The extensive network of public rights of way is a unique and valuable resource, its origins
come from times when local people walked to their place of work, worship or school. Over
time as social habits and patterns changed the role of the footpath network diminished.
Many people purchased homes on the understanding that footpaths were now not used.
In 2000 the Government enacted the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW). One
objective of CROW was to open up huge swathes of countryside to the roamer, allowing the
general public to enjoy parts of the country that had simply been off limits beforehand,
generally referred to as the right to roam. Although this right to roam has done great
service for many walkers, it was also agreed that CROW had to protect local communities
from the sometimes negative effect that walkers can have on a location and a list of the
types of locations where the right to roam is not in effect was written into law and found
under Schedule 1 of CROW. Two of the restricted locations are, first, land within twenty
metres of a dwelling and second, land used as a park or garden. All rights of way put in
place after 2000 are subject to this restriction and it is an acknowledgement that the privacy
and security of homeowners should not be compromised. However, with CROW 2000 the
footpath network took on a new use, that of recreation. Access to the countryside is
generally supported but in creating this new use for the footpath network no consideration
was given to the impact on homes. New provisions granted in the CROW have offered no
considerations to relocating or closing existing footpaths that run through family homes, a
situation impacting on many families who live in rural areas. All footpaths prior to 2000 are
not subject to this restriction and for consistency should be. There should be no distinction
between homeowner’s privacy and security depending on when a right of way was
established.
This insufficiency in British Law has allowed countless footpaths to run close to many homes
and in the worst cases, directly through them. This right to privacy and security is
acknowledged by the Government in the CROW and should be applicable to the whole
footpath network pre- and post-2000.
In a recent article in the Times (Saturday 21st April 2012) Roy Hattersley wrote: ‘Forgive
them their trespass. It opened the moors for all’. In this article it is fascinating to see how
the views have changed towards access to the countryside in the last 60 years as reflected
by the apology gracefully given by the Eleventh Duke of Devonshire. It is time for walkers to
be as magnanimous as the Eleventh Duke of Devonshire and have the courage and maturity
to recognise the need for change so that the same principles applying to ‘Right to Roam’
areas also be applied to all footpaths and that they are removed where they run through
family homes.
Respect for home owners covered in the DEFRA Rights of Way Circular (1/09) ‘Guidance for
Local Authorities’ needs to be enforced. The paragraph 5.5 clearly states that ‘…provisions
creating, diverting and extinguishing public rights of way in the 1980 Act have been framed
to protect both the public’s rights and the interests of owners and occupiers…’. This is not
working, the interests of ‘owners and occupiers’ are ignored. The paragraph 5.27 also says a
diversion order can be made in the interests of the owner, lessee or occupier or of the
public’ and that ‘A diversion… may therefore be made as long as expedient… in the interests
of at least one of the parties’. This all supports removal of footpaths from running through
family homes. Enforcing the DEFRA circular 1.09 through changes to CROW would resolve
all the inequalities experienced by families who live in the countryside and who are
impacted by the footpath network and its change of use.
The Natural England Board Paper NEB PU09 10 Discovering Lost Ways dated 13 February
2008 contained proposals that included Natural England facilitating a fundamental review of
access legislation and process. This provides the opportunity for legislation change to
correct the anomalies outlined earlier and respect the privacy and security of people who
have their home in the countryside. The report Stepping Forward dated 22 nd March 2010 is
a further opportunity to progress this issue and remove footpaths from family homes in the
countryside.
Some personal examples of footpaths that run through family homes are given below and
the intrusion they experience and have to endure on a daily basis:
1) For centuries the original footpath was across fields, village to village with a branch
off to church for churchgoers. The church closed in the 1960’s and was demolished
in the 1980’s. When opening up footpaths, the council established the footpath
down my drive to link with the original one and even disregarded the remainder of
the original one even though I insisted it was a better route for ramblers and did not
intrude on inhabitant’s dwellings. The council had no desire to consider my
requests, they said they could send me a re-routing application form to complete
together with a cheque for £700.00, they would then inform 15 authorities and it
only needed one to reply ‘no’ and the matter closed without anyone needing to
inspect or consider it. Where is democracy? My local NFU secretary told me he had
managed to get one footpath re-routed but it had taken ten years and cost a lot of
money and felt I should forget it.
2) Herefordshire: the position of my house is really significant as it is reached at the
end of a forest track, a mile from the village. People walk past my house, sometimes
with dogs off leads and do not like being asked to keep them on leads. I have had
incidents of dogs chasing sheep. Some people expect to have a picnic when they get
to the farm and are quite rude when asked to move on to the forest. This I cannot
understand as why walk a mile through woods to the nearest house to have a picnic?
One time in a field where the herd of cows were, plus a Limousin bull, a young man,
a small child and a terrier were wandering about, when I pointed out the danger he
said ‘what of it, he’s not my child’ and became abusive. Lastly, a few weeks ago one
morning, I did my daily rounds of the stock, I found someone had been camping and
drinking overnight because there were loads of broken cider bottles spread around
the area where they had had a camp fire. As I live alone, I find this sort of thing quite
alarming, apart from the danger to the animals. Years ago I did look into the moving
of a footpath but was put off by the cost and knowing that it would be very
unpopular although there is an alternative route. When I bought the farm, there
were so few people using it that it was not a problem; that was 30 years ago.
3) Herefordshire: In 1990 I applied to have a footpath moved out of my garden,
success was achieved in 2011. The footpath concerned was virtually unused for very
many years and then someone wrote a book about pubs in Herefordshire, two near
me were highlighted and it mentioned there was an old footpath that could be
walked from one to the other, after that you can imagine what happened. I applied
for a diversion but the early problem was that the County Council simply didn’t want
to know, I don’t think they have the resources; I was hitting my head against a brick
wall and eventually gave up. It was only when I was contacted by Amey, a private
contractor working for the County Council that I found things could start moving,
new forms completed and all the relevant authorities contacted, I have to say the
Amey Rights of Way Officer could not have been more helpful, nevertheless it still
took nearly 3 years and at one time looked like the Secretary of State’s Office would
have to decide, such is the bureaucracy. There were objections such as ‘the footpath
was there before the garden’, ‘the move will spoil the view’, ‘we will have to walk on
grass instead of a path’ and so on. On the other hand many people said they felt
embarrassed at walking through someone’s garden and were supportive. Whether
the path was intrusive depends on your point of view, certainly we thought it so
because it was so close to the house.
4) South Somerset: I have a footpath that runs right next to my backdoor and through
my premises. The footpath has not been signposted as a footpath and when I
purchased the property 13 years ago it was stated from the previous owners it had
not been used for over 25 years. Even though this has not been a bother to me
except when I applied for planning permission, the house is Grade II listed, the
footpath was brought up and planning was denied, so it has affected me with
planning rights. I also have a very intrusive neighbour who used the footpath excuse
to walk on to my property and take photographs. My house has been here for about
300 years and had an old mill, where I believe the footpath was for the workers
before the house was built. The property also had 2 barns that were sold for
housing before my purchase and land split up so it is difficult to know where the
footpath actually went.
5) Warwickshire: I have a footpath that passes through my family home (down drive,
between the home, splitting it into two parts, across the garden splitting it into two
parts). I experience dogs roaming in my garden, people wandering across my garden
looking into my home, I cannot leave my grandchildren in the garden unattended.
In my case there is no option to relocate the path without demolition of part of the
existing house. To make matters even more difficult, the local policy is that when a
path is relocated the width has to be increased to 3 metres.
The historical footpath network is being used to fulfil another purpose without due
consideration of the impact this has. As an example of this change of use I have
experience of a running club wanting to organise a Good Friday marathon through
my family home. My experience is that neither the local or county authorities seem
to acknowledge the impact their footpath network has on people who live in a rural
area. Whilst I support footpaths and the benefits they bring to society in general,
they should not be at the expense of others. Local policies and legislation clearly
discriminate against minorities who suffer intrusion into their rights to privacy.
There have been many examples of walkers that on seeing that the path goes
through the family home comment that this cannot be right and do not enter.