Foot and Mouth,

by Chris Beney

It is still felt worth while to keep this issue on our web site because it is clear that appropriate lessons were not learned.

Summary: BADFA's position was always supportive of reasonable restrictions. We supported the initial bans. But when the anomalies were not addressed, our support weakened. Various aspects of the way Herts County Council (HCC) handled things were contrary to our objectives and we believe contrary to their powers and duties. We have seen no evidence that appropriate lessons have been learned.

HCC put up this sign on the Merryhill Greenway despite it not falling under any of the categories that had been declared closed. It was not on the Definitive Map at the time though it was a public path, and it was hard surfaced. Of course the Foot and Mouth risk was as near zero as the local footways, there being no stock in the fields. Shamefully, the landowners, the Woodland Trust, supported County and kept it shut. BADFA works with and for the Woodland Trust, but their actions here did undermine our confidence in their commitment to public rights. We had lost confidence in HCC long before of course, over Woodhall and Tylers Farms.
And no, it was not our graffiti.

March 2001
BADFA despite being a Parish Path Partner was not for some time notified that HCC had made the order prohibiting use of certain paths.

When we got the rules to our surprise they didn't apply to the numerous non-definitive paths, nor to tarmacked paths through farms.

We found that a local metalled non-definitive public path had had an official closure notice put on it. We objected, to no avail;. Subsequently HCC officially said they had no power to have done this, but they never took off that ban, seriously undermining BADFA's support for the bans in general.

# Despite Government urgings to open up the paths quickly, HCC announced on 20th March that there would be no easing up on the 'blanket ban' on access to Hertfordshire's rights of way.
# A mis-statement of the rules was still on HCC's web site despite our requests for its removal.
# HCC started proceedings against seven people said to have broken the ban, these people were stated as presumed guilty despite HCC's Trading Standards people also being the prosecuting authority.
# HCC's chief executive Bill Ogley informed our Chairman that urban paths were open. In fact they were not.

We published a position statement:
BADFA is supportive of all reasonable and proportional measures to prevent foot and mouth coming to Hertfordshire. We do not understand the continuing exclusion of all non-definitive public rights of way from the ban, nor the remaining open of all tarmacked public paths, even on or near farms. We seek the reopening of all our urban paths now, followed by all appropriate rural ones.

Urban paths in Bushey inexplicably remained closed despite the Government advice note and newly issued government guidelines.
The guidelines said that for category "Green" paths they should have been reopened immediately without need for detailed risk assessment. "Green" was any land not used for livestock (and horses are not counted as livestock). The Government's view was that much more of the countryside could be opened up with negligible risk of spread of Foot and Mouth. County didn't even open up the urban paths, let alone the rural ones. Their action in not doing so seemed to be partly a resource matter and partly a policy matter and we believe it to have been unlawful.

On 8th May Herts and Bucks were slammed by Carlton Country TV programme for dragging their feet and being two of the worst counties on path opening performance. The programme showed some Tring ramblers doing their best with an urban walk, but their underlying frustration was evident.

The real reason HCC delayed wholesale re-openings was wanting to get some ban on cattle movement for our farmers lifted. They used reopening as a bargaining counter with government. We believe that was both wrong and unlawful in view of their statutory duties regarding public paths.

 20th May and later
Saboteurs
The story of 'saboteurs' putting up false 'Path Open' signs and throwing HCC into confusion was a myth. Like many myths this story keeps coming up.
Charlie Watson, the County Environment Chief, had at the time said (on HCC's web site) that he was 'disgusted' at the saboteurs' action. His supporting text appeared to us to point at users. This HCC text went on the national web of the Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers (IPROW) too, so getting national coverage. We rather doubted the claim of saboteurs but couldn't disprove it. But now it is revealed: a District Council, after speaking to the rights of way section at County Hall, understood that they could do safety assessments and put up notices. Senior County people knew about this quite soon after it happened and discussions took place with the District involved. There were never any 'saboteurs'. Despite this, Charlie Watson's message never, so far as we know, had a retraction published on HCC or IPROW sites. Since it was indeed not users then why was no retraction published?

Overall BADFA is not convinced that HCC behaved correctly during foot and mouth. There was ample opportunity, after the first rush, to review and modify. We do hope lessons have been learned, but are sorry to say that in this case we have no real confidence that that is so.

Home     Back to 'Comment'