28 February 2003
Significant reply from Ramblers' Association 
The Ramblers' Association Working for Walkers

Anne Lee
WoMenwith Hill Women's Peace Camp(aign)
PO Box 105
Harrogate
HG3 2FE

Our ref: 4/8/13 28th February 2003

Dear Anne,

RAF Fylingdales and public access

Many thanks for your letter regarding your concerns about public access to Defence Estate land. Your letter and enclosures are very timely as the Ramblers' Association has similar concerns and we are just in the process of preparing a dossier outlining those concerns for a meeting on 4 March with Defence ERstates (which will also be attended by the Council for National Parks).

The dossier includes both concerns about RAF Fylingdales and Lakenheath which have already been raised by our local volunteers and your comments amplify those concerns.

As to the legislation, I'm afraid it is the case that the provisions within the 1842 Defence Act to divert or close rights of way remain in force. It has not been repealed by virtue of any later Acts (including the 1892 Act). The RA is deeply unhappy with the legislation remaining available for use.

No other legislation allows the government or a local authority to close public rights of way without any form of consultation, justification, and through simple notification on site rather than by an order and a map. In addition, there seems to be no restriction on the Secretary of State for Defence making an order for ANY right of way, even if it does not cross Defence Estate land. The only recourse the public have to challenge such a closure is through the courts and judicial review. As you can imagine this is very costly. At present the RA is investigating other ways to lobby for a change in the legislation, and at the very least seek assurances from the Secretary of State that other, more publicly accountable procedures, are used by Defence Estates when there are proposals to change the public path network (for instance the Highways Act 1980). The RA is a statutory consultee for Highways Act and other public path orders and this respect we would get to hear of the proposals, unlike the 1842 Act notices.

The 1842 Act contains a requirement that an alternative footpath or bridleway be provided, and can be done so across any land, even not in the ownership of Defence Estates. The Act says:

It shall be lawful for the principal officers of Her Majesty's ordnance…to stop up or divert any public footpaths or bridleways…provided that always that whenever any footpath or bridle road shall be stopped up as aforesaid, another path or road shall be provided in lieu thereof respectively, at the expense of the ordnance department and at such convenient distance therefrom as to the principal officers of her Majesty's ordnance shall deem proper and necessary.

The effect of the closure of bridleway number 524206 at Fylingdales was to extinguish the section which runs into the base. However, no alternative route was provided. Now the RA is aware of the proposal to extinguish the remaining section of bridleway, we will lobby to ensure that a useful alternative connecting route is established by Defence Estates and to this end we consider the proposals in the National Park committee report worthy of our support. In this respect we are pleased to see that Lewis Moonie (Under Secretary of State for Defence) has written to say that the Highways Act 1980 will be used instead of the 1842 legislation.

The Park's letter to you (dated 15 November 2002) is correct in providing you with the law on rights of way. If no legal orders have ever been made to close a path, it is true that the rights continue to exist even if the paths have fallen into disuse, or cannot be used because of obstruction. However, that does not look as if it is the case here as the effect of the 1962 orders would have extinguished all legal rights…

Donna O'Brien.

Rights of Way Policy Officer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------