NEPN - road, footpath or cycle track? « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

NEPN - road, footpath or cycle track?

(26 posts)

Started 7 years ago by davidsonsdave
Latest reply from Frenchy

No tags yet.

davidsonsdave
Member

I would like to ask the hive mind whether the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 applies to the NEPN or not.

From the legislation (copied below), it would seem to me that is a cycle track and not a footpath and so the duties contained within the duties of the Act would apply to the NEPN. Can anyone poke a hole in that?

Roads (Scotland) Act 1984

151 Interpretation.

“cycle track” shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2) below;

“footpath” shall be construed in accordance with subsections (2) and (3)(a) and (b), and “footway” in accordance with subsection (2), below;

“road” means, subject to subsection (3) below, any way (other than a waterway) over which there is a public right of passage (by whatever means [and whether subject to a toll or not]) and includes the road’s verge, and any bridge (whether permanent or temporary) over which, or tunnel through which, the road passes; and any reference to a road includes a part thereof;

(2)For the purpose of this Act, where over a road the public right of passage referred to in the definition of “road” in subsection (1) above—

(a)is by foot only, the road is—

(i)where it is associated with a carriageway, a “footway”; and

(ii)where it is not so associated, a “footpath”;

(b)is by pedal cycle only, or by pedal cycle and foot only, the road is a “cycle track”;

(c)includes such a right by vehicle, other than a right by pedal cycle only, the road is a “carriageway”.

(3)This Act does not confer any power or impose any duty as regards a road or proposed road which—

(a)being a footpath only, is a public path created under section 30 of the M56Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (power of planning authority to create public paths by agreement);

(b)being a footpath only, forms part of a long-distance route the proposals for which have been approved by the Secretary of State under section 40(1) of that Act (approval of proposals relating to a long-distance route); or

(c)forms part of land owned or managed by a local authority and used by them for the provision of facilities for recreational, sporting, cultural or social activities in the discharge of their duties under section 14 of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982.

Posted 7 years ago #
Ed1
Member

What of horses or horse drawn vehicles?

Posted 7 years ago #
Arellcat
Moderator

Coincidentally, I was mulling this very question recently too, in the context of NMW.

I think a road in the Act can be a footway, a cycle track or a carriageway, while what Joe and Jo Public think of as 'a road' is really just a carriageway.

Is it also fair to say, then, that a pedestrian can use all roads, a cyclist can use most roads, while a driver can use only carriageways?

Posted 7 years ago #
Luath
Member

@davidsondave Glad you brought this up, it's something I've been thinking about too!

There are some quite interesting implications that follow from the Roads Act applying to the NPEN.

Posted 7 years ago #
davidsonsdave
Member

The backstory for me is that the NEPN near Silverknowes floods across it's width in a couple of locations every time there is any substantial rain forcing children walking to/from School and the elderly to get thier feet muddy or wet in order to pass. The puddles are large and last for days, sometimes weeks.

I reported this to the council over three years ago and nothing has been done about it. They have just told me they have no plans to do anything about it for the next 6 months and have no real plans to fix it beyond that.

If the NEPN is subject to the duties of the Act then I believe the council would be committing an offence by permitting water to flow onto the NEPN.

Posted 7 years ago #
crowriver
Member

Legally speaking, NEPN is probably a footpath which has been designated as "shared use", i.e. bicycles can use it. However I dunno whether a TRO was ever implemented on this back in the 1980s, or whether the path is simply a right of way by precedent, i.e. folk have been cycling on it for so long it's effectively a shared use path. Spokes people would probably know the answer.

Anyway this is all moot now as post 2003, any footpath away from a road can be cycled upon unless specifically prohibited.

This quasi-legalese does not of course solve the issue of maintenance and flooding, which has been a problem for years, especially by Davidson's Mains. I thought there had been some remedial drainage work done last year? Though I may be mistaken and it doesn't seem to have been very effective if so...

Posted 7 years ago #
Colonies_Chris
Member

Some work was done a few years ago on a floodprone dip just before the turnoff to Tesco's at DM, and that pretty much solved the problem there. However, there is a section just before that, between there and the Main St bridge, and a dip just before the end at Silverknowes Dr, which tend to fill up and stay that way. It surely wouldn't take much of a bite out of the cycle or walking budget to fix the drainage of those two short sections.

Posted 7 years ago #
davidsonsdave
Member

@crowriver, Colonies_Chris: I moved to the area four and a half years ago and have been commuting along this path since then and as far as I know there hasn't been any drainage work done in that time. I do recall them working on the drainage on the Roseburn path but that also floods so appears to have had little value. I am not sure how well any work would stand up to weight of vehicles which are regularly driven on the verges on the path.

Last year they did some work to improve the stairs down from the Main St bridge.

In the terms of the Roads Act, as it permits pedal cycles and pedestrians it would seem to be designated a cycle path rather than a footpath only, so the duties of the act should apply to the NEPN as much as it would any road.

Posted 7 years ago #
hunnymonster
Member

@davidsondave - you could try a speculative notice to CEC under Section 56 of the Highways Act (1980)... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/56

Template notice is on this page http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/improve-the-path-network/how-to-get-a-path-properly-maintained.aspx

I notice "An out of repair path may have vegetation growing out of the surface, or be flooded because of inadequate drainage." features on that page...

Posted 7 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 defines five key terms:

1. Road: A way over which there is a public right of passage by any means, including the road's verge and any associated bridges, tunnels etc.
2. Carriageway: Commonly known as “the road”, the carriageway is a way which can be used by any vehicle.
3. Footway: Commonly known as “the pavement”, a footway is a way, which is associated with a carriageway, where right of passage is limited to foot.
4. Footpath: A way, which is not associated with a carriageway, where right of passage is limited to foot.
5. Cycle track: A way where passage is limited to bikes or bikes and foot.

The NEPN is technically a road. It's constituent parts (e.g. the Roseburn Path) are included in the list of public roads maintained by the Council. However, it falls within the definition of a cycle track - as passage is limited to bikes and foot (this will be set out in a Traffic Regulation Order). Either way, the Council is responsible for its maintenance.

Posted 7 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Either way, the Council is responsible for its maintenance."

I think implied question of thread is - 'to what standard/degree of urgency'.

Posted 7 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

chdot - all set out in this document:

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/site/custom_scripts/proxy.php?file=/documents/12116/Road%20Safety%20Inspection%20and%20Defect%20Categorisation%20%20-%20Edinburgh.pdf

Posted 7 years ago #
chdot
Admin

Ta

Posted 7 years ago #
crowriver
Member

I like this paragraph:

"Safety inspections should normally be undertaken as walked inspections and cover all roads and footways where the safety of the Officer can be maintained. It may also be appropriate to inspect cycle routes on a bicycle."

Posted 7 years ago #
hunnymonster
Member

The test applied is one of reasonableness - i.e. you can't expect the surface to be perfect all of the time - but if it floods every time that there's light drizzle that's obviously less reasonable.

My experience - bang in your notice citing HA1980.s56 and watch to see what happens - around here potholes that have been ignored (even after reporting every month for 3 years) have been repaired (if you can call spooning burned oatmeal into a chasm a repair).

You don't have to follow it up with a court order, but obviously imply that you will :) Highways people are apparently taught not to ignore notices mentioning section 56...

Posted 7 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

hunnymonster - the Highways Act 1980 only applies to England and Wales. I'm not aware of an equivalent of s56 of this Act that would apply to Scotland.

Posted 7 years ago #
hunnymonster
Member

It doesn't appear to if you "show Geographical extent" it lights a bubble at the top of the page quite clearly "E+W+S+NI"... I may be jumping to conclusions, but that looks UK-wide to me.

Posted 7 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

hunnymonster - Section 345(3) of the 1980 Act states:

"This Act (except paragraph 18(c) of Schedule 24) extends to England and Wales only."

Schedule 24 is a series of minor consequential amendments to other Acts. 18(c) made a textual amendment to Section 121(7) of Transport Act 1968 - which has itself now been repealed.

To be clear - I'm not trying to be a smartypants here, just trying to help.

Posted 7 years ago #
davidsonsdave
Member

My starting point was the Highways Act which is very clear that the council would be responsible for rectifying an obstruction on a footpath, including water flooding the path... then I read that it applied to England and Wales only!

Posted 7 years ago #
hunnymonster
Member

Urgh. That's more than a bit cack. There must be some onus on highways authorities to maintain highways in a reasonable condition surely? If not we should lobby our MSPs to make it so :)

Posted 7 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

hunnymonster - Section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 does place a duty on councils to inspect and maintain public roads. The document I linked to above sets out how Edinburgh Council seeks to meet this requirement. This categorises "excessive standing water" on a foot/cycle way as a defect. What you need to do is prove that the standing water poses an imminent risk to cyclists and pedestrians. This might result in some action.

I would suggest getting your camera out after some rain, photograph the standing water, draft a few lines outlining the risks (especially to loveable children and the elderly) and then send that to local councillors and officials and ask what they are going to do about it.

Posted 7 years ago #
hunnymonster
Member

Ah, yes - periodic inspection regimes. If they look every 12 months, that's both periodic & regular :(

Photo op on the NEPN then - next time there's a flood, get a small child crying in the middle of the flooded section with optional "dead" bike as prop :)

Posted 7 years ago #
davidsonsdave
Member

Thanks Morningsider. Already done a bit of that but repeated fixmystreet requests over the last three years have been ignored and twitter isn't the best medium due to character restriction.

Will try to get some pics of folk struggling around next time it rains and use the Roads Act as leverage.

Thank you hive mind!

Posted 7 years ago #
Its_Me_Knees
Member

The DMains end of the Silverknowes path was worked on ca. 4 years ago. Two posts on CCE make mention of the old Silverknowes Loch, and the works, respectively...

CCE 1

CCE 2

..and maybe there were more (posts).

I have lived in Silverknowes since the early Cretaceous period, and my impression is that the old 'Loch' was much worse than the current puddle, but work to remove one merely created the other, and the present flood is no easier to navigate on foot. Bottom line, the whole path needs to be raised along this section, ideally with adequate gully drainage down either side. The cost will be but a drop in the ocean of the promised 600% (or whatever) of the transport budget that will be spent on cycling after the cooncil elections, eh? ;-)

Posted 7 years ago #
davidsonsdave
Member

Good to know although I have no recollection of the work, or the 'Loch' for that matter and I did venture through Silverknowes on the bike on a weekly basis long before I moved to that side of town. Perhaps these things only start to stick when you experience them on a more regular basis.

Whilst cycling it doesn't bother me as the full mudguards keep my feet dry but it stinks that pedestrians have to choose between 'Splashy sploshy, splashy sploshy' or 'Squelch, squelch, squelch, squelch' even if they are not going on a bear hunt (again).

Posted 7 years ago #
Frenchy
Member

Dear Frenchy

Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 - Release of Information

Subject: Foot and cycle paths in Edinburgh

Thank you for your request for information of 12/04/2017 where you asked the following:

Information on which paths in Edinburgh are designated 'foot paths' and which are designated 'cycle tracks'. A map would be particularly useful.

Also, information on whether TROs were used to designate the North Edinburgh Path Network as 'foot paths' or 'cycle tracks'. Ideally, the TROs themselves.

Your request has been processed and considered under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs) and the information is provided below.

All paths which are for “shared use” (cycles and pedestrians) should be signed accordingly with the standard diagram 956 or 957 sign (see below) either painted on the ground or attached to lighting columns or sign poles along the route.

Diagram 956 Diagram 957

Maps of all major routes in Edinburgh can be seen in Maps produced by the Council on the link below:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/370/explore_edinburgh_by_bike_maps

Certain path networks including the North Edinburgh Path network and Union Canal are covered by the Land Reform Act (2003) which classes these as Core Paths which permits cycles, pedestrians and horses to legally use the path provided certain guidance is followed.

Here is the Councils details on Core Paths in Edinburgh:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/63/edinburghs_core_path_plan.pdf

and details of guidance on the Outdoor Access Scotland website:
http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/The-Act-and-the-Code/legal

...
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Officer

Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

NEPN - road, footpath or cycle track?

Reply

RSS Feeds

Links