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.

Soave sia il vento

And now for something completely different - I'm off to the Peak District for a week so May The Wind Be Gentle ...

Wymington Footpaths & Network Rail

Bedford Borough Council has made an order, at the request of Network Rail, to divert three footpaths: Wymington Footpaths 3, 4 and 5. It notified the public it had done so with notices advertised in a local newspaper and posted on the affected footpaths. Here’s the diversion order plan. The Council also gave notice that the public had what amounted to 42 days in which to comment - the so-called “objection period” which ends on 3rd February 2014.

That was generous; the legal situation is that the period must not be less than 28 days - sufficient for anyone who might reasonably wish to walk the current and proposed alternative routes for comparison before commenting. However, (there is usually a “however” in my scribblings, and soon after an oft-used “regrettably”) it is often the case that the alternative routes are unavailable. And that is the situation at Wymington; the alternative routes were not made available when they could so easily have been. Regrettably, the generous 42 day objection period, already depreciated by the unavailability of the alternative routes, was to suffer further.

On 5th January, the Council notified the public that it intended making an order to temporarily prohibit people walking on Wymington Footpaths 3 and 4 which are two of the three footpaths affected by the diversion order, from 22nd January. The footpaths are to be closed for six months to enable Network Rail to carry out works. Here’s the temporary prohibition order plan.

On 6th January, 15 days earlier than permitted, I noticed that Network Rail had erected barriers on the two footpaths preventing anyone from actually walking the paths. And worse, Network Rail also barred access to Wymington Footpath 5 the other footpath subject to the diversion order but not the prohibition order. The effect is that none of the current footpaths and proposed routes are now physically fully available and on 22nd January two of the paths will not be legally available either.

Wymington Footpath No. 5

The 42 day objection period has effectively been reduced to 15 days or less. That is wrong. A great shame as well because the diversion order is not a good one; in my opinion the new route for Wymington Footpath No. 5 will be inconvenient. Using Network Rail’s own walking speed formula the detour will take almost 15 minutes to walk. At that rate, 13 minutes more than the more direct route that it replaces. Unfortunately, the way things stand it isn’t possible for anyone to properly test that on the ground.

The Council has failed in its duty to protect the public's right to walk these paths by allowing Network Rail to unlawfully obstruct them.

Deep & Crisp & Even

And now for something completely different ...

Sharnbrook Footpath No. 2

Numerous public rights of way were recorded between 1750 and 1850, when appointed commissioners divided up (enclosed) and apportioned out manorial land. During this process, new legal rights to cross the land were also created. These included both public rights of way (highways) and private rights of way. This task was carried out by appointed commissioners, whose powers were bestowed under more than 5,000 Private Inclosure Acts and Inclosure Awards.

Many such public rights of way still exist. Some are well used, others hidden – forgotten but not necessarily lost yet, and others abused. Sharnbrook Footpath No. 2 falls within the latter category.

Footpath No. 2 was awarded as a public footpath 202 years ago under the Sharnbrook Inclosure Award of 1812.

The footpath seems to have taken its first beating 42 years later in 1857 when the railway line was built over it. The next assault came when a house “Millbrook” was built upon it, north of the railway lines. More recently fences and a substantial hedge, south of the railway lines, act as barricades which prevent the public from walking the path. The latest attack on this old path though could be the final one for part of it – Network Rail has requested that a section of the footpath be extinguished; closed for ever. The Council has agreed to close it. A Bedford Borough Council official has donned his black cap and sealed the public path extinguishment order.

Sharnbrook Footpath No. 2

The view from point B as shown on the Extinguishment Order Plan

What is a footpath preservation society member to do? Give up on it? And let the Council confirm the order - 202 years isn’t a bad run (walk). Or stick up for it? Lodge an objection - a stay of execution to argue the case for better care for the elderly (path).

Well, I am waiting for a reply from Bedford Borough Council before I decide. Situation normal really; waiting is part of the process of dealing with our local authority – let me just say that they usually allow plenty of time for background activities. (Incidentally, the plan accompanying the order is described as a "diversion" rather than an "extinguishment" order, which raises doubts about the accuracy of the order, and which may prevent the Council itself confirming it.)

All will be revealed in due course so watch this space. Follow my blog even, by clicking the relevant button to join this site, to spur me on and enable me to think of you as “Dear ReaderS”.