Neighbours dispute over footpath

The path running at the rear boundary of 25 Deerswood Lane has been diverted and now cuts between two houses at Broad Oak Lane.

Mrs Jeanette Simmons, of Broad Oak Lane has been fighting against the pathway, which is claimed to be re-routed illegally, invades privacy and prevents views of the farmland behind.

She said: "As far as we are concerned the pathway was put in place before permission was granted. We have raised this with the council but we have been far from happy with their response.

"It has changed the house which we originally bought. The reason we moved here was the seclusion and the views of farmland to the rear. But the pathway and the new fence changed all that.

"I am very disappointed about the way this has been dealt with. I have spoken to the council and the public right of way officer but nothing has been done."

In February 2005 conditional planning permission was passed but separate permission was still required to re-direct the public footpath.

However, in April 2005 - before permission was granted - work began and the new footpath was installed.

Meanwhile, at number 38, planning permission had recently been granted, despite a restricted covenant clause, to build a bungalow on their garden. A fence was placed around the land, blocking out the diverted public footpath.

Mr Titterton said: "It used to cut across our garden so I think it is better where it is now. I have put up a fence around it so the pathway does not cause any problem for me.

"The pathway gets used by dog walkers and people from the local area it does not lead to anywhere and it doesn't bring in extra people to the area."

A spokesman for East Sussex County Council Rights of Way said: "It was not a decision we made. We were consulted and looked at the application and we felt there was no problem with it. But ultimately is was not our decision and it is for Rother to account for its decision and the applicant to react publicly to that decision if they so wish."

Rother Council planning department said: "It started off with an application for a bungalow which had some objections, but was granted.

"The footpath was then diverted and was granted a retrospective diversion order which was confirmed in October 2006.

"We have since checked the work with regard to the diversion and we are satisfied the job has been done correctly. The diverted pathway is at the required two metres in width but I believe there is a section of the original pathway that is only 1.5 metres but that is for the East Sussex Rights of Way to deal with because it's an original footpath."