Norfolk locals outraged after landowner threatens to block public shortcut

A UK farmer is locked in a dispute with his neighbours over a 300-year-old public walking track. 

Nigel Darling, a cattle farmer from the rural region of Norfolk, is threatening to close off a shortcut that runs through his property after “appalling” behaviour from locals. 

“Signs have been smashed and hedges that were only recently planted as part of a diversity drive have been ripped up,” Darling told Norwich Evening News. 

He claims locals have trampled farmland, driven cars off the track and walked dogs off leads. 

The shortcut at the centre of the dispute is a short 220-metre dirt track that has been in use by the community since 1697. It connects the local town of Costessey with a 41-kilometre cycling trail called the Marriott’s Way. 

Local councillor Gary Blundell and an anonymous neighbour are now seeking to officially make the track a ‘public footpath’ to prevent the landowner from blocking off access. 

In England, a ‘public footpath’ is a right of way where pedestrians have a legally protected right to travel, even if it runs through private land. 

It’s a criminal offence to obstruct all or part of a public footpath under English law.  

“If this track is closed it would add over a mile and a half onto the walking route into Drayton,” Councillor Blundell told the media outlet. 

“It should be added to the definitive map so that people can continue to enjoy it for hundreds of years into the future as they have done for hundreds of years in the past.” 

Darling states he “never wanted” to cut off community access to the shortcut, but that acts of vandalism have left him with no choice. 

“There was never any initial intention to close the path but in order to protect the habitat and new hedgerows we have planted we have to consider it,” he said. 

He plans to object to Councillor Blundell’s proposal to turn the track into a public right of way. 

“They’re quite within their right to apply for the path to be made a right of way but we would fight it because we need to retain the option to close the land because of the disrespect it’s received. 

“It’s up to the public how they want to proceed,” he said.