Click here to see our Glossary page.

LETTERS of support for a Somerset footpath campaigner have flooded in from all over the UK.
Marlene Masters has been campaigning for more than two decades to get Somerset County Council to remove a footpath in High Ham from its official maps.

The Western Gazette reported earlier this month that Mrs Masters, of Yarlington, had applied for a judicial review to force the council to remove the path which runs past the home of the late Archie and Ivy Peppard.
Now supporters of her 22-year campaign have come forward, many of whom have endured similar legal battles with their local government.

Jean Underdown, from the Vale of Glamorgan in Wales, attended the public inquiry which found in Mrs Masters' favour in 2014.
She said: "Mrs Masters tied the council up in knots by her superior knowledge, which they lacked. The council looked like bumbling fools, which they are, and they made the lives of the Peppards a total misery.
"Do taxpayers understand how much money is wasted by these incompetent fools in council offices up and down the country? The law needs to change."

The Peppard saga began in 1959, when the council claimed a path that ran outside the Peppards' cottage as a public right of way. The Peppards began their own legal challenge in 1973, with Mrs Masters taking up their cause in 1994.

Alan Bowers, from Bedfordshire, described the council's actions as "vindictive" towards law-abiding citizens, and said that its actions should be examined on a national scale.
He said: "I and many others have experienced many years of distress in trying to obtain justice regarding unlawful rights of way. Our plight is not a vote-winning issue and is ignored by those in power, who are able to right the wrongs.
"Marlene Masters is an inspiration to us all: over the years she has helped many rights of way sufferers throughout the land tirelessly, and at her own expense."

Roger Duffin, of Wethersfield in Essex, described the legal battle as "a criminal waste of public money" and accused the council of "obstruction".
He said: "Having allowed this case to drag on for so long, the right and proper thing to do would be to spend the relatively small amount of time required to delete this path and then set about resolving the other 300 cases with as much speed as possible.
"The fact that a member of the public should have to seek a judicial review to achieve justice is saddening. The lack of transparency over the number and nature of latest objections, and the time taken, can only foster speculation at the council's true motives in dragging this case out. It would appear to have little to do with justice or democracy."

Mrs Masters said that she hopes that the judicial review will finally put an end to this long legal battle.
She said: "I have been successful in the High Court in 2012, and successful in the public inquiry in 2014.
"There can be no question that the council has failed in its statutory duty and allowed the opposed orders to gather dust, while making orders to 'upgrade' footpaths to restricted byways, or add footpaths or bridleways. Maybe it will be third time lucky?"

A council spokesman said: "There are two sides to this and we have a duty to progress both applications to amend the definitive map and the submission of opposed orders. This is done in parallel to make sure that neither duty is neglected.
"We would stress there is no deadline for submission of opposed orders so we are not failing in our statutory duty. We remain committed to submitting the outstanding opposed orders as soon as possible, but these cases are complex and the staff resources available are under increasing pressure.
"We would again like to make it clear that the High Ham footpath deletion order has attracted objections from other parties – not from the county council. Ultimately it will be up to the Planning Inspectorate to decide the outcome of the case.
"From our point of view, the judicial process is an unwelcome distraction for staff who are trying to progress matters. As long as the process continues it will continue to hamper resources and cost the taxpayer more money."
See the article in the Western Gazette here.

A SOUTH Somerset campaigner has criticised the decision to remove well-established trees in Long Sutton to open up a contested bridleway.
Somerset County Council has cut down trees at Kingsmoor Drove, which have stood there since 1989, in an attempt to clear the bridleway leading from Long Load to Ilchester.
But Marlene Masters, who made her name campaigning about a disputed footpath in High Ham, has attacked what she has branded a "bridleway to nowhere".
Council contractors have cleared vegetation, installed a culvert, felled the trees and ground down the stumps at a cost of less than £5,000, according to a council spokesman.
Mrs Masters argues that consultation about the bridleway took place in the 1970s when the Ilchester bypass was being built.
She said: "There was a public opportunity to claim a footpath or bridleway status when the proposal of the Ilchester dual carriageway bypass was being discussed. But no-one did, not even the parish council or the county council. The law says 'silence is acquiescence'. No claim of a bridleway at the time means that legally there is no bridleway there."
Mrs Masters added that, even if the bridleway did exist, it is impossible for riders or walkers to currently use it because of the traffic.
She said: "Unless traffic lights are made available and the central reservation removed by County Highways to allow the 'alleged ancient historic bridleway' to cross over the four lanes, then there is no way the riders can continue through. They have no permission to use the over-bridge and ride a horse under the RNAS Yeovilton flight path."
Mrs Masters has now applied for the bridleway to be deleted from the county council's official maps.

The council has said that the removal of the trees was undertaken as part of its statutory duty and that the scope had been agreed with the landowner in October.
It added that "the existence of the bridleway is not seriously disputed" following a public enquiry nine years ago, which was upheld at a High Court appeal.

A spokesman said: "Previous attempts to formally divert the bridleway around a woodland that obstructs the way have unfortunately failed.
"We had been served a Highways Act notice by a third party to clear the woodland obstruction, and if we fail to remove the obstruction the matter could be referred to the Magistrates Court.
"The bridleway still remains obstructed by the A303 near Ilchester and we continue to look at options with Highways England to resolve this. The nearby over-bridge is only available for pedestrians. There are no public access rights for cyclists or horse-riders over this bridge.The works will provide for a more direct through route for walkers between Long Load and Ilchester."
​
The council has not confirmed the identity of the third party who served the notice for the trees to be removed.

See the article in the Western Gazette here.

Following this blog by 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.

We are all delighted to hear the brilliant news that Mr and Mrs Millership have been successful in objecting to a right of way claim on their property. Mrs Millership first contacted IF after seeing a Daily Mail news article. It was a desperate situation requiring an immediate response. Mrs Millership was put in touch with those who had the expertise to help and many people pulled out all the stops,and personal resources, to offer assistance. The full order decision can be found here.
Mr and Mrs Millership say:

We have suffered almost 4 years of stress from the Lake District National Park Authority after an application made by Colton Parish Council to turn our access drive into a PROW.  We had lived in this delightful part of the country on friendly terms with neighbours and local villagers in the nearby village of Finsthwaite. A small group of these people, for no reason turned against us and made the application. We were advised by the LDNPA of this application and following a meeting of the ROW Committee in July 2014 this was passed. We objected together with our nearest neighbour who jointly owns the access way with ourselves. From then on we suffered harassment  and misery from the Countryside Access Advisor of the LDNPA who whilst appearing to give advice simply turned everything against us. We were totally ignorant of what we were facing and we were not prepared to spend what retirement savings we had on greedy legal operatives. We were at the end of our tether when the letter from Ann appeared in the Daily Mail. We contacted her and she referred us to Marlene who gave us a lot of help and information and steadied the boat. Then we had a visit from Bernard (Hones) who guided us all the way. It became clear that we would not be able to cope by ourselves. Marlene was unable to come and help us because of family commitments but sent us Andy Dunlop instead only 2 weeks before the Inquiry. He took the weight off our shoulders. The Inquiry lasted 2 days and our eyes were opened by the people known to us that were not prepared to tell the truth. Andy Dunlop was superb and we would not have got this result without his help. 

We realise now that 4 years and our problems were minor compared with others.​
​
The IF campaign must continue and if we can help we will do so because without their help we would not be in this position.

​Click below to leave your comments.
​

Some laws around public access and Council behaviour have changed in 2015.  The article entitled Grim Fairy Tales (page 3 in the GLEAM newsletter for Autumn 2015) illustrates a specific example and identifies the modifications that have been made to help. It makes for very interesting reading!

IF Comment on this result.
 A member of ‘ the public’ only asking that walkers should go round his property instead of straight through his garden!
Breckland council have a duty to protect the rights of an individual just as much, if not more, than ‘pressure’ groups. It is ‘the pressure’ groups who exercise no common sense or empathy and force sensible councils to spend ‘public money’. The ‘home owner’ has to pay his own expenses.
We remain quite disgusted with this attitude which purports to be in the public interest, but clearly is not.

From the Open Spaces Society

26 February 2015 
We are delighted that, thanks to our objection, a public footpath in Norfolk’s Breckland District will remain on its ancient, direct route.
The footpath is at Lyng, four miles south of Reepham.  Breckland District Council wanted to move the route which runs past the property Patholme.  The council was concerned that the existence of the path was detrimental to the interests of the property’s occupiers, and wanted to shove the path around the edge of the field to the west, introducing two dog-legs.
Mr Ian Witham, the Open Spaces Society’s representative in Norfolk, objected on behalf of the society and the matter was referred to the Planning Inspectorate for determination.
The inspector, Mrs Helen Slade, did not consider that there was any evidence of a problem.  She wrote that on her site visit ‘it took a matter of less than 30 second to cross the garden area.  I noted that the windows overlooking the path were dressed with blinds to afford privacy to the occupants’ and that there was no evidence ‘to suggest that users of the path feel uncomfortable using the path’.
Says Ian Witham: ‘We are delighted with this result.  Many properties co-exist with public paths nearby and there is no difficulty about this.  The inspector considered that, although the order had been made in the landowner’s interests, these had not been demonstrated.
‘We are sorry that Breckland District Council spent public money on this fruitless exercise but we are relieved that this footpath will stay on its historic route.’