# A Case in the Life of a Local Footpath Officer

*This study of a case handled by Dave Wetton demonstrates the sort of work that our LFOs undertake to ensure the best possible walking experience for the general public. It demonstrates that common sense and a methodical approach rather than detailed legal knowledge are the keys to success in many cases.*

Ramblers' volunteers are notified of proposed diversions at a consultation stage before KCC make the diversion orders, which enables LFOs to nudge proposals towards better outcomes before any of the parties have committed themselves.

In this case the original line of the path, MT42, is indicated by the green dotted line ABC on the map. The landowner was seeking to divert it to the red line ADEFGH which would have joined up with another path, MT46, at point H.

The starting point for Dave's investigation was to walk both the current and proposed routes and to seek views from other walkers, the Parish Footpath Observer and the Parish Council.

Next Dave looked at the case from the landowner's perspective. They had mentioned security and better land utilisation as the benefits of the diversion but as Dave dug deeper there seemed to be quite a lot of confusion as to the precise problem the landowners were trying to solve. Despite numerous enquiries, the only firm concern that emerged was of the security of the outbuildings at point 1, which Dave felt could be met by a much shorter diversion.

Comparing the current and proposed routes from a walker's perspective, the difference was huge. The current route, once past the outbuildings, followed a grassy ridge with panoramic views across to the Weald and in full sun. The proposed diversion descended into a gloomy area by a line of tall trees and drain at the bottom of the field which the Environment Agency's flood risk maps suggested was liable to flooding.

Dave was then able to respond to the consultation by addressing the legal principles on which any dispute would be decided:

- **Is the proposed diversion in the landowner's interests?** Dave was able to argue that it wasn't because the landowner's only clear need could be met by a much shorter and simpler remedy.
- **Is the proposed diversion "not substantially less convenient to the public"?** Dave argued that the test was not met because the proposed diversion is 53% longer (871 cf 570 metres) and will take walkers into a shady and potentially much wetter environment.
- **Can it be said that "the proposed diversion would not negatively impact upon public enjoyment of the route"?** Dave said not, because it loses all the views that were currently enjoyed and most of the sunshine and because it is also prone to waterlogging and flooding.
- **Is the new termination of the path "not substantially less convenient to the public"?** Dave said not, because most people walking the present route want to reach C, in order to connect with paths to Tonbridge or Powder Mills rather than H on MT46 in which case the extra 303m would be substantially less convenient.

Dave backed his analysis up with a detailed letter based on the site findings, recommending the much simpler security remedy for the outbuildings, sent it all off on 21 July 2021 and sat back and waited.

The outcome was that the landowners revised their proposal in line with Dave's suggestions, allowing him to accept it because, whilst adequately covering the security of the outbuildings, it now importantly retained the high level views for walkers. The applicant even promised to mow the new line for clarity. The order was made in May 2022.

This was a happy outcome for everyone, especially walkers. We need more volunteers to help protect walkers' interests this way. Please think about stepping forward to help.