Some preliminaries

In 2002 the Local Authority gave verbal permission for a set of wooden gates to be placed at the entrance (Philip Lees, Countryside Officer of SSDC). Unfortunately in 2004 farm machinery was stolen and cars were being dumped, so Brian felt security needed to be improved. Nicely designed steel gates were installed opened electronically (at a cost of some £60,000) mounted on hamstone pillars to match the house. So as not to block the footpath the normal solution of providing a side pedestrian gate – always kept unlocked – was added. In most sane people’s eyes this does not constitute a “highway obstruction” to a footpath. As with everything that the Herrick’s have achieved the gates were sympathetically designed and made to a very high standard.

In October 2004 Rear Admiral Kidner retired and came home. He is not a neighbour but lives half a mile away on a ridge. Life for the Herricks family has not been the same since. For some unfathomable reason he took objection to these gates and sought to have them removed. He joined the Parish Council’s Footpath Working Group but unfortunately upset too many parishioners and his role lasted but a few months before he was summarily de-copted and rejected by the Parish Council (see their minutes extract here and letter of complaint from parishioner).

The legal procedure for objecting to footpath blockages is to issue what is called a Section 130A notice under the Highways Act of 1980.

Not surprisingly the Herricks disputed there was an obstruction to the highway as there was and remains a pedestrian gate. At a site meeting they suggested leaving the gates permanently open: the SCC said they would come back but never did.

In May 2005 the SCC started proceedings under s143 of the Highways Act 1980 hoping to have the whole structure removed. By this time Brian Herrick was on the Parish Council and in charge of the village plan, ironically part of the remit being to examine the state of footpaths in the parish. Perhaps beginning to feel a bit victimised he produced his own detailed survey listing some 120 obstructions and faults in the network. This report was sent to the SCC who took two years to respond, with little effect. At a site meeting a SCC representative said they would “make an example of you.”As it has turned out he was right, but not perhaps to the extent intended. Perhaps unsurprisingly Brian had had enough and resigned from the PC.

In July 2005 the SCC sort to raise the temperature by instructing WS Atkins their contractors to move in, remove the gates – pre-empting any Court action. WS Atkins arrived but were unhappy about this perhaps intemperate action and left, leaving the by now celebrated gates in situ. This lack of action did not please an unknown local resident (possibly you know who?) as no less than four s130 forms were issued against the SCC for “obstruction of the highway” (One of the complaints was for “an over-hanging apple tree”. Are you getting the gist here?)

A faint gleam of light and common sense now arrived in the shape of a Mrs Hewitt from the SCC who said that “it should not go to court” and she would work on a resolution for the gates to be kept locked open at all times except for agricultural purposes. Sadly no more was heard from Mrs Hewitt or her sensible suggestion.

Somerset County Council v Herrick

In December 2005 the SCC forgot about solving disputes by talking and moved into gear by issuing a summons under our old friend s137 to remove all the gates and pillars (as a highway obstruction.) Sorry to remind you but that pedestrian side gate was still freely open, day and night. In June 2006 at the Yeovil magistrates court they did not find the gates an obstruction but simply ordered the electronic mechanism to be disabled and manual handles put on the main gates. The Herricks were given an absolute discharge and costs were shared. (The SCC had to pay 50% and the expert witness costs). The instruction was complied with, at a cost to the Herricks of £2500. In his remarks the magistrate did say to the Herricks: “you are to be complimented on your footpaths and there is much to be applauded.” This was about the last kind words the Herricks were to hear from the magistrates or judges.

The SCC could have appealed within 21 days but did not and on 1st March 2007 Mrs Littler (SCC Rights of Way Manager) helpfully wrote saying they would not be removing the gates. Because the Council had sued (and lost) they were prohibited from suing again under this section.

But sadly one party was not pleased. (Now see Kidner v SCC)