There's something missing from that story somewhere. Its basically saying there is an established right of way along the footpath, and also says that residents were written to. Half of them probably binned the letter without bothering to read it properly. The article only says one of the streets are privately owned, and not the footpath. IIRC, if a route has been used regularly by people for a certain number of years, it can be made a right of way by default regardless of who owns it. I find it difficult to believe that WCC have apparently just turned up to widen a footpath that isn't theirs onto land that isn't theirs without any kind of legal basis.
The liability thing annoys me - are they going to refuse the postman (probably with bicycle), bin lorry, couriers, newspaper deliverers access in case one of them falls over on their "private" road and they get a compensation claim?
wafflycat said:
As regards liability - if the road is indeed private (unadopted) they could well have a legitimate point if someone comes off by say, hitting a pothole. Seems to me it's more like a bad choice of location by Sustrans & local authority. But hey, what's new in that department!
