CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Barnton Park track access

(29 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by Its_Me_Knees
  • Latest reply from imabiker

No tags yet.


  1. Its_Me_Knees
    Member

    One of my potential routes to work runs through Davidson's Mains park, then past the back entrance to the Royal High school and along the track that runs through the woods parallel to Queensferry Road as far as the north end of Drum Brae.

    On the Spokes cycle map this is marked as a bona fide cycle route, but on the ground the track has some large "Private Path, NO CYCLING" signs on the trees, apparently erected by "BPPA" (or something like that) which I assume is the Barnton Park (Patrons?) Association.

    Anyone know if these signs are legitimate, or instead are they simply indicative of a residents' association going beyond their legal remit..?

    Posted 13 years ago #
  2. cb
    Member

    Used to cycle that way sometimes when I was at the Royal High. In fact it might be a good place to avoid at school going in/out time as the path probably gets quite busy.
    The No Cycling signs must have appeared some time in the last 20 years!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  3. Morningsider
    Member

    Pretty sure the signs have no legal force. Access legislation allows cyclists to use most tracks through parks etc. (in a responsible manner). I have no idea who BPPA are, but they certainly cannot enforce a "no cycle" policy on publicly accessible paths. If there is a legally enforceable prohibition on cycling then that is a matter for the police - who hardly ever enforce these restrictions even where they do actually exist.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  4. chdot
    Admin

    Suspect it's Proprietors.

    Signs have been there for years and were legally dubious before Access Legislation.

    I think there have been suggestions in the past that CEC and/or Sustrans might pay for path improvements.

    I think they are 'OK' about children cycling to RHS, but - This Is Edinburgh.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  5. cb
    Member

    It could (and should) be a fantastic quiet alternative to the Queensferry Road, but as you say, TIE.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  6. Dave
    Member

    According to the council, the Land Reform Act doesn't apply to any path that existed before the 2003 passage of said act (see previous discussions about the Meadows signage).

    So, you're probably out of luck relying on that as a basis for cycling through. If I recall correctly we more or less established here that if people put up a no cycling sign, it means no cycling. (Folk have a right to some bike-free areas, don't you know, etc).

    Posted 13 years ago #
  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Guess it depends who owns the land?

    Posted 13 years ago #
  8. Morningsider
    Member

    Dave - I'm fairly sure the Council is wrong on this one. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act works by granting pedestrians and cyclists access to all land (section 1) and then specifies certain types of land which are excluded from this general right (sections 6, 7, 8) and certain types of conduct that are excluded (section 9). At no point does it exculde access rights from paths that existed prior to 2003 - quite frankly that would be daft, as almost all the paths that are ever going to exist in Scotland would fall into that category.

    In addition, the Scottish Outdoor Access Code doesn't highlight the exclusion of paths that existed prior to 2003 from access rights - which would seem a bit of an oversight by Scottish Natural Heritage. You might want to ask the Council the legsilative basis for its opinion, for a laugh as much as anything.

    I think the fact that access rights applied in urban as well as rural areas came as a surprise to the politicians that agreed the Act, so much so that the tories specifically say they will remove such rights in their current election manifesto.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  9. Its_Me_Knees
    Member

    Thanks for all the responses. I take it that this path's appearance in the Spokes map doesn't infer a 'right of way' for cyclists then?

    Posted 13 years ago #
  10. kaputnik
    Moderator

    so much so that the tories specifically say they will remove such rights in their current election manifesto

    heh. I might give that a read and find out what else they are "promising"!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  11. effemm
    Member

    I use this path a lot to bypass Queensferry Road, especially when I have the kiddies in the trailer. I've always wondered about the BPPA and what authority they have, but the most I've discovered is that it's the Barnton Policy Parks Association, and that it seems to be a voluntary organisation formed to "maintain" the paths and boundaries of that strip of woodland. They don't appear to be the landowners but I'm not about to shell out to do proper RoS check.

    Taking a pragmatic view, I've always (mostly) ridden it slowly and considerately, but in practice no-one's ever - in five years - confronted me or otherwise objected to my presence. If they did, I'd politely ask them who the BPPA are and what they have against cycling...

    It is a nightmare round about school going-in and coming-out time though. I seem to be invisible (and inaudible) to mobs of sullen teenagers...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    It seems that it's possible to restrict/ban users legally using Access Legislation -


    Posted 13 years ago #
  13. Morningsider
    Member

    Ah, that would be "Tuley Vs. Highland Council" (reported in 2009 Scottish Law Times 616). This case looked at whether the erection of barriers to prevent regular horse access to a path intended for pedestrians was a breach of responsible access rights or a responsible exercise of land management.

    In the end the Court of Appeal came down in favour of the land owner - i.e. preventing horse access to protect the path from serious damage was responsible land management. The details of this case are pretty complex - the landowner is actually keen on public access, having already created an alternative bridleway, a network of footpaths and mountain bike trails on their land.

    The land in question is in Feddonhill Wood near Fortrose (which is where chdot's photo seems to come from).

    It is difficult to say what, if any, impact this decision will have on access rights enjoyed by cyclists as it all depends on what can be considered "resoponsible" access - is access which would seriously degrade a path "responsible" and is it reasonable for a landowner to restrict access that would cause such damage. Bikes are less damaging to surfaces (and drainage) than horses, but there could be instances where this could apply. All a matter for the courts in the end.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  14. Its_Me_Knees
    Member

    Used the path in both directions going to / coming from work today. Several cyclists coming the other way this morning but didn't see anyone on a bike this pm. Several walkers out too. No-one queried my use of the path, so I guess the take-home message is keep using it until someone does raise an objection. It's certainly much safer than the main road...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  15. SRD
    Moderator

    Queried spokes to see what insight they might have and got two responses, which I have edited slightly to anonymize:

    1. If this is a public park cycling is now generally allowed.The only park I know where cycling is not allowed is Princes ST gardens.The change came about through the land reform act.A management group has no right unilaterally to ban cycling.If you write to "the access officer CEC" he should take this up if necessary through the access forum on which spokes has representation. We can of course do nothing about too many school children using it!

    2. There's a general point about maps and access that's worth reminding people about:

    We at Spokes maps obviously do our best to represent on a map what we understand to be the correct status of any cycle facility, usually in consultation with the relevant Local Authority, immediately prior to publication. We take a lot of care over this. However, we are also mindful that this status might be ill-defined to start with, or change after a map has been published. Our maps carry statements to the effect that the map user must ultimately be responsible for using their own judgement if they come across a situation 'on the ground' that seems to contradict what the map shows. For example:

    'The representation on this map of any road, track or path is no evidence of the existence of a right of access'

    and

    'Content details were checked prior to publication (dates given). Spokes can accept no responsibility for the consequences of any errors or omissions. However, we always welcome constructive feedback from users ...'

    In other words, we make our best effort to show the map user what to expect 'on the ground', but just having a map in your possession isn't a guarantee of access. Clearly we don't want to cause inconvenience to our customers, but we are always willing to hear feedback and make helpful changes where we can.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    Mapping is an art as well as a science.

    The Spokes map has developed over the years from being very useful to even more useful (even in these days of on-line digital).

    Spokes has also put 'you may have to dismount' on paths that are either too rough to ride (for some people) or where legality is uncertain/disputed. Spokes maps have also marked 'potential cycle route' in several places. Some are now rideable...

    The BP path isn't owned by the council, but access legislation applies to all landowners. There can be little doubt that responsible cycling is wholly legal.

    It is unfortunate (if understandable) that those responsible for this path appear to be hostile to cycling. The signs have been in place for some time and were probably a reaction to an 'incident'.

    Since then, many more people (including BP residents) have taken up cycling for leisure and transport and the parallel main road has got busier.

    It might be an idea for people who use this path - or would like to 'with a clear conscience' - to try to make contact and find out more about the 'current attitude'.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  17. Dave
    Member

    I should have thought it would be an exercise in futility, since almost by definition the only people interested in being part of such an organisation are the type who wish to have things "in the Edinburgh way" (to coin a new phrase).

    See for example Friends of the Meadows objecting to the closure of the rat-run Meadow Place, on the feeble grounds that "having only one way to drive would confuse motorists leading to more accidents" or some-such...

    (PS. The contrast between this discussion and the -endless- one about the Meadows is very interesting.)

    Posted 13 years ago #
  18. SRD
    Moderator

    (PS. The contrast between this discussion and the -endless- one about the Meadows is very interesting.)

    I disagree. At the risk of sounding cranky(er), as we have pointed out endlessly, the reason that many of us do not mind the 'no cycling' paths on the meadows and links, is that they are simply one among many traffic-free routes, so it is not particularly onerous for cyclists to avoid some paths!

    I also have more time for the (elected) council making some decisions about how paths are used, using their lawful right to do so (IF they do have this right, which is not clear!), and much less time for a bunch of property-owners and/or self-selected users doing so.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  19. Dave
    Member

    Of course, "do not mind"/"not particularly onorous" is not an expression of right and wrong. Or are you suggesting that pedestrian safety can be compromised providing the alternative is either perceived to be onorous or you just "do mind" the imposition? ;-)

    The position I take is consistent - I believe that shared use is safe (so I think that it's OK in the Meadows, on the promenade, & under the auspices of the BPPA).

    I can also respect, albiet disagree with, the alternative viewpoint, that shared use is not safe and we should restrict people to walking. After all, anyone who's fit enough to cycle is going to be able to handle getting off to push across the Meadows, or through the park in the OP, or along the promenade. It doesn't *stop* anyone getting through.

    To argue that shared use is OK only when it meets some kind of -essentially arbitrary- 'convenience threshold' is shakey, I think.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  20. SRD
    Moderator

    back on topic: another reply from a 'spokes-person':

    "The path has a long history. It's not public land but is privately owned. However, that makes little difference, as much of the land in Scotland used for access purposes is privately owned. There have been 'no cycling' notices on the path for many years but they are mostly ignored. If anyone challenges you, just mention the Land Reform Act Scotland 2003, and/or the Scottish Outdoor Access Code 2005, and that should shut them up!

    It is, as pointed out, a useful path for avoiding Queensferry Rd, and it links directly into Davidsons Mains Park and hence to the railway path. From the western end one can follow minor/residential roads almost as far as Cramond Brig.

    It was probably me who recommended the purple 'dash-line' category for this path, on the basis of: off-road, but narrow width, surface rough (and occasionally muddy). I still think that is appropriate.

    It's good that school children use the path, as this helps to keep vegetation down. I haven't been along the path for some time, but if it needs vegetation cut back, let me know, and I can do it."

    Posted 13 years ago #
  21. Dave
    Member

    "I haven't been along the path for some time, but if it needs vegetation cut back, let me know, and I can do it."

    Now that's what I call service :-)

    Posted 13 years ago #
  22. Its_Me_Knees
    Member

    @SRD: Many thanks for raising this with Spokes people. Their responses (and other CCE members' follow-ups) are interesting. I tried looking up the BPPA online but the only reference I could find was a few references on CEC documents and mention of a chairman (unnamed) in an item on the website for the Edinburgh West MSP.

    Regarding the 'shared use' debate that seems to be emerging... there should be no problem with shared use if everyone behaved in a manner consistent with the environment they are travelling through, ie. cyclists use adequate lighting and audible bells, etc., and go slowly where sight lines are limited and/or where pedestrians are walking, and in turn pedestrians pay attention when walking, don't drop litter or otherwise degrade pathways, refrain from using i-pods etc (so they can actually hear the bicyclists' audible warnings) and keep dogs and children under control.

    Of course... there's inevitably enough folk who don't adhere to such practical/sensible codes of conduct that users of shared use pathways have to anticipate the worst, and councils, associations and random sign-erectors tend to take the least positive / most restrictive line on these matters. In that respect, cycle path access is sadly no different from many other walks (pardon the pun) of life...

    For info, the path these days is fairly well defined between DMains park and B-P Drive, but gets a bit rough-and-ready on the remainder - narrower with some overgrowth of bushes, but by no means impassable.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  23. druidh
    Member

  24. effemm
    Member

    Came across this:

    ANP_environheritage.pdf

    Which describes the BPPA thusly:

    We manage the woodlands and pathways from the west end of the Royal High School Playing Fields to our boundary with the owner of the Barnton Park Wood area. Both the inside and outside faces of the boundary wall are maintained and pointed by us. A very practical way to make a difference. This work is funded by the residents of the estate and managed by the Committee of the Association.

    Although the woodlands are privately owned the pathways are extensively used by both members of the public and the pupils of the RHS, as well as dog walkers.

    There's even contact information:

    Contact us: Tony Barnett (Chair) 0131 336 3894

    Being a head-below-parapet sort of chap, there's no danger I'm going to phone this guy. Your mileage may vary...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  25. DaveC
    Member

    I thought about this thread this morning as I cycled up the A90.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    Barnton Policy Park Association even!

    Might be amenable to offers of practical help...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  27. Dave
    Member

    Yes - the correct approach would be to ring up suggesting, for instance, a working party to maintain the path boundaries... any volunteers?

    Unfortunately I'm trying to get married, but later on in summer I reckon I'd be up for something like this.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  28. DaveC
    Member

    Unfortunately I'm trying to get married

    I assume you have found a bride? Thats the biggest hurdle, unless your name is Ben foggle or someone else attractive to the ladeez!!!

    Great Idea chdot, get in on the up keep of the park and then when they complain about you cycling through, tell them your the one (partly) responsible for its upkeep.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  29. imabiker
    Member

    As a resident of the Barnton Park estate, I can confirm that the BBPA path through the woods is privately owned, but the 'no cycling' notices have been removed, and it is regularly used by residents and non-residents. The Land Reform Act Scotland 2003, and/or the Scottish Outdoor Access Code 2005 applies, and responsible users will meet no objections. It is a useful path for avoiding Queensferry Rd, and it links directly into Davidsons Mains Park and hence to the Blackhall railway path. From the western end one can follow minor/residential roads to Cramond Brig, and thence to the Dalmeny Estate and Queensferry, which is an excellent run.

    The path is off-road, and can be busy at school times. Can be narrow in places, surface rough (and occasionally muddy).

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin