Villagers are in uproar over plans to move a picturesque public Isle of Wight bridleway metres down the road in Brighstone.
As first reported by Island Echo, a proposal was made by the owners of Mottistone Mill to divert a bridleway, which has been provisionally approved by the Rights of Way department at the Isle of Wight Council on the basis that no objections were received.
However, unlike planning applications, the proposals are not advertised online and many local residents only became aware of the proposal when signs were recently erected at the site.
The BS83 bridleway currently runs from Lynch Lane, past the former Mottistone Mill, which has been turned into a private residence.
The mill was built in the 18th century and is the subject of a sketch by renowned artist William Turner, currently on show in the Tate Modern. The mill’s owners, the Butts, have asked to move the bridleway, which the Isle of Wight Council has agreed to, issuing a Diversion Order.
The council said the new path would not be ‘substantially less convenient’ to the public as it would be more direct, avoiding tight turns and blind corners as well as more accessible to all users. The council also said the new bridleway would be three metres wide for its entire length, ‘an improvement on the existing route’.
It has been met with backlash, however, as some Brighstone residents oppose the move, and argue the existing bridleway should also be three metres wide but it has been narrowed in recent years.
If objections are submitted against the order, as the Isle of Wight Council has approved it, the final decision to move the bridleway would be made by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
After pulling together residents’ concerns into a list at a meeting on Wednesday, Brighstone Parish Council said it would be objecting to the plans as well. It said it would see a loss of public access to a historic building with local and national significance and the owners of the mill knew the bridleway was there when they bought it.
The parish council also said it was impossible to see how the new path could be created and maintained to be usable year-round because of the drainage. It would also be a significant engineering challenge when a perfectly good bridleway already exists, the parish council said. It recognised the current path has issues but said they could be resolved without the need to relocate it.
If the new bridleway is approved, its creation would be paid for by the Butts.
Councillor Nick Stuart said he would take forward residents’ concerns over the state of the current bridleway as it has not been properly maintained.
So much going on in this country and the world, people dieing of starvation, disease and war, people here are homeless and mental health crisis,COVID etc. Yet main issue is about a path ?. If land owner ? they should be able to move it, not like they are blocking whole access. This is wasting council time and Council tax on half dozen people.
Grockles want it moved after buying the mill.
It would be like you or me wanting a pavement moved because people were using it to walk past the house
Read the article. Problem here is hill billy inbreds can’t handle change put the public right of way through your drawing room and then you can have a say. Get a life and grow the hell up!! You should thank us for moving to the island to thin your blood lines. It’s like hills have eyes here for god sake
Why on earth did you move here then if you are so disrespectful of Island people, do us all a favour and clear off.
Well said…people from the mainland, whether be Londoners or Glaswegians.. they bring business here and their money with them. I wonder how many carpenters, roofers, plumbers, electricians etc etc earned a good deal of money to restore this property and many others when the owners bought the derelict buildings… local businesses should put them on a pedestal and people not vilify them. It is a sign of a booming island economy (thanks to, not because of, all these people holidaying here) that I can’t find an electrician to save my life for months… especially in the summer and during holidays.I am happy for them.
London,corporate-drones protecting their ‘pastoral-idyll’ no doubt.It’s happening at all levels.Tintagel-Cornwall,village up in Scotland and that city parasite recently in the press turfing wild-campers from ‘his’ Dartmoor piece of paradise,same deal here at the micro level.
Please stop the vile accusations and prejudices. You don’t know these people and not everyone from the mainland fits the sitcom depictions that you’ve formed in your head….
Your language is disrespectful and unkind. You don’t know these people. You are putting your own spin on this without considering the benefits of the new bridleway. Accessibility for all, safety for all vs a few self entitled villagers who think they OWN the place and want the right to gawp. A Right of Way should be about getting from A to B safely and speedily… it should not be about the Right to Gawp and in any case the new route still allows people to see the building, if this is what they are complaining about.
No interest in gawping but value our local historic buildings. No, rights of way are not about getting from A to B as safely and speedily as possible (otherwise there would be no coastal paths, no circular walks etc). People use RoWs, particularly this one for amenity and enjoyment. We are not talking about a new RoW but the route of an existing, historic RIGHT of way. The proposal route isn’t practical due to the swamp, it’s not even comparable, and it won’t provide anything but 1 glimpsed view of the side of the mill that was not the historically working elevation that Turner sketched.
Totally disagree.
These wealthy people buy a property then think (or knowing the right people) ‘ know’they can then use their wealth to keep the plebs away from coming too close to their idyllic lifestyle.
People have a right to walk close to interesting old buildings our Council should support the majority not those who think money can get them anything and everything
It’s not just the path they want to move, they then want to build 4 new houses there too
Roland Butter ~ Is that true or just a joke.?
Grow up ~ No you are wrong, you are not thinning our blood lines you are boiling our blood.
It is not a case of putting a footpath through my drawing room and see how I like it, the path was already there when they purchased the property.
If they don’t like it then move. Same applies to you.
This is totally untrue. The place where they want to build houses is in a totally different area of the village! How can people say such lies… just because the article talked about both these applications it doesn’t mean they are the same place!! I wish people checked their facts before writing in here.
Let them move out then and turn home over to Island vandels etc. Without people moving to the Island and those with money,the Island would fall apart, Council Tax would double or more to pay benefits for inbreds that don’t work and uneducated,then for them when older. Mainland people run business here .
It’s a path that’s all, nothing important ,just like red water pump in Whitwell.
Surprised people aren’t complaining about Israeli flag being blue like our conservative.
But they haven’t moved to the island have they? It’s a DFL holiday home that’s seldom occupied, and when it is, they don’t want the locals using g a path that has been the access to the mill since pre Doomsday Book. Probably move the path then sell the property as they have increased its value. Lost to the local community and our visitors for ever behind the screens of ‘I can afford to move you lot out’.
Again and … again and again… mad speculations about other peoples’ intentions… what do you know? Please do share if you have any intel about their intentions of selling the house to make money… from what I know, the buildings where derelict when they bought them, the bridleway practically disused as it had collapsed in places… they will be lucky if they even get their money back if they ever sell.. they must have spent gazillion on that place, more a Labour f love I would say.
Our Council should support safety, usability, wheelchair access… horses that don’t get stuck in a dangerous and unnecessary loop of a bad bridleway – that’s why the proposed new route is so much better. Do you think the Council would have endorsed it otherwise?
Yes, parts of the land and both current and proposed route and clause for compensation are all inextricably linked to the CEO of the Council, and this has not been made public.
I don’t know about you but I can hold various topics & issues in my head with no problem. What are you doing to solve the crisis in the Middle East? If sacrificing a footpath solves it I’d say go for it. Sadly I think it’ll take a bit more than that
At whitefield farm in ashey we wanted to move the footpath entrance 50 meters to make it safer,however the council said it would not be approved! And then they allowed island roads to move the footpath at ashey downs without permission 50 meters to install the crash barrier ! Iam waiting to see the movement order!
You won’t, the affected land isn’t owned by the Chief Executive of the council, as in this case
Too many old farts should be gone
I think the island would benefit more if you were gone.
i bet its cash in the hand for a councillor if they can get it moved
I gather that the current path and the diversion both pass over the CEO of the C council’s land, and there is a compensation clause that would legitimise any payment of compensation from the mill owner directly to the CEO… nice.
The footpath has always been in place just because new owners do not like it then maybe they should not of purchased the Mill in the first place, fed up with overnors and developers ruining our island. Losing our piers access to beaches, our whole infrastructure is broken,Peaple move over here and think they can do what they like because they have the big Money, Leave our footpaths alone and our old water hydrants as plans i believe to move one in Whitwell. Leave things as they should be left.
There should be an important reason (environmental, safety etc) for bridleways to be moved or diverted not just because a property owner wants it moved further away.
Case closed.
You are right. The process is very complicated and thorough. The good reasons are that the old bridleway is not user friendly for horses (it is a bridleway after all) and wheelchair users. And it cannot be improved unless you pulled down all the buildings it passes through and bulldoze down the hill it climbs and then descends steeply…the new proposed route solves these issues.
One man could widen the field fence section of the existing way, the gate that serves no purpose than presenting discouraging notices could be removed for the benefit of all. A simple phone gps survey of the proposed route illustrates its gradients exceed that of the existing way, and the proposal is to route over 3m depth of soft to very soft clay… and no environmental impact study has been undertaken…. The proposal has morphed away from the owner being responsible for 20 years of maintenance to 15 years of ‘teething issues’… and a councillor visiting the site in 2021 had to be extracted from the mud … in July! seriously, if you can’t see that issues here and think it’s for the good of users, you’re on cloud cuckoo land
If you are the owner of private land you are allowed to put gates where you want in your garden, so why should they not have a gate to mark the entrance of their property? Keep their dogs in, their children safe….their grandchildren safe… Who are you or anyone else to say they shouldnt? It is private land and the bridleway is only a right to go through it not a right to tell people how they should manage their property. The field fence cannot be widened as it was never wide for hundred of years and in 2004 when they sold the place it was covered I brambles and the bridleway practically disused. I know this because I used to live locally. So, the owners took 20 years to come to this… hardly new people moving and all that garbage.
Of course the field fence can be widened. Seemingly the route through the swamp can be fixed with tons of aggregate, the proposal says it will also be fenced and the stream can have a new bridge suitable for horses… and moving a fence 1m into the field it crosses is impossible??? Or just an unacceptable solution to the owners? If the owner is concerned about security of their dogs, children etc and as you are familiar with the area, you will also know that the vast majority of the mill’s land boundary isn’t fenced.
No it’s, no Butts, give the council a back hander and Jim will fix it. I mean, Island Roads will bodge it.
How many that have a objection where born in Bristone or on the isle of wight ?
As a pure bred redneck isler wighter, if all you’ve got to do in brighstone is gawp at some overners, you should come to the east wight. We’ve got a train, seeing that will blow year wellies off
Well, the applicant doesn’t even live here… main residence London
A very typical case, People know of the ‘right of way’ when they buy a property, if they didn’t like they should not have bought it. The position of this path has nothing to do with convenience, its an historic route past an old mill and is therefore of social interest. Rights of Ways should not be tampered with.
The old saying is “if it’s not broken don’t try and fix it” leave it alone it is a public footpath, as someone else said the owners knew it was there when they bought the property?? If you don’t like it then move??
All the damn moaning on here. You locals will probably just carry on using the old route any way, or walk over their lawn, just to make a point, why not chuck a few bags of dog poo around whilst you’re there?
A public right of way exists for peoples use at the end of my drive way, clearly signed and with a nice gate, but still they ignore it and use my private driveway instead, pig ignorant ‘I do’s what I wants don’t i’ attitude.
So I’m confident the bridleway will remain regardless.
People who haven’t already done so should click on the link to the earlier article where it mentions the plans for new houses on the site.
I’m pretty sure this moving of the bridleway is linked to the building of new homes, it’s just a shame that no-one seems to want to admit to these things.
This is an absolute lie and I would be careful spreading these lies if I were you as it is a cause for libel action. There are no plans to build houses on that land. Check your facts before saying things like that.
the amount of venom and jealousy and unkindness I’ve seen published here makes me ashamed of ever having thought that the IOW was a nice place populated by nice people. It is only a path, a currently dangerous one for horses and inaccessible one for wheelchair users. Before the owners bought it more than 20 years ago this path was inaccessible and had fallen to such state of disrepair that no one was walking past it any longer. People should stop putting their malicious spin on the intentions of moving it.
People should Stop putting their malicious spin on this. Everyone is talking out of their hat and haven’t even looked at the new route or seen the old one. The current bridleway has never been fit to be used by horses and wheelchair users alike 1) because it does a dangerous and unnecessary loop around the old buildings and walls (always been there, the owners did not put them there) through their garden 2) because the last section of the bridleway is on a steep hill which goes down again to rejoin the flat bit of the bridleway. The proposed bridleway does away with the hill (wheelchair access) and the loop (safe for horses). This is about usability for all not just the few pedestrians who like to gawp at other people’s houses.
For all those who are ‘suddenly’ concerned about horse riders safety, and can’t see this for what it is, just a ploy to keep the public away from a private house, to then up it’s value, increase its future saleability, a simple solution IF safety is the issue is to create an additional route for the horse riders and KEEP the original path route for walkers myself included, ‘daring’ to risk the treacherous conditions which has injured so many, NOT, over the last 700 years.
Vote out these favours for pals and the largest ‘thank you’ card providers.
The island obviously needs National Park status. Then we can walk on anyone’s land when we feel like it.