Silsden Strolls

Update on the blocked paths in Silsden.

Since the official requests for action on these were made by a number of us, on or around 23 February, Bradford RoW department has responded thus:

BANK END
FP 6 (wrought iron gates). By 8 April the council will have sought legal advice re pursuing court action against the landowners. I understand that our recent complaints have been made several times by other walkers in preceding years, to no avail. It may seem to you that this referral to another department is a attempt to defer or defuse the whole affair and avoid a fuss, but this time there are some who are following up closely and ensuring that what needs to be done by Bradford IS done.

Nr CRAG TOP
FP 47 (padlocked gate, barbed wire wrapped over gate to prevent climbing to gain access to path). By 01 April the council will have removed the padlock and have made it clear that they will do so each time any attempt is made to replace it. The barbed wire has already been removed since the announcement of our action.

I gather the same landowners own the land across which these two footpaths run.

CRAG TOP
FP 39 Airedale Beagles will be reminded that the public footpath through Crag Top must be open and available at all times to the public. Should any member of the public be afraid of any loose dogs as s/he crosses the interior yard the matter should be reported to the police (NB), not RoW. The police will require a second witness in order to take action. (In fairness I've crossed the yard more than once and the dogs are very noisy but kept restrained - try not to let the barking disturb you!)

Additionally RoW have proposed that the statutory roadside "Public Footpath" signs be reinstated at the entrances from Haygill Nook and Lightbank Lane to all three footpaths, and also at the entrance to FP47 on Brunthwaite Lane.

We'll still be watching closely, but let's hope that really is that. No walker yet seeks a fight with any landowner. Thank you to the VERY many who have supported us publicly and privately.

Just in case it gets removed again, this is Nigel Calder's original post: (feel free to comment on it - comment is free)

COUNCIL NEGLECT / OBSTRUCTION OF RoW

During the pandemic, the network of Public Rights of Way (RoW) around Silsden have been a godsend for walkers of all ages and abilities.

You can find the routes of these RoWs by entering “ Public Rights of Way Bradford Map” in Google, and scrolling down to “ View online maps of footpaths”. Zooming right in, all of the paths and bridleways will appear in purple and green. They also appear on Ordnance Survey Maps.

It is the responsibility of landowners to keep routes visible and to not obstruct or endanger users. Obstructing a public right of way is a criminal offence, and should landowners fail to remove obstructions, the Council has powers of enforcement and recovery of costs from the landowner.

Sadly, some landowners deliberately obstruct RoW, remove Council signage, and intimidate walkers.

However, it is the Council's legal duty, not a choice, to ensure obstructions are removed, and to also maintain signage.

For as long as 8 years, Bradford Councils RoW Service have been aware of complaints from members of the Silsden community in respect of three of our RoW. These are known to the Council as Silsden 47, Silsden 39 and Silsden 6.

Also 8 years ago, Danny Jackson, Bradford Councils RoW manager told the Telegraph & Argus that a RoW complaint would be investigated and the landowner contacted “to find the best and quickest way of solving it”.

Access to Silsden 47 should be via a large metal gate on Lightbank Lane, Silsden. (adjacent to White Crag House). Access has been obstructed due to the gate being secured by way of padlock and chain. In addition, strands of barbed wire have been wrapped around the gate. Council signage indicating the route of the RoW has been unlawfully removed and not replaced.

Access to Silsden 39 is via Crag Top Farm, Lightbank Lane, Silsden. Again, Council signage indicating the route of the RoW has been unlawfully removed and not replaced.

Access to Silsden 6 is via Bank End Farm, Bank Lane, Silsden.(Cringles to Draughton road). Access has been obstructed by way of large, wrought iron gates. Again, Council signage indicating the route of the RoW has been unlawfully removed and not replaced.

Despite numerous complaints over the years, the issues in relation to the above RoW all remain. “The best and quickest way” is, in reality, 8 years of nothing being done.

The failure of Bradford RoW Service in its legal duty is totally unacceptable, and sets a dangerous precedent.

I ask you to please e-mail the Bradford Council RoW Officer at [email protected] to ask why the Council have repeatedly failed in their legal duty, and to ask that the matters above be rectified without any further delay. If we speak as a community, maybe they will finally listen.

I also encourage you to discover our lesser used RoW too, to report any similar matters, and protect Silsden's RoW for future generations."

The post has, I gather now been put back, BUT COMMENTING HAS BEEN TURNED OFF. Don't I love this land of muffled speech and no-platforming!! I'm sure that the fact that the name of one of the landowners with whom we have issues is also that of one of those who lobbied for its removal - Spence - is pure coincidence and that nothing untoward should be read into this. To offer "violence" as an objection to ANY post, let alone one discussing footpaths, 😂 it's frankly laughable, and tells you so much about the posters and the attitude of anyone responding to it with other than a dismissive snort.

BLOCKED PATHS, BLOCKED MESSAGES

Following Nigel Calder's lengthy post yesterday to Silsden Buzz about the illegal blocking of footpaths by a few landowners it's quite a shock suddenly to find the post has been deleted (or censored, to use the correct term). Linked directly to this page, the copy on this site has also gone, to be replaced by the image below. Given that the post attracted a few comments, none of them at all objectionable or in any way derogatory, one might reasonably infer that there are one or two in the town (perhaps not a million miles from the offending landowners?) who have put pressure on the moderators to close down free and open debate about what is an illegal obstruction of civil liberties. One needs to ask "Why have they yielded to this?"

I shall ask Nigel to copy directly on to this site his original version so that it is here for reference in the future. But those of you who read the posts yesterday might take note: this censorship is apparently an extension of the bullying tactics involved in connection with at least two of the three paths in question. BUT: it won't stop us pushing to get walkers', parishioners' rights restored. And we'll still need to ask for your help, please. Thanks. Allan

I'm writing this post to you all because so many of you (1200+) have expressed interest in and affection, indeed gratitude for the Strolls and thus for the footpaths, bridleways and scenery of Silsden.

There are a few landowners in the parish who have deliberately blocked footpaths across their land. These blockages have been reported many times to the Bradford Rights of Way Office, with at least a couple of reports dating back several years. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. NOTHING.

Silsden walker Nigel Calder has today posted at length about this on Silsden Buzz but as that's a members only page I'm putting it on at the end of this preamble in case you're not one.

A small group of Cobbydalers and others (like yourselves!) are gradually coalescing in order to force Bradford to spend less than 100% of its resources on the city and a proportion of it on Silsden. Should it prove necessary we are prepared to seek funding and to go to the next step of taking the council to magistrates court for failing to do its job (legally: non-feasance). It’s going to be a bit of a long haul but we are tired of just a few antisocial, aggressive, hostile landowners in Silsden breaking the law by blocking paths over their land, AND HAVING THIS TACITLY ENDORSED BY THE COUNCIL CONSTANTLY BACKING AWAY FROM ENFORCEMENT AND CONFRONTATION.

Official complaints on "the proper form" have been sent in regarding three long-standing examples of this egregious anti-social behaviour, and now the council has 30 days to act - which as far as I'm concerned means obliging the landowners to reopen the paths and ensuring this is done. Should they fail to do so we then have the option to take the matter to the magistrates to get court orders forcing the reopening of the paths.

This is not cheap. I will almost certainly have to get some kind of crowdfund going, which I believe I can do here on FB. Should it come to this I hope that as many of you as possible will recall the pleasure Silsden paths gave you and will feel able to contribute a bit of brass to the cause of keeping the parish's paths freely open to all.

Nigel's post follows separately. Thank you. ❤️