'Why hire £8,000 barrister for footpath dispute?'
Bristol City Council brought in a top-ranking barrister costing more than £8,000 to get a short stretch of footpath moved 400 yards.
They hired Leslie Blohm QC to represent them at a public inquiry to decide whether a footpath should be moved at South Purdown, a green open space off Muller Road.
-
The council wanted – and won – the right to move the path so that new sports pitches could be created on a meadow for the newly-built Fairfield High School on the opposite side of the road.
But the Ramblers' Association has condemned the council for using such a high-ranking barrister to deal with such a simple legal issue.
The cost of Mr Blohm's services to represent the council – which has its own legal department – at the one-day inquiry in December which would have included some preparatory work was £7,500 plus VAT.
Peter Gould, the Bristol footpath secretary for the Ramblers' Association, said using a QC for such a simple issue was "like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut".
He said none of the objectors – including himself – were legally represented. The others included the Friends of Purdown and the Open Spaces Society.
Mr Gould said: "I have represented the Ramblers' Association for 25 years and I have rarely known a barrister to be involved.
"This was not a complex case – the inspector simply had to make a judgement whether the diversion of the footpath was necessary."
The council says the case was not a simple one because the outcome of the inquiry could have had "profound implications" for the new school.
But Mr Gould said however important the issues were, they were not legally complex. He said: "This had nothing to do with planning permission for the new school. The inquiry was held on quite narrow grounds to decide whether a footpath should be diverted.
"It makes you wonder whether it was really necessary for the council to be represented by such a highly-qualified barrister."
The inquiry was held on December 9 in the school's main hall and the planning inspector made his decision a few days before Christmas.
Work is expected to start soon on the £2 million plan to build the sports pitches which are regarded as a key element of the new school.
They will be built next to an allotment site which is bordered by a metal railing fence.
The stretch of footpath is about 100 yards long and will be moved from the top of the meadow to the bottom – a distance of about 400 yards.
A city council spokeswoman said: "A key priority in relocating Fairfield School was to provide better outdoor facilities for pupils. There are legal guidelines on the amount of open space schools need, based on their size.
"To meet these requirements, it was necessary to divert the existing right of way from the Purdown site. This is why it was important to ensure we took appropriate legal advice to secure the diversion of the public right of way."
6 Comments
View all
by Helen, Eastville
Monday, May 11 2009, 6:30PM
“The proposed movement of a footpath in such a heavy handed manner is part of a larger issue, as the main concern is the council¿s decision to remove open space from the public so it can be fenced off for school playing fields. The council approved plans for the new school without adequately considering whether the location had sufficient room for all the obvious amenities required - such as the playing fields.”
by Steve M, Fishponds
Sunday, May 10 2009, 10:06PM
“If you look into the whole story behind this playing field fiasco, i'm sure you'd all agree that the council had no buisness erecting a school the size of Fairefield when they didn't have the space they needed on site for these 'extra playing fields' its just another example of stupidity.”
by Chris, Westbury-on-Trym
Thursday, May 07 2009, 9:53PM
“I agree with Steven. The Ramblers Association have a blanket policy of objecting to any movement of any footpath, anywhere, ever (even if it improves the quality of the path, and keeps it the same length). If their objection had been upheld it would have ruined the plan for the school.
In this case the coucil was right to get out the big guns because of the consequenses of losing. If the RA used just a tiny bit of discretion and sense this waste of money wouldn't have been necessary. I'm a keen walker but not a memeber of the RA for this very reason.”
by Jo, Horfield
Thursday, May 07 2009, 1:28PM
“Steven, the whole point of the article is that the Council didn't need to spend the money regardless of whichever person or body objected.
The Ramblers Association and teh Open Spaces Society do good work ensuring that people don't encroach onto our green space. If they don't object to footpath movements all sorts of developing on green space would happn. To recap: its not the objectors that are in the wrong for objecting, its the Council for such a heavy handed (and expensive) response.”
by Steven, North Bristol
Thursday, May 07 2009, 10:52AM
“Surely if the "Rambler's Association" hadn't meddled and objected to such a minor movement of a footpath, then it would not have been necessary for the Council to spend this money.”