Residents living near Sandal Castle win land battle

Eight home owners have been granted permission to build on a grass pathway at the rear of their properties on Manygates Lane, Sandal, in Wakefield.

The neighbours said they all planned to put up brick walls to protect their homes after the path had become a hotspot for anti-social behaviour.

Their application to Wakefield Council to ‘extended residential curtilages’ was opposed by 28 people, with some claiming the land was an established public right of way (PROW).

Some also said dog walkers and families used the path as a “scenic, safe and faster route” to Sandal Castle, which lies just over 100m from the site.

Forty people contacted the council in support of the proposal, saying members of the public who used it were trespassing on private land.

A joint letter was also submitted to the local authority on behalf the residents who made the application.

One said: “We were initially drawn to the property because of the shared grassy area behind the house.

“At the time of purchasing the house we were made aware that it was private land that we had the responsibility of maintaining our own share of.

“We were happy with this and did not mind sharing the space with neighbours and the occasional dog walker.

“Several years later, it’s unfortunate to see the misuse of the space.

“So much so that it has affected not only our enjoyment of the grass and our garden but also of the rooms in our house facing the fields.

“Dog poo and litter are bad enough.

“Seeing metal screws in the trees, and sharp objects dropped in our grass makes it unsafe for our child to walk on our own land without shoes in summer.”

The residents also said people had used the area to smoke cannabis and teenagers had played loud music outside their windows late at night.

The letter continued: “It has just made the space significantly more anti-social than it used to be, and sometimes quite a stressful place to live, especially when we are shielding a young child from it.

“The arguments objecting on the grounds that this should be a space for dogs to be allowed off lead are unfair and poor. This is private land.

“A well-behaved dog might be fine to walk through, however we have had several instances of dogs running through our garden gate and into our garden.

“Once or twice, we have had a dog run into our house.”

The applicants said they intended to build “a series of brick walls along the new boundary line” if the application was approved.

They said that the new structures would “aim to be aesthetically pleasing and match existing ones in the local area.”

One objector to the plan said: “I have used this area of land on a regular basis as part of a walk down to Pugneys Country Park for over 30 years.

“Taking this walk avoids using Manygates Lane with the narrow pavements and traffic.

“The views are outstanding and a real source of pleasure as part of the walk.

“As other objectors have noted, it forms part of the history of Sandal Castle.

“I have never witnessed any anti-social behaviour in that area or mess from dog walkers.

“I feel that the council should not approve this application, which seems to be for the benefit of a few householders whilst taking away a source of pleasure for the many Wakefield residents that use this path.”

The Highways Act states land can be dedicated as a PROW if there is evidence that it had been used by the public for over 20 years.

According to a report, an application was made to the council in 2000 claiming the area as a PROW but never determined.

Evidence for the claim was prepared in 2006 but was then withdrawn before it could be considered by councillors.

At the time, council officers made a recommendation that a PROW had not been established.

The report said: “Whilst it may be the case that the application site is used by members of the public, the land is not a formal PROW.

“Any potential formalisation of a PROW is considered to be a legal matter that is dealt with separately to the planning process, therefore minimal weight is afforded to the letters of representation received.”