NIMBYism at its best!
By Fleur
@Fleura (29212)
United Kingdom
January 31, 2020 6:08am CST
Earlier this week I was a witness at a public inquiry regarding a footpath, in the village where I grew up. Basically – to cut a very long story short – up to 1991 a lane was used by the public for walking, cycling, horse riding and in earlier days (when cars were generally smaller) also for driving. Then in 1991 a couple new to the village (but the husband just happened to be chief executive of the county council) bought some old farm buildings, converted them into a posh house, and in 1996 annexed the lane by putting gates across and making it into part of their garden.
The dispute has rumbled on since then, and finally reached this public inquiry. On one side are local people who used the lane for generations, believing it to be a public right of way. On the other are the family who are claiming it as theirs, supported by a couple of friends who live nearby. The key question is whether the lane was used by the public ‘as of right’ for the 20 years before any obstruction was put in place (so 1971 to 91).
We have yet to see what the final conclusion will be so I’m not counting on anything yet. But I have to say that I did almost laugh at the final witness. This person lives in the house pictured, which he moved into in 2012 (so long after the period in question) and the house is opposite the top of the lane where it meets a minor road.
He read out a lengthy statement claiming that because he had extended his home and fitted large windows, if the lane was designated as a public right of way he and his family would have strangers looking through their windows.
They would have to keep their curtains closed all the time and he didn’t want his 5-year-old daughter to be living in fear! On top of that, there was likely to be a dangerous collision at the junction of the lane with the road and since that was right outside their house they would be the first on scene and would have to deal with the aftermath, which would be traumatic.
In addition he claimed that the lane should not be designated as a public path because the view was not good enough to justify it!
After this we all went on a site visit. It was a beautiful sunny day. We started at the top of the lane, outside his house. It was immediately obvious that the entrance to the lane was a lot further away from the house than the road which passes immediately in front of it. Anyone passing on the road would be able to look into his windows – and why on Earth would anyone fit floor-to-ceiling windows in their bedroom anyway?? And why would a family live in a fear of a few local people going for a walk? There was absolutely no traffic on the lane, nor on the minor road apart from ourselves. And the view was gorgeous. Not that any of that has any bearing at all on the legal status of the lane in any case, but still it did make me smile.
Anyhow, all we can do is wait and see. You can never count on any authority making what would seem to be the obvious decision.
All rights reserved. © Text and image copyright Fleur 2020.
14 people like this
12 responses
@owlwings (43915)
• Cambridge, England
31 Jan 20
From your photo (which is delightful), I'd observe the following:
1) There appears to be a public, metalled road running between the house and the lane you say is in question (f you were standing in it when you took the photo).
2) The house looks to be a fairly ordinary bungalow and I wouldn't have recognised it as 'converted' farm buildings. There seems to be a hedge along the boundary with the road, which must provide them with some privacy.
3) Judging by the ruts, the lane is clearly very frequently used by wheeled traffic - let alone by pedestrians and equestrians - and I don't see any gates. Moreover, if it is the lane you took the photo from which is disputed, it doesn't even appear to be part of his land! Perhaps there is a continuation of it, however, behind the blue car parked on the road.
Rights of way are always a headache, especially if they are over private land. It looks as though you have to prove that
the land was either used as a public right of way in the past (checking old maps and documents, especially the Enclosure Maps and early Ordnance Survey maps) or that the land was 'accessed by the public for at least 20 years and nobody has asked them to stop' (hence your period of 1971-91). It ought to be relatively easy to gather statements from local residents that the lane was generally regarded and frequently used as a right of way and that nobody was asked to stop using it. I think it would then be up to the incumbent to prove that any such notice was issued before 1991!
2 people like this
@Fleura (29212)
• United Kingdom
31 Jan 20
Sorry I obviously didn't make the situation quite clear.
1) As you say there is a road in front of the bungalow so anything further away than this shouldn't have much impact.
2) The witness in this bungalow is a friend of the family in the converted barn who happens to live opposite the top of the lane, the converted barn is further down the same lane.
3) There are also two other houses down there. Thus there will always be (and has always been) a small amount of traffic from these premises. The question is whether any of this lane is a public right of way and whether it continues past the converted barn as it used to, or now just ends in their garden.
The questionable status seems to have arisen because in 1951 there was apparently a 'census' (if that's the right word) of all public footpaths and bridleways in the area. This lane was not marked as a public footpath or bridleway - but then neither were any of the other lanes and minor roads because they were 'roads'. As motor vehicles got bigger, traffic on narrow lanes reduced until they became bridleways by default, because nothing bigger would fit.
1 person likes this
@owlwings (43915)
• Cambridge, England
31 Jan 20
@Fleura I seem to recall that there was a move sometime in the middle of the last century to 'register' or regularise public footpath and bridleway rights. After that time, the Ordnance Survey marked them on their maps as such.
I found your description of the irrelevant points in his statement quite amusing. One does have to wonder why no objections seem to have been raised to the installation of gates in 1991 until now, though. I'd also want to know where the lane goes to and does it give access to anyone else's land after it goes through his property (if not, then why are there grounds for complaint, but if so, then there probably are).
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (459122)
• Switzerland
31 Jan 20
I do not know the British Laws, in Italy if you do not close a pathway, a road, or a gate, where the public can transit at least once a year, after 20 years it becomes "public" you have no more the property, even if it crosses your property.
2 people like this
@RebeccasFarm (86823)
• United States
31 Jan 20
Such hogwash..it is a public path period.
2 people like this
@DaddyEvil (137142)
• United States
2 Mar 20
So, 
has this been resolved yet? (I'd be interested in knowing what, if anything, was done to correct the issue or if the guy pulled strings to get away with blocking a public road.)
has this been resolved yet? (I'd be interested in knowing what, if anything, was done to correct the issue or if the guy pulled strings to get away with blocking a public road.)1 person likes this
@DaddyEvil (137142)
• United States
3 Mar 20
@Fleura If you happen to remember when you do hear a settlement, please let me know the outcome.
Thank you.
1 person likes this
@Fleura (29212)
• United Kingdom
29 Sep 20
@DaddyEvil It took until mid July to get a decision, and in the end it was a partial victory - the inspector decided it was a right of way, but only a footpath.
Still that's better than nothing!
The others still have a chance to appeal, however, within 90 days - which will be 14th Oct, so we can't celebrate quite yet!
1 person likes this
@Fleura (29212)
• United Kingdom
10 Nov 20
Yes it all took a very long time. In the end there was a decision in mid July which was a partial victory - the inspector decided it was a right of way, but only a footpath.
Still that's better than nothing!
The others were given a chance to appeal within 90 days - which would have been 14th Oct, but I didn't hear any more about that so hopefully they didn't.
1 person likes this
@GardenGerty (157665)
• United States
3 Oct 20
It looks lovely, but if you move into or buy a house on a lane or a road, you need to expect some privacy issues. I have two huge picture windows facing out to the road myself.
1 person likes this
@BelleStarr (61047)
• United States
30 Sep 20
Let’s hope that they make the right decision
1 person likes this
@Tampa_girl7 (49124)
• United States
20 Nov 20
How did the situation end ? Or has it ?
1 person likes this
@garymarsh6 (23393)
• United Kingdom
29 Sep 20
Just happens to be CEO. Hmm it will certainly be interesting which way this swings!
1 person likes this
@Fleura (29212)
• United Kingdom
29 Sep 20
It took until mid July to get a decision, and in the end it was a partial victory - the inspector decided it was a right of way, but only a footpath.
Still that's better than nothing!
The others still have a chance to appeal, however, within 90 days - which will be 14th Oct, so we can't celebrate quite yet!
@Fleura (29212)
• United Kingdom
29 Sep 20
The final witness was just laughable. Even if he had been living there at the time... the idea that his family would live in fear of a few walkers passing near his house - and not even as near as if they were just walking down the road - and the trauma they might suffer scraping the remains of squashed pedestrians off the tarmac of that quiet country road!
The verdict in the end (only came through in mid July) was that it should be a footpath (not a bridlepath), so a partial victory. However the other side have 90 days to appeal and that period is not up until 14th October.
@paigea (35717)
• Canada
21 Apr 20
Interesting. I wonder how it will turn out.
I don't think we have similar right of way paths in Canada at all.
I belong to a hiking club that has created trails on private properties in various areas. They maintain the paths, build stiles, etc. Only club members or people with club members can use the paths, and must notify landowner each time. And permission can be withdrawn at any time.
When the railway reduced routes drastically, and removed rails, those became public trails. Sadly adjacent landowners have a lot of trouble with those trail users.
1 person likes this
