Commercial use of public footpaths

I live on a riverbank, with a right of vehicular access. There is also a public footpath running along the bank.

The other day a group was led past, by a historian. I *think* they were just a local history group. But they may have been a commercial tour group (there are lots in York).

So, does anyone know if it is legal for a commercial company to make use of a public footpath like this?

I can't see why not. I mean, plenty of paid for, guided tours are taken onto the hills on public footpaths. My mother is a tour guide and I'm sure that at times she takes groups on footpaths, not just pavements.

Yeah - but that is in national parks mostly, right? The situation I'm talking about is more like going through someone's back yard. I have no objections about it - as long as the tour company undertands and is sensitive. Leading a group of 40 through someone's yard, on a scheduled basis is a bit different.

Well no, I don't think the legal status of a public footpath changes depending on national park or not. If you're bothered about it, best to contact the local council and ask them. In some cases I think people have been able to apply to have footpaths re-routed, where possible, but once it's a public right of way, you really have no say on who goes there, when, and how many people.

I do actually sympathise with you, I'd hate it, but there's not much you can do.

The local council doesn't give a damn about locals - all it sees is tourist dollars.

Legally, if I own the land, I have to ensure that the footpath is free of obstructions, etc, right?

Err pass!! Hope someone else can give you an answer to that one!

As far as I can find out (looking up at the legislation), I have to ensure free access, I'm not allowed to erect misleading signs, but I'm not liable for someone hurting themself whilst on my land.

Footpaths are different from the 'open access' land. Access to land that's now available under the 'open access' legislation is restricted to recreation. "Commercial activities" are not permitted.

Yes, they are perfectly legal.

This was one of Madonna's objections to the opening of her land under the Public access to private land. As it stands, the press and TV are allowed to venture onto public rights of way and cannot be stopped from taking what photos they like from them.

A few years ago the BBC commissioned a comedy drama called "Border Café" which was mainly filmed on Pwll Ddu, on the mountain near Blaenafon. They built a mock up of the Café to film all the outside scenes. Instead of "wooing" the locals and asking politely for co-operation, they hired a gang of burly security guards who attempted to close both the road and the two public footpaths every time they were making a take. They so incensed the locals, that they made filming very difficult for them by driving though at times of filming honking their horns as a protest at the director's approach to them.

The crux was that the Beeb attempted to obtain an injunction for temporary closure of the PRofW whilst they were filming. The judgment was that there was absolutely nothing preventing them filming of the said PRodW, but for the privilege, they would have to suffer the consequences of the open location, and the injunction was refused.

Needless to say, "Border Café" was a flop and lasted just one series.

As they were set up right over the top of the entrance to Ogof Draenen, Britain's forth longest known cave, (And being extended regularly) we were passing the spot quite often during the filming and we had many a conversation with the hundreds of staff milling around between takes. (Including the cast)

It was really funny though that they were far more interested in taking to us about the cave than we were talking about them !!

I would imagine however that someone attempting to set up a hot dog stall for example would fall foul of planning regulations at the very least !

Erm, I thought Madonna wanted a footpath closed. That's utterly different from 'Open Access' (usually called the 'right to roam').

yes you do have to maintain the path if it goes through your land (well that rule applies for farmers/farming)

as for all the people going over your land, you have NO right to stop em, its a PUBLIC footpath,and the CROW act especially now with the right to roam,

think if tour groups are taking the p with amounts of people they are taking through your land then chat with em and come to an agreement, from previous experiance blocking or disrupting paths means lots of hassle and poteintal fines,
whilst working on farm we ploughed a field and within days got complaints that the path was gone even tho we were still working the field and were told if we didn't mark it out we would recieve substantial fines!(how they expect you to drill crop/cultivate, i dunno......)

No,

My understanding was that Madonna had already had a run in with a national newspaper who's photographers had taken photos of her kids with powerful telephoto lenses from a public footpath. She feared that open access would give them the same rights and that is why she did not want her land opened up under the "right to roam."

As I understand it, a compromise was reached in which only part of her land was thus opened, and the bits nearer her home were not.

As you rightly pointed out, her fears over the intruding photographers were misplaced since the RtoR legislations gives no such permissive activities as intruding on the privacy of landowners.

Madonna was badly represented by the objections of the Ramblers Association who it appears totally misinterpreted her objections, and her reasons for wanting continued privacy!

Dapparob, that's where the footpath thing goes nuts - responsible, sensible walkers would walk around the edge of a cultivated field - it is right numpties that object to this!

The only down side of "responsible" walkers doing that is that technically, to deviate from a path would mean that they are trespassing and open to abuse from the landowner.

That would of course be open to the land owners being "responsible" in turn and taking such forced deviations into account.

It is surprising though that many only tolerate PRofW because they have no choice. (particularly the new breed of Suburbia escapees buying up the land)

There are many case of complaints to our local authorities where landowners are attempting by fair means or foul to make progress across their land as difficult as possible. There was a case recently where one was "admonished" for spreading slurry on an already muddy path in an attempt to "discourage" public access!

yeah tis true, normally people with to much time on there hands, the place i worked was full of em, loads a time and money and alot influence on the council.... problem with walking round the field..... it is 103 acres!! the path goes right bang thru the middle

gotta say feel sorry for you if they start making a tourist thing out of it, best you can do is find out who runs it and when, if you see em all trundling thru your garden again, then come to an agreement with em, either that or start up a refreshments store! hope it all turns out fine anyway.....

I think I'll have to do something along those lines. I have a bench made out of an old treetrunk - maybe add a couple, and do something delineate a path.

It's just a bit irritating when people stand at the top of the bank peering in my windows - don't think they'd do it to a house, they seem to think it's fine when it's a boat.

alot of arable farmers hate havin the paths because you can litterally lose out on acres of crop because of a path/bridleway running thru it, the cost of these paths must be alot to some farmers because not only do they lose out on usable land but they also have a responsibility to maintain it, even if you only rent the land!( but you still have to pay the rent for the land the path falls on) anyway footpaths are good so, unlucky mr farmer!

could you put up a polite sign explaining that you live on the boat an would appreciate a little privacy? alot of people don't realise people do actually live in boats, and therefore gawp at em thinkin they are some kind of holiday ideal for "next time they go away" i think most people would be fine with it as long as it didn't cause undue obstructions to them, the bench thing sounds like a bit of a plan as well

The thing about living on boats is that, in theory, I can only live on a mooring that is officially residential.

There are about 500 of these in the country, and an estimated 15 000 people living on boats.

If I put a sign up, and someone photos it, objects, I'm in serious trouble.

As I sit here typing these few words - the whole world and his dog are walking past the window a little over one metre from my nose. Add another two metres and it's a classified road with trucks, buses, cars, bikes - once even had a guy go past on skis when it snowed! Do I find it a problem? Not at all. Anyone of any race, creed or religion has an absolute right to pass my window, just as I have the right to use any other public highway or right of way.

Are they walking through your garden, Paddy? Do they stop and stand outside your window, watching what you are doing?