Secret dealings by Somerset County Council have brought about a change in the law that could affect hundreds of farmers and landowners across the UK.
Over the past five years the landowners – who have spent some £40,000 on improving the footpaths – have been taken to court five times over a set of gates. After the first magistrate's hearing – where the owners were given an absolute discharge – the Council were then sued by the plaintiff, a retired Rear Admiral. The Council although on the receiving end of the legal action, then joined forces with the plaintiff – and secretly indemnified him to continue legal action. The bill may run to some £500,000. Is this normal practice?
This website has been created to inform Somerset ratepayers, walkers and landowners of the consequences of a long running legal battle that will strain your credulity. But it is all true. Till now few have known the full story.
Brian and Denise Herrick bought the bankrupt run-down South Petherton Fruit Farm in 2001 and renamed it Barcroft Hall because it lies at the end of Barcroft Lane. Since then they have spent a considerable fortune in renovating the house, creating a beautiful garden and wildlife area (used by the RSPCA as a release site) and have regenerated 75 acres of farmland which had been left to ruin, into what is now in organic pristine condition. (Mentioned in new book: Historic Gardens in Somerset)
In addition some £40,000 has been spent on draining and relaying all the footpaths, removing all stiles and other obstacles for the mobility challenged and planting natural hedges and roses alongside paths in the estate. Wheelchair users and the elderly can now roll along the extensive paths: where else can anyone say that, outside of a stately home that charges admission? And also been threatened with prison, for replacing a stile that was said to be 3cm too high.
After a hearing at the High Court in January, Mr Justice Cranston (also author of Principles of Banking Law) issued his judgment dated 17th February 2010, that he found the gates to be "psychologically intimidating" and "significantly interferes with the exercise of public rights of way". He ordered the Council to demolish the entire structure. To see the full judgment please click here.
Please delve into this website where you can form your own judgment on what on earth has happened. Come and walk the paths, then tell your councillors and the Rights of Way legal department at County Hall. The NFU, Country Land and Business (the old CLA) and other bodies might also wish to hear your views.
All the statements made here can be backed up by the documents, but if you need any clarification please contact us when the Herricks will be pleased to help.
They have nothing to hide.
Here is a plan: to see a larger version (pdf) click on the image.
|
These are the gates – or were, for they've now been taken down and moved to the left of the photo – shown locked open, with a pedestrian side gate, as they remained for some years. There is not and never has been any obstruction to walkers. Nobody has ever come forward and claimed that they have been prevented from walking along the footpath.
The High Court Judge found them "psychologically intimidating" and "significantly interferes with the exercise of public rights of way"
Late News
Followers of this case have known about the secret indemnity for some time, though it was only grudgingly admitted by SCC. What has just come to light (FOI request late August 2010) is that the generous offer to meet the plaintiff's costs was not only witheld from us ratepayers and the defendant and the courts, but the elected members as well. The FOI reply says ". . . there were no committee minutes + ancillary papers supporting this decision as it would have been taken under officers’ delegated powers and not involved the council members." Does anyone else find this staggering?
Can we all have £50,000 on the 2.30 at Wincanton, or is that too much of a gamble? |
This is the local walking group showing that a dozen people can walk through, side by side. Where's the obstruction?
| The effects of the judgment are that the width of a footpath remains undefined, and that any right of way that passes along a track, lane or drove must stretch across the entire width. So if any pedestrian side gates, kissing gates or pillars and gate-posts remain they constitute "an obstruction that significantly interferes with the exercise of public rights of way over that way." |
In the witness box at the Crown Court on 9 February 2009, Kate Ashbrook, now general secretary of the Open Spaces Society, formerly Chair of the Ramblers Association – who together have given some £15,500 to Mr Kidner, said that she found the gates "intimidating to walkers." One would have thought that a Jersey bull was rather more frightening, but each to their own.
|
|
