Handbags At Dawn

You ever get the impression that you are a nuisance?

If in doubt then write to Bedford Borough Council and ask a question or two. It’s not for the faint-hearted and it will take up quite a lot of your time. And don’t expect answers or to be told that you are indeed a nuisance. The Council’s response and their tone should serve to confirm that you are though.

Here’s a recent sequence of emails initiated by me to elicit information (edited only to save space and embarrassment, and with what are intended as helpful comments contained in the square brackets).

1 April – My query:

May I ask what proposals are in train to open up the [public rights of way] network please?

Are there other proposals unconnected with opening up the network, and will any take priority over those dealing with anomalies [Council speak for unusable/unconnected paths]?

And when is it hoped that current proposals will reach the report stage [when one council officer asks another officer if an order to create, close or divert a path can be made]?

3 April – Council reply:

Thank you for this email:

I have only formally taken responsibility for this time and so it will be some time before I fully understand their workload and priorities. I will bear your comments in mind when looking at workloads etc.

4 April – My chaser:

I’m disappointed that you weren’t able to answer any of my questions and note that you didn’t give me any indication when you might do so.Therefore, may I ask again, that I be provided with the following information please?

1. What path proposals (anomalies) are in train to open up the network?

2. Are there other proposals (applications, schemes) unconnected with opening up the network, and will any take priority over those dealing with anomalies?

3. When is it hoped that the above (current) proposals will reach the report stage?

16 April – My second chaser:

I wrote to you on 1^st April asking questions which it seems to me you brushed aside in your reply of 3^rd April. I wrote to you again on 4^th April and I have not received any response.

Regrettably, I cannot say that it’s a situation that surprises me; all too often Council officers and elected members do not respond to my letters without me having to chase a reply. It seems inexcusable to me that anyone at the Council should not respond to correspondence from the public as a matter of obvious working practice, let alone good manners and your Customer Care Response Standards policy.

I would be grateful if you would answer the questions posed in my emails of 1^st and 4th April please.

16 April – Council reply:

Thank you for this email. I not been in the office recently as I have been on annual leave.

I replied to your email of 1 April and explained my position in that I am getting to understand work loads, priorities etc of the team since I became their line manager on 1 April. I will need time to look at how the team can maximise its potential and, as I stated at the LAF [Local Access Forum], to raise its profile within the Council.

I will be asking [named council officer] to provide you with the information that you require.

16 April – My response:

Your explanation regarding your position as line manager is inadequate and you neglect to give me any indication as to when you will provide me with the information that I seek. The council has a policy regarding correspondence and you don’t seem to have adhered to it. If my email to you of 4^th April was received before you were absent on leave then you should have informed me of what you would or were unable to do. If my email arrived when you were absent on leave then I should have been informed automatically that you were out of office. If you are recently returned then perhaps you could have found time for an explanation.

You had warning of the Rights of Way Team’s move to Highways [Department] so I do not fully accept your reasons …..

16 April – A council Officer provides me with most of the information that I sought.

That is the end of the sequence. You will draw your own conclusions. I would like to emphasise that there were no apologies to edit out of the emails. And I would like to clarify that the Council's Rights of Way Team moved officially from one department to another but within the same directorate on 1 April. It was a move planned last year - although "notified" might be a better description than "planned". 

I'm not sure who a council officer serves; the council's elected members, its chief executive, the public, themselves or all of these? If Bedford Borough Council officers' serve the public then do they think that they do it well?

My view is that local authorities are closer than any other public body to their communities. They should understand and articulate the needs of their residents, through officers as well as local councillors. As finances become more squeezed and councils cut back to only the top priorities, community engagement will become even more important. In days like these, the support of local people and a mutual trusting relationship between councils and the residents they serve is even more important.

Bedford Borough Council should work harder to meet its targets

The situation in Bedford Borough where many public paths cannot be used because they are obstructed is unchanged. Two years ago Bedford Borough Council endorsed a plan to open up 15 kilometres of unusable paths, using public path orders, over a four year period (Rights of Way Improvement Plan, paragraph 3.1.a). At the start of the third year (1 April 2014), not even 1 metre had been opened up. Other public path orders have been made but none which will serve to open up the public rights of way network.

That is fact.

The Council is not even trying to open up the rights of way network. Instead, it continues to concentrate on other public path orders, all of which have been objected to (there is a period after the Council has made an order when the public may object to it. That temporarily stops the process until the objections are withdrawn or the case is heard and decided by The Planning Inspectorate):

Kempston Urban Footpath No. 9 - an unnecessary diversion.

Wyboston Footpath No. A11E - an outrageous extinguishment where public money is being used in the interests of a landowner who has unlawfully obstructed a public path to prevent the public from using it.

Riseley Footpath No. 70 - a creation order linked to an extinguishment order (such orders can be made concurrently to create a path as a replacement for the other). The extinguishment order has been confirmed and the path closed forever. Somewhat unfairly, the creation order will now be abandoned so there will be no new path.

Stagsden Footpath No. 20 – an application for a diversion order which the Council had to process to enable development but which must now be abandoned and made anew because of Council incompetence. A house has now been built on the path.

Wymington Footpaths Nos 3, 4 & 5 - an application for a diversion order from Network Rail which the Council had to process but which, in my opinion, provides an unreasonably long new route. Network Rail has unlawfully closed one of the footpaths anyway.

Sharnbrook Footpath No. 2 - an application for an extinguishment order from Network Rail which the Council had to process but which, in my opinion, relies on a dangerous alternative route. Objections to the order may force Network Rail to pay for works to improve the alternative route. The Council should have required such works in the first place without objectors having to force the issue.

The public most likely would not know it but it is being short changed here. The few proposals/projects listed above plus a similar amount including those not yet fully in the public domain comprise a meagre total when compared with what could be in train.

Other targets in the Council’s improvement plan have not started either, including:

• To quantify, identify and cost out routes which could offer benefits to reduce fragmentation through Public Path Orders. (ROWIP paragraph 3.1.b.)

• To work with Highways to develop an action plan to improve strategic/significant road crossings and maximise access opportunities associated with management of verges. (ROWIP paragraph 3.1.c.)

Bedford Borough Council should do more to meet its published aims. Instead, the Council is considering revising its targets down.

Kempston Urban Footpath No. 9 - Update

At the end of this month, Bedford Borough Council will reach the half-way point of its four year programme (as set out in the council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan) to open up 15 kilometres of unusable public rights of way by 2016. So far it has not opened up even one metre. Nor is it seen to be trying to. Instead, the council continues to waste time and money on other rights of way issues. And it seems to be making slow progress in doing that.
 
Take the issue of Kempston Urban Footpath No. 9 for example.
 
An 80 metre section of Kempston Urban Footpath No. 9 crosses a small, mostly public open space beside the River Great Ouse – see bold black line on the image below. Most of the land belongs to Bedford Borough Council. A small part belongs to Kempston Mill Limited.
 
The council has the power to make an order to divert a footpath. If no one is opposed, then the council can complete the process by confirming the order. The new route then comes into operation and the old one is extinguished.

 

If someone is opposed to an order, that is to say submits an objection, then the council cannot confirm it. The council can however, ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to confirm an opposed order. He has the power to confirm such orders but he first appoints an Inspector to deal with the case at some form of public inquiry. An Inspector can confirm an order with or without amendments or refuse to confirm an order.

 

The council made an order to divert part of Kempston Urban Footpath No. 9 in August 2013 - see HERE, but it is opposed. The Council has asked the Secretary of State to confirm the order (I understand with amendments because the council had not described the position of the new route correctly), and he has appointed an Inspector. However, the council has been informed that they have not carried out the diversion order procedure correctly. They must now re-advertise the diversion order with notices on site and in a local newspaper for a minimum of 28 days.

 

If the order is confirmed then it will not serve to open up the public rights of way network.

 

The part of Footpath No. 9 to be diverted has been cleared and is now available for use but the council continues to waste time and money dealing with a pointless diversion instead of trying to open up unusable paths as it has said it would.

 

Wymington Footpath No. 5 - Update

Network Rail erected barriers on Wymington Footpath No. 5 to prevent the public from using the path. See blog posts 13 January, 5 February - and 17 February where I explained that I had served notice on Bedford Borough Council to secure the removal of the obstructions.

The council has the power (Highways Act 1980, section 143) to require the removal from a highway of any structure which has been set up other than under statutory powers. The procedure is simple. The council serves notice on the person having control of or possession of the structure(s). If the structures are not removed then the council may itself remove them and recover the reasonable expenses in doing so. There is no requirement to give a second warning but the council is not allowed to remove any structure until a month after the notice has been served.

Bedford Borough Council has informed me that it has served notice on Network Rail. See S130(A) FORM 3.

That’s a council step in the right direction. Possibly the first time the council has taken such a step.

Will Network Rail oblige and open the path? What will the council do if it doesn't?

Network Rail is considering posting an employee on site (on arable land in the countryside) to temporarily remove the barriers and to escort members of the public over the railway lines when walkers arrive on site, and when Network Rail’s Control Centre in Derby gives permission. I suspect that the sentry will encourage members of the public to use another route where they will unknowingly trespass on private land, and commit a criminal offence by walking along part of a footpath that has been temporarily closed under the terms of the Road Traffic Regulation Act.

On its website, Network Rail states “We own and operate Britain’s rail infrastructure.” They seem to be acting as if they own and operate public rights of way as well.

Wymington Footpath No. 5 - Highways Act 1980, Section 130A

Wymington Footpath No. 5 remains obstructed - see earlier post, so I have more formally requested that Bedford Borough Council have the obstructions removed.

Anyone walking the path would not know until they arrived at the point where the path is physically obstructed that their onward route was blocked. Realistically, they would then have to turn back. It is unlawful to obstruct a highway so there is no difference in that respect between obstructing a footpath or a road. If there is a difference otherwise then it would be the greater number of people inconvenienced by any obstructions on a road and the swifter and decisive reaction of Bedford Borough Council and others to have the obstructions removed.

Sections 130A-130D of the Highways Act 1980 enable any person to serve a notice on a local highway authority, requesting it to secure the removal of an obstruction on a public right of way. Should the authority refuse or fail to take action, the applicant can seek a Magistrates' Court order compelling the authority to act.

Here's the sequence as I understand it:

1. Complainant must serve a request notice on the highway authority, detailing the alleged obstruction and providing details of the offender if known.

2. Within one month the highway authority must serve a notice on the person named and any other persons who they believe are responsible informing that a notice has been served on the authority.

3. The highway authority must also inform the complainant advising him of the landowners they have served notice on and stating what its intention is, if any, to remove the obstruction.

4. If the highway authority fails to respond within one month or its response does not satisfy the complainant then the complainant can take his case to the magistrates' court. Before doing so the complainant must serve notice on the highway authority of his intention to do so.

5. The court will hear the case and decide whether the case meets the requirements of S130A and if so whether or not to make an order to have the obstruction removed.

Here's a copy of my letter dated 31 January where I served notice on the council:

Chief Executive

Bedford Borough Council

Cauldwell Street,

Bedford                                                                                                              

MK42 9AP                                                                                                     31 January 2014

 

Dear Sir,

 

Wymington Footpath No. 5

Notice pursuant to Section 130A(1), Highways Act 1980

I wrote to your Council on 7^th January about the obstructions which have been erected either side of the railway lines on Wymington Footpath No. 5. However, I now know that the Council were aware of the obstructions before Christmas last year.

What makes these obstructions more serious is that Footpath No. 5 is subject to a diversion order (Bedford Borough Council (Wymington: Part of Footpath Nos 3, 4 and 5; Podington: Part of Footpath Nos 6 and 27) Rail Crossing Diversion Order 2013).

In my letter dated 28 January 2014, I made the strongest possible representations against the Council and Network Rail for preventing the public from walking the routes to be diverted during the course, of what now seems to be, the whole of the objection period.

When called upon to do so, the Council has not had the obstructions removed.

For this reason I now serve notice on your council, pursuant to Section 130A(1), Highways Act 1980, requesting it to secure the removal of the obstructions without delay.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this notice.

Yours faithfully,

Brian Cowling
OSS Local Correspondent, Bedford Borough

Encl:
Form 1 pursuant to Section 130A(1), Highways Act 1980
Open Spaces Society letter dated 28 January 2014
Copy of order plan
Photo print of obstruction on northern side of railway lines

A Letter To A Newspaper

The Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper published an article on 26th January about Bedford Borough Council's public rights of way performance. It began:

"A COUNCIL'S pledge to open up 15km of public footpaths by 2017 is 'aspirational' rather than binding officers have said. Bedford Borough Council set a target back in 2012 to open up 15km of blocked rights of way by 2017 but as yet hasn't reopened any of it."

I wrote a letter in response which was published (slightly edited) on 2nd February.

Here's my letter in full:

Dear Editor yourletters,

I hope that you will allow me to respond to your article (January 26, 2014 - "Pathway target is not legal but aspirational") in some way:

"Bedford Borough Council’s claim (Bedfordshire on Sunday - January 26, 2014) that its aim to open up 15km of obstructed paths by 2016 (not 2017, as reported) is “aspirational” and therefore not binding is a lame excuse for what may turn out to be a spectacular failure. The council’s objectives and targets are clearly defined in its Rights of Way Improvement Plan. “Aspiration” – hoping to achieve, does not feature in the Plan. “Target” - trying to achieve, does.

Having set targets, aims, practical actions and objectives (other descriptions in the Improvement Plan), the council has a moral duty to try to open up the rights of way network. And that should not hide the fact that the council has an explicit legal duty to keep all paths open anyway.

Nothing has been opened so far because the council hasn’t tried. It has focussed limited resources on discretionary rights of way issues rather than concentrating on its legal duties and promises.

The council relies on unnamed council officers to make excuses about what is binding or not, and it has delegated powers to council officers to make all rights of way decisions. The Portfolio Holder, Councillor Sarah-Jayne Holland who endorsed the Rights of Way Improvement Plan should admit that targets are not being met, and explain what measures will be taken to meet them."

Wymington Footpaths & Network Rail - Update

Wymington Footpath No. 5 still cannot be used over the railway lines - see 13th January post.

Network Rail asked Bedford Borough Council to temporarily close FP5. When the Council refused, Network Rail closed the path anyway; that is, wilfully and unlawfully erected barriers to prevent the public from using the path. The Council has been aware of this since December (a month earlier than I thought) yet the path remains closed.

I have asked the Council to have the obstructions removed.

Highway law does not seem to apply as it should to footpaths in Bedford Borough so the chances are that the public will not be permitted to walk the obstructed part of FP5 in the near future – if ever!

What does it matter? A lot! Here’s one of the reasons:

The New Inn, Wymington

 

I met a couple by chance last month at the The New Inn, Wymington. Having consulted an Ordnance Survey map the couple had devised a circular walk and were in Wymington to further their plan for a U3A walking group’s day out scheduled for February. They wanted to book lunch at the pub for 20 walkers travelling from Cambridgeshire but decided against when finding out (from me) that part of their route wasn’t available.

 

The New Inn has lost twenty new customers. It’s a nice pub, nice enough to attract repeat visits. It has other attributes, a decent car park for instance, so others might have been encouraged to visit. The Council’s and Network Rail’s careless attitude has cost the local economy. It could have been worse. The walking group might not, as is often the case, have found out that their path wasn’t available until the day.