Secret Paths in Bedford and Beyond

No signpost on Thurleigh Bridleway No. 56 where it leaves Whitwick Green Road. Grid TL 04324 59026
(Click image to enlarge it)

The Bedford Times and Citizen (our free local newspaper) has published an article on the scandal of missing signposts in Bedford and beyond - See HERE. The article arises from a press release (in full below).

Thanks Times and Citizen - Bedford Borough Council has shown a greater interest in this issue now.


No sign of Thurleigh Bridleway No. 56 which runs across the cultivated field from the vicinity of the tree second from left.
(Click image to enlarge it)

No signpost on Thurleigh Footpath No. 37 where it leaves the far (south) side of Milton Road. Grid TL 03986 57834. The footpath is signed on the north side (although it can't be used because it is obstructed).
(Click image to enlarge it)

OPEN SPACES SOCIETY NEWS RELEASE

‘END THE SCANDAL OF SECRET PATHS IN BEDFORD AND BEYOND’

Fifty years on from the Countryside Act 1968, which required local authorities to signpost a public path where it leaves a road, many paths still lack signposts.

The Open Spaces Society*, Britain’s oldest national conservation body, now calls for an end to this scandal.

The society and the Ramblers were responsible for winning the signposting provision which was enshrined in section 27 of the Countryside Act 1968.  This states that a highway authority (county or unitary council) must erect and maintain a signpost where a public path leaves a metalled road.  The signpost must show the status of the path, eg whether it is a footpath (open only to pedestrians), a bridleway (walkers, horse-riders and cyclists) or a byway (open also to mechanically-propelled vehicles).  If the authority considers it convenient and appropriate, the destination of the path and distance to that destination may also be given.

Says Brian Cowling, the Open Spaces Society’s local correspondent for Bedford Borough: ‘Signposts are important because they give people the confidence to use and enjoy public paths, which are public rights of way and highways in law.  Walkers, riders and cyclists should be able to rely on the council to signpost paths where they leave metalled roads, but here they cannot.  Bedford Borough has failed in its statutory duty to signpost paths in the parish of Thurleigh (photographs attached) and elsewhere.

‘Although paths are marked on Ordnance Survey maps, many people are deterred from using them if there is no indication that a route is a public path.  In any case, paths can be closed or moved making the maps out of date.

‘Without a signpost, a path can be a well-kept secret.

‘That is why the Open Spaces Society pressed for the inclusion of the signposting duty in the Countryside Act and why I am dismayed to find that there are still many missing signposts.’

‘I am working to persuade the council to use its scant resources on its statutory duties, such as signposting and removing illegal obstructions.  Unfortunately, the borough continues to give too much attention to its discretionary powers of processing applications to move paths, often against the public interest.

‘In this fiftieth anniversary year of the Countryside Act 1968 which gave highway authorities a duty to signpost paths, we call on Bedford Borough and other councils to make a real effort to ensure all their paths are marked and to give priority to its statutory duties on public rights of way.’

Photos attached:

Missing signpost on Thurleigh Bridleway No. 56 where it leaves Whitwick Green Road.

Missing signpost on Thurleigh Footpath No. 37 where it leaves the far (south) side of Milton Road. The footpath is signposted on the north side.

Brian reported both these missing signposts to Bedford Borough Council in January 2015.

*The Open Spaces Society was founded in 1865 and is Britain’s oldest national conservation body.  It campaigns to protect common land, village greens, open spaces and public paths, and people’s right to enjoy them.

Bedford Borough Council - Wasting Time

Wilden Footpath No. 6 - obstructed through gardens
(Click image to enlarge it)

Part of Wilden Footpath No. 6 cannot be used because it is obstructed through gardens as it has been for years. See HERE.

 

September 2016: Bedford Borough Council consults on a proposal to divert the path. See the consultation plan HERE. 

 

I reply by return: “The Open Spaces Society is very pleased to see your proposal and wholeheartedly supports it.” Other consultees including Wilden Parish Council, I know, are just as pleased.

 

October 2016: Consultation period ends.

 

When consultations are complete the procedure for the case officer is to compile, submit and publish a report recommending that orders should be made or not. A week after publication, another council officer approves or refuses the recommendation. If approved the way is clear to make orders which shouldn’t really take more than a couple of weeks.

 

January 2017: I write to ask about what I consider to be the inordinate delay.

 

The terse reply (in my own words) – "we only have a small team and we are busy doing other things as well. The two orders are being drafted,"
[An hour or so with a cuppa? A morning with more than one cuppa - max!]
"a decision to make the orders is expected within the next 6 weeks and orders made by the end of May."
[Whole morning writing a report? Cuppa? Ten minutes to read and approve it.]

 

May 2017. No report. No orders. No proper explanation or apology.

 

July 2017. I request information to be told that a report will be published within 4 weeks and the orders made by 25 August.

 

September 2017: End of year one. No report. No orders. No proper explanation (other than to say, after I contact the council, that they will get back to me in two weeks), No apology, and no footpath of course. I lodge an official complaint and wait.

 

It has to be done but I suspect that I am wasting my time just like the Borough Council is wasting it.

Bedford Borough Council - Wasting Public Money

Wilstead Footpath No. 8
Obstructed by stable block, shed, gates and fences

Bedford Borough Council has wasted thousands of pounds of public money by making an order to divert a footpath and then formally abandoning it because council officers forgot to tell anyone that an order had been made. Unapologetic and unrepentant, council officers plan to spend thousands more on a new order to divert the path.

 

The path in question is Wilstead Footpath No. 8.

 

Earlier this year I wrote about a proposal to divert the path. See HERE. What I didn’t know at the time of writing was that an order had already been made in 2013. No one outside the council knew either - because the council never gave notice of the making of the order which is a statutory requirement.

 

The path cannot be used because it is obstructed by the landowner. It seems reasonable to me that the council, whose legal duty it is to protect our public rights of way, should either take enforcement action against the obstructions or require the landowner to apply and pay for a diversion. It should not be for the council to assist a landowner to get round path law, and when it does choose to do so it shouldn’t cock up the procedure. Having wasted thousands, the council will use more public money to pay (to the tune of £3000 according to a council estimate) for a new diversion order.

 

See the council’s letter withdrawing the order HERE.

 

Despite what is said in the first paragraph of the letter, neither I nor the Open Spaces Society were consulted about the 2013 order (not that we have to be consulted). “The Authority” does not mean “Bedford Borough Council”; it means council officers on behalf of the council. And you won’t find any mention of costs, reasons for the delay or an apology for the cock up which I attribute to council officer incompetence and lack of elected councillors’ interest.

 

Regrettably, Bedford Borough Council has wasted more public money. On 4 August, “the Authority” also resolved to withdraw another twelve public path orders because they are flawed, with an officer resolution awaited on a further two flawed orders. The letter regarding the twelve (but not the cheque) is in the post I think.

Priorities

Looking towards Keysoe

As the highway authority, Bedford Borough Council has various legal powers which enable it to carry out its statutory public rights of way duties including: “To assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.” (Highways Act 1980, Section 130(1). The same various powers can be used at the Council's discretion for other, non-statutory rights of way purposes – things that it can do but doesn’t have to, like diverting paths for instance.

 

Our Council says it does not have sufficient resources to do everything it is required to, so complaints regarding its failure to fulfil its duties are not always followed up and resolved.

 

My argument is that if the Council doesn’t have enough resources then it must first carry out all its statutory duties before spending time and money (if any remain) to do the things it can but doesn’t have to. Simple right?

 

But our council officers (for it is they, not our elected members who decide) choose to do otherwise.

 

Last year, Bedford Borough Council made twelve public path orders to change the public rights of way network in the parishes of Thurleigh and Ravensden because the landowner wants the paths, some of which he has obstructed, laid out differently. However, the orders were flawed so they will have to be abandoned and the Council has said that they will make new orders. Let me call these: Jobs-to-Do - Nos. 1 & 2.

 

The Council also made public path orders in the interests of the landowner at the parishes of Stonely (Cambs), Pertenhall & Little Staughton. The orders were flawed as well so will have to be abandoned and the Council has said they too will be re-made: Jobs-to-Do – Nos. 3 & 4. Consultations have been carried out for separate public path orders at Bletsoe; Colmworth; Staploe; Wilden; Willington; Wilstead; and Wyboston: Jobs-to-Do - Nos. 5 to 11.

 

There is a small backlog of applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs). DMMO applications can be made by any member of the public where they consider there is evidence that a path should be added to or deleted from the Definitive Map and Statement. The Council is supposed to deal with applications within 12 months of receipt but hasn’t. And an opposed DMMO made in 2006 awaits action. More Jobs-to-Do. And more besides. I think you get the picture.

 

It would seem sensible to me, necessary even, to get to get rid of or get to work on the list of jobs outstanding. But no - our Council chooses instead to add another three jobs to its list. Last month consultees were “notified” that an order will be made to divert a footpath in the interests of a landowner at Wilden, another order will be made to divert a footpath in the interests of a landowner at Dean & Shelton (both to field edges where they will be fenced in), and an order will be made to extinguish a harmless bridleway at Oakley, at a cost to the public purse.

 

It seems wrong to me that Bedford Borough Council chooses to use its powers to change the public rights of way network as a result of applications from landowners (a discretionary function and at some cost to the public purse) rather than focussing on its statutory duties? And it doesn’t make sense to me that having decided to make path orders that the process is then put on hold whilst they propose making more.

 

The only reason for making a public path diversion order is that it would be in the interests of the public, or of the owner (or lessee or occupier) of the land crossed by the path, or both. Bedford Borough Council should sort out its priorities to attend to its statutory duties, and in the meantime impose a moratorium on the processing of applications for public path orders made in the interests of landowners.

Wilstead Footpath No. 8 and Bedford Borough Council Favours

Wilstead FP8 - Looking south east from the area of Point E on the Council's plan
(Click image to enlarge it)

A short section (approximately 230 metres) of Wilstead Footpath No. 8 cannot be used by the public because it is unlawfully obstructed where a stable and a shed have been built upon it, and where fences and gates have been erected to create paddocks at The Stables Equestrian Centre, Wilstead.

Council's Proposal Plan with Council Officer's annotations
(Click image to enlarge it)

 

Bedford Borough Council, as the Highway Authority, has a legal duty to protect the public right of way but has failed to do so.

 

What should have happened? The landowner or tenant should have sought planning permission for change of land use (from agricultural to equestrian use) and for permission to erect a stable and shed, hand in hand with an application to divert the footpath to enable the development (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 257). But they did not. The Borough Council, as the planning authority, should have taken enforcement action but they did not.

 

What can the Council do? It could have the obstructions removed (Highways Act 1980, Section 143: the power to require the removal of a structure or other obstruction from a right of way). Or it could require the landowner to apply for a public path order to divert the footpath (Highways Act 1980, Section 119).

 

The Council has estimated that it will cost up to £3000 to process a public path diversion order which it can recover from the applicant. That sum does not take into account the Council’s costs for a public inquiry which would ensue should anyone object to an order (which I will). Those costs would fall to the tax payer.

 

What is the Council going to do? It is going to ignore the planning permission issues and says it will make a public path diversion order at the expense of the public purse.

 

Why is the council dishing out favours? I think it is outrageous that the public should be expected to pay for this diversion – a diversion which is only deemed necessary because the landowner has developed land without planning permission and has unlawfully obstructed the public right of way, and because Bedford Borough Council has failed to carry out its legal duty. I don’t know what the circumstances were that led to the planning application failure but accept that we are where we are and that it would be harsh to have the stable, shed and fences removed. It seems reasonable to me that as a first step (because there is no guarantee of success when making a public path order) that the landowner should be required to apply and pay for a public path diversion order.

 

Decisions about making public path orders are not taken by Borough Councillors – it is left to council officers. Therefore, I have asked the Mayor of Bedford Borough to intervene arguing that using limited public funds to pay for this proposal is wrong, and at this time is especially hard to understand.

 

Recently, the Mayor wrote to residents about the need for savings and consulted on options to cut services and or increase the Council Tax because of Government cuts to Council funding. Bin collections throughout the Borough were changed to fortnightly rounds rather than weekly to save money. The talk now is of council tax increases and reduced services. This is not the time to be providing free services unnecessarily. And there should never be a time for rewarding landowners who obstruct public rights of way.

 

The Mayor considers “that it is reasonable for the Council to fund the cost of making this diversion.”

 

Given the facts that I’ve outlined here, I fail to see how anyone can think it reasonable that the public should pay.

Bedford Footpath No. 18 Deserves Better

Bedford Footpath No. 18
(Click the image to expand it)

The original route of Bedford Footpath No. 18 ran from the east side of Newnham Avenue, Bedford (at a point almost opposite Greenshields Road) and followed the line of the ditch (on its northern side) to Barkers Lane. It was a well-used, unsurfaced, direct route to and from Priory Country Park, especially favoured by those walking a dog or indeed anyone preferring a more enjoyable, safer off-road, off-cycle-shared pavement, access to the park.

 

It can be a hard life for a footpath in Bedford Borough though and this one has had more than its fair share of troubles; the western side was stopped up (which is why that part is no longer shown on the map above) so now the public have to use part of Bridleway No. 45 (sharing it with cyclists, and those using a moped or car) and Footpath No. 44 instead, and; the eastern side was obstructed when it was built upon at the Industrial Estate so the footpath had to be diverted. The latest threat to what remains of its route has been made by Bedford Borough Council which has given itself planning permission to expand its Brunel Road Depot, which the footpath crosses. The Council doesn’t want a footpath crossing the proposed enlarged site so it has made a public path order to divert it to a route around it which I have formally objected to.

I would have preferred to keep on using the footpath as it was before our Council tampered with it. As it might have been centuries ago if and when those at or visiting Newnham Priory (founded 1156) may have used it. That's not possible now because of what has already been disposed of but I am trying to keep what is left as it is.

 

In simple terms, if a local authority wants to divert a footpath it can make a public path diversion order and then after the required period, confirm it. Once that is done, the new route of the footpath becomes the public right of way and the old one is stopped up - extinguished forever - rendered as dead as a certain parrot. The local authority cannot confirm an order if anyone formally objects to it. Therefore, if an objection is made the process is stalled. But the local authority can send an opposed order to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who has the power to confirm an opposed order. The Secretary of State appoints an Inspector who considers the arguments made for and against the order at a formal public inquiry, or at an informal hearing or by an exchange of correspondence. In due course, the Inspector will then either, confirm the order as it stands, confirm the order with modifications or refuse to confirm it.

The case for and against the diversion of Bedford Footpath No. 18 has been dealt with by an exchange of correspondence and a decision is imminent.

It's a situation that could have been avoided. In the first place I don't think that it is necessary to divert the footpath to enable the development, nevertheless, there was scope for a compromise. However, the Council were dismissive of my concerns and suggestions. One concern being the expense; amongst other things, the Council proposes to "improve" the surface of the footpath at a cost of over £22,000.00. Public path orders made to enable development, especially when the Council is the developer, are notoriously difficult to stop so the Council officials were and probably remain confident of winning their case.

You can see a copy of the diversion proposal plan HERE. And the Secretary of State’s Notice of the Order HERE which also contains a copy of the Order.

 

I will spare you sight of most of the correspondence but HERE is my Statement of Case and response to the Council’s submission. It may be of interest or it may be of use if a public footpath (or other public right of way) that you have an interest in is threatened by your local authority.

Update 26 Nov 16:

The Council has its way - sadly, the public path diversion order is confirmed. The decision letter can be seen HERE.

Maulden Footpath No. 28



Central Bedfordshire Council's Development Management Committee

At its meeting on 12th October, Central Bedfordshire Council’s Development Management Committee considered an update on Maulden Footpath No. 28.

 

In 2013 the committee had (1) refused an application to delete the path from the definitive map, (2) approved an application to extinguish the path, and (3) approved an application to have the path stopped up; the case for stopping up the path to be heard at the magistrates’ court if the public path extinguishment order procedure failed, or vice versa because the committee had not said in which order it should be dealt with.

 

Two procedures to get rid of a public right of way might seem like a belt and bracers approach but the appropriate idiom escapes me in this case because these two procedures were only the latest attempts to close the path. See HERE for Central Bedfordshire Council's account of the sequence of events which include: a 1995 Definitive Map Modification Order unsuccessfully opposed; three failed extinguishment orders (1998, 2000 and 2013); a diversion order (2004); a variation order (2010); numerous public inquiries; three court appearances linked to wilful obstruction of a public right of way; two magistrates' court hearings; appeals to the Secretary of State; and an application to the High Court.

 

One might be in awe of the incredible tenacity of a landowner who does not believe there is a public right of way over his land and has fought for at least 24 years to have it removed - or not (in awe). One might be appreciative of those prepared to defend public rights of way - or not (appreciative). One might also reflect that we live in country where either side has the right and freedom to fight its cause. However, I do not know what one is to make of Central Bedfordshire Council’s and its predecessor, the former Mid Bedfordshire District Council's, decisions for pursuing the case for so long, against its officers' advice, after so many failed attempts at a huge cost to the public purse measured in tens of thousands of pounds.

 

After discussing the issue for over an hour on 12th October, Central Bedfordshire Council decided to rescind its 2013 resolution to apply to the magistrates' court for a stopping up order.

 

All attempts to delete or close the path have failed, the latest plan will not proceed. It seems that the Maulden FP28 saga is over. Long live Maulden Footpath No 28.

 

Previous posts on Maulden FP 28 can be found HERE (26 Jun 14), HERE (2 Sep 14), HERE (5 Sep 15) and HERE (7 Oct 15).

Wilden Footpath No.6 - Good News

Click image to expand it

Some good news to report at last. And facts rather than the fibs – some local readers, who commented to me personally, didn’t catch on that my last post was a work of fiction, it being posted on 1^st April.

Bedford Borough Council has proposed that part of Wilden Footpath No. 6 be diverted (and a redundant part of FP7 be extinguished). The unavailability of Wilden FP6 because it is obstructed through gardens is an issue which I have been complaining about for some time now. See HERE and HERE.

The proposal makes sense and receives my wholehearted support as representative of the Open Spaces Society. If the proposal is successful with public path orders being made and confirmed then it will be the end of a long-running saga. But more importantly, the public will be able to exercise their right to walk a footpath that links Renhold Road and Barford Road again.

A Spanner In The Works?

Kimbolton, Pertenhall & Little Staughton Order Map

Bedford Borough Council has made public path orders (two in the first case) to divert and create public footpaths in the parishes of Kimbolton (Cambridgeshire), Pertenhall and Little Staughton, and (secondly) twelve - yes 12, public path orders to create, divert and extinguish footpaths and bridleways in the parishes of Ravensden and Thurleigh.

 

You can see the order map for the first case HERE and the second HERE.

 

The orders, which stem from applications from landowners (one is a Bedford Borough Councillor) have been made because council officers, on behalf of the Council, consider it is expedient (to create), in the interests of the landowners (to divert), and because the paths are not needed by the public (to extinguish).

 

I am opposed to the orders in principle because, as I said HERE, I believe the Council should use its limited resources to focus on public rights of way issues which it has said are a higher priority - paths which cannot be used because they are obstructed, or anomalies such as dead end paths for instance, and unrecorded rights of way - rather than spend its time and our money on costly orders such as those mentioned above.

 

Objecting on principle cuts no ice when it comes to opposing public path orders however. An objection has to be judged valid in law; that the order does not meet the test(s) of the legislation.

The costs of making public path orders (some of which can be recovered from the applicant for an order) arise from the administrative and legal procedures which include site visits, negotiations, drafting and preparation of orders and maps, consultations, correspondence, drafting and sealing orders, erecting notices on the affected paths, advertising the orders in local newspapers with copies sent to prescribed bodies, etc. It can be a lengthy process and a drain on resources. And there’s more to do after orders are made because the council then has to confirm them which it cannot do if anyone objects.

 

I have formally objected. In order to complete the process the Council will have to submit the orders to the Secretary of State for the case to be heard at two public inquiries where an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State will hear the arguments for and against before deciding the outcome.

 

I may have put a spanner in the works though.

 

Public Path Order Regulations state that "The map required to be contained in an order shall be on a scale of not less than 1:2500, or, if no such map is available, on the largest scale readily available."

 

The maps contained in these orders are on a scale of 1:5000. In my opinion a map on a scale of 1:2500 was readily available.

It is my view that the Council has not complied with the regulations so the orders are flawed. If that is true then it is also my contention that the Secretary of State does not have the power to amend such a substantial defect and the fourteen public path orders will have to be abandoned - a formal process which has to be advertised.

 

But would the Council start all over again. I expect it would.

Priorities

Willington Bridleway No. 4 which Bedford Borough Council want to move from the track (right of trees) to the field (left of the trees) at the expense of the public purse.

CLICK THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE IT

In what seems like a sudden burst of activity, Bedford Borough Council has consulted on several individual proposals to realign public footpaths and bridleways arising from applications from landowners. Landowners have the right to apply for public path orders to create, extinguish and divert public paths on their land, and the Council has the power to make such orders; creating them because it considers it is expedient to do so, extinguishing them when it considers paths are not needed, and diverting paths in the interests of landowners, occupiers or the public. But note the word “power” which means that the Council can make path orders but it doesn’t have to. Oh, and also note, that when I say "the Council", I mean council officers because they make the decisions - not the elected members. Here in Bedford Borough, councillors are not involved in public rights of way other than to be informed of proposals in their ward.

 

Councillors and council officers say (and I agree) that the Council is short of public rights of way resources.

 

Therein lies my beef.

 

My view is that the Council should prioritise and concentrate on what it must do (legal duties like ensuring that paths are available for the public) rather than waste resources (time and money) on what it has discretion to do (public path order applications).

 

Look at THIS application in the parish of Willington, and THIS one in the parish of Bletsoe – both are to divert paths out of farm yards (I’ll spare you Dear Reader the details of a really crazy proposal in Wyboston). You can see my response to the consultations HERE and HERE.

 

In a full page advertisement in the Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper, The Mayor of Bedford stated that there is a funding crisis and has asked Bedford Borough residents on where services can be changed, and for ideas for how to save money and operate more efficiently.

 

My suggestion is that the Council could save money by imposing a moratorium on the processing of public path order applications for which it is claimed are in the interests of landowners.

Maulden Footpath No. 28 - Again

The Maulden Footpath No. 28 SAGA continues.

In 2008, Mr Bowers of Maulden made an application to delete Maulden FP28 from the Definitive Map, following unsuccessful attempts to extinguish it under the Highways Act 1980. Central Bedfordshire Council refused the application in 2013. Mr Bowers appealed against that refusal to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State appointed an inspector to consider the appeal. The inspector decided that it should be refused. Mr Bowers applied for a judicial review of that decision, and was successful. The decision was quashed on the grounds that the inspector who considered the appeal erred in law when he refused to hear evidence which had not been considered by the Council Committee which decided to refuse Mr Bowers’ application in 2013. The appeal had to be re-determined.

A public inquiry was held in September 2015.

On 2^nd October 2015, the inspector concluded that the Appeal should be refused. Central Bedfordshire Council’s decision not to make an order to delete the footpath is upheld. I’m pleased to say that Maulden Footpath No. 28 remains - for the time being.

Wilden Footpath No. 6 - part of our heritage



Wilden FP6

The proposal (see HERE) to divert part of Wilden Footpath No. 6 has been withdrawn. Sensibly, Bedford Borough Council now says “that a more comprehensive solution to this long-running problem would be in everyone’s best interests and the current proposal will not necessarily help bring that about.”

Bedford Borough Council will revisit research carried out by the former Bedfordshire County Council which led it to refute the Mayes Close residents’ assertion that the footpath, although on their land, was fenced out of the gardens.

Wilden Footpath No. 6 was recorded 165 years ago in the Wilden Inclosure Award 1850.

“One other public footway (which we do hereby distinguish as No. 6) leading out of the Great Barford Road nearly opposite a Homestead of William Fuller and proceeding in a Southwesterly direction over Allotments to the Duke of Bedford and Mary the wife of Joseph Willis respectively on Midsummer Green to a stile in the Old Inclosure of the Duke of Bedford called Lammas Meadow …” And:

“And we the said Commissioners have set out and appointed and by these presents do award and confirm the following Public Footways of the width of four feet each viz [continues Public Footways 1 etc.] …”.

The 1850 Award Plan shows the footpath running parallel to and south of the High Street and South Brook as it does now – except for the part which was diverted in 1974. The remaining section of the original path is in a poor condition and the section diverted to accommodate the development of Mayes Close, Wilden cannot be used nowadays.

The North Bedfordshire Heritage Trail - a 70-mile circular walk (see HERE) passes through Wilden but walkers have to follow the High Street instead of Footpath No. 6. Bedford Borough Council has designated this week 10-13 Sept 2015 as it's Heritage Week (see HERE). Swift action to bring Wilden Footpath No. 6 back into use would help demonstrate that the Council is as proud of our heritage as it claims to be.

Maulden Footpath No. 28

Maulden Footpath No. 28 - Southern end
(Click to enlarge the image)

Little did anyone know, that when a landowner fenced off his field in 1992, thereby obstructing a path in use by the public, he would be starting a dispute that would still be running twenty three years later.

The dispute (about whether or not there is a public right of way) has resulted in mounds of paperwork, numerous councils’ committee meetings, path orders, public  inquiries, magistrates’ court prosecutions and hearings, a legal appeal, recriminations and talk of common sense where “sense” is anything but common.
 
I wrote about the case HERE (26 Jun 14), HERE (6 Jul 14) and HERE (2 Sep 14).
 
And I am writing about it again now because there could be a new twist this month. Another (it will be the fifth) public inquiry is scheduled to start on 15 September; see HERE. Three days have been set aside for what is described as a non-statutory public inquiry – only the third of its kind I believe.
 
This thread of the saga began when the landowner, Mr Bowers of Maulden, made an application to Central Bedfordshire Council to have the footpath deleted from the definitive map and statement for the area but on 9 April 2013 the Council refused to make an order. Mr Bowers appealed to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs against the Council’s decision not to make an order. On September 2013, in what should have been the end of this thread, an Inspector, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, having considered the matters raised in written representations (as opposed to raised in person), dismissed the appeal – see HERE.
 
I understand that Mr Bowers then had his own court case to establish that he had the right to be heard in person for the appeal and that the Secretary of State conceded the point quashing the Inspector’s decision.

It seems inevitable that whatever the outcome of this month's public inquiry, the dispute will continue; this thread will not have played out and there is another waiting to be heard at the Magistrates' Court.