I first read about this on an alternative web site. It was stated, amongst other things, that it would benefit cyclists and that horse riders had few areas in which to ride. Here is my comment:-
I fully recognise that people with horses want to be able to ride further, but I also recognise that horses on footpaths, even if it is called a bridleway, generally cause surface erosion etc making the route unpleasant for the majority of other users. ( in this instance I consider the idea that it would be beneficial to cyclists shows a marked lack of knowledge of cycling and certainly shouldn't be part of the claim). In this area there are many fields dedicated to catering for horses, surely it would be beneficial to the riders if the landowners got together to create horse only trails linking these fields and so the riders would then have the freedom to ride as they wish without the fear of colliding with pedestrians etc.
I have to correct you here. A path designated as a footpath is never a bridleway. Horses are not allowed on footpaths. The right of access on a public footpath normally only extends to users on foot (there may be other unrecorded rights on certain footpaths as well), so there is usually no right to cycle or ride a horse on a public footpath. However, it is not a criminal offence to do so, unless there is a traffic order or bylaw in place specifically - instead it is a "civil wrong" to ride a
bicycle or a
horse on a public footpath, and action could be taken by the landowner for trespass or nuisance by the user. On the other hand, walkers ARE allowed on bridleways as are cyclists but cyclists using a bridleway are obliged to give way to users on foot or on horseback. Instead of raising a hoo-ha about horses on bridleways perhaps it would solve the problem if walkers were barred from bridleways as horses are from footpaths?
In fact, new bridleways are usually arranged so as to be both horse- and walker-friendly. The new(ish)bridleway in Simmondley, Glossop running from Green Lane along the route of the old railway line towards Broadbottom is divided into an area down one side for horses and on the other side for walkers and you will find that most newly established bridleways have this facility (for example, the parts of the Trans-Pennine Trail that are shared between walkers and horses, are arranged like this). The area for horses is usually grass or a soft surface and the walkers area is gravel. If the projected bridleway at Chadkirk was arranged like this there should be no problem.
On most bridleways, walk, trot and canter are allowed but there are some bridleways where walk and trot only are permitted (eg in Reddish Vale). Again this could be a requirement for the projected bridleway at Chadkirk
What it comes down to is the sensible use of bridleways by
all users. Horse riders should not endanger other users by riding dangerously (and should never be riding a horse they cannot fully control) and should limit their paces to those where they know they can pull up quickly and safely in an emergency. Walkers should not rush up to horses waving their arms and shouting (I promise you, this happens. Even my placid, well-behaved horse is a bit disconcerted by this one!) and they should have their dogs and children under control. Cyclists shouldn't cycle furiously too close to walkers, dogs or horses, bearing in mind that the sudden approach of the hum of the bicycle chain/wheels can startle even the most sensible horse or dog into unexpected behaviour.
Sadly, there is no legislating for idiots using any form form of perambulation but don't tar everyone with the same brush.
Rather than adopting an attitude of "I don't like it. Get rid of it" and stamping your metaphoric foot, why not get involved in the process. Put forward some sensible suggestions to the planners that will help make the plans work for everyone.