Wilden Footpath No. 6

 

Arial view showing Wilden Footpath No. 6 (Click image to enlarge it)

Bedford Borough Council declares on its WEBSITE and elsewhere that there are over 980 kilometres (over 600 miles) of public rights of way in the borough. What is not said though is how much is available for use or more to my point – how much is not. It certainly isn’t all available as it should be because numerous paths are obstructed; temporarily by cultivation and crops or overgrown vegetation for instance; or more permanently by buildings or for other reasons.

 

Wilden Footpath No. 6 (FP6) is obstructed where it passes through the gardens of six properties in the village of Wilden.

 

The original route of the path ran east – west until part of it was diverted in 1973 to facilitate the building of five properties at what is now Mayes Close, Wilden. It would seem logical (to me at least) that the diverted part of the path would follow a route around and outside the boundary of the properties. The Mayes Close residents believe that to be the case and I have seen evidence that one of the residents was given information, in a local authority search prior to purchase, that the path ran outside the property. Others believed it too; there are claims that the public walked an outer route, and it is said that the previous owner of the land over which an outer route was allegedly used seemed to accept it as so.

 

When the definitive map was digitised in 1999 the new route of FP6 was seen to be obstructed by the fencing and gardens of 1 – 5 Mayes Close. The path is also obstructed through the property known as Verna which was built after the properties at Mayes Close. North Bedfordshire Borough Council, as the then planning authority, should have made an order to divert that part of the path to enable development of Verna but didn’t.

 

Despite differing views and wishes, it is a matter of legal fact that FP6 runs through the gardens because that it is where it is depicted as running on the definitive map.

 

Various schemes have been proposed to resolve the problem, the latest being to divert the part of the path through Verna to a route along and inside its southern boundary, the new path to be 2 metres wide enclosed by an 8 foot fence and the existing (3-40 foot) leylandii hedge. The proposal plan can be seen HERE. And then, presumably, to insist eventually that the route through the gardens be made available. It is a scheme I have described as “half-baked”. In the words of Bedford Borough Council:

 

“It is of course, recognised that this proposal leaves the situation at the eastern end of Mayes Close entirely unresolved. However, finding a comprehensive solution to the whole problem has proven elusive over the last 13 years and so it is perhaps worthwhile to seek small incremental gains as opportunities allow rather than continue to hold out for an all-encompassing solution in vain. It is in this context that the present proposal is being made.”

 

The proposal to make a diversion order has been made by one council officer and the decision to approve or refuse the recommendation will be made by another council officer. I think a committee of elected councillors should decide whether or not public path orders should be made – at least contentious ones but my views have been disregarded.

 

In my opinion an enclosed path at the southern end of Verna leading to a path through the gardens of 1-5 Mayes Close would not be a path as enjoyable for use by the public as would one that would run unenclosed and outside (immediately south of) the properties, along what is a grassed surface agricultural access track. The owners of that land have not given consent for such a path (although, dear reader, you may be interested to know that the council, as the highway authority, has the power to create a public footpath without landowner consent).

 

I’m not so sure that the owners of the land over which the access track runs have been asked properly (nicely) or that incentives have been offered or fully discussed so I have asked the council officer to delay his decision to allow me to make further enquires. The officer has agreed to put the proposal on hold for three weeks (till 9 July). Better than the Old Wild West I think where cowboys were sometimes given until noon to sort things out.

The Big Pathwatch - Summer 2015

Bedford Footpath No. 1 (click to enlarge the image)

On 13^th July, the Ramblers will be launching a survey of all public paths in England and Wales as shown on Ordnance Survey maps. The Ramblers are calling for volunteers to help and you don’t have to be a member of the Ramblers to take part.

You just have to register for one or more one-kilometre squares and walk all the paths shown on the Ordnance Survey map in that/those grid square/s and then report what you find to the Ramblers. There will be a free phone app to assist reporting or paperwork. If you don’t have or don't wish to use a smart phone then you will be able to print off a map and survey card, complete it and upload your findings.

The Ramblers say that they will use the results to assess the state of the rights of way network and then come up with solutions to ensure the network is protected. Highway Authorities have a legal duty to do that anyway but sadly most (including my own local authority – Bedford Borough Council) are getting away with not doing so, therefore numerous public rights of way are unusable.

For example here in Bedford, part of Bedford Footpath No. 1 cannot be used because Bedford Borough Council (formerly North Bedfordshire Borough Council) gave planning permission for Goldington Academy (formerly Goldington Middle School) to be built over it.

More information about the Big Pathwatch and how to pre-register HERE.

Your Local Access Forum

Greensand Ridge Walk - Woburn

Highway Authorities are required to establish a Local Access Forum under sections 94 and 95 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Local Access Forums advise highway authorities about making improvements to public access for outdoor recreation.

Bedford Borough Council's Local Access Forum (BoBLAF) is an independent advisory body working with the Council to improve public enjoyment of the Borough’s countryside. The other two parts of the historic county of Bedfordshire – Central Bedfordshire and Luton are represented by a joint LAF; Central Bedfordshire and Luton JLAF.

 

BoBLAF consists of up to 22 members, all volunteers giving their time and experience to improving countryside access for the future. Members should be local people offering, in total, a balance of interests in the countryside, including recreational users, land managers and those with an interest in nature conservation, heritage, business, health, transport and access for the less able.

 

More members are needed – see current membership HERE, and HERE to find out how to join. Contact your local highway authority to find out what they are up to. See HERE for more information about Central Bedfordshire and Luton JLAF.

 

Or just turn up to see for yourself – meetings are open to the public. BoBLAF’s next meeting is scheduled to take place this week, on Thursday 5 February to be held at Borough Hall, Cauldwell Street, Bedford. HERE’s the Agenda.

 

Previous generations protected our public paths, greens and commons. We should protect them for ourselves and for future generations.

Bedford Borough Council's Empty Promises

Bedford Footpath No. 1

Bedford Borough Council endorsed a plan in 2012 to open up 15 kilometres of unusable public rights of way using public path orders over a four year period. As the fourth year begins not one metre has been opened up.

 

The "plan" is the Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2012-2017 (ROWIP) which can be seen HERE. The target shown at paragraph 3.1.a. is to "Open 15 kilometres of previously unusable path through resolution of Definitive Map anomalies by 2016." Definitive Map anomalies is a council scheme to make public path orders to create, extinguish and divert paths which when confirmed will resolve problems - dead end paths or paths obstructed because they have been built upon for example.

 

Other public path orders have been made and confirmed since 2012. However, none have contributed to opening up the public rights of way network in Bedford Borough. In fact the overall effect has been to shrink the network because the key orders were made to extinguish paths.

 

Riseley Footpath No. A19, Sharnbrook Footpath No. 2 and Wyboston Footpath No. A11E were all extinguished.

 

A part of Kempston Urban Footpath No. 9 and parts of Little Staughton Footpaths Nos. 3 & 4 were diverted. These were very minor adjustments made in the interests of the landowners.

 

A part of Renhold Footpath No. 23 (not completed yet because the new route has not been certified) and a part of Stagsden Footpath No. 20 were also diverted – to enable development for mineral extraction at Renhold and a house to be built in Stagsden. Fair enough.

 

My view is that the Council should concentrate its limited rights of way resources on its legal duty to protect our public rights of way, and it should focus on its ROWIP targets rather than spend time and money using its discretionary powers in the interests of landowners, unless it is for development.

 

Where else is Bedford Borough Council failing?

 

It had intended to consolidate the Definitive Map & Statement (DM&S) by December 2014. It hasn’t. Consolidation is where all changes to the DM&S are periodically incorporated and a new map published.

 

It had intended to publish a project plan and programme to deal with the Excluded Area for the last quarter of the 2014 financial year. It hasn’t. The Bedford Excluded Area is the inner part of Bedford which was excluded from the survey which led to the production of a DM&S. Research needs to be carried out, orders made and a map published.

 

It had intended to publish a project plan and programme to deal with the “2026 Cut-off date” for the last quarter of the 2014 financial year. It hasn’t. The so-called 2026 Cut-off date is an effect of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 - all pre-1949 public rights of way not recorded on the DM&S before 1 January 2026 will be extinguished.

 

Bedford Borough Council set out its proposed aims, objectives and practical actions for increasing public use and enjoyment of the Borough's public rights of way over the years 2012-2017. The Council is failing to deliver.

Objecting to a Solar Park Application

Latest Planning Application (Click image to expand it)


Last year, I objected to a planning application for the installation and operation of a solar park consisting of up to 65,800 solar panels on agricultural land.

You can see my letter of objection HERE. Regrettably, Bedford Borough Council did not agree. Planning permission was granted - see HERE.

One of my objections was that land used to produce food would be lost:

“The UK is a densely populated country and land is a non-renewable source. Solar power stations preclude land use for many purposes: food production – especially with regards to grain crops; and diminishing stock of ‘wild’ country or remote rural tranquility – important for recreation and tourism.

I understand that the land which it is proposed to be developed is classified as Grade 2. Grades 1, 2 and 3 are defined as the best and most versatile – this is the land which is most flexible, productive and efficient in delivering future crops.”

According to the BBC this morning – see HERE, Environment Secretary Liz Truss has said large-scale solar farms are "a blight on the landscape" and confirmed plans to cut a taxpayer subsidy to farmers and landowners for the schemes.

She told the Mail on Sunday the land could be better used for growing food. There is currently a £100-an-acre grant scheme in place, worth £2m a year. Ms Truss said: "I want Britain to lead the world in food and farming and to do that we need enough productive agricultural land."

A proposal for another solar park (68,640 panels covering 27 acres of agricultural land, shown in the image above) is to be considered by Bedford Borough Council on Monday 20 October 2014. There is very strong local resistance to this application - see HERE, reported in our local newspaper Bedfordshire on Sunday HERE (at page 15) but will the objections along with the new government minister’s comments be enough to stop another wasteful “blight on the landscape”.


UPDATE!  Later, Sunday 19 October 2014

The hard copy and online editions of the Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper reports drawn to your attention above are not as detailed as another online report which can be found HERE.

Amongst other alarming things, the newspaper reports:

“Bedfordshire on Sunday has seen documents which suggest most of those who have responded favourably to the consultation are connected in some way to Prosolia UK [the applicant] or the landowner. StopTheSolarFarm campaigners say when you take these responses out, the true level of opposition is much clearer.”

StopTheSolarFarm have updated their WEBSITE to include newer details including a revised figure for the size of the proposed site which is now said to be over 50 acres (about 25 football pitches!). New details at this stage leave insufficient time for those with everyday lives to get on with (versus those paid to propose, recommend and decide, and those who will profit from something that will be a blight on the landscape) to prepare a considered response given that Bedford Borough Council's PLANNING COMMITTEE meets tomorrow.

UPDATE! Wednesday 22 October 2014

Bedfordshire on Sunday reports HERE that a decision on the planning application has been deferred until after a site visit to be taken by the Planning Committee. Why, I wonder, especially given such a controversial application hadn't the Committee visited the site in advance of their meeting.

Wyboston, Chawston & Colesden Footpath No. A11E

 

A public hearing will be held at Wyboston Parish Village Hall next week on Tuesday 21 October 2014 into a public path order that Bedford Borough Council has made to extinguish a public footpath in Wyboston, a hamlet about 10 miles north of Bedford. I wrote about the order HERE.

 

Anyone can object to a public path order and I have objected to the Wyboston Order on behalf of the OpenSpaces Society. The Bedfordshire Rights of Way Association has objected too. As has Mike Clarke - a member of the public who has probably done more than any one person locally to protect public rights of way in the historic county of Bedfordshire. When consulted in the lead up to the making of the order, The Ramblers Association informed Bedford Borough Council that they would object to the proposed order but in the event, shamefully, they did not object and most probably won’t show up at the hearing.

 

A highway authority (Bedford Borough Council in this case) cannot proceed with an opposed order other than to abandon it or send it to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who can appoint an Inspector to hear the arguments for and against at a formal full public inquiry, or at a less formal public hearing, or by a process of written representations. After careful consideration the Inspector will confirm the order as it stands, or confirm it with modifications, or reject it.

 

The public hearing on Tuesday will be a first for me. I have notched up one public inquiry and two written representations procedures.

 

My hope is that the arguments against closing the footpath forever will be strong enough to convince the Inspector to reject the order thereby keeping the footpath in public use. Public rights of way are part of our heritage, and, in my view they are part of our identity and need to be protected for the enjoyment of all. Bedford Borough Council does not seem to hold the same view.

 

A landowner should not obstruct a public right of way – not least because it is a criminal offence to do so. And Bedford Borough Council should not use its discretionary powers, at the expense of the public, especially at a time when it is trying to save money, to reward landowners who wilfully obstruct public rights of way.

 

Rather, it should carry out its legal duty to protect public rights of way for present and future generations.



Maulden Footpath No. 28 - Confuscation (confusion & cock-up)

The Maulden Footpath No. 28 saga which I wrote about HERE and HERE continues.

Central Bedfordshire Council caused confusion, consternation and inconvenience by submitting a ridiculously late request to adjourn a court hearing – a hearing which it had applied for and which was scheduled for 8, 9 & 10 September 2014 at Luton Magistrates’ Court. The court agreed to adjourn the hearing but then, because of a court official’s cock-up, changed its mind, reinstating the hearing.  The Council then withdrew its application for the hearing with the reservation that it might be reinstated if it chose to re-apply next year. The court agreed. Officially, the court has “administratively vacated the hearing and withdrawn the proceedings”.

This particular chapter of the saga could be said to have started at a meeting on 13 February 2013, when Central Bedfordshire Council’s Development Management Committee considered three applications from landowner Mr Bowers of Maulden. The committee resolved to refuse the application (1) to delete the path under section 53 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981; to approve the application (2) to extinguish the path under section 118 the Highways Act 1980 and; to approve the application (3) to stop up the path under the section 116 of the same Act. This may well be a unique situation; three applications made under separate legislation for the purpose of getting rid of the same public footpath; and then two separate legal processes (and possibly a third) set in train by a council for the same purpose - to close a public right of way forever.

(1) The deletion:
The landowner, Mr Bowers, appealed to the Secretary of State about the Council’s refusal to delete the path. This was dealt with under Schedule 14 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. The appeal was dismissed by an Inspector acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, thereby upholding the Council’s decision. The Inspector’s decision letter can be seen HERE. However, the Secretary of State then changed his mind - quashing his decision, choosing instead to determine the appeal at a public inquiry. An Inspector can dismiss the appeal or direct that the Council should make an order to delete the path.

The public inquiry will be held at Beadlow Manor Country Club on 21^st January 2015. The inquiry is scheduled to last 2 days. A path can be deleted from the Definitive Map if there is cogent evidence that it should not be shown on the map; e.g., if the path is shown on the map in error. In Mr Bowers’ opinion, Maulden Footpath No. 28 should not be shown as a public right of way - hence his application. Although it seems to me that he prejudices that view because he acknowledges it is a public right of way if he also applies to extinguish and or stop it up.

And it seems to me that there is another inconsistency. The route of Footpath 28 shown on the map now is not the same route as that originally added to the map; part of that path was diverted. If the argument is that the path was shown incorrectly on the map then it is THAT route which is subject to deletion, not a different, DIVERTED route. And there can be no doubt of the diverted route’s status – it is a public right of way created by a public path diversion order.

(2) The extinguishment:
The Council made the extinguishment order which, because it was opposed, was the subject of a public inquiry held on 11 June 2014. A council has the power to make an extinguishment order if it seems to it that the path is not needed. It cannot confirm such an order if anyone objects to it on the ground that, but for the order, the path would be likely to be used by the public to a significant extent. The Inspector decided not to confirm the order so the order failed. You can read the Inspector’s decision letter HERE.

(3) The stopping up:
The Council made an application to Bedford Magistrates’ Court for the stopping up of the path. At a case management hearing on 17 July 2013 the court adjourned the proceedings until 15 Jan 2014. At the 15 Jan 2014 hearing the court scheduled the case to be heard at Luton Magistrates’ Court on 8, 9 and 10 September 2014.

Seven months after the court had directed that a hearing was to be held, and just three weeks before the hearing was to start, and crucially only one week before exchange of documents was to be completed, it came to my notice that Central Bedfordshire Council wanted to adjourn the case until September 2015. The council now wanted to await the outcome of the deletion order appeal. (The Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper, which has published good reports on recent events surrounding Footpath 28, reported the latest twist HERE.)

Agreement by interested parties had to be sought. Unfortunately, there was no co-ordinated effort to keep all interested parties informed. The court and the council certainly did not keep all parties informed so in this situation the passage of information seemed to rely on competence and good fortune, both of which were in short supply.

Although Mr Bowers’ (and possibly others) objected to the adjournment, the court agreed that the hearing could be adjourned, except that a 30 minute case management hearing should take place on 8 September 2014. But the court then changed its mind, reinstating the 8 – 10 Sept hearing. Apparently, a court official had failed to take the relevant Civil Procedure Rules into account when making the decision to adjourn the hearing.

It seems to me that Mr Bowers’ objection to the adjournment was perverse, as was the Council’s decision to request an adjournment rather than withdraw the application which it has now had to do.

At the 11 June public inquiry, Mr Bowers issued a statement orally (strangely, under oath) and on paper, to the effect that the public inquiry into the extinguishment should not proceed until after the 21 January 2015 public inquiry which would decide whether or not the Council should make an Order to delete the path. (That is, Mr Bowers wanted the extinguishment considered only if it was still necessary AFTER the decision about the deletion had been made.) Now though, Mr Bowers was objecting to the proposal that the decision to stop up the path should be heard BEFORE the decision on whether to delete or not. Confused?

For its part the Council could have withdrawn the application much earlier to spare interested parties the resulting inconvenience, expense and confuscation (which should be a legitimate word if it already isn’t). The Council hasn’t explained what had changed at such a late stage that it now considered warranted an adjournment.

Those enjoying this saga can look forward to next year when there will be a public inquiry and most likely a court case. Unless someone changes their mind.