As the guardians of the path network, the Ramblers takes on legal casework to protect the places we love to walk. Our legal work holds councils and local authorities to account.  

 

Grange over Sands, Westmorland and Furness 

The coastal town of Grange over Sands, once in Cumbria, now in Westmorland and Furness, is cut off from the sea by the railway which connects London Euston with the north-west, and there are not many crossing points where townspeople can get to the seafront.  

One crossing is Bailey Lane, a residential street that ends for vehicles as a cul-de-sac at the railway; a pedestrian-level crossing allows walkers to reach the seafront. Very many properties nearby benefit. Network Rail persuaded Cumbria County Council to make an order diverting the way, under section 119A of the Highways Act 1980; i.e, extinguishing the crossing and making pedestrians go a very long way round, well out of their way, on busy and narrow pavements and over a car park. The Ramblers, led by volunteer Dennis Pook, and locals objected.  

When objections are placed to a council’s order like this, the council cannot confirm the order, and if they want it confirmed they have to submit it to the Secretary of State for determination by an Inspector, usually by means of a local public inquiry. That is what happened here, with an inquiry being held in November 2021. Dennis gave evidence of the attractive, vehicle-free quality of the path to be shut and also told the inquiry of the relative danger from vehicles caused by forcing pedestrians on to the alternative route, and of the disincentive of using it because of frequent obstruction by badly parked cars (for which the order of course guaranteed no remedy).  

Dr Michael Green, another local Rambler, explained in a Proof of Evidence what a boon to him and his wife the crossing was, not least enabling them to go shopping on foot and not to have to carry their purchases home by a longer convoluted route involving the unappealing car park near the Commodore hotel.  

Their arguments together with the evidence of other witnesses led the Inspector to decide that the crossing was not so dangerous as to merit closure.  She also found that it could be made safer. For these and other reasons she did not confirm the order. 

Unbelievably, Cumbria County Council councillors, going against the formal recommendation of their own officers, next made another order, this time under section 118A of the Highways Act, to extinguish the path. Its effect would be precisely the same as the order rejected by the Inspector, and the criteria for confirming it were identical too: but they were able to make the order because of an artificial technical difference.  The Ramblers (and others) objected again. We instructed a barrister (Luke Wilcox, Landmark Chambers) who made a superb legal submission to the council – by now Westmorland and Furness Council, who inherited the order – to the effect that on the res judicata principle (that the matter had been gone over in full and had been decided already, by the Inspector at the inquiry into the section 119A order), the order was in fact unlawful. This resulted in Westmorland and Furness Council rescinding the order in November 2023, instead of submitting it to the Secretary of State for a public inquiry to be held.   

In other words, the Council has abandoned the proposal. We hope this might be the end of the story. The trouble is, there is another provision in the Highways Act 1980 that enables Network Rail to go directly to the Secretary of State for Transport and ask her for an order to extinguish the path, on identical grounds to the ones already rejected by the Inspector at public inquiry. 

 Support our legal work and donate today.