The NFU published a small article urging members to participate in the DEFRA consultation, this appeared in their magazine, Countryside, dated August 2012. They were intending to take a closer look at this issue in future editions of their magazine. Views supporting the removal of footpaths from family homes were invited to be sent to martin.stanhope@nfu
Where are four years on? Well, it seems to me that we are all bogged down further in the mire of injustice and deceit. Pressure groups rule, ahead of common sense or what is right. They are bullies and only interested in what they have decided everyone else wants or has a right to. Governments and councils fear their power.They would like to see the purpose of the English Countryside transformed into one large recreational theme park. Soon the farmers will be mere quaint relics of the past required only to put on a show for all the tourists. Mind you I wonder just how many of them there will be in the future as the 'work' ethic will have disappeared and there will be nowhere to work anyway. Even the 'current' issue right now puts 'walking the dog' before the slaughter of sheep,(deer,chickens,cats)and the farmers livelihood. The pressure is on to find as many 'historical' footpaths ( used or not) before 2026. What idiocy is that when there is no money to even upkeep the ones we've got. More footpaths also equal more walkers and more dogs. One Footpath claim takes at least two years man power and research to even get to inquiry. It is quasi judicial and no one is on oath.Everyone objects to everything until the cows come home and the only people benefitting are the solicitors,barristers and misguided,unqualified rights of way officers. For Ramblers,OSS, CPRE and suchlike it is a self congratulating, self praising 'do gooder' excercise.
Just explain to me how someone can live 20 years in one cottage,sell and buy the cottage next door ( full solicitors search) live there for 17 years and suddenly the council 'discover' a road through the garden!!! ( one that they didn't know was there and haven't maintained for 87 years). Right through the middle of a beautiful garden! AND Right through the middle of a field of sheep.
How's that for common sense? Where are we 4 years later? NOWHERE
Which reminds me....have a look at the path to nowhere!
Farmers burdened with the same Public Abuse As IF members
Those with footpaths through their homes and gardens know only too well the devastating effect public access can have. It seems to suggest an open invitation for abuse, rural crime, fly tipping and animal attacks with little or no recourse to penalties or prevention.
South East Farmer comments on Sheep Attacks The law encourages these attacks because dogs are allowed to walk on public footpaths, many of which cross farmland. There are very good reasons for restricting dogs to roads where they have to be kept on leads and cannot pollute the countryside or terrify livestock. At the very least, farmers should be allowed to close footpaths across their land during the lambing season. It is also time to consider restricting public access to farmland until people can learn to respect the rights and livelihoods of farmers and smallholders keeping livestock.
We agree, it is time to restrict or divert public footpaths where they are both intrusive & destructive.
Following this blogby Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society, here is The Other side of the Story
A Letter to Open Spaces in answer to Kate Ashbrook
I almost agree with everything you say but Open Spaces seems blind to the small number of people who Are only asking that Public Rights of way should not go through their gardens,homes or private property. Open Spaces are complaining about the state of paths so surely you can see that this is the sort of behavior that you are asking some unfortunate people to put up with through their own homes.
My argument is that you could ask Councils to spend their limited resources on the vast majority of paths that are established and used.....even claim some of the so called 'lost' ones but just drop persecuting those burdened with paths that cause them loss of privacy,security,stress and bankruptcy. How can you possibly justify Bedfordshire CC spending £3000 on a London Barister against an old man who has lost all his money and is defending his right to privacy on his own land and only asking that the public use a perfectly good public bridleway which runs parallel about 50yards away. I just don't get it. If you mirror those sort of cases the money that could be saved would amount to thousands. I suppose I am saying that in defending what you consider to be public 'rights' that are actually no more than 'rights for rights sake' you are actually wasting council resources that could be used elsewhere.
I was accused today by the sentence " ......unlike you,I only want what I am entitled too......". He is an Open Spaces supporter. How dare he suggest that I am trying to claim anything that I am not entitled too! I AM entitled to privacy in my own home. It is OS and people like him who are doing all the claiming! Sadly he is 'blinkered' by the attitude of OS and other pressure groups who put out that they have a monopoly on what is right and just.
I am not Claiming anything....I am defending my right to my own property bought and paid for with my own money. ( which is not on the definitive map and didn't have a ROW when I bought it 17 years ago) Who would not defend their home? Who would not consider it tantamount to legal theft? I am not claiming anything of 'yours' .....'you' are claiming something that belongs to me! I do not want problems of rubbish and holliganism in my own garden. How is it that I am perceived as the 'militant' one when actually I am the 'victim'. If only OS and Ramblers could see that by helping us to get legislation changed so that footpaths do not go through gardens, councils could save money by not having to support applications for ones that do.
Rural Crime On Public Footpaths
Councils, General Public and Police all want to reduce rural crime and yet make no effort to support a change in the law which would allow public footpaths to be diverted from the gardens of private householders. These footpaths represent only 0.1% of the total Public Rights of Way network. Their diversion or closure would impinge very little on Public access to the countryside but householders such as Debbie would be freed from all the stress,worry and constant fear from crime that such footpaths presently cause. Read Debbies letter on page 10 of the South East Farmer.
Ann 7/12/2015 17:48:46Footpaths should not go through gardens. The law needs to change. This is nothing to do with access to the countryside.
Ann 7/12/2015 17:50:38 Footpaths through gardens increase rural crime.
Footpath through garden gives access to attempted burglary
Our family back garden. The burglars tried to prise the roof off our garage. Nothing taken just more costly damage to deal with. Our neighbours also had panels prised open and shed locks snapped. Access again made easy by the public right of way which runs right through our garden !! Click here to see the thread on Facebook.
Would you like this in your garden? This footpath is shown by Open Spaces as an example of what is happening when Councils make cuts to footpath maintenance. This is the sort of vandalism and rubbish that homeowners who are burdened with Rights of way through their gardens are expected to put up with. If you received a letter out of the blue saying that the council were claiming a Right of Way through your garden would you wonder why Open Spaces and Ramblers were supportive of this? If you had this sort of rubbish and fly tipping happening in your garden would you not want the footpath diverted. Would you expect anyone to object? Well Open Spaces and Ramblers do. They object on 'historical' grounds.....two hundred years ago there was a footpath for a few village farm workers and it went through your home....it got 'lost' and now that it's been found it belongs to us and 'everyone' else in the world and tough luck if it wrecks your garden,your privacy,your security and costs you thousands of pounds and years to defend. We will also take 'all of your life' too because we will continue to object for years because we know that the public purse will fund lots of research and public enquiries(which we don't have to pay for) and you will eventually run out of money and energy to defend your home. Oh and while we are at it we will make out that we are the 'goodies' and that those who are forced to defend their human rights and their homes are the 'baddies' who are denying us our 'rights'......win win........oh and shall we ask the public for some more funds to help us?.....what a good idea!!!
Why would the public,crossing someone's property on a Public Footpath, believe its ok to throw this rubbish in for someone's pet goats?
DOG POO! ANOTHER REASON PUBIC FOOTPATHS SHOULD NOT GO THROUGH FAMILY HOMES.
Quote from one of our members "An individual has now taken to walking as many dogs as possible up and down various footpaths until they cr*p everywhere and then go home, farmer, home owners etc are sick of it. We believe the council could make £*** per week in fines........This,however,could also result in poo bags being thrown over my or someone else's fence!"
PATHS THROUGH HOMES A MAJOR PROBLEM
Family homes that have footpaths running through them have no security. There are far too many examples of harassment and intimidation. Click here to read details of the latest experiences that have been sent to Intrusive Footpaths.