Letter to the public regarding boundary -OT

[JoceAndChris]

We're about to fence the public out of their accustomed walks in front of our house. I feel awful about it but there's no law to say they can wander at liberty over the 13 acre field, which is now owned by three different people. We will of course respect the single public footpath marked on the OS map, but I do want the picnicking, motorbiking and camping in front of my house to stop.

Some pics - this is how the fence will look - this is the next field up:

This is where the walking and occasional camping takes place, even though there's no path marked on the OS map. (and incidentally the weedkiller applied earlier this year has made no inroads into exposing the nice old brick haha )

and here will be the edge of our field where I'd like the walkers to make a new, unofficial, footpath replacing the one in front of the house:

Nothing, yet, has happened to the 10 acres we didn't buy - no fencing, no mowing. The whole thing is a hay meadow and the crop is now 4 -5 feet high. I believe that this unused land is sitting in the hands of a land bank, so I'm hoping the public will be content to make merry in other people's bits uninterrrupted for a good few years. As we've discussed before, the big hope for these bits of land is Planning Permission, but it seems unlikely it will be granted.

My question is, as the public are likely to be a bit surprised and disgruntled by the sudden curtailment of their walks, ought I to pin up a letter reading along these lines - or just keep quiet and hope for the best?

14/06/2011


"Dear Walkers

Please excuse the appearance of your Public Footpath over the next few days. The footpath down to the Crematorium now forms a boundary line between two different private owners' land to the left and right. By law this land must be stock fenced to protect the public, dogs, and livestock who will be arriving shortly.
The measurements for fencing have been arrived at by consultation and assessment from an Independent Surveyor of the OS map, as well as being in accordance with the seller’s measurements. Over the years the path has meandered a little to the left side, and we will be mowing back into its correct position shortly. The access around the bottom of Beacon Cottage has been discretionary and we would kindly ask you to form a new path to the North along the outside of the fence at the bottom.
Many thanks for your co-operation.
Mr and Mrs -
Telephone number -"

Is that really abrasive? or a good idea?
As ever I appreciate any thoughts from the wise assembly.

 

[LadyArowana]

I wouldn't put up anything, certainly not a phone number. You have only done something you are legally obliged to. If anyone else had wanted to buy it to walk on then they should have bid on it. Grumpy Bunny mode off!

 

[Nigel Watts]

Telling a certain sort of person that they can't do something is often an encouragement for them to do the very thing which is forbidden, and I fear your campers and bikers may fall into that category.

Can you not present your changes as a positive thing? If you keep the path mown following your line, have clear signage showing walkers which way to go (ie round to the north) and some discreet "private" signage where they shouldn't then the path will look as if it is now maintained and cared for by its new, responsible and thoughtful owner. If you have to post a notice, why not a little sketch map of where the public right of way goes under a heading such as "footpath improvements"...... You could even have some little signs pointing out the local flora and fauna, as if you had been creating a nature trail for kids.

As for "unofficial" rights of way I am no expert but I have a vague memory that they can be acquired over a certain period of time by custom "nec vie, nec clam, nec precario" - ie so long as neither force nor stealth was used nor permission granted. By indicating that the southern route is private you are ensuring that permission cannot be assumed.

 

[Flyfisher]

I can understand your concern Joce, but I wouldn't put up any notice or do anything that acknowledges that people have been previously using this area of land.

You say that you'd like walkers to make a new 'unofficial' footpath, and they might well do this, but it's not long before someone could start lobbying for it to become a permanent public right of way.

I would ensure that the legal right of ways are clearly and accurately marked and then, in the transition weeks, politely ask people to stick to them.

But it's all rather easier said than done and I entirely understand your feelings about maintaining good relationships with your neighbours and local walkers. Sadly, my experience is that some people will always take advantage and will need to be reminded about the legal situation.

We have a public footpath that crosses the bottom of our 350m private lane (no problem) but, despite the notices, people regularly walk along our lane knowing full well there is no public right of way.

Furthermore, there are gardens that back onto the lane and some people have put gates in their fences even though they have no right of way onto the lane. Some people even used to tip their grass cuttings over the fence into the lane - talk about out of sight out of mind! At least that soon stopped after a few polite requests for them to stop, but it's amazing that people would even consider such behaviour is acceptable.

Last week, another neighbour had taken a delivery of topsoil for his garden and he'd had it dumped on our lane and then removed one of his fence panels so he could move it into his garden. When I confronted him about it he was very apologetic even though he admitted he knew the lane was private. His only defence was that he'd have it all moved within half an hour! I was astonished, but he was simply taking advantage, even though he wouldn't dream of removing a fence panel from his other neighbour's fence to gain access across their garden! For some reason, people think any open space is fair game.

Another neighbour backing onto the lane had his house extended last year and asked if his builders could access his property via our lane. At least he had the decency to ask and I agreed on certain conditions, one of which was that the damaged grass verges would be reinstated with turf as soon as the building work was finished. Surprise surprise, after about 3 months when the building work was finished, the grass verges were devoid of grass because of all the foot and machinery traffic yet the neighbour never did make good. Then, earlier this year, he had the nerve to ask again for similar access and was rather put out when I would only agree if he paid a £100 deposit because he didn't honour our last agreement to repair the inevitable damage. He declined my offer and didn't get his access.

So, I'd think very seriously before allowing anyone to have unauthorised to any of your land - though I wish it wasn't necessary.
Isn't there an old saying about good fences making good neighbours?

 

[another_richard]

If your plan is to make the current public right of way obvious to the public then quite right.

But be careful.

The local Rights of Way office will have a Definitive Map and Statement 'stating the width and direction to / from etc.

If you already know the Definitive Statement for example:
"One public footpath running from X to Y at a width of 3 metres".

You could speak to your local Rights of Way Officer and ask them to MAINTAIN it, ie for them to come and cut the grass and thereby define it on the ground.

It has been mentioned that you plan to divert the footpath. For you to stop up a public footpath and divert it is asking for BIG trouble. It can take years to do what you plan officially.

Perhaps:
1 Speak to your local ROW officer and voice your concerns about trespass.
2 Ask them to set out the path
3 Suggest the footpath be diverted.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Thanks for all the very kind advice and interesting ideas - most helpful.

I should perhaps have mentioned that there was an action group set up last year, to which I was invited, and the local walkers voiced their concerns about the fencing off of the 150 acres of the entire hill and said that they'd be writing to Lincoln Highways department to attempt to get unofficial footpaths made official. It was very awkward, I had to tell them face to face that as a landowner up here I couldn't go along 100% with their ideas, and then I was no longer invited to the action group's meetings. However, I have plenty of spies and I'm pretty certain that nothing has happened. I may find though, in time, that the path across the bottom of BC gets put on the OS map.

The Rights of way people and the Council locally do absolutely nothing to maintain or mow public footpaths and any complaints fall on deaf ears and are passed from pillar to post.

It has been mentioned that you plan to divert the footpath. For you to stop up a public footpath and divert it is asking for BIG trouble. It can take years to do what you plan officially.

At the moment the public use the field as a way down to town - there are around a dozen intersecting, winding, and criss crossing paths which follow the easiest contours and make shortcuts as the pitch of the field is steep. I plan to give them one, proper footpath, in a nice straight line, in accordance with the Ordnance Survey map. The person who bought the field in my first picture had the same issue and did the same - there was a bit of grumbling to begin with but they have 8 metres width to their footpath and now it's all trodden down the grumbling seems to have stopped.

When a path diverts from the OS map and becomes established which is correct, the old path shown on the map or the new meandering one? Why should walkers have a right to a path that splits and splits and effectively swallows a whole field, when that field is privately owned? The ignorant consensus regarding the field we bought is that it is "common land", fine to walk all over and picnic upon, and sledge in the winter.

I did try to get some sense out of the Footpaths Officer at Lincoln Highways but she was utterly utterly useless and could give me no information at all beyond what we could both see on the map, one straight footpath running east to west.

Another neighbour backing onto the lane had his house extended last year and asked if his builders could access his property via our lane. At least he had the decency to ask and I agreed on certain conditions, one of which was that the damaged grass verges would be reinstated with turf as soon as the building work was finished. Surprise surprise, after about 3 months when the building work was finished, the grass verges were devoid of grass because of all the foot and machinery traffic yet the neighbour never did make good. Then, earlier this year, he had the nerve to ask again for similar access and was rather put out when I would only agree if he paid a £100 deposit because he didn't honour our last agreement to repair the inevitable damage. He declined my offer and didn't get his access.

Absolutely outrageous and selfish behaviour, well done for making a stand, it sounds like you handled it very well indeed. Without restrications and clear boundaries people will just take and take and take-as has happened with this field.

Can you not present your changes as a positive thing? If you keep the path mown following your line, have clear signage showing walkers which way to go (ie round to the north) and some discreet "private" signage where they shouldn't then the path will look as if it is now maintained and cared for by its new, responsible and thoughtful owner. If you have to post a notice, why not a little sketch map of where the public right of way goes under a heading such as "footpath improvements"....

I love the carefree slyness of this plan - sounds like a very good idea!

 

[Flyfisher]

I did try to get some sense out of the Footpaths Officer at Lincoln Highways but she was utterly utterly useless and could give me no information at all beyond what we could both see on the map, one straight footpath running east to west.

I'd say the good news is that the definitive map is, er, definitive, so that's the only legal footpath you need to worry about.

Assuming that Land registry has given you title to the land then, again, by definition, your legal title is guaranteed, so it cannot be 'common land'.

So you have every legal right to fence the field and exclude the public because there are no other rights of way. I'm sure regular users won't like it but that would seem to be the legal position. They may, of course, choose to challenge this in some way but the current position seems clear untill it is legally challenged.

Regarding 'allowing' another single footpath instead of the myriad ones currenly (illegally) in use, our footpaths officer mentioned something about a 'permitted access' arrangement. I can't remember the precise details but the basic idea is that by expressely allowing the public to use a path across your land then it prevents that path from ever becoming established as a public right of way, no matter how long it is used for.

I'm only guessing, but you might be able to use the historical lack of fencing to indicate such permitted access - thus preventing the establishment of a public right of way - and the new fencing as indicating that this previously permitted access has now been revoked, which of course is the landowner's right. I'm no lawyer so if you think this might be appropriate then I'd recommend seeking some qualified legal advice from a specialist in this area.

I think I've mentioned the CLA before. They claim to offer lots of advice about such things, though in practice they were not very responsive to my questions so I let my subscription lapse. Pity really as I no longer get free passes to the CLA pavillion and priority parking at The Game Fair.

 

[Penners]

I absolutely agree with what others have said above. I wouldn't post your letter, or anything like it - I think you'd just be inviting trouble.

I would simply ensure that the route you want walkers to take is mown, to make it easy and obvious. And as Nigel suggests, I'd put up a few discrete finger boards, just saying "Footpath -> ", or some such. If you still find people straying where they shouldn't, perhaps put up some more little signs saying something anodyne like "Private - Protected Area".

 

[JoceAndChris]

The response of "No!" to the suggestion of a letter is unanimous so I certainly won't put one up in that case! Thank you so much for the guidance, it's easy to go wrong with how to handle this and make things worse.

I like the ideas of the mowing and the discreet signs. FF good ideas of how to argue there is no established right of way, and getting legal help if necessary, could come in handy - though I'd imagine if you get a letter from the highways Authority saying there's now a public right of way across your land there's not much you can do about it!

I think I've mentioned the CLA before. They claim to offer lots of advice about such things, though in practice they were not very responsive to my questions so I let my subscription lapse. Pity really as I no longer get free passes to the CLA pavillion and priority parking at The Game Fair

Oh, what a shame! I'd forgotten about this so thanks for the reminder.

 

[worms]

While I would agree with the "no letter; mow the new path" approach above, I find it quite amazing the knots you get into in England over access rights. In Scotland everyone has the right of responsible access on foot or on horseback to all land (with the exception of the curtilege of houses and a few other exclusions) and there are really very few problems.

Guess that's me off the PPUK Christmas card list!

 

[Johnboy]

Whatever you do don't list your telephone number! My next door neighbour's caravan was stolen last year and he put a note with his number on the telegraph pole outside his house asking if anyone had seen anything. You wouldn't believe how many crank/obscene/nuisance calls he received in the space of 2 weeks. Needless to say the caravan was never found and eventually the calls petered out but there is definitely a lesson to be learned...

 

[Gareth Hughes]

A couple of notices announcing "WARNING: THIS FIELD IS SCATTERED WITH TARAXACUM" might have people head-scratching for a bit...

 

[middi]

Land mines

 

[Flyfisher]

FF good ideas of how to argue there is no established right of way, and getting legal help if necessary, could come in handy - though I'd imagine if you get a letter from the highways Authority saying there's now a public right of way across your land there's not much you can do about it!

If it gets that far then I suspect you're right (that hasn't happened already has it?). I've no idea how a public right of way could be rescinded once granted, but I'd bet it would be almost impossible and fraught with legal difficulty (i.e. vastly expensive!).

But, even if someone starts an action to claim a public right of way, I'd be very surprised if the land owner in question isn't informed of the application and given a chance to argue their point. After all, anyone could claim that they've walked a path every day for the past 20 years (or whatever the requirement is) but there must surely be a burden of proof on them, which the landowner (or someone else) may be able to refute.

I realise it's a slightly different example but we (and our surounding neighbours) were informed by Land Registry of a claim of ownership to the grass verges along the sides of our lane. Apparently, someone claiming some old manorial rights was attempting to claim all the various bits of unregistered land throughout the village. We were able to provide documentary evidence to prove our ownership and thus refute the claim. I would expect (hope?) that a similar sort of procedure would apply when a new public right of way was being claimed.

But I don't have the expertise to know for sure.

 

[Flyfisher]

A couple of notices announcing "WARNING: THIS FIELD IS SCATTERED WITH TARAXACUM" might have people head-scratching for a bit...

. . . or wetting their bed. :wink:

 

[Keithj]

I agree about not putting up signs, and certainly not a phone number.

Round here there are some paths across private land which are signed "Permissive path". My understanding is that they are not rights of way, and by designating them this way they will not become rights of way. The local Churchwarden (a source of great wisdom) explained that they were created when a local farmer removed a lot of random paths over private land (most of it now fenced off) while avoiding any aggro from the local dog walkers.

 

[Penners]

some paths across private land which are signed "Permissive path".

Don't you think that might encourage nocturnal canine activities?

 

[JoceAndChris]

:lol:

 

[JoceAndChris]

A couple of notices announcing "WARNING: THIS FIELD IS SCATTERED WITH TARAXACUM" might have people head-scratching for a bit...

Love it! Such a sinister name for a silly weed. That should do it.

Guess that's me off the PPUK Christmas card list!

No, you can still be on the Christams card list. But people in Scotland must be much nicer, that's all. Since I've lived here I've seen kids driving across crops, kids burning out cars in beauty spots, people dumping mattresses on footpaths, as well as the devastation of my friend who had a large quantity of chickens brutally murdered by children. Whilst I agree that the majority of people are responsible and respectful, there are a handful who tend to chaos and destruction. Moreover, in the absence of any real ones my chickens have become my babies and so they must be protected with fencing and electric fencing and more fencing and cameras if necessary and I can't have people allowing their dogs to run up to their enclosure and frightening them off the lay.

Goodness knows how protective I'm going to feel when the pygmy goats arrive.

If it gets that far then I suspect you're right (that hasn't happened already has it?). I've no idea how a public right of way could be rescinded once granted, but I'd bet it would be almost impossible and fraught with legal difficulty (i.e. vastly expensive!).

But, even if someone starts an action to claim a public right of way, I'd be very surprised if the land owner in question isn't informed of the application and given a chance to argue their point. After all, anyone could claim that they've walked a path every day for the past 20 years (or whatever the requirement is) but there must surely be a burden of proof on them, which the landowner (or someone else) may be able to refute.

I realise it's a slightly different example but we (and our surounding neighbours) were informed by Land Registry of a claim of ownership to the grass verges along the sides of our lane. Apparently, someone claiming some old manorial rights was attempting to claim all the various bits of unregistered land throughout the village. We were able to provide documentary evidence to prove our ownership and thus refute the claim. I would expect (hope?) that a similar sort of procedure would apply when a new public right of way was being claimed.

But I don't have the expertise to know for sure.

Interesting post - and no, I have not yet been informed that any of the unofficial paths in the field are being made official, and as you say I'm sure I would have been informed. Although it isn't our land, people are campaigning to get our farm track to the cottage made into a public footpath and I have heard about that. (I've no problem with that, it has been used a public footpath as long as living memory, and if it is made into a public footpath, perhaps the Council might do something about the potholes, unlikely, I know.)

I'm glad you were able to refurte the claim of the verges though.

I agree about not putting up signs, and certainly not a phone number.

Round here there are some paths across private land which are signed "Permissive path". My understanding is that they are not rights of way, and by designating them this way they will not become rights of way. The local Churchwarden (a source of great wisdom) explained that they were created when a local farmer removed a lot of random paths over private land (most of it now fenced off) while avoiding any aggro from the local dog walkers.

Interesting - thanks. I suppose it might come to that but I really, really don't want dogs in my field. Or people. What if they were attacked by geese? Or nibbled by the pygmy goats? Or I shot their dog because it got to the chickens? It just sounds like a recipe for disaster, people and dogs and mixed livestock.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Land mines

:lol: Good plan!