Live and let live—but not on the bridleway

The former Live and Let Live pub on the edge of Booker Common, west of High Wycombe in Bucks, has been extended and converted into a private house, with planning permission for two houses on the adjacent land, which was the pub car-park.

A public bridleway runs past the site and it appears that the converted house has encroached on it.  The bridleway should surely extend to the two fences on the left in the picture below, now underneath the house’s new forecourt.

Encroachment on bridleway?

Encroachment on bridleway?

Vigilant Wycombe district councillor Brian Peace invited Corinne Waldron, rights-of-way officer from Buckinghamshire County Council (the highway authority), and me to visit the site.

Brian and Corinne consider the matter

Brian and Corinne consider the matter

Corinne has agreed to investigate whether the new house has encroached on the bridleway and to contact the owner.

The new house

The converted pub

We also need to ensure that when the houses are built next door, there is no further encroachment.

Development next door

Development next door

However, I was concerned to see that there was new fencing on the common a little way along the bridleway, running parallel to Willow Avenue.  I’ve asked Corinne to investigate that too, since it does not have the necessary ministerial consent under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006.

New fencing on the common

New fencing on the common

Corinne will let us know when she has carried out her research.

About campaignerkate

I am the general secretary of the Open Spaces Society and I campaign for public access, paths and open spaces in town and country.
This entry was posted in Access, Bucks, common land, Obstructed path, Public paths and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Live and let live—but not on the bridleway

  1. Peter Newman says:

    It makes you wonder about Planning Permission and the Council’s role in this. Was it delegated to officers, or a committee decision with consultations. Or perhaps the permitted 20% which still needs Building Regulations, but is seen by many as a way to extend without the necessary safeguards in place.

  2. Helen Wood says:

    Thank goodness this was identified and halted.

  3. I have since learnt that the fencing is not on the common, so that’s one less thing to worry about.

    However, the owner of the former pub has now put in an amended planning application for one three-bed and one-four detached dwelling on the former car-park (instead of one two-bed and one three-bed). The Open Spaces Society has objected because it is likely to interfere with the common and the bridleway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s