We believe there are several pieces of legislation about footpaths which should include better considerations for homeowners. Below are explanations of how we would have footpath law changed and why we believe some rights of way are already unlawful
Footpath closure where footpath goes through home/garden/drive
govyou.co.uk, 2016
The footpath law in the UK should be reviewed to protect the rights of privacy and security of homeowners where a footpath goes through their home/garden/drive. The network of footpaths have increasingly become more of a leisure activity without consideration of the impact this is having on those who live in the community. The footpath law should be changed to take into account homeowners that are now affected...read more
The Current Situation An open letter to Teresa May
Public Footpaths and Family Gardens
During the preparation for the Deregulation Bill both Mr Owen Paterson, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs( at that time) and the Minister of State for Government Policy Mr Oliver Letwin who was responsible for the Bill, recognised a serious and growing problem for families living with Public Footpaths across their gardens. These families are faced with escalating footfall as Councils promote increased use of Public Footpaths. ... read more
In 2000, the Government enacted the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, or CRoW for short. One objective of CRoW was to open up huge swathes of British countryside to the roamer, allowing the general public to enjoy parts of the countryside that had simply been off-limits beforehand. This part of the law is often tagged with the phrase 'right to roam'...read more
Highways Act 1980
Useful information on the ownership of public rights of way can be found at:
The Human Rights Act 1998 asserts basic human rights for UK citizens. We believe that public footpath law currently contradicts this law on three counts...read more
Much of the spirit of the text between the above human rights act and this European version is the same. This is good as it brings further legitimacy to the arguments already discussed above. There are a few differences in the text however, one of them being in the section concerning protection of property...read more