‘Petty’ landowner puts fence over pensioner’s gate to stop him walking over tiny 35-inch strip of land to access path
A PENSIONER says he’s locked in a “petty” row with a landowner after finding a fence covering his gate.
David Breeze, 80, claims local councillor Chris Mutten is to blame for the metal mesh fence as he owns a tiny 35-inch strip of land outside his home.
The 80-year-old says that Mr Mutten was sick of him and his family walking over the bit of private land to access a public footpath in the Norfolk town.
While David admits he is technically trespassing, even though he can walk over the land without touching it, he says the row is ridiculous.
He told MailOnline: “Petty is the word that really sums it up.”
David has lived in Reedham home for 23 years and the footpath was put down at the back of his property five years ago.
He said it was popped down after Mr Mutten was granted permission to build 24 homes on the backfield.
It was then that the pensioner installed a gate at the back of his property in May 2020.
He says his grandsons used to use it to avoid walking along busy roads as they walked over from his son’s house nearby.
David claimed two wooden posts appeared on either side of his fence two years ago, but nothing else happened.
But late last month a chain link wire appeared across his gate and he says it was put there by Mr Mutten’s son Jake.
David said: “I saw his son fix it up and then drive off. I captured it all on CCTV.
“It was two weeks ago when the wire went up. It blocked my access through, as opposed to running along the whole boundary. It certainly feels personal.
“When I saw Mr Mutten [snr] a few days later he just smiled and waved as if nothing had happened.”
He claimed that the fence had since been vandalised, and the wire removed.
David says he realised he was trespassing four years ago and wrote to Mr Mutten asking if he could use the footpath as long as it existed – but never heard back.
Petty is the word that really sums it up
David Breeze
He believes that the wire briefly popped up as development works by Badger Building was set to begin on the 27 homes.
In a letter submitted to Broadland Council, David wrote: “I am sure that I speak for the majority of Reedham residents who would rather see this footpath remain and not be diverted onto a road.
“Pleasant green rural footpaths which are also very useful wildlife corridors are cherished by residents and should not be allowed to turn a rural environment into an urban one.”
Norfolk County Council’s public rights of way team are also opposed to any change, saying they want the route to be kept and for the layout of the housing scheme to be redesigned around the footpath.
Mr Mutten declined to discuss the matter when approached by the Mail today, saying: “It’s just no comment.”
Justin Coote, director of Badger Building, said the strip of grass Mr Breeze steps over is “on private land” but did not wish to comment further.
What to do in this situation:
ACCORDING to the Crown Prosecution Service trespass is not of itself a criminal offence.
However there are some offences in which trespass is an essential element and this guidance sets out the most commonly encountered examples of such offences. Prosecutors should also have regard as appropriate to the CPS legal guidance on Public Order Offences and Offences during Protests, Demonstrations and Campaigns.
The CPS must not act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right: section 6 Human Rights Act 1998. The Convention rights protected are set out in Schedule 1. They may include the right to a private and family life, freedom of expression and/or freedom of assembly: Articles 8, 10 and 11 respectively.
Where those rights are engaged, and the proviso in Article 17 (no protection of rights when used to destroy or limit others’ rights), any restriction on the rights (by prosecution) must be (i) prescribed by law, (ii) necessary (in the terms provided for by Articles 8.2, 10.2 and 11.2 respectively) and (iii) proportionate.