PROWL - Public Rights of Way Langness

The Langness peninsula footpaths inquiry has now closed, and we await the recommendations of the Highways Inspector.

Excerpts from Ian Costain's closing statement to the inquiry, on behalf of Public Rights of Way Langness.

Introduction

Langness is a triangle of land with Hango Hill and Fort Island to its north and the coast between Langness Point and Dreswick Point to its south. When Public Rights of Way Langness was first formed, it was concerned with this whole area and the lack of designated Rights of Way. At the very beginning of the inquiry, I produced evidence that we have been campaigning to have a comprehensive settlement in respect of all the traditional footpaths.

A ‘Manx Independent’ article in February 2006, a briefing paper to election candidates in October 2006, the ‘Powerpoint’ presentation to Tynwald members and Castletown and Malew Commissioners, together with many interviews in the media have all made it clear that we were drawing attention to the whole network of paths around and across Langness, with the closing of one small but important section being an indication of what might happen in the future, unless steps were taken to recognise the existence of Rights of Way ‘as yet unrecorded’.

While the local press has chosen to characterise the inquiry as ‘The Right to Roam v. the Right to Privacy’, both of these considerations are in fact irrelevant.   The Public Rights of Way group is drawing attention to a set of clearly defined paths, the majority length of which has been in public use for a hundred years or more. We have not asked for a Right to Roam; we have not asked for new footpaths to be created. We have simply asked for the existence of the traditional paths to be recognised and ratified.

Other considerations irrelevant at this inquiry include the identity of the present owners and their personal circumstances. For three years as media spokesman for PRoWL, I have made a point of trying to de-personalise the issue. Whoever had closed the relevant length of footpath, those of us who believe these footpaths constitute important public rights of way would still be here and putting our case to you as forcibly as we have done at this inquiry.

Further, the fact that the existence of these footpaths may be personally inconvenient to the landowners is a matter of no relevance to the issues the inquiry has to determine.

Langness is a very special place. It is special for its flora and fauna, including its lesser mottled grasshopper; it is special for its geology, including the rock arches; it is special for its maritime history, including the Herring Tower, the wreck of the ‘Provider’, the Mariners’ Graveyard and one of the first operational foghorns; it is special for its military history, including its Iron Age fort and gun emplacements guarding the approaches to RAF Ronaldsway; it is special for its mining history, its view along the whole range of Manx hills, its atmosphere on a quiet summer’s afternoon and its wildness in a winter’s storm; it is special for the place it holds in the memories of Manx people and their visitors.

We are not claiming that being special is enough to have Rights of Way granted, but rather that the attractions of the place have brought people in their thousands over the years, that these people have left their mark on the ground where they walked, that they have created public footpaths that are as clear to a visiting walker as they are to satellite imaging and Google Earth. These paths are the legacy of previous generations, and need recognition and protection in order to serve the needs of the future.

I believe that, having read and heard the evidence, this inquiry is only concerned with considering and determining two issues: first, is there evidence that the footpaths on Langness, as shown on the Department of Transport’s most recent notated map at this inquiry, have been enjoyed by the public as of right, and without interruption, for 21 years and, secondly, is there evidence that successive landowners have performed overt acts such as the posting of notices or closing of the footpaths, sufficient to negate an intention to dedicate, before a 21 year period has elapsed.

Evidence that highways have been created

First point: is there evidence of enjoyment by the public as of right and without interruption for 21 years?   The inquiry has been shown a set of 127 sworn affidavits in respect of the smaller of the Langness Circular Paths, starting at the DoT car park, passing east-west south of the line of the Iron Age defensive mound, following the eastern coast to a point south of the lighthouse, following the southern coast to a point above the Dreswick Harbour/ Port Bravag junctions and then following the western coast back to the car park.

The Public Rights of Way group chose to go down the route of making affidavit forms available to the public in order to ensure that people thought seriously about the claims that they were making. We had been advised that half-a-dozen would be plenty, and ten would be overkill, but people weren’t to be put off by the legal phraseology, the seriousness of the undertaking or the need to arrange to meet a Justice of the Peace.

The people of Derbyhaven, Castletown, Ballasalla and beyond, people who had walked this path and many others on Langness for as long as they could remember, wanted to be involved. The list of names showed that these people were from families that had lived in the area for hundreds of years: Cain, Collister, Cooil, Cowley, Craine, Creer, Cregeen, Crowe, Cubbon, among others. If anyone knew about the footpaths of Langness, it was these people, many of them middle-aged and older, who had lived in the area and walked its paths not just for 21 years but for a lifetime. They knew that they had walked along the eastern coast, the western coast, and the Powder House path. They knew that they had walked south of the lighthouse. They knew that they had walked it all openly, without force and without challenge, and they would put their name to it.

And there were the letters to the Department of Transport, made available to the inquiry, overwhelmingly in support of the contention that rights of way had been created by continuous, open, unchallenged use. Not all the letters were supportive, but even the writers of letters in favour of the landowners’ exclusion of the public were not able to claim that they had been turned back by a landowner, or told by a landowner that they needed permission to walk the paths, or seen a notice saying ‘No Entry’, or ‘Keep Out’ or ‘Lighthouse business only’, or ‘Hotel Guests and Golfers Only’.

I made reference to the various guide books to the Isle of Man. In the 19th century, even before Dreswick Point had a lighthouse, ‘Jenkinson’s Practical Guide’ and the Manx writer and poet T.E.Brown were recommending a coastal walk around the whole Langness peninsula. In the 20th century, the various editions of the respected guide books produced by both Black and Ward Lock continued to recommend the coastal route, a practice that extended into the present century with such publications as the Cicerone Guide.

Documents referred to at the inquiry have included a 1955 letter from the Town Clerk of Castletown in which he listed the public footpaths in the immediate vicinity. One of these was ‘Footpath around the Langness Peninsula’.

Another document produced was a letter from the Planning Enforcement Officer to the Chairman and Members of the Planning Committee in 1976. He records that the tenant farmer, with forty-two years of experience on Langness, ‘asserts that pedestrian access has never been challenged over his land, pedestrians kept principally to the seaward fringes and on towards Langness Point.’ In other words, they were using the coastal path and the spur out to Langness Point.

*****

The inquiry has heard from a broad cross-section of local people, who were clearly truthful and honest witnesses, and who spoke with experience and calm authority about their use of the footpaths on Langness. The witnesses spoke of permission being neither given nor refused, there being no barriers or locked gates, and there being no disregard of ‘No Access’ or ‘No Footpath’ signs or similar, or of verbal or other warnings from the landowner. There is an overwhelming weight of evidence of extensive and regular enjoyment of the footpaths, for a period of more than 21 years prior to 2005 in the case of the the land owned by Mr and Mrs Clarkson, and for the period of 21 years to the present day in the case of all other footpaths on the peninsula.

Mr Ramsden (the QC representing the Clarksons) claims that the state of mind of landowners – their intention not to dedicate a path as a way – matters more than that of the walkers, who might believe they use a path ‘as of right’. The House of Lords ruling in the Godmanchester and Drain case would indicate otherwise. The Lords ruled that the landowners’ state of mind is insufficient – the intention not to dedicate a path must be communicated to the public by the landowner. In the case of the network of Langness paths, the landowners have failed to convey such contrary intention.

The second point on which the inquiry has to decide is whether there is evidence that successive landowners have performed overt acts such as the posting of notices or closing of the footpaths, sufficient to negate an intention to dedicate, before a 21 year period has elapsed.

Before dealing with these, may I make two preliminary points:

First, if the inquiry has heard evidence that there is a continuous period of enjoyment of the footpaths for a period of 21 years and that period of 21 years ends before any evidence of the posting of a notice and/or the temporary closure of a footpath, then the inquiry does not need to consider whether such notice or closure was sufficient to negate the deemed dedication of the footpaths. This is because of the well established principle ‘once a highway, always a highway’, which in effect means that once footpaths rights have been acquired, they cannot be taken away by subsequent acts such as the belated issue of a notice or closure after the 21 year period has elapsed. Once a footpath has acquired the status of a highway it remains a highway for all time.

For instance, there is a period from 1950 to 1972, when Castletown Commissioners believed that a coastal public footpath ran from Hango Hill to the mine workings (the current car park), to the Lighthouse, Fort Island and then back along the road to Derbyhaven.   This route was promoted in guide books to the Isle of Man and both the tenant farmer and lighthouse staff agreed that the public was not restricted in the use of the paths. Mr Ramsden has produced no evidence that the landowner took any steps during this time to negate a presumption of dedication.

Or there could be the period from 1979 to 2001. By this time the additional footpaths radiating from the car park had been established and the only notice in place referred exclusively to vehicles. Footpaths ran south along the eastern coast (with a stile over the stock fence), from the Langness Farmhouse/ golf course junctions towards the Herring Tower (with a stile over the wall near the Gunpowder House) and along the west coast (with a stone stile near the car park). The evidence of John Welsh showed that two local MHKs shared the clear and simple belief of the walking public that they had a right to use the paths. While Simon Riggall had an on-going dispute with lighthouse keepers and their vehicles, and needed to attend to the needs of his stock, there is no evidence that he closed any of this considerable network of paths to the walking public.

Simon Riggall agreed that he did not challenge walkers or require them to cease using the footpaths, and neither did he close footpaths to walkers. He accepted their presence and his only concern was for the welfare of his animals. He would require walkers to control their dogs, which we accept to have been entirely proper and legitimate.

Mr Riggall listed the various organisations who had asked for, and been given, his permission to access Langness. As all of these groups were asking for permission to bring vehicles and to pursue their respective interests by leaving the established paths, the matter is not relevant to the inquiry and can be discounted.

Conclusion

This is a case where there is an overwhelming weight of evidence supporting the long use of these footpaths by Manx people ( and visitors to the Island ) over a period well in excess of 21 years. Throughout the four years of our campaign, not a single person has come forward to say that they saw any notice, encountered any obstruction or had any conversation with a landowner which would have led them as a member of the public to suppose that their right to use any part of the network of paths was being called into question, until the closures of 2005.

Against that there have been attempts to post notices purporting to deny any presumed dedication but on closer analysis all of these can be seen to have been defective for a whole host of reasons e.g. they deny vehicular access but not pedestrian access; they are ambiguous; they were not posted by the owner but by a third party; they were not maintained; they postdate the passing of 21 years, etc.

As to the closure of the land to the walking public, there is no primary evidence of this. Neither Jamie Riggall nor Simon Riggall had any issue with walkers, including those with dogs under control. In short there has been no credible evidence before this inquiry of any closure, temporary or otherwise, of any of the network of paths to the walking public.

Over the years, then, successive landowners have failed to perform overt acts sufficient to negate an intention to dedicate, before a 21 year period has elapsed. As a consequence, we believe that there is only one conclusion on the evidence in this case, namely that the case for the designation of public footpaths at Langness, as shown on the Inquiry’s latest annotated satellite image, is overwhelming, and has been made out by those of us supporting designation here.

On the basis of the evidence heard during this inquiry, it is clear that the provisions of Section 88 of the 1986 Highways Act have been met, the footpaths can be deemed to have become dedicated as highways, and that this dedication should now be confirmed and the routes recorded on the Definitive Map.

The footpaths across this special and significant landscape will have been preserved for future generations, and designated routes along the shores and headlands will mean that the coastal paths around the whole of this spectacular peninsular can take their rightful place in the Raad ny Foillan, the Way of the Gull.

More info: Ian Costain, Public Rights of Way Langness
Tel: 837059
E-mail: prowl@manx.net

a a a a a For more info - or to support us, please get in touch: prowl@manx.net PROWL, 1 Castle Street, Castletown, IM9 1LF Or call Ian on: 01624 837 059 Support us now? Click here	t Working to win access around and across Langness for everyone
	The Langness peninsula footpaths inquiry has now closed, and we await the recommendations of the Highways Inspector. Excerpts from Ian Costain's closing statement to the inquiry, on behalf of Public Rights of Way Langness. Introduction Langness is a triangle of land with Hango Hill and Fort Island to its north and the coast between Langness Point and Dreswick Point to its south. When Public Rights of Way Langness was first formed, it was concerned with this whole area and the lack of designated Rights of Way. At the very beginning of the inquiry, I produced evidence that we have been campaigning to have a comprehensive settlement in respect of all the traditional footpaths. A ‘Manx Independent’ article in February 2006, a briefing paper to election candidates in October 2006, the ‘Powerpoint’ presentation to Tynwald members and Castletown and Malew Commissioners, together with many interviews in the media have all made it clear that we were drawing attention to the whole network of paths around and across Langness, with the closing of one small but important section being an indication of what might happen in the future, unless steps were taken to recognise the existence of Rights of Way ‘as yet unrecorded’. While the local press has chosen to characterise the inquiry as ‘The Right to Roam v. the Right to Privacy’, both of these considerations are in fact irrelevant. The Public Rights of Way group is drawing attention to a set of clearly defined paths, the majority length of which has been in public use for a hundred years or more. We have not asked for a Right to Roam; we have not asked for new footpaths to be created. We have simply asked for the existence of the traditional paths to be recognised and ratified. Other considerations irrelevant at this inquiry include the identity of the present owners and their personal circumstances. For three years as media spokesman for PRoWL, I have made a point of trying to de-personalise the issue. Whoever had closed the relevant length of footpath, those of us who believe these footpaths constitute important public rights of way would still be here and putting our case to you as forcibly as we have done at this inquiry. Further, the fact that the existence of these footpaths may be personally inconvenient to the landowners is a matter of no relevance to the issues the inquiry has to determine. Langness is a very special place. It is special for its flora and fauna, including its lesser mottled grasshopper; it is special for its geology, including the rock arches; it is special for its maritime history, including the Herring Tower, the wreck of the ‘Provider’, the Mariners’ Graveyard and one of the first operational foghorns; it is special for its military history, including its Iron Age fort and gun emplacements guarding the approaches to RAF Ronaldsway; it is special for its mining history, its view along the whole range of Manx hills, its atmosphere on a quiet summer’s afternoon and its wildness in a winter’s storm; it is special for the place it holds in the memories of Manx people and their visitors. We are not claiming that being special is enough to have Rights of Way granted, but rather that the attractions of the place have brought people in their thousands over the years, that these people have left their mark on the ground where they walked, that they have created public footpaths that are as clear to a visiting walker as they are to satellite imaging and Google Earth. These paths are the legacy of previous generations, and need recognition and protection in order to serve the needs of the future. I believe that, having read and heard the evidence, this inquiry is only concerned with considering and determining two issues: first, is there evidence that the footpaths on Langness, as shown on the Department of Transport’s most recent notated map at this inquiry, have been enjoyed by the public as of right, and without interruption, for 21 years and, secondly, is there evidence that successive landowners have performed overt acts such as the posting of notices or closing of the footpaths, sufficient to negate an intention to dedicate, before a 21 year period has elapsed. Evidence that highways have been created First point: is there evidence of enjoyment by the public as of right and without interruption for 21 years? The inquiry has been shown a set of 127 sworn affidavits in respect of the smaller of the Langness Circular Paths, starting at the DoT car park, passing east-west south of the line of the Iron Age defensive mound, following the eastern coast to a point south of the lighthouse, following the southern coast to a point above the Dreswick Harbour/ Port Bravag junctions and then following the western coast back to the car park. The Public Rights of Way group chose to go down the route of making affidavit forms available to the public in order to ensure that people thought seriously about the claims that they were making. We had been advised that half-a-dozen would be plenty, and ten would be overkill, but people weren’t to be put off by the legal phraseology, the seriousness of the undertaking or the need to arrange to meet a Justice of the Peace. The people of Derbyhaven, Castletown, Ballasalla and beyond, people who had walked this path and many others on Langness for as long as they could remember, wanted to be involved. The list of names showed that these people were from families that had lived in the area for hundreds of years: Cain, Collister, Cooil, Cowley, Craine, Creer, Cregeen, Crowe, Cubbon, among others. If anyone knew about the footpaths of Langness, it was these people, many of them middle-aged and older, who had lived in the area and walked its paths not just for 21 years but for a lifetime. They knew that they had walked along the eastern coast, the western coast, and the Powder House path. They knew that they had walked south of the lighthouse. They knew that they had walked it all openly, without force and without challenge, and they would put their name to it. And there were the letters to the Department of Transport, made available to the inquiry, overwhelmingly in support of the contention that rights of way had been created by continuous, open, unchallenged use. Not all the letters were supportive, but even the writers of letters in favour of the landowners’ exclusion of the public were not able to claim that they had been turned back by a landowner, or told by a landowner that they needed permission to walk the paths, or seen a notice saying ‘No Entry’, or ‘Keep Out’ or ‘Lighthouse business only’, or ‘Hotel Guests and Golfers Only’. I made reference to the various guide books to the Isle of Man. In the 19th century, even before Dreswick Point had a lighthouse, ‘Jenkinson’s Practical Guide’ and the Manx writer and poet T.E.Brown were recommending a coastal walk around the whole Langness peninsula. In the 20th century, the various editions of the respected guide books produced by both Black and Ward Lock continued to recommend the coastal route, a practice that extended into the present century with such publications as the Cicerone Guide. Documents referred to at the inquiry have included a 1955 letter from the Town Clerk of Castletown in which he listed the public footpaths in the immediate vicinity. One of these was ‘Footpath around the Langness Peninsula’. Another document produced was a letter from the Planning Enforcement Officer to the Chairman and Members of the Planning Committee in 1976. He records that the tenant farmer, with forty-two years of experience on Langness, ‘asserts that pedestrian access has never been challenged over his land, pedestrians kept principally to the seaward fringes and on towards Langness Point.’ In other words, they were using the coastal path and the spur out to Langness Point. ***** The inquiry has heard from a broad cross-section of local people, who were clearly truthful and honest witnesses, and who spoke with experience and calm authority about their use of the footpaths on Langness. The witnesses spoke of permission being neither given nor refused, there being no barriers or locked gates, and there being no disregard of ‘No Access’ or ‘No Footpath’ signs or similar, or of verbal or other warnings from the landowner. There is an overwhelming weight of evidence of extensive and regular enjoyment of the footpaths, for a period of more than 21 years prior to 2005 in the case of the the land owned by Mr and Mrs Clarkson, and for the period of 21 years to the present day in the case of all other footpaths on the peninsula. Mr Ramsden (the QC representing the Clarksons) claims that the state of mind of landowners – their intention not to dedicate a path as a way – matters more than that of the walkers, who might believe they use a path ‘as of right’. The House of Lords ruling in the Godmanchester and Drain case would indicate otherwise. The Lords ruled that the landowners’ state of mind is insufficient – the intention not to dedicate a path must be communicated to the public by the landowner. In the case of the network of Langness paths, the landowners have failed to convey such contrary intention. The second point on which the inquiry has to decide is whether there is evidence that successive landowners have performed overt acts such as the posting of notices or closing of the footpaths, sufficient to negate an intention to dedicate, before a 21 year period has elapsed. Before dealing with these, may I make two preliminary points: First, if the inquiry has heard evidence that there is a continuous period of enjoyment of the footpaths for a period of 21 years and that period of 21 years ends before any evidence of the posting of a notice and/or the temporary closure of a footpath, then the inquiry does not need to consider whether such notice or closure was sufficient to negate the deemed dedication of the footpaths. This is because of the well established principle ‘once a highway, always a highway’, which in effect means that once footpaths rights have been acquired, they cannot be taken away by subsequent acts such as the belated issue of a notice or closure after the 21 year period has elapsed. Once a footpath has acquired the status of a highway it remains a highway for all time. For instance, there is a period from 1950 to 1972, when Castletown Commissioners believed that a coastal public footpath ran from Hango Hill to the mine workings (the current car park), to the Lighthouse, Fort Island and then back along the road to Derbyhaven. This route was promoted in guide books to the Isle of Man and both the tenant farmer and lighthouse staff agreed that the public was not restricted in the use of the paths. Mr Ramsden has produced no evidence that the landowner took any steps during this time to negate a presumption of dedication. Or there could be the period from 1979 to 2001. By this time the additional footpaths radiating from the car park had been established and the only notice in place referred exclusively to vehicles. Footpaths ran south along the eastern coast (with a stile over the stock fence), from the Langness Farmhouse/ golf course junctions towards the Herring Tower (with a stile over the wall near the Gunpowder House) and along the west coast (with a stone stile near the car park). The evidence of John Welsh showed that two local MHKs shared the clear and simple belief of the walking public that they had a right to use the paths. While Simon Riggall had an on-going dispute with lighthouse keepers and their vehicles, and needed to attend to the needs of his stock, there is no evidence that he closed any of this considerable network of paths to the walking public. Simon Riggall agreed that he did not challenge walkers or require them to cease using the footpaths, and neither did he close footpaths to walkers. He accepted their presence and his only concern was for the welfare of his animals. He would require walkers to control their dogs, which we accept to have been entirely proper and legitimate. Mr Riggall listed the various organisations who had asked for, and been given, his permission to access Langness. As all of these groups were asking for permission to bring vehicles and to pursue their respective interests by leaving the established paths, the matter is not relevant to the inquiry and can be discounted. Conclusion This is a case where there is an overwhelming weight of evidence supporting the long use of these footpaths by Manx people ( and visitors to the Island ) over a period well in excess of 21 years. Throughout the four years of our campaign, not a single person has come forward to say that they saw any notice, encountered any obstruction or had any conversation with a landowner which would have led them as a member of the public to suppose that their right to use any part of the network of paths was being called into question, until the closures of 2005. Against that there have been attempts to post notices purporting to deny any presumed dedication but on closer analysis all of these can be seen to have been defective for a whole host of reasons e.g. they deny vehicular access but not pedestrian access; they are ambiguous; they were not posted by the owner but by a third party; they were not maintained; they postdate the passing of 21 years, etc. As to the closure of the land to the walking public, there is no primary evidence of this. Neither Jamie Riggall nor Simon Riggall had any issue with walkers, including those with dogs under control. In short there has been no credible evidence before this inquiry of any closure, temporary or otherwise, of any of the network of paths to the walking public. Over the years, then, successive landowners have failed to perform overt acts sufficient to negate an intention to dedicate, before a 21 year period has elapsed. As a consequence, we believe that there is only one conclusion on the evidence in this case, namely that the case for the designation of public footpaths at Langness, as shown on the Inquiry’s latest annotated satellite image, is overwhelming, and has been made out by those of us supporting designation here. On the basis of the evidence heard during this inquiry, it is clear that the provisions of Section 88 of the 1986 Highways Act have been met, the footpaths can be deemed to have become dedicated as highways, and that this dedication should now be confirmed and the routes recorded on the Definitive Map. The footpaths across this special and significant landscape will have been preserved for future generations, and designated routes along the shores and headlands will mean that the coastal paths around the whole of this spectacular peninsular can take their rightful place in the Raad ny Foillan, the Way of the Gull. More info: Ian Costain, Public Rights of Way Langness Tel: 837059 E-mail: prowl@manx.net
	"When the stranger first comes upon the beauties of this spot he will be delighted." Jenkinson's Practical Guide to the Isle of Man