I am reaching the end of a 17 year battle regarding a public footpath. In 2003 when a development was taking place some land was given as part of the S106 agreement . Through that land was a path and it was agreed after so many houses were built that that path was to be dedicated as PROW. However as part of the planning consent a condition was stipulated that on either end of the path two motor cycle inhibitors were to be installed. Unfortunately the dedication never happened. After a sustained campaign I managed to get the path dedicated earlier this year and asked for the inhibitors to be replaced with more accessible kissing gates. However, both the landowner and Highways Authority said that was not possible as the inhibitors were in situ because of a planning condition. Now I understood planning conditions were only variable during the lifetime of the development so my question is what is the legal process to vary a condition after completion . Or would the best way to proceed be by treating it as an obstruction under S130?
What would be the advantage of kissing gates over motor cycle inhibitors? It would seem to be a lot of trouble for a very small advantage
I have just found this useful information sheet from Hampshire County Council Countryside Service.
Good find. It reminds me of an amusing story, which may be apocryphal about a beautiful arch created for the beginning of a cycle route. It is said that, unfortunately, it was so designed - narrow corners - as to be impossible to ride a cyle through.
There seems to be a possibility that a planning condition cannot oblige a landowner to create a public footpath. I have not read it in full but see:
DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon Borough Council & Anor  EWCA Civ 1331 (16 October 2020)
"If the judge interpreted that circular as authorising the imposition of conditions which not only required a developer to provide an access road, but also to dedicate it to public use as a highway, I consider that she was wrong. Such an interpretation would be flatly contrary to consistent government policy for nearly 70 years. In my judgment Hall does impose an absolute ban on requiring dedication of land as a public highway without compensation as a condition of the grant of planning permission. I also consider, contrary to Mr Harwood's submission, that there is no difference for this purpose between dedicating a road as a highway and transferring the land itself for highway use. As I have said, the condition in Hall did not require the land itself to be transferred, yet it was still held to be unlawful."
Some background. Many years ago I was a rep for the OSS and was involved in the Herrick v Kidner case. This represented a major step forward in improving access to PROWS as it provided a route to remove the 10000s of furniture types installed unlawfully around the country. This whole discipline was all about improving access for the public and the disabled in particular. At the same time the British Standard was developed BS5709 which sought to adopt the principle of lest restrictive access. This meant that if a structure was legally needed you effectively had a hierarchy of gap, gate, kissing gate stile. Motor cycles inhibitors are rarely used on PROWs but more in parks etc . Any PROW furniture should be recorded on the legal record as a limitation . In this case the inhibitors existed before the path was dedicated . If the path was dedicated at the time the inhibitors would not have been installed removed link The problem we have now is how do we get rid of them
Herrick v Kidner etc
would the best way to proceed be by treating it as an obstruction under S130
Maybe look also at the more general Equality Act 2010 if the motorcycle inhibitor is worse than a kissing gate for someone with a protected characteristic.