will you instruct the landowner that he must now open the public right of way at the top of the station approach?

If this right of way is available I can see no reason for clearing and reopening the path at Carrwell Lane which Michael Hanson is now telling me never existed.

These links clearly show the path:-

 

http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/download/EAW021907

 

http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/download/EAW021909

 

looking at these photo's I would have thought the lower path behind the chapel would have been a better option.

[Arthur Ritus 30]

It would be interesting to know what was railway land and not. There have been no proper barrier for as long as i can remember just trees and bushes.

I resume the sidings belonged to the relative businesses - scapa, welding rods.

 

I cannot imagine rail track have sold the land the current track is on as it would be stupid (then again!). I am surprised there hasn't been a fence between a working railway line and a working site for safety reasons.

 

It wouldn't be difficult to put two fences up between the site and tracks with a path between which wouldn't be crossing anybodies land, sort of no mans land.

 

The thing is the path has been obsolete for many years hence it getting over grown and lost, it presently does not really connect any places people want to get from and to.

It would have been popular before everybody drove every where for workers getting to the factories on Claywheels and limestone cottage lanes from housing and the tram stop and some getting to the Station and the school from surrounding areas. Also Wadsley bridge school used to do cross country along there. School, Station and most Factories now gone.

 

I point brought up by a neighbor it that the council has been unwise (just for once!) for not taking the sign down for starters then people wouldn't be going looking for a path that isn't there.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4186662,-1.4991744,3a,75y,251.21h,72.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3jX1EvuxWfR__89yXiRAGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

 

Also eventually something will have to change around here (its been said since Batchelors went), developers have wanted to build housing but the council won't let them as they want it for industrial use. Apart from the lack of industry in general across the country any business is going to choose one of the many sites with much better transport links like of the parkway or the old mining sites at barnsley and treeton.

 

So whats the future for the area? Will there be a station or tramtrain stop back here?

There was much talk of a foot bridge across the don linking the residential areas and the tram stop with the industrial sites.

 

Possibly it would make sense to have kept a foot path for future developments.