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

Tempted By an Exotic Investment Scheme? Is It Too Good to Be True?

7th August, 2020 By

It is easy to be tempted by exotic investment schemes that promise spectacular returns. However, as a High Court case strikingly showed, they are often too good to be true and it is always wise to get an independent professional to check them out before parting with your money. More than 100 small investors were persuaded to dig into their pension pots to buy 15-year leases of trees which had been inoculated with truffle spores. They spent at least £6.5 million on almost 9,000 leases, at a price of between...

Divorce – Home-Maker Wife Compensated for Sacrificing Her Career

4th August, 2020 By

Despite the drive towards achieving economic equality between the sexes, it remains common for women to give up their promising careers to support their husbands and devote themselves to child rearing and home-making. An important High Court ruling addressed the burning issue of how such sacrifices should be quantified in money terms in the event of divorce. The case concerned a former couple who met when they were both working for a leading law firm. After their relationship blossomed, they decided that it would be inappropriate for them to continue...

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...

High Court Acts to Rescue Company After Sole Shareholder's Death

27th July, 2020 By

If you are an entrepreneur and own your own company, that is all the more reason why you should take professional advice regarding the consequences that might arise on your death. In an unusual High Court case on point, a farm contracting business was left rudderless by the demise of its founder. The founder was the company's sole director and shareholder. His shares passed automatically to the executors of his estate when he died. However, the company was left without a director and its bank stated that it would not...