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.