Previous PageNext Page

Bath & North East Somerset Council

MEETING:

Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Sub-Committee

AGENDA
ITEM
NUMBER

MEETING DATE:

1 June 2000

  

REPORT AUTHOR:

Judith Gradwell, Public Rights of Way Officer

  

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:

Richard Robertson, Acting Head of Transport Access and Waste Management Services

  
 

TITLE:

Claimed footpath from Midford Old Road to Tucking Mill

WARD:

Bathavon South

BACKGROUND PAPERS:

1. Application for Modification Order with supporting Evidence Forms

2. Landowners’ evidence

3. Responses to consultations

AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM

1. SUMMARY

1.1 To assist Members in determining an application for an Order to be made under S53 (2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the Definitive Map and Statement by the addition of a footpath at Midford as shown marked A-B on the plan attached as Appendix I.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the Head of Transport Access and Waste Management Services be granted delegated authority to take all action to make a Modification Order to modify the Definitive Map and Statement by including the path from County Road 49492 at Midford to footpath BA22/18 at Tucking Mill, as shown marked A-B on the plan accompanying this report with a spur off marked C-D connecting to County Road C468 and to confirm the Order if no duly made objections are sustained.

3. RESOURCE AND CORPORATE POLICY IMPLICATIONS (Where necessary, the views of the Council's Statutory Officers are reflected in the comments below)

3.1 Financial: The financial implications are not a relevant consideration which may be taken into account under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The costs associated with making the Order and any subsequent Public Inquiry will be met from the PROW budget. Even if the path is a public right of way, because it came into existence after 15 December 1949 it will not be maintainable at the public expense unless the Council as Highway Authority specifically agrees to its adoption. This would be a matter for determination by the Transportation Sub-Committee.

3.2 Staffing: None

3.3 Equalities: None

3.4 Economic: None

3.5 Environment: Issues of public benefit, suitability, safety, agriculture and similar concerns are not relevant considerations which may be taken into account under the provision of Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

3.6 Council wide impacts: None

4 BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

4.1 The District Council, as Surveying Authority, is under a statutory duty, imposed by Section 53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to keep the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way under continuous review. An Order to modify the Map and Statement should be made after the occurrence of any of the “events” described in Section 53(3). Anyone may apply to the Council for an Order to modify the map, and such application must be determined in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 14 of the Act. The Surveying Authority must also make an Order on its own initiative if it discovers evidence which shows that a right of way which is not shown on the map and statement subsists or is reasonably alleged to subsist.

4.2 On 1st May 1992, Mr N G Eldridge submitted an application on behalf of the Midford Residents Association to Avon County Council for an Order under Section 53(2) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 “to modify the Definitive Map and Statement by adding a public footpath running from the B3110 in Midford via the car park of the Hope & Anchor public house and thence Northwards along the disused rail track to the Southern end of the Tucking Mill Viaduct, then down the embankment on the East side of the viaduct to join with the existing public footpath which runs from Tucking Mill via Horsecombe Vale to Combe Down”. The application was accompanied by 21 forms giving evidence of usage by pedestrians of the route described.

4.3 The application involves an “event” described in Section 53(3) (iii)(b) that is “the expiration, in relation to any way in the area to which the map relates, of any period such that the enjoyment by the public of the way during that period raises a presumption that the way has been dedicated as a public path”. A presumption of dedication can arise at Common Law or under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. Both are applicable in determining the current application.

4.4 For a presumption of dedication to arise at Common Law, it is necessary to prove the intention of the landowner to dedicate. However, intention to dedicate can be inferred from actions by the landowner, which are consistent with dedication and the use and enjoyment of the route by the public as of right, which was known to the owner and acquiesced in by him. In a recent court case the House of Lords ruled that “as of right” means simply openly and without force or permission. This overturns previous legal rulings that belief that the way was a highway had also to be present in the minds of the persons using the route.

4.5 For presumed dedication to have occurred under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, a way is deemed to have been dedicated as a highway after 20 years use by the public unless there is evidence of a contrary intention. In order to establish a presumed dedication under this section, each element in the wording of Section 31(1) and (2) needs to be proved on the balance of probabilities. “(1) Where a way over any land, other than a way of such a character that use of it by the public could not give rise at common law to any presumption of dedication, has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it. (2) The period of 20 years referred to in subsection (1) above is to be calculated retrospectively from the date when the right of the public to use the way is brought into question, whether by a notice such as is mentioned in subsection (3) below or otherwise.”

4.6 If the Council is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a presumed dedication has occurred an Order to modify the Definitive Map and Statement must be made. The Order is advertised and if no objections are sustained to such an Order, the Authority can confirm it. If any objections are sustained the Authority must pass the Order to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Authority cannot, in the light of the objections, abandon the Order. Should any objections be sustained to the Order proposed in this report, a further report will be presented to this Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee may then, if it so wishes, request the Secretary of State to deal with the opposed Order in a specific manner.

5 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

5.1 The claimed route starts at Midford Old Road close to its junction with the B3110 Midford Road. It crosses what was the forecourt of Midford Station and is now the car park at the Hope and Anchor Public House. It continues along the track bed of the former Somerset and Dorset Railway line to immediately before the viaduct at Tucking Mill. The route then descends down steps to join the public footpath BA22/18 which runs alongside the fishing lake provided by Wessex Water. It is currently being walked by members of the public.

5.2 Of the 21 members of the public submitting evidence, 6 stated that they started walking the route in 1966 ie following the formal closure of the railway line in March of that year. At that time the railway lines were still in situ. A further 4 state that they started walking the line in 1968 ie after the lines had been lifted in December 1967. The remaining 11 evidence forms give dates when they first started using the path of between 1970 and 1984. All the evidence forms were completed between February and April 1992 and all but two of the people were still using the path at that time. The remaining two had ceased to walk the path in 1991.

5.3 All the evidence forms include a map confirming the route described on the form. The use of the route was as a footpath and the primary purpose recreation and walking the dog. Two forms also include walking to work.

5.4 Question 3d on the Evidence Forms asks how many times a year the respondent used the path. Twelve users indicated at least once a week, with one stating daily. A further 4 gave usage of between 20 and 30 times a year and the remaining of between 3 and 12 times a year.

5.5 Question 5a asks “Have there to your knowledge ever been on the way any stiles or gates” and Question 10 asks “Have you ever known any locked gates or other obstruction to the way”. Seven people relied No to both questions. A further person replied No to question 5(a) and another four to question 10. The positive replies to question 5a and question 10 are listed in Appendix II. Further investigation has also been carried out and it is believed that gates or barriers have been erected at various times at the points numbered 1 to 6 on the attached map. The nature of these gates and barriers is dealt with in the following sections of this report.

5.6 In response to all the other questions all respondents replied in the negative. A copy of the Evidence Form is included in Appendix II.

6.0 RESPONSES TO NOTIFICATION TO LANDOWNERS BY APPLICANTS

6.1 On 1 May 1992 the applicants complied with the statutory requirements and served notice on the then owners of the land crossed by the claimed route - AIB Business Finance; G Creed; Rail Property Ltd; the executors of the estate of the late Mr Thomas, and Wessex Water Ltd. On 14 May a letter objecting to the application was received from Gerald Creed, as Director of Land and Transit Ltd. The letter did not contain any information to dispute previous public user of the route or to show no intention to dedicate by the previous owners. Letters were also received from Francis Sealy, as Director of The Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway (1990) Ltd, and from 24 supporters around the country, objecting to the application because they considered the path would disrupt their planned restoration of the station. They also argued that the path was unnecessary.

6.2 Rail Property Ltd objected to the application on the grounds of public safety. They were under the misapprehension that it was an application for planning permission. No information was given to refute the user evidence or to show no intention to dedicate. No response was received from the remaining three owners on whom notice was served.

7. LANDOWNERS’ EVIDENCE

7.1 Investigation of the application was not started until October 1998. By that time three of the five owners on whom notice of the application had been served in May 1992 had changed. The current position is:

Section 1 Hope & Anchor Car Park: R & L Smolarek

Section 3 Long Arch with land under: Rail Property Ltd

Section 4 North from Long Arch for approx 480 metres: M Briggs

Section 5 From Section 4 to path BA22/18: Wessex Water Services Ltd

7.2 Of the owners at the time of the application, Rail Property Ltd have reiterated their objection but provided no more evidence. Attempts to obtain more information about possible fences across the route in the vicinity of the Long Arch (points 3 and 4 on the map) have been unsatisfactory. The information provided has been contradictory. It would appear that there are no records of any inspections of the arch available.

7.3 Wessex Water responded “……… I have in fact had several meetings with interested parties, some of which you are no doubt aware of, in that there is some local resistance to the footpath becoming formalised rather than permissive. I am trying to find out when the steps were installed and will let you know shortly. From the company’s point of view we have no view either way on the section that we own, although we do not wish to become involved in any neighbour disputes”.

7.4 The current owners of Section 1, the Hope & Anchor Car Park, were not informed by A I B Finance, from whom they bought the land in 1992, of the notice of the application. They object to there being a public footpath across their land. The emphasis of their objection is on the problem of non customers parking in the car park. They draw attention to the “Private Car Park” signs and to the gate at the entrance to their car park (point 1 on the map). It has been ascertained that these signs and gate were erected by Mr P R Hacker, who owned the Public House and car park between November 1987 and July 1989, in order to deter non-customers from parking. He states that his routine was to have the gate open from 7am to 3pm; locked from 3pm to 6.30pm; open from 6.30pm to midnight and locked from midnight to 7am. This is disputed by users who claim that the gate was very rarely closed, much less locked, either when Mr Hacker owned the pub or since that time.

7.5 Mr Skinnerton, the current owner of Section 2, bought the land in October 1997. He objects to the application and states that he has told people that the land is private. However, this would have occurred more than five years after the claim was submitted. He also refers to fences that were erected by previous owners across the entrance to the Long Arch and which were pulled down.

7.6 It has been ascertained that one of the previous owners referred to by Mr Skinnerton was in fact a tenant, Mr S E R Castens. Mr Castens entered into a tenancy agreement with Rail Property Ltd in August 1984. A condition of the tenancy was that a fence should be erected across the southern entrance to the Long Arch (point 3 on the map). He states that he complied with the condition by erecting four concrete posts and chain link fencing, on either side of a 3 foot wide pedestrian gate which was padlocked. This was quickly vandalised. He cannot be precise as to how long it would have prevented people walking the route but thinks weeks rather than months. Users have claimed that it was days rather than weeks with some frequent users saying they never saw it intact and it never prevented their access. Mr Castens did not attempt to repair the fence.

7.7 During 1985 and 1986 Mr Castens cleared the platform, which was totally overgrown and impassable and installed a gate between the land he was renting and the Public House car park (point 2 on the map), which was kept padlocked. However he also provided a pedestrian gate within a few feet (now just a gap) which was never locked. People continued to walk along the track bed, but also along the cleared platform.

7.8 In February 1990 the land was bought by Mr G Creed and Mr Castens’ tenancy was terminated in the summer of 1990. Mr Castens recalls that Mr Creed gained vehicular access to the land both via the car park and from the old goods (or marshalling) yard via Long Arch ie there were no intact fences preventing vehicular access at either end of the Long Arch at that time. This casts doubt on Mr Hacker’s claim that while he was the owner of the car park “All gates for entering the station were always locked and at the other end of the tunnel wire fencing completely covered the entrance to keep people out”. There is still the remains of fencing at the “other” (ie presumably northern) end of the Long Arch (point 4 on the map) but one local resident claims this was erected by the Somerset Railway and Industrial Trust in 1992/1993 and another that it was erected by Mr Creed in November 1991.

7.9 It was a condition of the sale of the land to Mr Creed that a fence should be erected at former track level between points E and F on the Land Registry Plan. However, part of this would have been diagonally across the track bed under the Long Arch (ie on land still retained by Rail Property Ltd) and part would have been a physical impossibility as it would have been in the earth behind the retaining walls of the arch. Rail Property Ltd first stated that this fence should have been erected on the land above the structure at road level, and then thought it more likely that it should have been across the entrance at track level but were indecisive as to whether this was at the northern or southern end. It is clear that they never checked that the condition had been complied with.

7.10 Mr Creed commenced various works without planning permission which were the subject of enforcement action. It was partly in response to his activities that the Midford Residents Association submitted the footpath claim. At the end of May 1992 ie after the claim had been submitted, Mr Creed erected notices saying “Private Property. Trespassers will be prosecuted”.

7.11 Section 4, to the North of Long Arch, was bought by Mr M F Briggs in May 1997. Mr Briggs and his wife Mrs I Briggs had completed forms giving evidence of usage which were submitted with the application. Mrs Briggs claimed to have used the path 2 or 3 times a week for twenty-seven years. Mr Briggs claimed to have used the path a dozen or so times a year, also for 27 years. Neither claimed to have known any obstructions on the route, or to have been given permission by the then landowners. Mr Briggs was therefore contacted to confirm that as the current owner he had no objection to the route being recorded as a public footpath. He was also asked, if he would have any objection to the route that was being used by walkers to gain access to the former railway line from Tucking Mill Lane via the old goods yard (points C to D on the attached map), a distance of approximately 40 metres, also being recorded as a public footpath. People were walking this route and provision had been made for pedestrians at the side of two sets of vehicular gates.

7.12 Mr Briggs replied “………This land belongs to Midford Castle and we do not want this to be a right of way. We have no objection to people walking along here and have made this clear to all the people who regularly do so. It would not be possible, however, to formalise this arrangement as it has been used, and continues to be used as part of a working farm. We would object very strongly to any such plan …”.(letter dated 18.10.98) Mr Briggs then began to submit evidence to refute the claim and both he and Mrs Briggs retracted their previous evidence.

7.13 Mrs S Thomas, who had inherited the land from her husband and from whom Mr Briggs bought the land submitted a statement “I would like to put on record that this stretch of the old line was not at any time acknowledged as an official right of way. Local people were permitted to walk their dogs there but on a personal permission basis.” (letter dated 30 October 1998) She also refers to locked gates at the former goods yard (point 6 on the map). Mr F Shellard who rented the ground from Mrs Thomas and acted as her agent also refers to the gates at the former goods yard. He states “As far as I was aware, people walking along the line did so with either the permission of Mr Briggs or myself”. Mr Briggs has submitted a plan showing four points at which he claims notices were erected in the latter years of the 1970s saying “Do not enter, Shooting etc”(near point 7 on the map). He states that the notices were erected by Mr Shellard and others who had permission to shoot on the land with the approval of the landlords, the Thomas family. Mrs Briggs states “I have known the area between the marshalling yard and the field to be temporarily blocked by agricultural machinery (when the field was used as arable land) or by moving or loading cattle or sheep (when the field was grassed), but the period when the whole of the track from the viaduct (ie at Tucking Mill) to the Midford Tunnel (ie the Long Arch) was closed for shooting was much longer, I should think two or three years. There were a number of notices saying Private, No Entry, Shooting, etc. I cannot remember the precise dates of this closure but it was certainly during the period under consideration.”

8.0 CONSULTATIONS

8.1. The Council has no legal obligation to consult anyone prior to making an Order, other than the relevant Town/Parish Council. However, it is considered useful to inform various interested persons of an application and give them the opportunity to make any submissions that they feel could assist the Committee in reaching a decision whether or not to make an Order. Accordingly, in October and November 1998 users groups, as well as the Parish Council were asked for their comments.

8.2. South Stoke Parish Council replied “The Council is not able to offer any evidence in this matter, or to comment on the evidence that has been submitted. If however the claim of presumed dedication is upheld, the council considers that a public footpath along this route would be a very welcome and much valued addition to the public rights of way network in the area.” (letter dated 13.11.98)

8.3. The Ramblers Association supported the application but had no evidence.

8.4. Wellow Walkers replied “….. This is not a route which Wellow Walkers have walked as a group. However, many years (possibly as many as twenty years) ago my wife and I and our two, then young children, walked this section of the former railway on several occasions without hindrance. I do feel that this would, if confirmed, be a well received addition to the footpaths in the Midford Area.” (letter dated 16.11.98)

8.5. In April 1999 15 of the people who had filled in evidence forms (ie 21, less Mr & Mrs Briggs, 1 person who had died and 3 who had moved away) were sent a letter setting out the additional evidence that had been submitted by landowners. A copy of the letter is attached in Appendix III. The addressees were specifically requested if, in the light of Mrs Thomas’ statement, they considered, on reflection, that they had ever been given permission by a member of the Thomas family or their tenant. They were also asked, having regard to the information about physical obstructions and prohibitive notices whether they wished to amend their evidence form or whether they still considered that it accurately reflected their use of the path. Fourteen of the fifteen replied. All stated that they had never been given permission and that they did not wish to alter their evidence. They confirmed that they had used the route for the years stated and that the barriers had not prevented them from doing so. For example, one person states “I suppose there were obstructions at various points and times but the route was always usable. We have always enjoyed the walk and still do, as do many others”. No-one could recollect seeing the “Shooting” notices next to the track bed, although four state that for a short time such a notice was on the open gate at the entrance to the goods yards (point 6 on the map). They claim that any shooting activity was very infrequent and only extended over a period of 6 to 9 months. Only one person stated that on some rare occasions in winter cattle were penned under the road bridge (ie the Long Arch). Others refute this, but say on occasions cattle were on the track to the north of the Long Arch. The cattle could move between Castle Field and the former goods yard and temporary hurdles were erected to prevent them straying down the former track bed (point 5 on the map). They also doubt that it would have been physically possible to pen 100 cattle in the Long Arch (it is approximately 4.5 metres wide and 34 metres long, a total of approximately 153 square metres).

8.6. The Trade Unions have not been consulted as there are no employment implications.

9.0 HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

9.1. The claim is based on user evidence following the closure of the former railway line. As no public right of way could come into existence while the railway was still operational it has not been necessary to undertake historical research

10. CONCLUSIONS

10.1 This is a complicated claim, involving as it does five separate ownerships and disputed questions of fact concerning events that took place between 11 and 28 years ago. There is no problem regarding the land purchased by Wessex Water in 1979. Their actions in constructing steps up the slope between footpath BA22/18 and the former railway line, and the subsequent use of the route by the public, can be construed as an act of dedication at Common Law. Wessex Water does not dispute this.

10.2 As regards the rest of the claimed route, the Sub-Committee has to decide what it considers are the correct facts, and on the basis of those facts, whether on the balance of probabilities presumed dedication of the path as a public footpath has been established. Use of the way is not in itself enough – it is the nature of such use that has to be established. All the provisions of Section 31(1) and (2) of the Highways Act 1980 have to be carefully considered. In doing so, it must be borne in mind that three elements ie interruption of the use; the calling into question of the use; and evidence of no intention to dedicate, are all legally different, although they can be evidenced by what may appear to be similar actions.

10.3 Applying the provision of S31(1) and (2) as set out in paragraph 4.5 above the Officers make the following points.

10.4 It is concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, all the requirements of Section 31(1) and (2) have been met for the route included in the application by the Midford Residents Association. It is considered that a presumption of dedication has arisen and that this presumption has not been rebutted by sufficient evidence of lack of intention to dedicate by any of the landowners. An Order to modify the Definitive Map and Statement should therefore be made.

10.5 In addition, it is considered that the route marked C-D on the plan attached at Appendix 1 which gives access to the claimed route from Tucking Mill Lane via the entrance to the former goods yard has become a right of way by presumed dedication at common law. People had been using this route, gaining access off Tucking Mill Lane via a wooden vehicular gate which was often propped open and, when closed, not locked. In December 1990 travellers occupied the former goods yard. They were erected in May 1991 and the access was blocked with an earth bank. In August 1991 Mr Creed removed the earth bank and installed the steel gates which are still in situ. As he did not own this land it is to be presumed that he had the agreement of the owner’s agent Mr Shellard. The gate was only spasmodically locked and in September 1991 the travellers re-occupied the site. They were evicted in May 1992 and the access was again blocked with an earth bank. This was removed by Mr Shellard and the travellers re-occupied the site in December 1992. The travellers were evicted for the last time in November 1993. Mr Shellard and the Midford Residents Association together then arranged for the steel gates to be padlocked and for the wooden gate to be buried under an earth bank. In recognition that pedestrians were using this route gaps were left alongside the steel gates and the earth bank which allowed this use to continue. It is considered that this specific provision of a route for pedestrians and the subsequent use by the public is a presumed dedication at common law. It had been assumed (see paragraph 7.11 above) that this had been accepted by Mr Briggs, the current owner, as since he acquired the land, the earth bank has been removed and a second vehicular gate erected, also with a gap for pedestrians. The public have therefore continued to gain access to the claimed route from Tucking Mill Lane via gaps beside the two gates.

10.6 In conclusion, it is recommended that an Order be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement by the addition of the path claimed by the Midford Residents Association together with a 40 metre spur off to connect to Tucking Mill Lane via the entrance to the former goods yard.

Appendix II

Gates and Fences

Form

Question 5(a)

Have there to your knowledge ever been on the way any stiles or gate

Question 10

Have you ever known any locked gates or other obstruction to the way

1

Not to my knowledge

No

2

No

No

3

Gates on Hope and Anchor Car Park. Always open

Occasional light fencing

Easily Passable

4

Hope and Anchor Car Park open since installation

Portable fencing occasionally used for loading cattle - no obstruction to walk

5

No

No

6

Gates at Hope and Anchor Car Park - always open

No

7

Recently a gate from car park

wire fence across tunnel entrance for short period during 1989

8

Recently an unlocked gate from Hope and Anchor Car Park

Flimsy wire fence across entrance to the tunnel for short time 1989 ish

9

No

No

10

No

No

11

Gate into Midford Station

No

12

A wire gate about halfway

Wire difficult to get through as cattle temporally there. Do not know dates

13

Recently a gate by the PH car park

Wire fencing by tunnel

No obstruction as such

14

In recent years a gate between Hope and Anchor car park a disused station

Occasional flimsey fencing of a temporary nature. Easily passed

15

Gate 1 (always openable) at Hope and Anchor car park . Gate 2 (locked until broken) on station side of road bridge over old railway

Fencing or hurdles to stop cattle escaping (see 5) although inconvenient always passable )A style would have been useful)

16

No

No

17

No

No

18

Gate, goods yard entrance from Midford and never locked

Temporary fencing to get stock into castle field

19

Gate on right hand side of weighbridge

No

20

Gate to west side of road bridge

No

21

No

Occasional light fencing easily passable

Appendix III

 

Date:

15 April 1999

 

Our ref:

JG/MP/DMMO/03

 

Your ref:

  
 

Direct line:

(01225) 477622

 

Fax:

(01225) 477663

 

Minicom:

(01225) 477535

 

E Mail:

Judith_Gradwell@bathnes.gov.uk

     

Dear

Re: Claimed footpath along former railway line between Midford and Tucking Mill

In May 1992 Mr N Eldridge submitted an application on behalf of the Midford Residents Association to modify the Definitive Map by adding the above footpath. After a very long delay I am at last dealing with the application and have been presented with conflicting statements.

User evidence forms from 21 people were submitted in support of the application. I enclose a copy of the form completed by yourself. You will note that in reply to Question 12 “Have you ever been given permission to use the way?” you replied “no”. However Mrs Thomas, a former owner of the section of former railway line immediately north of Long Arch has recently made the following statement

“I would like to put on record that this stretch of the old line was not at any time acknowledged as an official right of way. Local people were permitted to walk their dogs there, but on a personal permission basis”.

Please could you let me know if, on reflection, you were ever given permission to be on the claimed path either by a member of the Thomas family, or by their tenant.

Statements have also been submitted to me claiming that due to physical obstructions it was not possible for people to walk sections of the route at various times between 1968 and 1992 and that there were prohibitive notices. I attach a summary of these statements and a map showing the position of the obstructions and notices referred to . I would welcome any comments you may wish to make. I specifically need to know whether in the light of these statements you wish to amend you user evidence form or whether you still consider it accurately reflects your use of the path.

I would be grateful if you could reply by 14 May. If you wish to phone me prior to replying I should be happy to try to clarify any queries you may have.

Yours sincerely

Judith Gradwell

Public Rights of Way Officer

Enc

Appendix III

Claimed footpath along former Somerset and Dorset Railway line at Midford.

Summary of statements made by landowners/former landowners and their tenants.

1. Mr P R Hacker owned the Hope and Anchor car park between November 1987 and July 1989. Early in 1988 he erected a gate at the entrance to the car park from Midford Old Road to prevent non-customers from parking in the car park. (point A on map) His routine was to have this gate locked from mid-night to 7 am and from 3 pm to 6.30 pm. He also states “All gates for entering the station were always locked and at the other end of the station tunnel wire fencing completely covered entrance to keep people out”. (presumably is points B and D on the map)

2. In August 1984 British Rail entered into a tenancy agreement with Mr S E R Castens for the land between the car park and Long Arch. A condition of the tenancy was that a fence should be erected across the southern entrance to the Long Arch. This was done using four concrete posts and chain link fencing, on either side of a 3 foot wide pedestrian gate, which was padlocked. This was quickly vandalised. Mr Castens cannot be precise about how long the entrance to Long Arch was actually blocked, but weeks rather than months. (point C on Map)

3. Most of the work done by Mr Castens was during 1985 and 1986. The platform was cleared and works done on the boundary with the Hope and Anchor Car Park ie block work wall (built to resemble previous wall that formed part of the station building) pedestrian gate, paling fence and gate across track bed. The pedestrian gate was never locked. The gate across the track bed was locked but the landlord of the Public House had a key and parked on the track bed for a short period during the winter of 1986/7. (point B on Map)

4. Mr R Dyer worked for Mr R Snook, a tenant of Mr T Thomas. He states “In the years between 1968 and 1990 I was responsible for looking after the cattle of Mr Snook. We often put them in the tunnel next to the Marshelling Yard and there was, therefore, no question of anybody allowing people to walk through the tunnel, which was indeed blocked by fencing and other obstacles”. There were approximately 100 cattle kept there between the years 1972 - 1975”. (Between points C and D on map)

5. Rail Property Ltd believe there should have been permanent fencing across both entrances to Long Arch. They state that this would have been a condition of any sale/tenancy of the land to the north and south of the Long Arch. (points C and D on map)

6. In the latter years of the 1970’s notices were erected with the approval of the landowners, the Thomas family, saying “Do not enter, Shooting etc”. (points E, E2, E3 and E4 on map)

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page