Hoogstraten footpath appeal

A COUNTRYSIDE campaigner's legal bid to make East Sussex County Council unblock a footpath running across the estate of disgraced property tycoon Nicholas Van Hoogstraten moved to London's Court of Appeal this week.

Hoogstraten was convicted at the Old Bailey of manslaughter earlier this year.

Kate Ashbrook former chair of the Ramblers Association failed in March this year in a High Court claim in which she argued that the council had ignored its own policy in considering an application by Van Hoogstraten's company Rarebargain Ltd to divert the 140-year-old footpath.

This week she renewed her battle before three of the country's top judges over the path known as 'Framfield 9' which runs across the High Cross Park Estate near Uckfield where Hoogstraten was building a vast luxury mansion.

In the decision under appeal Mr Justice Grigson dismissed her legal challenge, ruling that the council had acted well within its powers of discretion in refusing to take immediate action and send in its workmen to clear obstacles blocking the path, despite a court order directing their removal.

But this week, Ms Ashbrook's counsel, George Laurence QC, argued before Lords Justices Schiemann and Dyson and Lady Justice Arden that the judge had been wrong, and that the council had acted unlawfully.

He said: ' This appeal raises important issues relating to the obligations of local authorities to protect public footpaths and bridleways in the face of flagrant and provocative obstruction of such paths by landowners.

'The council is under statutory duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to use and enjoy such public rights of way. It has powers to remove obstructions. It has powers to consider applications for diversions to the line of a public footpath but has a clear stated policy not to proceed with making diversion orders while the existing line is blocked.

'In breach of those obligations and that policy, the council has unlawfully failed to remove the obstructions and promoted the making of a diversion order. Ms Ashbrook challenges those actions.'

He said she brought this case 'in the public interest', and had earlier brought successful prosecutions over obstructions against Rarebargain in the magistrates' court. He said that Rarebargain's total fines stand at 86,350, with a costs order against it of 6,900, but none of this has been paid.

Judgement in the case will be given in writing at a later date.