The appellant landowner had a public bridleway over his land. It passed over an old cattle grid. He had constructed a gate to the side of the track. It was not part of the public highway. He now appealed from a refusal of an order for the Council to remove cattle grid and re-instate the land.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘Under section 130 of the Act the highway authority has a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to use and enjoy the highway and section 147(2) clearly contemplates that when authorising the erection of stiles, gates or other works the authority will impose whatever conditions are required to enable the right of way to be exercised without undue inconvenience. Although the power extends to authorising works such as cattle grids with by-pass gates which restrict the usable width for those on horseback, I do not think that the language of section 147 permits the erection of works which force riders, and indeed some walkers, off the bridleway altogether, even for a short distance. Stiles, which are designed for walkers to cross, and gates, which are designed to be opened by walkers or riders, in each case without leaving the highway, may be authorised provided they do not cause undue inconvenience. The clear implication is that such obstructions must not interfere to an undue extent with the right to pass along the highway at the point where they are installed.’
However the decision was one which could be taken only by the Crown Court, and the matter was remitted accordingly.
Judges:
Moore-Bick LJ, King J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 603 (Admin), [2012] RTR 30, [2013] 1 WLR 743
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
Approved – Herrick and Another v Kidner and Another Admn 17-Feb-2010
Psychological Obstruction to Public Footpath
A public footpath crossed the appellants’ land. They constructed a gateway across it which they now accepted had been a significant obstruction of the right of way. The local authority served a notice requiring its removal, including the stone . .
Cited – Hampshire County Council v Gillingham and Gillingham CA 5-Apr-2000
The council obtained a county court order against the defendants to remove a wooden gate and concrete hanging post, and an injunction prohibiting them from placing a gate, fence or other obstruction on a public footpath. Attempting to defuse the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467136
