Public access to part of Ditton Meadows near Fen Ditton appears to be at risk. Landowners Gonville & Caius college have recently installed new gates and have re-routed one of the most popular footpaths away from the riverside into the adjacent field.
In my view Gonville & Caius’ actions have amounted to the obstruction of path which has been in long use and ought now be considered a public right of way.
The pedestrian gate at the Fen Ditton end of Ditton Meadows has recently been reconfigured to provide access to a different field than it used to. The footpath access gate no longer provides access to the riverside field.
I suspect the college may have acted in an effort to prevent the currently well used path being registered as a right of way in advance of the cut-off date of 1st January 2026 set in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 after which all unregistered historic rights of way will be “extinguished”. I would like to see the established, riverside, route recorded.
Official maps, including Ordinance Survey maps, of the footpath in the area do show the path to be away from the river, behind the hedge, however in my almost fifteen years of visiting the area that route has been almost entirely unused with almost all those travelling through the area using the established path in the riverside field. Maps do not reflect the actual location of the path. For much of the year the route of the path as on maps is impassable due to flooding or mud.
Actions
My Views
I would like to see greater access to the rural areas around Cambridge for both pedestrians and cyclists. I think this latest apparent restriction in access is a move in the wrong direction.
I like walking and cycling by the river in this location and am very concerned that the established path may be lost.
48 responses to “Ditton Meadows Riverside Footpath Blocked”
On the other side of the field there is another new gate, which if closed may obstruct the path:
Perhaps the installation of the post to hold the gate open wasn’t a campaigning success?
I am also concerned about the re routing of the path particularly in respect of its viability . The ground is uneven and far less accessible for anyone with mobility restrictions. The route itself is far less clear and could deter people. I also worry if it will be impassable in heavy rain conditions.
Cllr Onasanya has written to ask me if there’s anything she can help me with and has said she can help bring this to officers’ attention. She has sought my permission to pass on my message. I have replied:
Cllr Ian Manning has promised to act:
Richard many thanks for raising this issue. I have been meaning to do it. The route along the river is well established, I have been in Cambridge nearly 50 years and have always used the riverside route. Interestingly the quite old Fen Rivers sign at Fen Ditton also points in that direction not where the ‘official’ path goes.
I think there is a claim under:-
“The lack of clarity in common law as to what constitutes a ‘sufficient period’ of public use led Parliament to enact a law about presumed dedication. The law is now set out in section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, which says that if a route is enjoyed by the public for 20 years or more, as of right and without interruption, the path 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. – See more at: http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/improve-the-path-network/creating-a-right-of-way.aspx#sthash.NJPX4wer.dpuf”
Once again many thanks
Cambridgeshire’s definitive map has been offline; it is now available again.
It doesn’t show the established footpaths on the field; only the theoretical line which the changes appear designed to encourage use of is shown:
I’ve suggested that while Cllr Manning is contacting the definitive map officer in respect of the riverside path he could also formally record the established access in-front of the boathouses opposite Midsummer Common. It’s important for Cambridge that this gets registered before the 2026 cut-off date too:
I have received a response from the local County Councillor:
While getting the path re-opened would of course be excellent; I would still like to see it recorded as a public right of way given its established use to prevent these problems reoccurring in the future. I have replied to Cllr Williams to make this point.
Cllr Williams has replied to me again:
A declaration under subsection 6 of the Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 doesn’t appear to impact the ability to register a right of way on the basis of an unchallenged use by the public, as of right, for at least 20 years; subsection 9 looks quite clear:
I hope the landowner isn’t the one advising the council on the law, however Hampshire and Wiltshire County Councils at least agree with his interpretation.
In this case though the notice was not accompanied by any action on the ground – the gate, and gaps in the hedge providing access remained open and the path remained in use.
Our councils should publish such declarations online.
I can’t see any arrangements for publicising notices under subsection 31(6) and enabling people to object to them in Cambridgshire.
While Cllr Williamson asserts showing the path was used for 20 years or more before 1999 will be impossible, if that was required, I think statements from individuals combined perhaps with old photos could provide such evidence. I note the period extends to before I was born.
Cllr Manning has blogged to say: “the often walked path was never a legally allowed right of way”.
http://eastchesterton.mycouncillor.org.uk/2015/07/22/ditton-meadows-fen-ditton-walking-route-right-of-way/
Is it legal or reasonable to submit a notice of admitting a dedication of a path under S31(6) of the Highways Act 1980 even if there’s no sign on the ground of that path?
A map published in 1920 appears to show the well used footpath:
Here’s an even older one: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sidebyside.cfm#zoom=15&lat=52.2211&lon=0.1587&layers=1&right=BingHyb
…and this one says “F.P.” http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sidebyside.cfm#zoom=17&lat=52.2214&lon=0.1621&layers=6&right=BingHyb
The latter 1883-1913 map appears to have the path marked in the way it is on the online definitive map. Has this issue of the official path differing from the actual path been going on for over 130 years or has the path moved over time?
Dear Richard,
You tweeted me regarding footpath issues at Ditton Meadows.
Have I got this right? The route that the public have been using (the used
route) is not recorded in the Definitive Map & Statement (DM&S). The used
route has now been blocked to prevent the public from using it. Access to
the route shown in the DM&S (the definitive route) had been obstructed but
is now available, via a gate(s).
Judging by what you and others have said in your blog, you seem to
understand the general legal situation and have covered most angles.
If it were me then I would:
1. Contact the County Council’s Definitive Map Officer to confirm: (a)
the precise position of the definitive route, and, (b) whether or not the
used route has ever been claimed as a public right of way, or recorded as
one and been diverted. I would also ask, as nicely as possible, for a free
copy of a plan of the area at a suitable scale to accompany an application
for a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO). I would also ask for a copy
of the statement – the statement contained in the DM&S.
2. Make a DMMO application to add a public right of way to the DM&S,
having gathered user and other evidence in support of the claim.
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/info/20012/arts_green_spaces_and_activities/199/definitive_map_and_statement
Some points:
1. Cambridgeshire County Council’s online map is not the DM&S; it is
likely to be a working copy incorporating events which have changed the map
since the DM&S was last published. (The Council as the highway
authority/surveying authority have a legal duty to consolidate all changes
and republish the DM&S periodically.)
2. The section 31 declaration isn’t the be all and end all. In my opinion
such declarations can be challenged – it might not have been advertised
properly, or for whole period since 1999, or renewed correctly, etc.
3. Is the precise definitive route available for use? Is it obstructed in
any way?
4. Are any gates or stiles authorised? That is to say, recorded in the
Statement accompanying the Definitive Map, or by certificate? If not then a
structure such as a gate or stile may be considered an obstruction? (Not all
paths have a Statement.)
5. Is the width of the definitive path recorded in the Statement or
elsewhere (an Inclosure Award for example)?
6. Has the landowner and/or others discouraged/prevented the public from
using the definitive route in any way? Does an image on your blog show it
blocked? Are there signs/waymark discs on the definitive route?
7. Has the landowner and/or others encouraged the public to use the used
route? Signs – is that council finger post pointing to the used route? Have
Waymark Posts/Discs been erected? Promoted Walk – has the used route been
shown on a Council leaflet or online?
8. Have there ever been signs on site to inform the public that the used
route is not a public right of way.
9. All of the above may compromise any efforts to encourage the landowner
to dedicate the used route as a public right of way which it is in their
power to declare. But in my opinion that should not outweigh the fact that
it might already be a public right of way and that it is just unrecorded.
10. The landowner does have the power to create a permissive route but that
can be disposed of just as easily at the whim of the current or future
landowner.
11. Consider joining the Open Spaces Society! Our headquarters can offer
proper legal advice, which you may require at a later stage. I am just a
layman in these matters.
12. It is a hard fact for some people to swallow but a used route can be
unrecorded public right of way. If it is then a new right is not being
requested – an old right is being asserted.
I hope my comments are of use. Feel free to use them in part or in full in
any way you choose but bear in mind they are just my personal thoughts on
the issue at hand. I commend you for your worthy efforts so far. I hope that
you will stick with it for the benefit of the public. Feel free to come back
to me if you think that I may be able to help further.
Regards,
Brian
Brian Cowling
OSS Local Correspondent, Bedford Borough
website http://www.oss.org.uk
The Open Spaces Society is a registered charity (no 1144840) and a company
limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales (no 7846516).
http://ossbedford.blogspot.co.uk/
My thoughts on Brian’s very helpful points:
Perhaps if councillors supported the application we could get officers to help here – surely they’re well placed to accurately record the well used route?
As for collecting evidence – how about trying to interview people on video – asking them about their knowledge of the path.
I can see this is a good idea; but I think encouraging people to fill in formal forms might be difficult.
I think that’s a reasonable summary; the only point I’d add is that the work re-directing the path appears to be currently in-progress – that’s work which looks to be aimed at obstructing the old path and trying to make the new route passable.
Does this mean a Freedom of Information request for the relevant excerpt of the Definitive Map and Statement would be in order?
Material which is accessible via inspection is can be obtained via FOI. Using FOI via WhatDoTheyKnow.com means the released material will become easily accessible to all.
I’m not sure how to check that; but our council doesn’t appear to have any online system for making such notices available and I’ve not noticed any advertising in the time I’ve been in Cambridge.
Via that link two submissions, minus their attached plans, are available:
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1793/section_31_6_114
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1888/section_31_6_209_2005
The first refers to a Countryside Stewardship agreement with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and also claims notices stating that no new right of way is being created have been posted at the main entry points. There are no such notices present today, nor have I seen any at this location.
There are two points where the route is regularly impassable due to mud or water In one location this is so bad that the landowner has installed a piece of infrastructure to bridge the mud before attempting to move the path. The new route is flooded much more often than the old one and on occasion is completely flooded; on other occasions it is completely blocked by ice.
It sounds like we need to get hold of the statement as noted under “1.” above to check this.
Prior to the recent changes the signage and gates encouraged use of the established path rather than the one on the online definitive map and current OS maps.
Signage, gates have only very recently been installed on the new path and the works currently appear in progress. There is no signage of the new path when approaching the area from upstream as yet. The nearest signage upstream is on the small footbridge which is close to the river, suggesting a riverside route.
Yes. Prior to the recent changes all signage, and the pedestrian gates, encouraged the use of the well established well used route.
I don’t know of any official promotion of the established route; though as noted above it does appear to be shown on an old map from 1920.
No. Quite the opposite there the gates and public footpath sign-age suggest the opposite.
The County Council’s name and phone number are on the newly installed footpath marker signs; suggesting they have some kind of role in relation to the new path.
I suspect the landowner may be seeking to go down this route so they, or a future owner, can revoke access.
I think this was a very helpful series of comments – thanks Brian.
The established footpath is currently shown on Open Street Map
Richard,
It would be easier to respond to your comments and easier for others reading them if my further comments were attached immediately following yours as itemised (hope I’ve explained that well enough to understand).
To that end, are you able to email me your responses to my comments as listed above and then insert my further replies in the relevant numbered bullet points?
Brian
I’ve incorporated Brian’s further comments above
Brian suggested trying to find a map produced by a local council showing the established path.
A map displayed on the High Street in Fen Ditton – on a board containing South Cambridgeshire District Council’s name and logo shows the established path:
The new path was flooded on the 24th of July 2015:
I have reported the flooding and obstruction via FixMyStreet.com
https://www.fixmystreet.com/report/667230
Reports can be tracked via the council’s utterly uninformative system:
http://www2.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/HighwaysReports/Highways/TrackProblem.aspx?mapid=HW_115204
http://www2.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/HighwaysReports/Highways/TrackProblem.aspx?mapid=HW_114792
I’ve made a FOI request to South Cambridgeshire District Council for any information they have on the established use of the path:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/riverside_footpath_ditton_meadow
I’ve also asked Natural England for information on the stewardship agreements and grants relating to the land:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/countryside_stewardship_agreemen
Gonville and Caius College have sent me a copy of a memorandum dated 2 June 2015 from their agents Bidwells to Fen Ditton Parish Council:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/280374/response/686878/attach/html/3/Fen%20Ditton%20Meadows%20Footpaths%20Memo%202.6.15%201.pdf.html
The memo suggests that people using the footpath during the university bumps causes the college a “real problem” and they want to be able to “exclude” people from the riverside field.
The statement ” Some time ago, following various complaints about the state of the public footpath, it was agreed that the County Council would upgrade the surface of the route.” makes me wonder if the County Council have funded elements of the path diversion and the new infrastructure.
The minutes of the July meeting of Fen Ditton Parish Council state:
However the agenda for the August meeting doesn’t appear to contain a relevant item. It is possible Mr Bull will just use the “open forum”.
The council appears a bit of a shambles, the agenda for the August meeting inexplicably describes the meeting as an extraordinary one and their standing orders ban filming without the council’s permission and don’t mention the “open forum” agenda item (they do refer to public representations on agenda items). Despite a published agenda the council’s meetings page states in bold on its first line: “There is no meeting in August.”.
Roland Bull of Bidwells called me this morning to say he is not able to attend the August meeting of Fen Ditton Parish Council but hopes to arrange to attend the next one.
Mr Bull also told me the changes were prompted following discussions with Cambridgeshire County Council in respect of their responsibilities to maintain the right of way; the council then noted the gate near the high street was not properly installed and that kicked off the changes.
Mr Bull said it has become apparent that people valued the existing path so steps will be taken to re-open it; though closing it regularly. Mr Bull proactively denied any of the college’s actions, or plans, were intended to prevent the registration of rights of way.
I have asked Cambridgeshire County Council to release information they hold on the footpath:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/recent_changes_to_the_footpath_o
Cambridgeshire County Council have replied to my Freedom of Information request.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/recent_changes_to_the_footpath_o
Released correspondence show Bidwells, who manage the area on behalf of Gonville and Caius College, have said of the blocked footpath:
A letter released says Cambridge Ramblers can date use of the established footpath back to 1965.
The response shows the view of one council officer is that board-walks and several bridges would be required to make the college’s preferred new route for a footpath passable.
The response also shows many people have written to the council about the footpath; I know the released material is not comprehensive as my own reports, including via FixMyStreet.com on Sunday 26 July 2015 and a separate report acknowledged as “Countryside Access- Rights of Way problem report form – Ref. 6047794” dated the 16th of July 2015 have not been included in the material released in response to the FOI request dated the 3rd of August. It appears others have had responses to their reports from the council, I am awaiting a response to mine, I’ve only had an automated acknowledgement.
The release also reveals:
That’s the structure installed in a location which is regularly under water.
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge have failed to respond to my Freedom of Information request to them within the maximum time limit set out by the Freedom of Information Act:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/new_gates_at_ditton_meadows_near#incoming-686878
The material released by Cambridgeshire County Council reveals Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge were extorting the council, which perhaps explains why the council co-operated over the redirection of the footpath and even spent public funds on infrastructure for the new, often flooded and impassable, route.
The college appears to be threatening to make the council seek a compulsory purchase order in respect of the proposed new foot/cycle route and bridge rather than negotiating with the council for use of the land.
The college’s agents Bidwells wrote:
The Cambridge News has now covered this : When is a footpath not a footpath? Extraordinary row over walkways on Ditton Meadows.
The Cambridge News has an article: Gonville and Caius College to re-open access to riverside footpath on Ditton Meadows after row which reports new gates are to be installed to reinstate access to the path.
While this is excellent news and a campaigning success I think the path should still be registered as a right of way to prevent the path being blocked in the future.
I think councillors should look into why their officers were so quick to throw public money at helping the landowners divert the path to the detriment of users.
A Freedom of Information response from Gonville and Caius College claims they have no records of what Bidwells were doing on their behalf:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/new_gates_at_ditton_meadows_near#incoming-693904
Natural England have released details of what they require from the landowner in return for the public money they receive for their “stewardship” of Ditton Meadows:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/282500/response/697175/attach/html/3/3049%20response.pdf.html
I asked my councillors at the North Area Committee on the 10th of September 2015 to ask officers to pro-actively consider registering the path as a right of way.
I’ve published my contribution at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bWYq1Whkvc&t=22m43s
It’s a stile not a style.
mySociety is offering a chance to win hoodies to people who submit videos showing examples of where WhatDoTheyKnow has helped people get things changed. I made a video to enter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv2QyNXQ9-c&feature=youtu.be
Latest:
The path has now been registered as a permissive access path which can be closed with three months’ notice:
http://my.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/myCambridgeshire.aspx?MapSource=CCC/AllMaps&Layers=row,row-TROs&tab=maps
hbx nab M BKMQWCDBM CACD BMQ BM