On many modern browsers holding down the CTRL key and using the mouse wheel allows sizing these pages to suit

 Aldenham 31A

Inspector finds in our favour at public inquiry.
The Government inspector agrees that the disputed strip is indeed a public footpath. Our evidence, based on the Watford Fieldpath Association's well recorded archives, was a substantial influence on his reaching the decision.

We now look to County Hall to ensure the whole of this path is properly available to the public, by May 2004 County had made a very good start and the gates at either end of the disputed section had gone see photo below).
This view below was no longer so clear by the end of 2004. Gates had gone back. We have no evidence that they are being closed, but they spoil the invitingness of this public path. County are, it seems, pursuing this and the gates further east, but time is passing.

This path has a long history.

The Friends of the Hertfordshire Way, the Ramblers' Association, the Open Spaces Society, the Radlett Society, Aldenham Parish Council have all expressed grave concern.

At BADFA we got very frustrated. We therefore used this page during 2002 and beyond to cover various issues relating to this path. This led up to the public inquiry, see above.

Where is this public path?

Items on this page (click date):

A Public Inquiry was held on 20th & 21st August and 28th August to establish whether the length of Public Footpath believed to run from Common Lane at the entrance to the Allotments to join the undisputed path at the northern tip of the allotments should be added to the definitive map of public paths. The definitive map is intended to include all public paths in the County, but according to Environment Agency estimates definitive maps nationally probably only list some 90% of paths or less. The merit of being on the map is that it puts the status beyond dispute and in the case of this path 31A County people are only willing to enforce it if it gets on the map.

The purpose of the Inquiry was to allow the public both to hear what is said, and to contribute any information or knowledge about the route.  The Inquiry was run by an independent Inspector, who will make a decision based on the information given at the Inquiry.

BADFA is very unhappy that County has not enforced significantly on this path despite nearly ten years of escalating problems, and the path being unusable for the last few years. They have promised to sort it out after the inquiry (assuming it is successful) but we are not holding our breath. Having said that it must be said that this inquiry is an important milestone.

Where is this public path?
Look at street map

Here is a sketch of the area of concern:

County Hall referred to these paving slabs as 'a small pile of rubble' and in no way an obstruction.

If only our problems were now as minor as this.

The dog which lives in this part of the path is a German Shepherd.

The Definitive Statement for this path, which is conclusive in a court of law, says that the path commences from Common Lane at the N tip of allotment gardens. This is point B above or rather point X, but point A is also on the northern boundary and could also be the 'N tip'. The earlier definitive maps showed the path going to A. We don't care in the short term, but we do care that we can use neither.

The occupier of The Cottage denies that the path goes to Common Lane, despite the conclusiveness of the definitive statement. Hertfordshire County Council surprisingly, considering their Statutory Duty, refuses to make the route at X safe (by steps or whatever) or remove the barbed wire across it, whilst not asserting B to A either. Thus knowingly denying the public any access to this bit of the Hertfordshire Way.

BADFA is exceedingly cross at this, our members are accosted and obstructed and the path becomes effectively closed and naturally we look to County for help. But we look so far in vain.
We first formally complained about problems on this path in 1994, eight years ago. It has been getting worse ever since.  We do not see why we should be denied this path for yet another year, nor why walkers on the Hertfordshire Way should have to live with such risk and confusion any longer.
From our viewpoint it looks like County is too close to the landholders, contrary to their express duty [Highways Act 130 and Send]. But just in case there is some credible reason for their current position we offer to publish whatever County wish to say regarding why they have not opened up this path on either the current or the earlier definitive route, why they have not fulfilled their duty to signpost it or to waymark it fully, why they tolerate unlawful signs, unlawful gates, and continuing intimidation of the public by people and dogs.

Two views of part of this path

Notice the trees then (1998) planted on the path (some have since gone).

Waymarks absent, the sign says 'beware of the dog'. The Rhodesian Ridgeback was only a puppy then.

HCC intend to put some effort into enforcing the rest of the path. They seemed to have thought, again wrongly in our humble view, that they couldn't properly do that before making the decision on the disputed section. BADFA has asked once again to walk the path with an HCC officer and discuss and try to agree actions to get the path in good order, ie removal of unlawful gates, crystal clear waymarking. Surprisingly they agreed, though dates are being put off. It is EIGHT YEARS SINCE WE FIRST ASKED FOR ACTION.

The possibility of a diversion is being explored again. We are supportive, but only if it is a very good one. We think the chance of it happening is remote, and slightly fear that a poor diversion may be offered, appearing to put us and other groups in the wrong by opposing it. We shall see.

3 May 2002  

1. Mr Willis said to our chairman recently that he accepted our proposals for a diversion (as a means to solving the problem) 'on all counts'. That should be very good news, and BADFA would actively support such a move. But we hear from an impeccable source that a path well short of our minimum requirements has been discussed. We are very concerned that we might be put in the position of being perceived to be stubbornly blocking a diversion proposal when in fact we (with others users) suggested it in the first place. And all because of faulty negotiation. We hope we have misread the way the wind is blowing, but rather fear we haven't.

2. Some detailed current issues on the western part of 31A are listed below. Some are more important than others. BADFA had requested action on many of these over the years, on two of them as far back as 1994. The previous county officers clearly did not take on board their legal requirement to act against the interests of landholders who prevent full use of public paths. As we mentioned above (14 April) we believe present county officials thought there was a need to delay action pending issue of the modification order; now that is issued we look to these other matters to be addressed so that the path will be fully usable when the inquiry is over. Putting them right now would assist in preventing such problems on any new route.

a) Tree down at TQ15729821
b) Dangerous stile at TQ15619818
c) Apparent obstruction by garden fence near stile.
d) Cars on footpath at TQ15559818
e) Gate by Fruit Farm, is it authorised? Latch can be difficult.
f) Waymarking of path at first ‘garden’ gate at TQ15469813
g) The gate itself which dates from c1994 and appears to be 'an unlawful obstruction' (HCC’s words)
h) The curved fence and hedge to the extent that they are on the path.
i) The route through the ‘garden’ which is virtually impossible to follow without a copy of the definitive map. Also the shrubs.
j) The gate the other side which is also c1994 and presumably 'unlawful' too.
k) Waymarking on that gate.
l) Mr Willis’ gate for which there is no record of authorisation.
m) Mr Willis’ signs.
n) Some growth on the path by that gate.
o) The barbed wire across the path near Common Lane.
p) The steep and dangerous drop where the definitive path joins Common Lane.
q) The missing signpost.
 

11 May 2002

The Good News.
Despite requests over the years, Highway Authority people only had on site discussions with the owners of land adjacent to the path and would never agree to walk it with user representatives.
But last Tuesday, 7th May, Richard Cuthbert, the Rights of Way manager, and Bryony Rothwell, our Access Officer, walked it with our Chairman, Chris Beney, and Bill Jago, the Ramblers' Association footpath secretary. Later in the week the Radlett Society walked it with officers Bryony Rothwell and Rosalinde Shaw.
Most of the apparent defects listed above (a to q) were discussed on the 7th and some were clearly taken on board after years of denying there was any problem (except the Common Lane blockage of course).

The Bad News.
We were told some more details of the diversion proposal that County had worked out with the adjoining landholders and it was clear that the user requirements, which County should have been fully aware of, at least since 1999, were being virtually ignored. The Open Spaces Society, a strong supporter until now of a diversion as a solution, was so disillusioned by what they see as a failure to take account of the path users' reasonable needs that they have formally written to County Hall withdrawing their support for a diversion, though not closing the door on it. BADFA has not yet reached a view on what position to take.
 

22 June 2002

More Bad News.
The points taken on board (see end of paragraph two up from here) and labelled f i & k in the list above are, it seems, not going to be acted on by County until the diversion proposal is seen through. If we understand this 'do-nothing' proposal correctly we see it not just a failure of a clear statutory duty but also storing up work and aggravation for County and for us if the diversion doesn't go through. After all the injustices the public has suffered on this path we could have done without this.

2 July 2002

A safety issue near to 31A
It is ironic that within a few feet of the disputed section of Aldenham 31A, on the other side of Common Lane there is a path, let it be said a path fully on the definitive map, which has just been wilfully [note 1] dug away by County Contractors leaving a width of only 32 inches at the minimum and a near vertical 6 ft drop at the side with no warning signs or barriers.

This action was by an authority that refused the user group's request to put some steps in Common Lane to bypass the blocked part of 31A, and moreover refused that request on grounds of user safety [note 2].

Note 1: 'wilfully' is used in the legal sense, not the ordinary sense.
Note 2: The claim that steps as a solution to the prevention of public use would be unsafe was always wholly spurious, perhaps that is why we were prevented from seeing the report for a very long time. We have submitted a perfectly safe design which could easily have been implemented during the recent works in Common Lane.

4 July 2002

Diversion document issued
County has published proposals for the diversion and BADFA has now got the draft diversion document. County in addition say they were not intending to even publish the diversion order, let alone proceed with it, until objections to the (Wildlife and Countryside Act) order restoring the disputed bit of the path back onto the definitive map are withdrawn, thus allowing them to confirm that order.

The proposal as received is a disappointment, BADFA has all along said a good diversion would be supported, at present we cannot see how we can be expected to support the proposal because it seems to have ignored most of the path users' requests for security and convenience. We would generally be pleased to send a list of issues if you would like to see them. Please e-mail to BADFA.

7 August 2002 
a. Predictable response to consultations on diversion

BADFA understands that all the user groups as well as Aldenham Parish Council and Hertsmere Borough Council have rejected the suggested diversion. The user groups have now moved from support to opposition. This need not have happened if only someone in Hertford had listened more carefully. The proposal was ill thought out, unenforceable, and as we think we recall one of the objectors saying 'a landowners' diversion'.

It is sometimes hard for people like us at the sharp end to comprehend that county officers probably feel genuinely that they are doing the right thing. They are enabled by law to do diversions for landowners' benefit and they compartmentalise that off from their statutory duty to act against the interests of landholders who obstruct paths. Never mind that at the same time they formally suspend their obligatory statutory imperative to pursue the path order and to clear and waymark the path, that is probably seen as the necessary price of a 'deal'. We at BADFA are not against deals, we have been there and done that, mostly successfully. But if the users' virtually unanimous requests are to continue to be brushed aside then county's plans for the easy way (a diversion deal) will be unlikely to succeed. We will all be the losers.

b. Request to open up the definitive route.

BADFA has today asked the Rights of Way manager to open up the definitive route. As we state earlier in this page "The Definitive Statement for this path, which is conclusive in a court of law as to position, says that the path commences from Common Lane at the N tip of allotment gardens." This is point B on the sketch plan (also earlier on this page) where there is barbed wire and a steep bank, requiring steps or a ramp.

26 August 2002 The final proposals for a diversion?
This entry replaces the "16th August Provisional" text.

County has written to user groups and local authorities with a review of HCC's position and enclosing copies of comments on the draft proposals. Neither of the two landholding families has, it seems, made any comment on the draft. Everyone else, without exception, has objected (one Councillor had merely put in a holding objection, pending further consideration).

The County letter included  a document titled "Clarification of Issues". Coming from the definitive map section at County Hall for which we generally have high regard it is a puzzlement. It starts off well: "HCC's objective is to have a footpath which is clearly defined, and open and available for the public to use." This is precisely BADFA's objective too and we welcome that statement. But we express puzzlement as to why this objective has not been applied to the current definitive route. Puzzled that it has been allowed  to get so overgrown that it is actually currently physically impassable, and that the unauthorised gates are still there after eight years, and so on...

An undisputed part of the path on 14th August 2002
 

As BADFA had said in our response to the earlier proposal: "The user groups ...have made it abundantly clear what they consider to be their requirements for a diversion of the above path". It would have been nice if County had tried to understand the why and what of these requirements and to incorporate them or explain why not, after all isn't that what consultation is meant to mean?

BADFA's committee has reviewed its position and we remain strong supporters of a good diversion. However we do not now believe that such a diversion is likely, though we have not ruled it out. Whatever happens we believe the time has come, indeed is long overdue, for some real enforcement against the ongoing problems on at the least the undisputed part of the path.

27 September 2002  Meeting at Hertsmere.

On 19th September HCC, Hertsmere and users met up primarily to assist Hertsmere take a position on a diversion. Prior to the meeting some users had felt that they should just say no, since their needs had not been taken on board and also because of fears of being taken for a ride. But in the end the users showed remarkable unanimity in support of a diversion to the rational standards that they had requested and similar unanimity in opposition to any substantial breach of those standards.. Two Hertsmere councillors were present, as was the clerk to Aldenham Parish, the head of Hertsmere's planning and their Greenways officer. For County were the relevant access and definitive map officers.
The planning enforcement at Common Lane Farm was to be discussed by Hertsmere later that day and so the effect of that on Hertsmere's position towards a diversion was not ascertainable.

The need for some enforcement of the obstructions: most of the gates, flower bed, barbed wire, and landowners and their dogs was highlighted. BADFA is not confident that HCC have a proper understanding of what needs to be done and why. HCC still call the gates a 'technical obstruction'. We see nothing technical about them. That term might apply to a wide gate, normally open, but closed from time to time for a few minutes to control cattle. It is an inappropriate term to apply to a narrow gate, always closed and latched.

Unlike at the dreadful meeting in 1999 the users generally felt that the convenors (in this case Hertsmere) had heard their viewpoint and understood it. County's position still seems to be ambiguous and their history sheet, which they tabled, a trifle inaccurate and more than a trifle incomplete (for example it made no mention of the astonishingly misdirected report by HCC's consultants on the feasibility of temporary steps as a solution to the blockage).

Much depends on Hertsmere now and to some extent on the parish. Assuming the landholders were to meet, or nearly meet, the users' requests it was not clear whether HCC would go ahead with the order if Hertsmere and/or the parish were to oppose it. But, given firm support from the users, it might well be that an opposed diversion would succeed at inquiry. Whether any erosion of green belt and domestic/agricultural boundary matters would be made worse in practice by a diversion is not really clear. It might, but not substantially so.

HCC and Hertsmere are to meet shortly (without user groups) to discuss it further. We hope that meeting happens soon and that we can then either move forward quickly to a good diversion or move without delay to the Modification Order inquiry.

4 Feb 2003  County rejects diversion proposal

This text also appears on our News Page

County Councillors rejected the officers' recommendation for a diversion to solve the problems on the Aldenham footpath numbered 31A near Letchmore Heath today.

This path has had gardens planted both on it and beyond it on agricultural land, and several unauthorised gates have been put up. And there are problems with dogs. And other issues. And it has for some two years been totally blocked at one end by locked gates or barbed wire.

BADFA would have supported a diversion if it was to be to a good standard. But no satisfactory standard was offered so if a decision to proceed with a diversion had been taken we would have almost certainly opposed it at any inquiry.
The owners of the two properties involved seemed to want a diversion quite badly, but one of them at least was clearly not prepared to offer enough to achieve it. The County officers did not help matters as they seemed to accept early on a narrow and gate-ridden first proposal, without exploring a solution more suited to path users.

The diversion proposal is now history. What next? The County Councillors made it clear that enforcement on the route should be a high priority. County recognises that the path is not a dead-end as claimed by one of the landowners.
The Secretary of State will now be asked by County to process the claim to record the driveway next to Common Lane on the official path map. This process could take from three months to two years. BADFA is likely to be urging County to make the definitive route safer as it currently has a very steep part. There is likely to be a meeting to discuss the removal of obstructions and the waymarking that is needed to get the path into its original state.

We are by no means out of the wood yet on this important path, but today could prove the turning point.

  Looking along the path in 2002, click picture for larger version

The official order to put the missing bit A to B above onto the definitive map was recently sent to the Minister who asked the three parties:
The claimant (who happens to be Chris Beney wearing his Open Spaces Society hat)
The County Council
The 'landowner'
to decide if they wanted a public inquiry or were willing to deal with it by exchange of letters.
County opted for exchange, Chris was about to, when we were told that Mr Willis had requested an Inquiry. That means that unless he changes his mind very soon, an Inquiry it will be.

Anyone can attend and speak, whether or not they objected to the order. The date is not yet known, probably a good many weeks or some months.
 

top of page

BADFA home page