News items in year 2003

Path 31A public inquiry completed - August 2003

Bushey Museum garden party 2003 - August 2003

Local Access Forum Members announced - July 2003

Stile to Kissing gate conversion  June 2003

Norman Hedges' bench   June 2003

Bride Street yet again May 2003

Bride Street updated May 2003

Bride Street blocked again  March 2003

Charlie Watson to stay on  Feb 2003

Committee's concerns over Bride Street  Feb 2003

Diversion refused by Highway Authority Feb 2003

OSS makes formal complaint about damaged path  Jan 2003

Bride Street Blocked  Jan 2003

The inquiry finished on 28th August. In support of the order the following, as well as several others, gave evidence: County Council representative Rosalinde Shaw; Danielle Sanderson, Bert Richardson, Peter Garside, Mark Westley, and Chris Beney (speaking for the Open Spaces Society and BADFA).

We must now all await the inspectors decision, there was a significant amount of conflicting evidence but that was mostly since 1970. If the inspector accepts the Ordnance Survey and Watford Fieldpath Association map evidence and/or the view of the definitive map put forward by the County Council, then the evidence relating to the later dates is irrelevant. The decision is unlikely before the end of September.

Lovely weather, lots of interest, several new members.
Our changed stand layout gave better access to visitors.
Chris' flashing light activity board helped get attention.

County Hall have announced the members of the statutory Local Access Forum

County Hall say, on their web site:
Local Access Forums are statutory advisors to the appointing authority (in Herts this is Hertfordshire County Council) and other bodies including the Countryside Agency on the improvement of public access to land for open-air recreation and the enjoyment of the area.
In providing advice the Local Access Forum must take into account:

• the needs of land management
• the desirability of conserving natural beauty

A Local Access Forum must be consulted on:

• draft maps of open country and registered common land under Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
• any byelaws to be made in respect of access land
• proposals to appoint wardens for access land
• the preparation of rights of way improvement plans
• restrictions and exclusions of access exceeding six months

BADFA is disappointed, but not surprised, that few familiar names appear on the list. It will be interesting to see if the forum members will show vision and commitment  They are unpaid and purely advisory. Lets hope that means they bring an independence of mind to their tasks and the ability to get their advice taken seriously by what appears to be a rather unenthusiastic County Hall. We wish them well.
top of page

Before and after


David Bearfield, John Carleton & Chris Beney converted the poor stile opposite the Little Bushey Lane end of Coldharbour Lane recently.

It has a RADAR lock on it. This doesn't stop ordinary use of the gate but allows users of larger wheelchairs to open the gate further than usual and pass through. Soon after we installed it someone rang County Hall to say that someone had fitted a locked gate. It did look a bit 'locked'. Since then we have cleared more hedge so it can be seen to be a kissing gate and we have put a notice directly on it saying 'Public Footpath'.

BADFA believes in fitting these RADAR locks (which use the same key as used in toilets for disabled people). There are very few in Hertfordshire, but they are used, we believe, in parts of north London and Essex. If they were used more widely they could also help path maintenance by allowing small path clearing vehicles to pass, something that stiles and ordinary kissing gates don't allow.
top of page

Chris Beney putting up the bench.

29th June. Work started on a simple bench in memory of Norman Hedges near the Jubilee Bridge on Woodland Trust land at Merryhill, Bushey.

Copying the Environment Agency (see below) someone has now dumped bricks on the path

Someone has put two kissing gates up which fail the standard on several counts, one being barbed wire which is forbidden. And the access to the main (concrete) path is already overgrown and part of the route has trees and what is suspected to be Giant Hogweed on it.

Bride Street to May 2003   Bride Street Page
End of April 2003 comment

Since December 2002 this path has been obstructed, initially 100% obstructed. Our Highway Authority declined to prosecute. They also declined to remove the lock which blocked passage, or to authorise BADFA their Parish Path Partner to remove it. BADFA believes these things are not in accord with County's statutory duties.

Despite users explaining, with case law examples, why they believe that the County Council legal department is misinterpreting the law, County delays answering. The Good Practice Guide, the officers' 'bible', is supposed to be updated when necessary. We think it has been demonstrated to be necessary here, but no changes seem to have been made.

Meanwhile County discusses options to help the landowner and the tenant under (optional) statutory powers, something that does not sit comfortably with the apparent neglect of the higher priority statutory duties of the Highways Act and with the Send case.

BADFA gave notice that we were most unhappy with the total blockage and our committee subsequently reaffirmed that. We asked that under the threat of prosecution the landowner would be asked to dedicate, for the avoidance of doubt, a standard width (that is at least the target minimum footpath width used by the Borough for planning purposes and which is slightly less than BADFA's preferred width). We asked that any structures at both ends of this path be sorted out and that any structures authorised should be to the British Standard BS5709:2001 which County says they normally require. None of this appears to be happening.

Nevertheless we were heartened to hear a few weeks ago that legal proceedings were to be started.

Now we see that two kissing-gates have appeared. They are off the route of the path and certainly not to the British Standard, nor do they appear to be sheep proof, despite sheep-proofness, we thought, being the sole justification for them.. Will County give the gates more than a cursory glance before approving them?

The users of this path, part of the London Loop, may never think, as they fiddle with the jammed latches, and wade through the undergrowth, of what might have been had County Hall's policies taken proper account of the needs and legitimate requests of their customers, the path users.

Are legal proceedings continuing? We greatly hope so, but we fear we might be disappointed..

top of page

Some sort of gates have recently appeared, they may be temporary structures.

Note: It is felt that in view of the ongoing difficulties at Public path Bushey 50, also known as Bride Street, it now warrants a page of its own.

(see the Bride Street page for this item and more)

20 tonnes of aggregate has recently been dumped on this troubled path.
We suspected County, but now think it was the Environment Agency, they are doing works near the A41/Elstree Road roundabout. We have of course reported it but since none of the obstructions put up on this path over recent years (except one padlock) have been removed we are not holding our breath.

Charlie Watson, the Director of Environment at County Hall, the man in charge of County's estates and rights of way, as well as all the roads, was to have retired. He was persuaded to stay in post while his successor transferred from another part of County Hall. Now he is staying on further as interim Chief Executive. He will replace Bill Ogley, who leaves in May to become chief executive to the States of Jersey.

During his spell as Director of Environment he has seen considerable extra resources of people and money put into rights of way and the Good Practice Manual established. He has from time to time sought out path users' views. We are grateful for all that.
Sadly on the key issue on promulgating County's duty to act against landowners who obstruct and intimidate, rather less progress seems to have been made. And the needless problems at Aldenham 31A, Woodhall Farm, and now Bride Street are the consequence.

We congratulate him on the promotion and hope he has an interesting and successful spell in overall charge before his eventual retirement (back) to Gloucestershire.

(see the Bride Street page for this item and more)

Bride Street is still obstructed (see below), and at their 17th February meeting, BADFA's committee reaffirmed their determination to speak up for this path.

It now looks as though County are planning to give in to the landowners here, an attitude that we hoped they were putting behind them. The obstruction remains in place, though the lock has been removed from the gate. There is no move whatever toward a prosecution for this massive and deliberate blockage of our public path, and permission is likely to be given for most of the structure to remain in place and for the path to remain undefined in width.

The only gain we may get is two kissing gates to replace one stile.

It looks like an opportunity missed.  BADFA has demonstrated in the past how a path blockage can be turned to the advantage of path users (and sometimes landowners too) because of landholders' wish to avoid prosecution. We asked from the beginning for this to happen here. We have been let down by the senior management at County Hall who have not created a climate that puts the needs of path users first nor even to ensure that the duty to protect the paths is fulfilled.
 

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.

For further information on this path see our Aldenham 31A page.

Looking along the path in 2002	Two dogs welcoming path users

The lay-by on Common Lane that stole part of the public footpath

The path cut away and with posts and barbed wire on it.

These pictures show a path in Aldenham only yards from the notorious path 31A.
In 2002 the Highways people at County Hall improved the road from Letchmore Heath to Radlett (Common Lane). This is a narrow lane some six or eight feet below the adjoining field level. One of the passing places was made by digging out a substantial part of the width of the footpath on the field edge above.

It is of course normally a criminal offence to destroy any part of a public footpath without lawful authority.

The edge, with its six foot drop onto traffic was left unprotected. Astonishingly, despite the clear safety implications, this was not made safe. Complaints from several sources to the County rights of way section resulted in them contacting Highways (yes, footpaths are highways too but Highways doesn't normally do them, Rights of Way does). Some temporary ribbons were laid alongside to alert people. We believe Rights of Way chased Highways up after a while too. So we are not criticising Rights of Way.

In early January some posts and barbed wire were noticed, the posts driven into the loose soil above which last year part of the path had run. And vicious barbed wire joined them up. So if anyone slipped down the slope they might no longer fall the whole way but would likely be lacerated instead.

It is of course a criminal offence to put up posts or barbed wire actually on a public path without lawful authority.

BADFA would very likely have resolved to take action, but the Open Spaces Society (OSS) decided to act by making a formal complaint to the Highways Department. The OSS have said they will withdraw their complaint if the matter is put right quickly.

 Public footpath Bushey 50 (Bride Street) at the end of 2002

(see the Bride Street page for this item and more)

This locked gate and welded fence has been put up by someone quite recently. The path, footpath Bushey 50, leads off the Elstree Road and skirts the Orthopaedic Hospital on its way to Stanmore Common. It has recently been signposted as part of the London Walking Loop. It may in fact be the remains of a Roman flanking road for Watling Street.

There is a long history of obstructions on this path. The last major one, an unlawful stile, was reported to County over two years ago. BADFA then offered to help resolve the problem but our offer was refused and nothing has been done.

This latest obstruction (photo above) was different in that it completely blocked the path (except for a 10 inch gap at the end that some people could squeeze through). BADFA expected County to act quickly to at least make it usable. Because the Christmas and New Year holidays were coming up and people were bound to use it BADFA offered to act for County and cut the lock. We could have done it within hours, but we were refused. And County themselves refused our request to take direct action and amazingly gave the obstructer two weeks to open it; two weeks when a twist of a key could make it usable again.

BADFA thinks this lack of action is contrary to County's clear Statutory Duty. The officer involved believes she is bound by the County's Good Practice Guide to use the Statutory Notice mechanism rather than just taking direct action. County own the freehold of the air and the soil of the path and so have full power to remove the obstruction. BADFA strongly supports the idea of the Good Practice Guide but not the notion that it should be blindly followed so as to prejudice the public's use of the paths.

There is no alternative path nearby and people would have had to turn round and walk back to Stanmore Common, a substantial distance.

But what happened was that people broke down a wooden post and mesh fence in order to pass. They could easily have injured themselves in doing this and they are also in danger of a charge of criminal damage. Indeed a path user a few years ago was so charged in a not dissimilar case less than a mile away.

It seems that County chooses to blindly follow the rule book even when it puts the public not only to great inconvenience but to actual risk.

Postscript at 4th January. A County spokesman was said by the Watford Observer to have said three things about this situation:
1. Referring to the action by the public: "anyone who damages or removes someone else's property is committing an offence". This is not necessarily true at all, though of course it may be; and the criminal damage charge, mentioned above, resulted in an acquittal.
2. "the Authority could not remove the obstruction as it did not own the land, only the footpath" see Ownership in our legal section, the footpath includes the airspace above as needed, and this statement is entirely untrue.
3. "landowners are entitled to erect gates over footpaths to prevent animals from roaming". Also totally untrue, landholders may apply in certain circumstances for permission, which does not have to be granted. In this case roaming animals were not involved as there is another fence for that purpose, so no authorisation could properly have be given.

County have since confirmed that their press spokesman's words as reported do, in their view, capture the essence of the problem, and they would not wish to change them.

Postscript 19th Jan 2003. The gate has had its padlock removed and a better way has been cleared at the side. We think that probably happened on 16th or 17 January and that the tenant farmer broke the lock in the absence of the owner, though we are not certain of these matters. That is over three weeks since the date when BADFA offered to break the lock, and one whole path-users holiday period later. If it can be done now, why not then? The barbed wire and stile further in remain in place.