A BATTLE may have been won by villagers over a treasured ancient footpath onto Dartmoor from Whitchurch after a gate was moved - but the war continues.

Having successfully petitioned Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) to have a gate returned to its original position at the entrance in Middlemoor, the walkers, residents and cyclists celebrated.

However landowners Bob and Jenny Perryman of the Holwell Estate feel they have won the argument after complaining to the DNPA over the decision to move the gate – and receiving an apology for not following’due process’.

The gate is now in its original position, with the Perrymans saying that they had permission to move it in the first place - and those opposing stating that they didn’t.

Now, into this debate has stepped Graham Parker, an experienced town planner and former Tavistock councillor who claims planning law states that planning permission would have been needed to originally move the gate up the path.

He said the right course of action would have been for the DNPA to take enforcement action against the Holwell Estate – to ask them to return the gate to its original position.

He said: “To the best of my knowledge, despite what is claimed, no planning permission was granted for the new gate and, once it had been erected, the correct course of action for the DNPA should have been to begin enforcement proceedings requiring it to be removed.”

He said that because the estate says this section of the public right of way is used by vehicles and has been for many years, then planning permission would have been needed for the erection of the new gate under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015.

Mr Parker added: “The DNPA could well be commended for their speedy removal the new gate and the reinstatement of the original gate. However, their correct course of action would have been to institute enforcement procedures, requiring the removal of the new gate, at the expense of those who erected it.

This whole situation seems really odd to me and I am sure that I am not alone in hoping that the DNPA will investigate it as a matter of urgency.”

Bob Perryman responded by saying Mr Parker’s view was ‘misinformed and based on misguided information’.

To back the Holwell Estate’s case for moving the gate int he first place, he referred him to the DNPA Dartmoor National Park Highways Act 1980, Section 47, which gives authorisation to put up a gate on a public right of way to back the estate’s case.

Mr Perryman said the DNPA did not have the right to use enforcement action because the gate was ‘legally positioned and approved’ when moved up the path.

He added that any planning authority can only withdraw a permission before or during work being carried out, however once completed and approved, its powers to do this no longer exist.

He continued: “Otherwise any building that any authority decides it does not like could be removed and that includes the houses of the petitioners.

“We have a legal document that states we can move the gate to its new position. If the petitioners were to take the time and inspect the public records then they would be able to validate the legality of the record that exists.

“We are meeting with the DNPA in the New Year and, as stated, we will see what transpires.

“This whole episode stems from misinformation. All that occurred was that our personally owned gate was moved a few metres. It was the same gate, same size and no public right of way was restricted and in our opinion it made the footpath safer, contrary to the hysterical opinions bandied around,

“Having been born on Dartmoor I get fed up with newcomers constantly complaining even about moving a farm gate.

“I question what they are complaining about, who does it affect and what enjoyment of their rights has been diminished? I offered to meet with the petitioners to explain our position but this offer was not accepted so now we move forward.”