High-Profile Homeowners Can Divert Footpath Away From Their Garden

30th July 2020 By

Ramblers love footpaths, but the same cannot be said for landowners concerned to protect their privacy and security. That was certainly so in one case in which homeowners with a high media profile won the right to divert a footpath which crossed their garden within sight of their croquet lawn.

The owners applied to the local authority for a diversion order in respect of about 228 metres of footpath which crossed their property. They said that ramblers on the path had a view of their private garden and could see into some of their windows. They stated that, if the path remained undiverted, they would enclose part of it within stone walls, creating a tunnel-like effect.

The council’s decision to grant the order was later confirmed by an inspector acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She found that the diversion was expedient in that it was in the interests of the owners; re-routing the path would have a negligible impact on walkers’ convenience and any loss of public enjoyment would be relatively minor.

Challenging the inspector’s decision, the Open Spaces Society pointed out that the owners bought their home in the knowledge of the footpath’s presence and that permitting its diversion would enhance the value of their property. A ruling in their favour would encourage other landowners to make similar applications.

The inspector was said to have misinterpreted the power to make diversion orders contained in Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980. It was submitted that she was wrong to put the owners’ interests into the balance and that even a slight loss of public enjoyment of the re-routed path should have mandated rejection of the owners’ application.

Rejecting those arguments, the High Court found that the Secretary of State’s less restrictive interpretation of Section 119 was plainly to be preferred. The inspector was entirely correct to perform a broad balancing exercise and was entitled to take into account the scale of the diversion’s benefit to the owners in terms of bolstering their privacy and security.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Inheritance – Lifetime Promises Can Be Legally As Well As Morally Binding

30th November, 2020 By

When it comes to inheritance, the obligation to keep your promises may well be legal as well as moral. In a case on point, a judge followed the demands of conscience in ruling that a hard-working man should inherit the farmland of a close friend who for many years treated him as a son. When the friend died without making a will, the land passed automatically to his next of kin, his only daughter. The man launched proceedings on the basis that that outcome was unconscionable in that the friend...

Risks of Child Vaccination Outweighed By Health Benefits

27th November, 2020 By

In the best traditions of a free society, vaccination is not compulsory in the UK and anyone is entitled to withhold consent to being inoculated. In an important ruling, however, the High Court overruled a mother's moral and safety objections to her four-year-old son taking part in the national child vaccination programme. The mother was an educated and principled woman who looked after her son very well. She was concerned about the ingredients of vaccines and the harm that they might cause to her son's health. Despite medical advice that...

Tax Return Blunder Has Dire Consequences for Public-Spirited Charity Donor

25th November, 2020 By

Making a mistake on your tax return can have extremely serious consequences and that is why it is always wise to take professional advice. In a striking case on point, the High Court declined to come to the aid of a public-spirited businessman who donated £800,000 to charity but entered only half that sum on his tax return. The man made the donation on the anniversary of his wife's death. He said that he had initially considered a gift of £400,000 before changing his mind and deciding to donate double...

Cross-Border Child Abduction and Habitual Residence – Guideline Ruling

20th November, 2020 By

A parent who wishes to move from one country to another with his or her child must first obtain the consent of the parent left behind. That principle of international law is easily stated but, as a guideline Court of Appeal ruling showed, applying it in a way that protects the child's welfare is often a much more complicated matter. The case concerned two children, aged six and eight, who were born in Germany, where they spent the first years of their lives. Both their parents were also born in...