You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Who is responsible for the upkeep of unpaved roads which come under the remit of County Highways dept.? Specifically a double track road near me which runs across farmland but on which you are allowed to drive a motor vehicle - the track is increasingly torn-up by tractors with puddles over 0.5m deep and growing across the whole width of the track. Does the land owner have a responsibility to upkeep the road and can this be enforced by Highways?
I dont think so, otherwise most of the byways of mid Wales would need paving over.
Strata Florida:
It's the local authority. Just because the road is listed as Maintained at Public Expense doesn't mean they have ever spent any money on it, or ever will.
Is it actually a road owned by the LA? Or a private road with a right of way?
with puddles over 0.5m deep
That's one hell of a puddle if it's a foot and a half deep. Did you mean "wide"?
Pretty certain it's a private road with ROW-status for motor vehicles as when (new) landowner put locked-gates across the road in 2 places (having been told by their solicitor they owned the road), Highways made them remove the gates. Does that change anything maintenance-wise?
My understanding is that a right of way does not confer that there has to be anything actually on the ground. So the right of way can't be blocked (either deliberately by a locked gate or a fallen tree etc), but it could just be a field, bog, forest, whatever, there isn't some standard test like "must be passable by an Austin seven". The exception to that is bridleways have to be passable by horse.
If it was owned by the LA you might have had a chance of getting something done as it's a road. Only a chance mind you, they would have to have the complete lack of common sense exhibited by Derbyshire council in ruining byways for everyone by turning them all onto unsealed roads using mostly waste scalpings.
As it's the landowner, I can't imagine they're interested in spending tens of thousands upgrading their farm track if it's passable to them!
That’s one hell of a puddle if it’s a foot and a half deep. Did you mean “wide”?
1.5 ft deep sounds quite possible on a byway.
I can think of a few examples off the top of my head of similar 'features' on well-used byways which no-one at the local authority seems to be awfully bothered about.
It's either a highway maintained at public expense or not. If it is then the local authority has a duty to maintain. If you consider the Highway is not in a condition suitable for "normal" traffic and the authority does not repair you can serve notice on the authority to make necessary repairs. If it is not maintained at public expense but still a public highway then the authority still has a duty to ensure that it is in a condition suitable for normal traffic by looking to the street managers/landowners to maintain
If it is not maintained at public expense but still a public highway then the authority still has a duty to ensure that it is in a condition suitable for normal traffic by looking to the street managers/landowners to maintain
Can you post where that guidance comes from? The legal definition of a public highway, is one maintained at the public expense. So if it's just a privately owned RoW its not a public highway.
Im pretty sure if it's just a RoW then the landowner is under very few obligations otherwise you would see all green lanes destroyed to make them suitable for the lowest common denominator.
Paton, do those links show any responsibility for the landowner though?
The summary on the .gov site only says they cant be obstructed, either deliberatly ot by allowing them to be overgrown.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities
From Paton's link above:
It appears that private liability for maintenance is exceptional.