A BITTER five-year dispute over rights of access to Hamsterley Forest is nearing a conclusion after the intervention of Teesdale’s MP.
Forest residents have been at loggerheads with Forestry England officials who want them to change their right of access along the road in front of the visitor centre to a newly built route.
As an incentive to make the change on their deeds, officers offered to resurface Holdings Road where many residents live, but this proved a further bone of contention when only a section of it was repaired.
Further wrath was invoked when residents received solicitors’ letters on a Saturday morning earlier this year which offered them a £5,000 gesture of goodwill, along with a “threat” of being taken to court if they do not change their deeds.
Subsequently residents have lodged a ministerial complaint about the way the issue has been handled and have also lodged a complaint of maladministration with Forestry England’s chief executive Richard Stanford.
In an effort to mediate a solution MP Dehenna Davison called a meeting between the two parties on Friday, June 24.
Residents complained they were never consulted about the “unlawful” closure of their right of access and expressed the anguish they felt when the solicitors’ letter was delivered.
Resident John Stephenson said: “I feel up to this moment we have been treated by Forestry England like medieval peasants. This attitude has been fostered over the years by Forestry England not consulting on issues affecting us, not notifying us of their actions, hiding information from us, refusing to answer questions and using belittling, threatening and bullying behaviour.
“All of these things create suspicion of their motives.”
Forestry England’s northern manager Kevin May explained that the road closure at the visitor centre had not been unlawful and legal advice said it was reasonable in the interest of safety. He added that he had acted responsibly by “offering a new road that offered improvements, especially in safety” .
Forestry England land agent Victoria Lancaster apologised for the way communication had been handled and said the gesture of goodwill was meant to compensate for having put people through “a certain level of anxiety” .
She added the solicitor’s letter was not intended to be a threat and was to inform residents of the potential approach of going to court and to have time to consider this and get advice from a solicitor.
Ms Lancaster said: “That is why we offered to cover the cost of getting legal advice.”
Officers also answered questions about the planning consent for the new road.
Regarding people’s concerns about changing their deeds, Mr Stephenson said: “The deeds I have at home has about six lines about my right of way, the document I was sent by Forestry England’s solicitors is about 12 pages. If it is just swapping from one [road] to another, why is it now 12 pages?”
Some residents said they had been willing to change their deeds in 2017, but changed their minds when “the goal posts had been moved” because of the new clauses.
Ms Lancaster said all of the changes were open to negotiation after hearing that residents had drawn up a “wish list” of changes.
Resident Andy Richardson said: “This could have been dealt with cheaper, easier and more amicably in 2017 if it had been dealt with right. This is where we are now three or four years on. We are now hearing contrition and candour from yourselves, and being willing to negotiate with ourselves, thank you for that.”
Residents agreed to send their wish list to Ms Lancaster for further negotiation.
![A COUNTY councillor is backing a campaign to get a pedestrian crossing in Staindrop. Frustrated parish councillors in the village summoned their county council representative Cllr George Richardson to their latest meeting to discuss several issues, including the call for a safe way to cross the A688. Earlier this year their request for a crossing was turned down by the county council’s highways officers. Parish council chairman Jonothan Raper described the reasons for the refusal as “spurious” and called on Cllr Richardson to support their campaign. He added: “One of the arguments they made was there is no clear line of desire when they studied the village – well this isn’t a clear line of desire because there isn’t a crossing, people cross whenever they can. “When the lollipop person was there, one of the things I noticed was people would walk all the way down to the lollipop person to cross the road to go to the shop or to go to the school.” He added a problem of parking at the primary school is exacerbated because people are too afraid to walk their children across the road. Cllr Richardson said he had supported previous attempts for a crossing point with the first being made about 15 years ago. He added: “We went fairly well down the road with that and they looked into it. The only recommended place was where the bus stop is and to get the visibility splays, people on the other side of the road would lose their parking. “That didn’t go down well so it just died a death.” Cllr Raper said he suspected the real reason for the officers’ refusal was the cost of installing a crossing. He added that much of the cost could be recovered from savings made on not having to employ a lollipop patrol. Cllr Raper said: “A lollipop person only provides a benefit of crossing for three hours of the day. You are getting 21 extra hours of crossing time [with a pedestrian crossing].” Cllr Richardson said he would raise the issue with the county council’s cabinet member for highways, Cllr John Shuttleworth.](https://teesdalemercury.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/georgeR-120x86.jpg)
