Are these people more important than path users?

But having admired the diligence in these two areas, we look to admire the diligence that County Hall shows in preserving and protecting the paths for another category of people, the path users. Diligence doesn't seem so obvious here.

There does seem over the years to have been a remarkable amount of precious officer time spent assisting people who want to restrict paths in one way or another. BADFA is obviously not against restrictions on paths where they are both lawful and truly necessary, but we consider this activity should take second place to clearing obstructions, waymarking and so on. These latter actions are Statutory Duties, the others are merely Powers.

Just two fairly recent examples:

#  We understand that money or time was spent counting bicycles on a wide private driveway which is also a public path, and which had been annoying the landholder. These cycles have very little effect on the users of the path beyond occasional annoyance. Yet on that same landholding there are two definitive public paths that are totally blocked by crops and barbed wire and no action is being taken against anyone.

#  We have recently heard that all work has been suspended in enforcing a totally blocked path and, despite proven need for it, no waymarking will take place, until the possibility of a diversion for the convenience of the landholders has been fully explored.

So what makes landholders and householders so much more important than path users?
We don't know. But we will continue to work for path users, whilst recognising of course the legitimate, but usually secondary, aspirations of adjoining landholders and householders.

At Sept 2002.

Hinged gate gone and both stiles destroyed. Hurrah.
Diligence? A bit doubtful, it took such a
long time and there are still unlawful structures on this route. But it is a good move in the right direction.

Back to 'Comment'