Remove public rights of way from family homes.
Intrusive Footpaths is a campaign group fighting for the rights of people who have public footpaths running intrusively through their properties.
New resource:
Additional information can be found at www.myrow.co.uk
Record of the experience of one of our members
My partner and I have occupied our property for 48 years. We purchased it from Swindon Council in 1990 and in 1998, we also purchased from them a small piece of overgrown waste land at the bottom of our garden. We were aware of the existence of a now long disused public footpath on this land.
The local Council had, previously, extinguished some of this path in 1977 resulting in a cul-de-sac footpath that ended in the middle of our garden. In March 1998, a Council Member made a site visit to discuss various items. He informed us that this piece of land was still subject to Highway rights. He explained that the occupants of the property at the end of our garden would need to be able to access this piece of land, via their garden gate at the bottom of their garden, in order to maintain their boundary fence. He said that, if we agreed, he could make a reference in the Transfer Title.
We readily agreed since there had never been any intrusion at all apart from the elderly occupant. He very occasionally ventured out of his garden in order to paint his fence. This arrangement worked well for 18 years and a good neighbourly relationship developed between us and him.
This period of time was witness to a steady improvement in our garden facilities. By 2015 (in time for our retirement), we had constructed a large, double glazed and heated conservatory that looked out onto a neat and tasteful garden of which we were both immensely proud.
Then, with no prior warning, I was approached by a rather angry wife of the above gentleman and their four adult children with a demand that they will now traverse our garden (to and from their end gate via our side gate) whenever they wanted and we could not stop them. I protested and this resulted in a physical assault upon my person necessitating Police involvement and a crime reference number.
This however was merely the start of a campaign of harassment. They persisted in crossing my garden en masse back and forth with up to 8 adults (and dogs) for no apparent reason. They were even crossing at night with torches and allowing their dogs to foul our garden.
We then received a letter from their Solicitor informing us that, should we attempt stop them (and/or their visitors) then they would apply for a Mandatory Injunction against us. So now, it became a Legal battle. They persisted in transgressing our garden saying they had every right to do so since it was written into the Deeds of their property. When we started to experience damage to our property, we decided to have a CCTV system installed.
It is fair to state that our deeds did, in fact also mention an existing ‘Rights of Way’ from the rear of the aforementioned property. But, it also stated that this Right of Way was reserved solely to assist the local Council in laying pipes, wires and cables under or over our land.
During Litigation between our two Solicitors, it transpired after all that this ‘right’ was not, actually on their Deeds. Also, the footpath was only 1.2 metres wide and did not abut any part of our neighbour’s property. Furthermore, there was no mention of any existing pedestrian rights from the rear of their garden, nor had there ever been.
However, the transgressions still continued, now recorded. When they became aware that their actions were being recorded, the anti-social behaviour did reduce.
By now though, the damage was done. The worry, stress and costs were all having a serious effect upon both of us. But, it only got worse. By now, we again, had to involve the Police. Our Solicitor said that we could apply for an injunction or I could simply block their gate. He did warn us though that this last action could initiate retaliation. However, by now we were so desperate to put a stop to the intrusions that I constructed a blockage that, whilst it did not actually touch their gate, it did prevent them from opening it.
Retaliation did occur- almost immediately. On a quiet Sunday morning, men with tools entered our garden via our side gate and proceeded to remove the obstruction. My partner became hysterical and I feared that she was having a nervous breakdown so, I called the Police. Amazingly they were on site within a matter of minutes. I say ‘they’ due to fact that there was also a camera and sound crew and Police PR persons. By coincidence, a team filming for Channel 4’s ‘999 – what’s your emergency?’ was in our Street!
After the Police viewed our CCTV evidence, they told our neighbours that, if they entered our property again, then they would face having an harassment order being placed upon them. Also, if they did feel that they had a case, then they should try to resolve it legally.
There were now no further garden intrusions but I was subjected to harassment following some chance meetings elsewhere. After 9 months, we were beginning to believe that it was all over, but, we were wrong. The family complained to the local Council’s Solicitor.
We received a letter ordering us to remove the obstruction within 14 days or face legal or other action. This, of course, only resulted in more stress, anxiety and expense for us. How much more trauma could we endure? Not much.
I am a big man with, so I thought, a strong mental capacity. But, my intense anger added to my immense concern for the mental wellbeing of my partner actually reduced me to tears.
During this period of time, she was undergoing radio iodine and chemotherapy treatment for thyroid cancer. This dispute could not have occurred at a worse time.
Under all this mental stress, I collapsed and was rushed into hospital. Where I was diagnosed with stress related angina. My partner was left at home alone to try to cope with all this. We had already been prescribed anti –depressants and were attending stress management classes. My partner was by now becoming suicidal. Were it not for the kindness of neighbours staying at her side, she may well have tried.
All the while, Litigation continued slowly and with no apparent sense of urgency or concern with respect to our desperate need resolve the issue quickly. Finally, at last, we received some good news. The Council Solicitor wrote to say that the Council would be taking no further action and that, from then on, any dispute would have to be resolved between the two parties. With our garden now once more secure and with no further Solicitor’s letters, our peace was restored and we both began to recover.
Recently, we did receive a letter from our neighbours asking if they could walk across our garden if they promised to behave themselves! My reply was prompt and in the negative! (A single word sufficed. I was tempted to use two) During this awful time:
• We suffered loss of privacy
• My partner was afraid to venture into her beloved garden for fear of another altercation,
• We had to stop our grandchildren playing in the garden,
• Two burglaries and damage to our garden occurred again involving the Police.
• And, worst of all, we both suffered long term damage our health. If we did not actually suffer a nervous breakdown, we came so close.
All Intrusive Paths are a concern and cause potential disruption to both landowner and tenant.
Local Councils in the UK need to be given guidelines to divert or extinguish troublesome paths that may endanger the public or cause concern to landowners through unknown persons coming so close to their homes. Common sense and appreciation of the anxieties suffered by the property owner should be a matter of priority.
Sadly, we are not alone. There are many of us with similar problems. Some vindictive people do seem to derive pleasure from causing others distress. They appear oblivious of just what harm they do cause.
Good luck to you all.
Nigel Wood & Shiela Shepherd
The local Council had, previously, extinguished some of this path in 1977 resulting in a cul-de-sac footpath that ended in the middle of our garden. In March 1998, a Council Member made a site visit to discuss various items. He informed us that this piece of land was still subject to Highway rights. He explained that the occupants of the property at the end of our garden would need to be able to access this piece of land, via their garden gate at the bottom of their garden, in order to maintain their boundary fence. He said that, if we agreed, he could make a reference in the Transfer Title.
We readily agreed since there had never been any intrusion at all apart from the elderly occupant. He very occasionally ventured out of his garden in order to paint his fence. This arrangement worked well for 18 years and a good neighbourly relationship developed between us and him.
This period of time was witness to a steady improvement in our garden facilities. By 2015 (in time for our retirement), we had constructed a large, double glazed and heated conservatory that looked out onto a neat and tasteful garden of which we were both immensely proud.
Then, with no prior warning, I was approached by a rather angry wife of the above gentleman and their four adult children with a demand that they will now traverse our garden (to and from their end gate via our side gate) whenever they wanted and we could not stop them. I protested and this resulted in a physical assault upon my person necessitating Police involvement and a crime reference number.
This however was merely the start of a campaign of harassment. They persisted in crossing my garden en masse back and forth with up to 8 adults (and dogs) for no apparent reason. They were even crossing at night with torches and allowing their dogs to foul our garden.
We then received a letter from their Solicitor informing us that, should we attempt stop them (and/or their visitors) then they would apply for a Mandatory Injunction against us. So now, it became a Legal battle. They persisted in transgressing our garden saying they had every right to do so since it was written into the Deeds of their property. When we started to experience damage to our property, we decided to have a CCTV system installed.
It is fair to state that our deeds did, in fact also mention an existing ‘Rights of Way’ from the rear of the aforementioned property. But, it also stated that this Right of Way was reserved solely to assist the local Council in laying pipes, wires and cables under or over our land.
During Litigation between our two Solicitors, it transpired after all that this ‘right’ was not, actually on their Deeds. Also, the footpath was only 1.2 metres wide and did not abut any part of our neighbour’s property. Furthermore, there was no mention of any existing pedestrian rights from the rear of their garden, nor had there ever been.
However, the transgressions still continued, now recorded. When they became aware that their actions were being recorded, the anti-social behaviour did reduce.
By now though, the damage was done. The worry, stress and costs were all having a serious effect upon both of us. But, it only got worse. By now, we again, had to involve the Police. Our Solicitor said that we could apply for an injunction or I could simply block their gate. He did warn us though that this last action could initiate retaliation. However, by now we were so desperate to put a stop to the intrusions that I constructed a blockage that, whilst it did not actually touch their gate, it did prevent them from opening it.
Retaliation did occur- almost immediately. On a quiet Sunday morning, men with tools entered our garden via our side gate and proceeded to remove the obstruction. My partner became hysterical and I feared that she was having a nervous breakdown so, I called the Police. Amazingly they were on site within a matter of minutes. I say ‘they’ due to fact that there was also a camera and sound crew and Police PR persons. By coincidence, a team filming for Channel 4’s ‘999 – what’s your emergency?’ was in our Street!
After the Police viewed our CCTV evidence, they told our neighbours that, if they entered our property again, then they would face having an harassment order being placed upon them. Also, if they did feel that they had a case, then they should try to resolve it legally.
There were now no further garden intrusions but I was subjected to harassment following some chance meetings elsewhere. After 9 months, we were beginning to believe that it was all over, but, we were wrong. The family complained to the local Council’s Solicitor.
We received a letter ordering us to remove the obstruction within 14 days or face legal or other action. This, of course, only resulted in more stress, anxiety and expense for us. How much more trauma could we endure? Not much.
I am a big man with, so I thought, a strong mental capacity. But, my intense anger added to my immense concern for the mental wellbeing of my partner actually reduced me to tears.
During this period of time, she was undergoing radio iodine and chemotherapy treatment for thyroid cancer. This dispute could not have occurred at a worse time.
Under all this mental stress, I collapsed and was rushed into hospital. Where I was diagnosed with stress related angina. My partner was left at home alone to try to cope with all this. We had already been prescribed anti –depressants and were attending stress management classes. My partner was by now becoming suicidal. Were it not for the kindness of neighbours staying at her side, she may well have tried.
All the while, Litigation continued slowly and with no apparent sense of urgency or concern with respect to our desperate need resolve the issue quickly. Finally, at last, we received some good news. The Council Solicitor wrote to say that the Council would be taking no further action and that, from then on, any dispute would have to be resolved between the two parties. With our garden now once more secure and with no further Solicitor’s letters, our peace was restored and we both began to recover.
Recently, we did receive a letter from our neighbours asking if they could walk across our garden if they promised to behave themselves! My reply was prompt and in the negative! (A single word sufficed. I was tempted to use two) During this awful time:
• We suffered loss of privacy
• My partner was afraid to venture into her beloved garden for fear of another altercation,
• We had to stop our grandchildren playing in the garden,
• Two burglaries and damage to our garden occurred again involving the Police.
• And, worst of all, we both suffered long term damage our health. If we did not actually suffer a nervous breakdown, we came so close.
All Intrusive Paths are a concern and cause potential disruption to both landowner and tenant.
Local Councils in the UK need to be given guidelines to divert or extinguish troublesome paths that may endanger the public or cause concern to landowners through unknown persons coming so close to their homes. Common sense and appreciation of the anxieties suffered by the property owner should be a matter of priority.
Sadly, we are not alone. There are many of us with similar problems. Some vindictive people do seem to derive pleasure from causing others distress. They appear oblivious of just what harm they do cause.
Good luck to you all.
Nigel Wood & Shiela Shepherd
Breaking News !!!
"The Path & I" - Alan Bowers
“The Path & I” is a record of events, which have occurred since 1989 with respect to the Creation and Preserving of Right of Way known as Footpath 28 in the Parish of Maulden, Bedfordshire.
For Alan this has been a long distressful battle as well as a great financial burden.
Alan can supply a copy of his book and can be contacted on 01525795434 or by email: bowers-alan@sky.com
For Alan this has been a long distressful battle as well as a great financial burden.
Alan can supply a copy of his book and can be contacted on 01525795434 or by email: bowers-alan@sky.com
Message of Success received from an IFC member
10 April 2018.
The entire process from applying for the diversion through to the incredibly stressful hearing was a huge ordeal. The current system where any objector seems to hold all the power, regardless of the strength (or otherwise) of their arguments is simply unacceptable. Having said that, I know I am one of the extremely lucky ones and my ordeal came to a positive conclusion, however I am very clearly in a small minority. Thank goodness I had a very thorough, balanced Inspector deciding on my case, and the support of the Ramblers proved very significant. But for every positive case like mine, there are a multitude of others where common sense is thrown out the window and homeowners are forced to live with totally appalling situations and have absolutely no power to change things. We have already completed the necessary works required and the footpath is moved - it is no exaggeration to say our family life in and around our home has been transformed. Last Easter we had over 100 walkers tramping through our garden, past 2 bedroom windows and right past our front door. This year...................nothing but peace. The route of the diversion offers spectacular views of the Lakeland fells and I feel like for once common sense has prevailed. To all the people still fighting to get out of their own nightmare - keep going, the rewards are so worth it. Finding the IF website and FB page really helped me, and to everyone who reached out to support me a big thank you. But once again I have to say a massive thank you to Karen Gallimore who spend hundreds of hours helping me, traveled up to the South Lakes to stay with me and help at the hearing - but even better than all of that, I found a wonderful new friend who helped me squeeze out the humour even at the darkest of times! Good luck to everyone, and thanks again for all your support xxxx
The entire process from applying for the diversion through to the incredibly stressful hearing was a huge ordeal. The current system where any objector seems to hold all the power, regardless of the strength (or otherwise) of their arguments is simply unacceptable. Having said that, I know I am one of the extremely lucky ones and my ordeal came to a positive conclusion, however I am very clearly in a small minority. Thank goodness I had a very thorough, balanced Inspector deciding on my case, and the support of the Ramblers proved very significant. But for every positive case like mine, there are a multitude of others where common sense is thrown out the window and homeowners are forced to live with totally appalling situations and have absolutely no power to change things. We have already completed the necessary works required and the footpath is moved - it is no exaggeration to say our family life in and around our home has been transformed. Last Easter we had over 100 walkers tramping through our garden, past 2 bedroom windows and right past our front door. This year...................nothing but peace. The route of the diversion offers spectacular views of the Lakeland fells and I feel like for once common sense has prevailed. To all the people still fighting to get out of their own nightmare - keep going, the rewards are so worth it. Finding the IF website and FB page really helped me, and to everyone who reached out to support me a big thank you. But once again I have to say a massive thank you to Karen Gallimore who spend hundreds of hours helping me, traveled up to the South Lakes to stay with me and help at the hearing - but even better than all of that, I found a wonderful new friend who helped me squeeze out the humour even at the darkest of times! Good luck to everyone, and thanks again for all your support xxxx
Newspaper article outlining the ongoing dispute of one of our members.
The Telegraph covers Victory for Rights of Way justice
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/05/six-decade-row-footpath-ends-victory-brother-sister-died-2011/
Councils spending hundreds of thousands - see telegraph article below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/10/councils-spending-hundreds-thousands-walkers-rush-record-rights/
Deregulation Act 2015 August 2017 Update
For those wishing to know the latest information about the implementation of rights of way provisions in the Deregulation Act 2015. We understand that the stakeholder working group has produced a comprehensive package of recommendations supported by a finely balanced consensus and that a key recommendation of the group is that the package of reforms is commenced as a whole on a single date.
Defra consider that translating such a wide-ranging and complex set of reforms into legislation takes time and that they must make sure they get the details of the regulations and accompanying guidance right so that it is as effective as it can be. They say that with the continuing help and support of the stakeholder working group they are making good progress on the work, but are not yet in a position to say when the package will be put into effect.
They add that Ministers are keen that the benefits of the reforms should be realised at the earliest possible date and that an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
IF Petition sent to Michael Gove
A petition calling for a radical change in the law regarding Public Footpaths which are presently able to be claimed through private gardens and farm yards was recently sent to Michael Gove, Secretary of State for DEFRA.
Mr Gove was told that the 245 people who signed the petition were looking forward to his investigation and intervention into an unjust and undemocratic system.
VICTORY for Rights of Way justice!
Marlene Masters has at last secured justice for the Peppard family. Too late for Archie and Ivy who have both died before seeing justice done. Our own recent petition included the picture of Archie and Ivy. "Justice delayed is Justice denied" and so true in this case which festered on for 40+ years. Marlene took the Peppards under her wing and fought relentlessly for 25 of those years, giving of her own time and money to help. They were buffeted and bullied by a system that has at its heart a zest for public rights with the willing sacrifice of human rights, truth and natural justice.
Watch out for further press articles.
Follow this link to read the Order Decision:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/640292/fps_g3300_7_97_od.pdf
Justice after 20 years!
One of our members still cannot believe the wonderful news that she has just received.
"Following the public inquiry in November and 20 years of hell - we have heard from PINS that the inspector HAS NOT CONFIRMED THE ORDER "
Those of us concerned with 'Intrusive Footpaths' and the years of frustration, heartbreak and injustice caused to many, share in our members delight at this fantastic news.
One of our members still cannot believe the wonderful news that she has just received.
"Following the public inquiry in November and 20 years of hell - we have heard from PINS that the inspector HAS NOT CONFIRMED THE ORDER "
Those of us concerned with 'Intrusive Footpaths' and the years of frustration, heartbreak and injustice caused to many, share in our members delight at this fantastic news.
A Matter For The Courts
A MATTER FOR THE COURTS was written by Marlene Masters several years ago.
Sadly, her opinion (based on extensive research over 25 years) remains unchanged, as do the serious flaws in Rights of Way procedures.
Sadly, her opinion (based on extensive research over 25 years) remains unchanged, as do the serious flaws in Rights of Way procedures.
A MATTER FOR THE COURTS
MARLENE MASTERS
Indications are now strong that Local Authorities believe that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 conferred on them powers to ‘determine’ whether or not a highway exists.
In fact, the power to ‘determine’ a highway lies only with the courts.
Witness Statements not made on Oath are not being judicially tested, neither is other evidence submitted allegedly in support; however, in many cases all this judicially undetermined evidence is being accepted by local Authorities as evidence to be used by themselves to determine the existence of a highway.
In particular – and of most concern – is the fact that claims made under Section 31(1) of the Highways Act 1980 – disregarding Section 32 of the same Act – and are being subsumed into Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Section 3 of the repealed Rights of Way Act 1932 was copied and faithfully re-enacted in both Section 35 of the Highways Act 1959 and Section 32 of the Highways Act 1980.
Section 32 of the Highways Act 1980 is clear and unambiguous. “A court or other tribunal, before determining whether a way has or has not been dedicated…..etc.”
There appears to be a misunderstanding of Section 32 of the Highways Act 1980 – and the essential requirement to satisfy a court or other tribunal on the evidence – which should be properly tested, that a highway does, in fact, exist.
With the exception of Sections 25 and 26 of the HA 1980, NO ACT has extended any powers beyond the courts to determine whether (or not) a highway actually exists.
Local Authorities all over the country appear to be following guidance (or each other) in the belief that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which was designed to protect wildlife and the countryside, has somehow conferred upon them additional powers to ‘determine’ the existence of a highway. That role has always been exclusive to the courts.
There appears to be a deep misunderstanding that the local Authorities are in fact “a court or tribunal” for the purposes of Section 32 of the HA 1980 and Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
There was, in fact, no amendment of Section 32 of the Highways Act 1980 and no transfer of power from the court to Local Authorities in the 1981 Act.
Local Authorities all over the country are seen to be acting in the misguided belief that their powers are now equal to those of the courts or tribunals. This cannot continue and clearly something must be done to rectify this very serious problem.
MARLENE MASTERS
Indications are now strong that Local Authorities believe that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 conferred on them powers to ‘determine’ whether or not a highway exists.
In fact, the power to ‘determine’ a highway lies only with the courts.
Witness Statements not made on Oath are not being judicially tested, neither is other evidence submitted allegedly in support; however, in many cases all this judicially undetermined evidence is being accepted by local Authorities as evidence to be used by themselves to determine the existence of a highway.
In particular – and of most concern – is the fact that claims made under Section 31(1) of the Highways Act 1980 – disregarding Section 32 of the same Act – and are being subsumed into Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Section 3 of the repealed Rights of Way Act 1932 was copied and faithfully re-enacted in both Section 35 of the Highways Act 1959 and Section 32 of the Highways Act 1980.
Section 32 of the Highways Act 1980 is clear and unambiguous. “A court or other tribunal, before determining whether a way has or has not been dedicated…..etc.”
There appears to be a misunderstanding of Section 32 of the Highways Act 1980 – and the essential requirement to satisfy a court or other tribunal on the evidence – which should be properly tested, that a highway does, in fact, exist.
With the exception of Sections 25 and 26 of the HA 1980, NO ACT has extended any powers beyond the courts to determine whether (or not) a highway actually exists.
Local Authorities all over the country appear to be following guidance (or each other) in the belief that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which was designed to protect wildlife and the countryside, has somehow conferred upon them additional powers to ‘determine’ the existence of a highway. That role has always been exclusive to the courts.
There appears to be a deep misunderstanding that the local Authorities are in fact “a court or tribunal” for the purposes of Section 32 of the HA 1980 and Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
There was, in fact, no amendment of Section 32 of the Highways Act 1980 and no transfer of power from the court to Local Authorities in the 1981 Act.
Local Authorities all over the country are seen to be acting in the misguided belief that their powers are now equal to those of the courts or tribunals. This cannot continue and clearly something must be done to rectify this very serious problem.
Concerns sent in by IF members
|
2 stories which should be considered Intrusive.The 1st one is a Footpath which goes through 2 doors! The 2nd public Inquiry will be held next year, at present the residents have keys for the doors which are kept locked. You can find the newspaper article here.
The 2nd one is that, cyclists are now trying to legalise cycling on footpaths, This is against the law at present, however very few cyclist adhere to this law, Cyclists have miles and miles of cycle lanes financed by the Councils but, as they say, they do not legally have to use them and so many choose to continue to cycle on the roads alongside the cycle lanes.
They say "We can use only 21 percent of Wales' rights of way and 22 percent of England's and frankly, thay's not enough. But we won't get any more trails unless we make our voices heard. That's where OPENMTB and CYCLING UK come in." Together they’ve launched the first national survey of off-road cycling activity in England and Wales. The survey will allow them to “establish an accurate picture of riding behaviour – and how it fits with the present access arrangements in England and Wales.” This information will then be used to help further efforts to open up rights of way. In short, this is the time to tell everyone you do actually ride some cheeky footpaths and maybe it would be better if they were just made legal. The problem is, it closes on Monday so you need to get your responses in ASAP. Share it around too, the more people who fill it in the better. If you need any more incentive one respondent will win an iPad too. Read more here. |
Why not send us your own thoughts, concerns or articles?
Just email us at getinvolved@intrusivefootpaths.org.uk we will publish what we can right here.
'Massive thanks' to Intrusive FootpathsDear All,
I just wanted to say thank you keep up the good work! After 16 years of, well “battling" from the early nineties followed by more sensible but tricky negotiation and canvassing, we have finally managed to get our bridleway and footpath diverted away from the middle of our busy farm/courtyard to the middle of one of our fields. The process has been so stressful and debilitating for many years but by standing our ground and attending various meetings with objectors and the local council over some 16 years we have finally managed to negotiate a sensible and agreeable outcome for all. The final diversion order which we received last week was a massive relief and cause for celebration but the thing that I’m most happy about is that in the end after all the heart ache and fighting that sensibility, compassion, and understanding on both sides has resulted with us now on friendly terms with the local Ramblers, the Horse Society, the local Council, walkers and horse riders, many who are congratulating us on providing them with a much nice and safer route. I send this not to gloat in any way, I know that we have been fortunate, but I did want to send a positive story to send strength to you all and thank you all for the support your emails have given me not to give up. After High Court appeals, letters to transport commissions, local MP…etc... we can at last begin to enjoy our home and business to the full, safely and securely. Our youngest has just turned 18yrs and has never had the freedom we had hoped to give him when we bought the farm due to security and safety issues of the rights of way, and he has only ever known the continual battle and frustration, however now we can look forward to his children having the freedom, and safety, as well as us busy at work knowing a horse isn’t going to get spooked at the machinery in the yard and through it’s rider off onto the concrete. Massive thanks to you all, and I’ll keep supporting you all; just got the family to sign the petition. Very best wishes...... (Name supplied) |
Illegal canvassing by Shropshire County Council
Shropshire County Council are supporting free workshops for the British Horse Society to claim 'lost' rights of way. Council Rights of Way Officers are even preparing and presenting these seminars. Councils already have a back log of hundreds of applications and this is certainly not how officers should be spending valuable time.
No Council has the authority to spend money from the "public purse" helping Applicants claim alleged "lost" public Rights of Way. This is tantamount to canvassing in order to bolster Applications. This is simply NOT allowed and County Councils do not have the power or authority to do this. It is also quite immoral for Councils to show favour to one particular single issue pressure group. The British Horse Society have their own funds collected from public donation. They should NOT be entitled to 'free' publicity and canvassing from County Councils. If you see similar incidents of council involvement in these sorts of seminars please make your views known to the media and the council concerned. |
Terminology confusing you? Click here to see our Glossary.
Our Mission
To change the law on rights of way, so that members of the public can file legitimate claims against footpaths intruding on their homes, gardens and driveways.
The Problem
Do You Have a Footpath Problem?
Please CONTACT us
Factors Contributing to the problem
There are a number of factors that contribute to the problem:
Historically Rights of Way were functional not recreational.
Rights of way have their origins in long established historical rights. They were generally paths created for the functional purpose of getting by foot from an outlying house, or hamlet to the village, for school, pub, church, shops etc. or to work on a local farm. They were used mainly by local people and by trades people including the postman. As such they would go from or two the front door of a cottage or to a farmyard. The routes were not intended or suitable for the recreational use they receive today.
Some Existing Rights of Way are extremely intrusive
Some existing rights of way are extremely intrusive. They pass through family gardens, very close to (in some cases through) family residences , and through working farmyards where they may cause operational difficulties with machinery and livestock and put walkers at risk.
Most walkers would prefer to use a less intrusive route
Walkers are often uncomfortable about going close to such buildings, it is a rare person that wants to walk through someone’s private garden close to their house where there is an obvious intrusion on family privacy. Outside the boundary fence or hedge even if close to the house there is not the same sense of intrusion.
Public footpaths were often recorded inaccurately in the 1950's
Definitive Maps based on paths walked by volunteers with no knowledge of rights of way in 1950 are often inaccurate and survey cards often hold very little information to define the correct route or features on the route.
UNWALKED RIGHTS OF WAY ARE BEING RESEARCHED AND CLAIMED AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE RATHER THAN PURPOSE
A welcomed increased interest in walking and keeping fit has caused rights of way that had not previously been used for many years to be walked again, for leisure. However, a small minority of people are looking for previously unwalked rights of way so they can claim them as a matter of principle, rather than for any purpose.
There are issues with the legal system around rights of way
- The legal system around rights of way is archaic, imprecise and presumes in favour of the walker, with homeowners having few, if any, rights.
Local Councils behaviour is not always reasonable
Local councils can be draconian, intractable and heavy handed in their application of these laws. In some cases they seem to be deliberately obfuscating issues and compounding problems.
Forgotten or unkown rights of way are being reinstated without due regard
Previously forgotten/unknown rights of way are being re-instated without regard to changes in land use that may have occurred in the meantime. There are examples of this where defunct rights of way have been built over, with full searches performed and planning permission granted, only for councils to mandate that the dwelling should be pulled down many years later when the rights of way are re-discovered.
Contested requests to change a right of way are seldom successfull
Contested requests to change or close a right of way are seldom successful because the homeowner has no rights in law.
Diversions are difficult to achieve
There is a belief that some are happy to perpetuate that it is easy to divert a PROW. There is a mechanism to do so but unless you own sufficient land to divert on to and all users agree that the new route is an improvement (quite a task) it can be very difficult to achieve.
Extinguishments of rights of way are nearly impossible
Whilst nobody is suggesting wholesale extinguishments take place it is obvious that with 140,000 miles of paths in England in Wales based on activity hundreds of years ago, they cannot all be in the right place for modern use of the land. Section 118 of the Highways Act allows for extinguishments. However extinguishments are like hen’s teeth. This part of the legislation does not work.
Homeowners can easily run up substantial legal fees with no prospect of justice
The law is such an arcane muddle that homeowners seeking legal advice can run up substantial legal fees before they realise that actually there is little or no help available and justice is unaffordable.
The Protection of Family Homes in Scotland
Legal protection of family homes in Scotland has recently been recognised and provides a common sense approach.
For more information please see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/6.
This Act has now been introduced, reference http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/land-reform.
For more information please see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/6.
This Act has now been introduced, reference http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/land-reform.
