The Bury Local Access Forum is a statutory advisory body made up of volunteers who are interested in countryside access issues. The role of its members is to give advice on improving access to land that is used by the public for outdoor recreation and enjoyment.
Members of the public can attend forum meetings as observers. If you would like to attend a meeting please send an email to prowconsult@bury.gov.uk before the meeting and tell us if you would like to ask a question.
Details of the next meeting
The next Local Access Forum meeting will take place online on Wednesday 7 October 2026 at 1.30pm.
The agenda for the meeting: TBC
Minutes of previous meeting
Draft Minutes of the Bury Local Access Forum Meeting Held Online via Microsoft Teams on Wednesday 3rd June 2026 at 1.30pm
Present
LAF Members
Edgar Ernstbrunner (Chair)
Irene Pope
Debra Batchelor
Lesley Tierney
Also Present
David Chadwick (LAF Secretary) - Bury Council
Jon O’Connor – Bury Council
Mike Bent – Bury Council
Cllr John Southworth
1.0 Apologies
None
2.0 Minutes of the Last Meeting
Accepted as an accurate record of the meeting.
3.0 Matters Arising
It was explained that John Southworth is now attending the meeting in his role as Councillor for Bury Council.
MB clarified that after discussions with the Friends of Outwood group is was agreed that horses can access and use the Outwood Trail. The surfacing problem created by vehicles using the Trail for access to carry out necessary works has been resolved.
IP highlighted the issues of access points commencing on privately owned land being unavailable to horses.
MB asked for details to be sent to him and DC
4.0 Officer Report – including list of works since last meeting.
DC had provided the LAF members with a list of works carried out on the PROW network since the February meeting. He confirmed that projects utilising Section 106 funds were now being prepared.
EE asked for the location of the S106 funded projects –
Public Footpath Number 104, Ramsbottom (Irwell Sculpture Trail, Sheep Hey Farm)
Public Footpath Numbers 9,10,11 and 49 Prestwich (Prestwich Golf Club)
Public Footpath Number 24 Prestwich (Mereclough)
5.0 Definitive Map Modification
The DMMO for upgrading footpaths to bridleway at Higher Pit Lane, Radcliffe has been made and advertised.
The DMMO for upgrading the footpath at Mather Road to bridleway has received two objections which the Authority is attempting to resolve.
DC confirmed that none of the other DMMO applications were being progressed at this time.
IP raised the fact that the Planning Inspectorate directed the Authority to make decisions on six DMMOs on routes around Ainsworth in 2020. The applications all contained similar evidence to the Higher Pit Lane application.
JOC stated that resources are the issue. There are delays and a backlog of applications as a result. In addition the Authority has started the process of collecting information for the consolidation of the Definitive Map and Statement which has been highlighted as a priority by the LAF.
EE stated that instructions from the Secretary of State cannot be ignored.
JOC confirmed the matter has been reported to senior management as a ‘risk’.
IP felt it was the duty of the Council to provide more staff if there is too much work.
EE asked if there has been any consultation with the landowners regarding the five remaining DMMOs in the direction from PINS.
DC confirmed that there had not.
6.0 Planning and Public Rights of Way Guidance Document Update
DC had provided the members of the LAF with a Draft Guidance Document for comments.
EE thanked DC for providing the draft.
IP added that the document is great, but had a comment that the sentence stating ‘traffic-free alignments should be considered where possible’ should be strengthened to make it clear that traffic-free alignments should be mandatory. Alternative routes should be provided.
DB asked for future maintenance liabilities to be added.
EE asked who takes responsibility for the items in the guidance? What happens if the guidance is ignored? There needs to be consequences and penalties.
JOC said there would be further discussions with colleagues in the Planning service regarding these comments and questions.
EE asked whether applicants are aware of claimed routes. Could the online map show these?
JOC felt this was a good point and he will take this forward.
IP confirmed that Lancashire County Council used to show such routes on their online mapping.
DC added that the guidance could also include a link to the online register for DMMO applications.
7.0 Public Path Orders
DC reported that there were no new PPOs to report. The Diversion of Part of Public Footpath Number 160, Bury is now with the Secretary of State due to the remaining objection.
8.0 Definitive Map and Statement Consolidation
DC explained that he and JOC had attended an online seminar run by IPROW regarding consolidation and the processes involved. Following this DC has compiled a list of PPOs etc. since 1984 and the Legal Event Orders (LEMOs) that go with them. Over 120 Orders have been identified with approximately twenty not having a LEMO held in DC’s records. Relevant information has been provided for Legal Services to make a search for the missing LEMOs.
Once this search is completed, the next stage of the process can be considered.
EE acknowledged DC’s update as reasonably promising.
9.0 Any Other Business
None
10.0 Date and Time of Next Meeting
Wednesday 7th October 2026 at 1.30pm on TEAMS