Crime Prevention, School Security and Rights of Way

Crime prevention and antisocial behaviour

There are two ways a highway authority can make changes to the rights of way network for reasons of crime and/or antisocial behaviour: the first allows an authority to extinguish or divert a right of way for crime prevention reasons only; the second allows an authority to restrict access to a right of way as a means of tackling crime and/or antisocial behaviour, usually by placing a locked gate across it.

Permanent orders for crime prevention
Highway authorities' power to extinguish (i.e. close forever) or divert a right of way for crime prevention reasons is provided by s118B and s119B of the Highways Act 1980. Use of the power is now rare as authorities are increasingly using the less rigorous alleygating procedure (see below). A crime is an act which may give rise to a prosecution - instances of antisocial behaviour may not count as crimes, and may not therefore be capable of giving rise to an extinguishment or diversion order.

Certain criteria must be satisfied before a highway authority can legally divert or extinguish a right of way for crime prevention reasons:

• The authority must have successfully applied to the Secretary of State for an order designating the area in which the path is situated as one which suffers badly from crime.
• The authority must have consulted with the relevant police authority about the proposal.
• The authority must be able to demonstrate the following:
  a) that the right of way is facilitating crime;
  b) that diverting or extinguishing it would help to prevent crime;
  c) that the order is expedient in all of the circumstances, including the impact the order would have on users of the right of way.

The public has a right of objection to an extinguishment or diversion order, and a right to be heard before an independent inspector. The procedure for extinguishing or diverting a path for crime prevention reasons is the same as for any other public path order.

Alleygating
A highway authority may make a gating order to restrict access to a right of way where it considers it is advantageous to do so to tackle crime or antisocial behaviour. A gating order may restrict access at certain times of the day, to certain people and may be revoked, whereas an extinguishment or diversion order (see above) is universal and permanent.

The Ramblers' is concerned about gating orders because the procedure under which they are made contains little provision for members of the public to have their views heard. Hundreds of paths have been gated across the country, and whilst many of these closures are justifiable others have restricted heavily used and useful routes despite huge local opposition. The Ramblers' has joined a coalition of organisations that's campaigning for change in the gating order procedure to allow more meaningful input from local people.

To make a gating order a highway authority must be able to demonstrate the following:

• The premises next to the right of way are affected by crime or antisocial behaviour.
• The existence of the right of way is facilitating persistent crime or antisocial behaviour.
• It is advantageous in all the circumstances - including the effect on people who use the path and the availability of a convenient alternative route - to gate the right of way.

School security

The extinguishment and diversion of a right of way that crosses school grounds can be authorised for reasons of school security. The following criteria must be satisfied for an order to be legally made:

• The order must be expedient for the purpose of protecting staff or pupils from violence, threats of violence, harrassment and alarm or distress arising from any criminal activity.
• The order must be expedient in all the circumstances, in particular having regard to:
  a) any alternative measures which have been or could be taken to improve security;
  b) whether it is likely that the coming into operation of the order will result in a substantial improvement in school security;
  c) the availability of a reasonably convenient alternative route and whether it is possible to divert rather than extinguish the right of way.
  

The public has a right of objection to an extinguishment or diversion order, and a right to be heard before an independent inspector. The procedure for extinguishing or diverting a path for school security reasons is the same as for any other public path order.