Who owns a public footpath?

moneysavinghero

Is it definitely a public right of way? If so then as i said the surface belongs to the highways authority and so the local council would be responsible for the surface of the path. The neighbour would be responsible for ensuring that his trees do not encroach onto the path - the council could force him to do the work if he does not do it himself.

Chandler85

Download his land registry file for £3, check where his boundary is.  As that might be in his boundary but you might also have a right of way over it, which means it cannot plant trees there.  Or they might be allowed to be there as long as they don't start encroaching into the road where you have the right of way, who knows without downloading it.

The trees even Leylandi will end up getting trashed there if vehicles keep passing.

Beenie

Yes, definitely a PROW. It has a footpath sign at the end of the road and also has a local authority number. e.g. Public Footpath 27 (that's not it's actual number).

Beenie

Chandler85 said:

Download his land registry file for £3, check where his boundary is.  As that might be in his boundary but you might also have a right of way over it, which means it cannot plant trees there.  Or they might be allowed to be there as long as they don't start encroaching into the road where you have the right of way, who knows without downloading it.

The trees even Leylandi will end up getting trashed there if vehicles keep passing.

Not only cars but the dustbin wagon comes weekly, and an oil tanker comes down regularly too. Along with supermarket vans and Amazon deliveries. As you say, the branches will get trashed....

MalMonroe

Beenie said:

wide enough for a car at present but the trees and branches will grow. Just look at the height of  his other ones! This isn't a dispute by the way - all I want to know is who owns or is responsible for the path. If it's nobody, then there's nothing to stop the parish council lopping the branches.

Yes those leylandii will grow, and quickly too, in my experience! What a foolish neighbour. Why plant them there, though? They look silly and surely he can't see them and neither can anyone else, unless they're actually on that footpath. Some people are just awkward for awkward's sake. I think the council could, as you say, lop off branches if they cause a problem though. 

moneysavinghero

"It is an offence under the Highways Act 1980 to obstruct or encroach upon the legal width of a public right of way. This can include unauthorised structures, fences and other boundaries (either crossing or alongside), trees, hedges and other vegetation, muck heaps, hay/straw bales, rubble, ditches, parked machinery or any other object either temporary or permanent that causes the way to be blocked or obstructed for all or part of its width.

The council has a duty to prevent any obstructions or encroachments of the highway and will therefore investigate any reports and seek removal if any are found. The landowner will be requested to remove the obstruction within a specified time period, failing which the council has powers to remove obstructions and recover its costs from the landowner and/or to issue criminal proceedings."

AdrianC

Beenie said:

Yes, definitely a PROW. It has a footpath sign at the end of the road and also has a local authority number. e.g. Public Footpath 27 (that's not it's actual number).

A public footpath does not have a vehicular right of way for the public. Nor does it need to be vehicle-width accessible, just pedestrian-width.
That's a different question from the vehicular RoW you have (presumably) enshrined in our property title.

And, no, it is not the parish council's pigeon, either... It is the landowner's responsibility. If the landowner is not present, then a reasonable approach would be for those benefitting from the VRoW to maintain it themselves.

Beenie

it's not a vehicular right of way to the public, it's for the two houses situated next to the footpath. Tree man has frontage and access to the road; we and the neighbour have our access included in our property deeds.  

As our neighbours are in their late eighties, and I have palliative care for a life-limiting condition, is it fair for someone to plant trees in our access road and expect us to maintain them -  either ourselves (physically impossible) or at our own expense? 

moneysavinghero

The width of paths

This depends on several factors:

• there could be a legal width recorded in the definitive statement
• there may be an enactment which declares a width for the path
• if the path crosses arable land it will be subject to the Rights of Way Act 1990 and the required widths
• if a path has an established width between walls or hedges then this will be taken to be the legal width of the path, unless other evidence comes to light

AdrianC

Beenie said:

it's not a vehicular right of way to the public, it's for the two houses situated next to the footpath. Tree man has frontage and access to the road; we and the neighbour have our access included in our property deeds.  

As our neighbours are in their late eighties, and I have palliative care for a life-limiting condition, is it fair for someone to plant trees in our access road and expect us to maintain them -  either ourselves (physically impossible) or at our own expense? 

They aren't in your access road. That looks to me to at least 4m, between the planted saplings and the far side. Your car is about half that width.
Yes, as they grow, they will encroach on the width. But normal vehicle movement will keep them trimmed back. Think about all those "tunnel" trees along lanes where vehicles have trimmed them over the years. That's what'll happen here.

If there's insufficient movement, then somebody going down there with a hedge trimmer will take about five minutes a year and keep them in. Do you have a gardener?

Planting leylandii is a double-edged sword. If he has any intention of keeping them within check, he will need to trim them regularly - if they grow out to the point that they ever need pruning back beyond the live growth, they will forever be "bald" there.