Cardinham Church FP3

Footpath No 3 at Cardinham Church - Open Again

	Remembering Doris Montefiore, a disabled lady who campaigned to get this path re-opened and died before succeeding. She knew saving this path was important for the future benefit of the disabled
	Cornwall Council asserted in 2002 there was no Right of Way from this track into this gate of Cardinham Church. Then in 2008 CC backed down and agreed there was a RoW The Landowner had claimed: - "You can walk along this track, but can't go to the Church Gate." Cornwall Council (CC), and Cardinham Parish Council (CPC) supported him.

Click Picture to see details of the South Gate	Footpath FP3 has run along this lane for 200 years. It's on the Definitive Map And the South Gate of the Church has been here for 200 years. Common sense tells you FP 3 goes to the Gate. Go and have a look. We are sure you will agree .
	There should not have been any argument. A legal PRESUMPTION, quoted in all reference books and walkers guides, proves it. "Where a right of way is shown running along a bounded track, the area available for use by the public is deemed to be all that between the boundaries" This track is bounded by stone walls. So FP 3 fills the track and goes to the Gate.
	Landowner, Parish Councillor, Mr A Searle, claimed: - "The DM proves FP 3 is to the right of this lane So its separated from the Church by 3m of my private land, so the ramp is not part of FP 3." [NB. The only other "evidence" he gave to CC has no value: - a) Photos (2No) showing the ramp in an overgrown state. b) An unsupported claim that the Gate was a private access to Church for the Rector. c) The line of young trees is irrelevant. They were planted by the landowner.]

	We didn't believe this. So we asked CC. CC said said the owner was right. AND THIS IS THE DM CC SAID PROVED IT. - Don't enlarge it - its actual size! CC evidently didn't know, or had forgotten: - a) A line on the DM shows only a path's existence, not its precise position b) The DM at a scale of 1;10,000 is not accurate to +/- 3mtr. c) 50 years, repeated transcription has introduced demonstrable "creep" to FP 3 d) The above PRESUMPTION.

	It took us 7 years to get CC to agree that FP 3 goes to the Church Gate. These 7 Senior Officers in CC's Footpath and Legal Departments all got involved: - Definitive Map Officer: Definitions Officer (2No): Senior Field Officer: Legal Assistant: Senior Legal Assistant: Head of Highways Planning and Property at CC Legal Services.

	Now read some of their letters (NB. Irrelevant paragraphs have been omitted for clarity. Complete letters and the rest of the correspondence are available on request. Names and signatures are omitted.)

	1. From DEFINITION OFFICER, 1/3/2002 This hostile letter tries to end the matter by asserting: - a) FP 3 does not provide a public right of way to the Gate. b) CC has closed the matter unless you make a Modification Order Applicationcan (MO). - CAN HE REALLY BE UNFAMILIAR WITH BOTH THE DM AND THE PRESUMPTION?

	So we had no option. We made the MO. CC accepted the Application 21/5/2002 This provided CC with loads of documentary, user and historical evidence. In response the Land owner provided none.

	2. From DEFINITIVE MAP OFFICER 14/1/2004 An extraordinary letter from the top footpath expert, 2 years after we made our MO. He still supports the Landowners claim that FP 3 does not go to the Gate! CAN HE REALLY BE UNFAMILIAR WITH BOTH THE DM AND THE PRESUMPTION?

	3. From SENIOR LEGAL ASSISTANT 23/6/2008 Another extraordinar letter, over 6 years after we made our MO This is a complete reversal by CC. It now admits a) The "PRESUMPTION" alone proves FP 3 spans the whole track and goes to the Gate b) The DM merely shows FP 3 runs along the track, not its position. c) The landowner has never effectively challenged use of the path. d) The MO and evidence it provided was not needed. We had all wasted our time. e) So all the footpath experts who visited site should have said this 6 years before!!
	4. From SENIOR FIELD OFFICER 29/5/2002 This internal Memo raises grave concerns that CC is biased to the landowner The Officer had obviously visited the site and consulted the land owner. a) His comment,, "..the owner of the land affected is not quite so happy with Mr Bonker's approach.." is totally irrelevant to a MO Application. b) Speculation about use of the path (disabled or other) is irrelevant to a MO. c) Speculation that CC might deal with disabled access by spending Chargepayer's money, "..carrying out works to the northern gateway and persuade Mr Bonker to withdraw his Application." is totally irrelevant to the MO application. HE ALSO SEEMS UNFAMILIAR WITH BOTH THE DM AND THE PRESUMPTION. .

	5. From CARDINHAM PARISH COUNCIL 19/9/2002 CPC didn't know that this well used path past the Church, in the village centre - GOES TO THE SOUTH GATE!! That must be rubbish. a) Councillors and their families must know the path. They have lived here for years. b) Why would CPC not try to preserve the path for the future benefit parishioners? c) Why would CPC support closing the path?

	CONCLUSION a) There has always been a RoW to the Gate. We are grateful CC is now able to admit it. b) It is outrageous CC closed the path without demanding the landowner give any evidence. CC insisted we submit, a Modification Order to even continue discussion, obviously expecting this would frighten us off. c) But when we submitted the MO, CC knew it could not defend a refusal at Appeal. So CC backed down. But it took 6 years to do it. d) CC 's wrong decision wasted chargepayers money and Officers time, which would have been better employed on genuine public path problems. A REASONABLE PERSON, AWARE OF THE FACTS, MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT CC HAD SHOWN BIAS IN FAVOUR OF THE LANDOWNER AND ATTEMPTED TO FURTHER THAT BIAS, USING ITS RESOURCES, AND USING ITS DEFECTIVE DM AS EVIDENCE. CC MUST PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO THIS CONCLUSION, SO THAT: - a) FOOTPATH USERS TRUST CC'S LEGAL AND FOOTPATH DEPARTMENTS. b) CHARGEPAYERS ARE CONFIDENT THEIR MONEY IS BEING PROPERLY SPENT. ..