From Les and Lynne Thorne, Niton:

A story was published about our attempts to delete a public footpath at Castlehaven (CP, 16-03-18).

We have never sought to delete any footpath anywhere.

All we have ever done is sought to have the Definitive Map (which records the existence and status of a public right of way) agree with the Definitive Statement (which records its exact location and condition). For this route, ever since they were created in 1952, these two documents have been in conflict — they refer to two different footpaths; one public and one private.

The IW Council’s assertion that no route in Niton is recorded as on the beach is true, the recorded location is shore. Shore is the land between mean low and high water marks. It is seeking to mislead by playing with words.

Nobody with knowledge of the location in 1952, when the route was recorded, says it was on the sea wall.

The council admits the Definitive Statement has always been wrong but seeks to vary it to a route which required the public to walk up and down the vertical face of a high wall.

The only parties who have ever extinguished the two access points to the shore this footpath provided are:

1) The adjacent caravan site owner, who unlawfully blocked the path up the coastal slope in the 1970s and the council failed in its duty to act.

2) The council itself in its 2004 coastal protection contract.

The council sub-committee of March 7, which was charged with considering our application to have the statement corrected, refused to respond regarding either of these unlawful blockages.

So, once again, we join the many before us who have found the only way of having issues addressed fairly and objectively, and having the same laws applied equally to all, is by formal appeal. Inevitably, allegedly scarce staff resources and legal costs will be expended on this rather than on social care, libraries, public toilets, tourism etc.

Sorry, but we have no other options available, and the tourists too would like access to the shore.

But we do wonder what the council’s priorities are when it is prepared to throw everything at a route which can never provide shore access while ignoring two easy access points, unlawfully blocked for over 40 years and 14 years respectively, which could be reopened in days.