A much more detailed explanation is contained on the excellent Ramblers Association website, but here is a summary.

The local authority (i.e. Highways Dept) have a legal duty to remove obstructions which prevent the public from using rights of way. If the LA fails to carry out this duty then anyone can apply for an order to make them, or at least start the legal proceedings.

But of course due to work load and short resources, some fail to do so. To improve matters the Government in its wisdom enacted a new law in 2000 called the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (S.63 to be precise) which combined with s130A-D of the Highways Act 1980, so the notices are often called 'section 63' or 'section 130A-D'.

So the legal procedure for objecting to footpath blockages is to issue what is called a Section 130A notice. This starts the legal process.

It is important to understand that only one notice can be served by the same individual for the same “blockage”unless the circumstances have changed (new structure perhaps). According to the helpful Ramblers Association website a 130A notice can only be issued if “the obstruction 'significantly interferes' with public use”

Also, costs may be awarded against you if “you behaved vexatiously in bringing the application”. Now that’s a good and sensible point.

Note that the Ramblers Association says the form should only be used if the obstruction “significantly interferes with public use.” We hope this website shows that it doesn’t.

There is a strong suspicion that Mr Kidner originated the first s130A notice but the SCC will not (yet) reveal who did. Why are they being so coy? Who else showed any interest? At later hearings Mr Kidner was asked but denied he had. If a FOI request succeeds in showing he did then perjury will have been committed.

The procedure (in outline)

Once the objector has posted the Form 1, the LA issues Form 2 on the landowner and Form 3 as acknowledgment to the objector. The landowner has between two and six months to comply. If the path is still obstructed the applicant serves a Form 4 on the LA which signifies they will take action in the magistrate's court against the local authority, not the landowner. Within five days of the date of issuing Form 4 the objector applies to the court for an order, which if successful requires the LA to display a Form 5 detailing the work to be done and stated deadline along the blocked path.

Vexatious?

To give you a feel for the way this case has panned out, it should only be necessary to state that one Form 1 (issued by Mr Kidner ?) was for an "overhanging apple tree". Whether ripe fruit was present is not stated.

A "stopping-up order" : a solution?

If the SCC insists bizarrely that the width of the path is, should and always has been nine metres then a possible solution could be to issue a stopping up order. This is a legal facility to close/amend a highway under the Highways Act 1980 (s125). To be helpful a pdf of the required application form complete with guidance notes is attached here. Now isn't that helpful?