The row over a blocked twitten erupted again this week when council workers turned up to carry out an assessment.
There were scenes of fury, in Woodland Drive, Hove, and voices were raised as workers were confronted by the family at the centre of the controversy.
Worried about the escalating tempers, police were called for the third time in a fortnight, with two officers attending to keep the peace.
The two-hour confrontation ended without incident or arrests but is the latest in a long-running conflict.
The rumpus has been running since last October when a wall blew down in a storm and rubble and fencing fell across the well-used public footpath between two houses.
The owner of number 56 was set to carry out repair work but has since vacated the property – and bricks and fencing were left lying dangerously in the footpath.
Residents in neighbouring number 54 erected a 9ft wire fence, blocking the public right of way.
The family then claimed that the passageway between the two properties was not a public right of way at all and that they owned the land.
They have written to the council asserting their right to the land, claiming that they had previously granted “permissive access” to the footpath but were now withdrawing it.
Since then, a war of words has erupted with neighbours saying that they have used the twitten for decades to reach the shops and walk their dogs in the Three Cornered Copse.
On Tuesday (24 September) council workers visited the scene so they could assess repairs to the storm-damaged wall.
On arrival, they were confronted by Sohail Shahin, 30, the son of the homeowner, who disputed their right to access the footpath.
He said that Brighton and Hove City Council was aware that the family were exercising their right to withdraw permissive access to the pathway.
For their own protection, workers from council called the police to accompany them in their task.
Eventually they were able to persuade the homeowner to remove padlocks on the fencing and gained access to the twitten.
A team of council workers and contractors were able to assess the damage and the likely work needed to make it good.
But Nader Shahin, owner of the property, said: “The council know about our legal claim to this land. We have always granted permissive access to it but it’s not safe now.
“The row with our neighbours has been terrible. I have had people throwing dog mess into my house, people urinating against my walls and people spitting into my garden.
“It’s really very, very stressful. I can’t believe it has blown up into such a commotion but we are only doing what is right.”
Mr Shahin, a gas engineer, said: “I have lived here for the past 22 years and brought up my family here. I feel we are being unfairly vilified. But the council has to realise that we have a claim on the land.”
Sohail Shahin said: “This is going straight to a court of law. We’ll sue the council for this. They’re claiming it is a public right of way but they’re just trying to take what is rightfully ours.”
One council worker, who would not be named, said: “It’s outrageous that police have be called to ensure our safety. We shouldn’t have to face abuse and threats when we are just trying to do our work.
“This is a public right of way and needs to be opened up to the public as soon as possible.
“It has been used for decades by the public and suddenly this family claim they own it. It doesn’t add up.”
Among concerns are that those living on the Woodland Avenue side of the copse can no longer quicky reach the public defibrillator in Woodland Parade.
One resident, who would not be named, said: “This has been rumbling on for months and months and the family at the centre have made a right nuisance of themselves and are now at war with almost everyone.
“Enough is enough. If there are any further threats from this family towards neighbours then arrests have to be made.”
Councillor Trevor Muten, the council’s cabinet member for transport, parking and the public realm, said: “We have now made a legal order confirming our ownership of the land and our team has been back today to fully assess the damage to the wall so work can begin as soon as possible and the footpath can start being used again.
Sussex Police said: “We assisted the local authority in case of breach of peace. No arrests were made.”
Surely this can be sorted out very quickly, by the land registry, and by deeds,if it’s been used for more than a decade without protest I “think ” it can become law,???
The period is 12 years but you have to show that you have maintained a boundary and occupied ed the land.
Seems fairly simple to resolve. Doesn’t necessarily even need to go to court.
Mr Shahin seems convinced of and confident in his claim to the land and his rights to withdraw access consents.
Councillor Muten, responsible council member and speaking on behalf of the council & their legal position regarding land rights & associated freedom of movement/ free access authority.
All Mr Shahin needs to do is offer to this publication and/or any registered news organisation for the Brighton & Hove area a notorized/ legal copy of the land registry documents associated to his property that unambiguously shows his ownership. Surely that would erase all doubt. Would help neighbors see proof of claim & hopefully lead them to a change of opinion/ stance not to mention ease tensions and bad feelings. It’s nothing but a net positive for he and his family across all aspects of the issue.
The councillor could and should do likewise to demonstrate to the electorate that they are in the right legally regarding their claims. There is NO reason why any council records regarding ownership of the land and/or authority to grant or revoke public rights of way cannot be publicly disclosed. Doing so would not breach any person or entities privacy & the publishing of them, as existing current public records, would not unduly influence or prejudice any legal case current or potential as as stated they will already be publicly accessible.
So TO BOTH PARTIES. Your excuses not to have been addressed. The benefits. To both the involved parties directly & the public at large have been highlighted.
I respectfully invite both to offer up the proof that substantiate the claims made OR acknowledge inability to prove legal claim & concede.
Of course it’s the parties choice to make but with what is such a clear & obvious path to resolution in your hands it, imho, could only raise the question of “Why not”?
Ignoring the anecdotal evidence and that the family claim they own it… Instead, let’s look at the evidence.
1) OS maps from 1948 to 1950 (published ca. 1951) clearly show a break between the two properties but no footpath. However, let’s not forget that local authorities weren’t required to publish official maps of footpaths until the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
2) Current OS maps show this a footpath, NOT A permissive footpath.
3) The resident’s own planning application BH2014/03283 (from 2014 / 2015) includes a Location & Block Plan and Elevation drawings that clearly shows the footpath (even using the wording PUBLIC FOOTPATH in the Elevations) running NEXT TO their indicated property; not through it with a note, but outside of the boundary THEY have declared in THEIR planning application.
@Sean Fowler – Yes, you are also correct and a Land Registry search will probably also prove the homeowners to be liars. The ‘used without protest’ argument holds less weight if always noted as a permissive path, but having used it myself (infrequently) there was never anything that I noticed.
There are far too many homeowners who are happy to grab some land and hold onto it for common law to cede it to their ownership. In this case the householder may find himself facing a ruinous debt brought on by the Local Authority’s legal expenses if they win in court. A couple from Battle, East Sussex, lost their home in a similar issue.
This has been on OS maps dating back to the 1880s before Woodland Drive even existed. At this point it’s been used for more than long enough by the public that the resident should have no leg to stand on! Just seems like they’ve taken advantage of the situation of the broken fence to try and gain a metre extension to their garden.
I agree chancers that’s what they are
Scott is absolutely right about the existence of a path before and after the development of Woodland Drive. Mid 19th century OS map clearly shows a historic route which has been preserved as a through route in later maps.
What is concerning here is that an individual is able to block access to public right of way for so long without action being taken against him.
Meanwhile #56 is going to auction in a few days time for the house to be sold.
The footpath has been confirmed as a public right of way and as such cannot be obstructed without permission from the Council as the local highway authority. Officers who attended on 10 September explained this to the scaffolding company. The company were told a licence would be needed and requested that the scaffold be built in such a way as to not obstruct the footpath. The scaffolding company informed officers that this was not possible with the current design for the scaffold and so agreed the scaffold would need to be removed at that time, redesigned and then installed at a later date to give access.
The Council’s Building Control officers visited number 56 to assess the state of the wall on the same date and, whilst they were present, were made aware by #54 that they had concerns about the chimney at their property and were asked by them to assess it from a safety perspective. 54 granted access to their property to the Building Surveyor and they visually inspected the chimney from outside. The Surveyor considered that the chimney appeared to be sound but that the lean-to which is built onto the chimney, was in a poor state of repair. 54 were advised to seek advice from an independent structural engineer.
The Order that has been made is known as a legal event modification order, made under s53 (3) (a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This Order records, on the Definitive Map, legal changes to the map that have already taken place. In this case, the Council as local highway authority clearly considered and treated the path as public highway – it maintained and treated it as such for well over 20 years. As a result, the Order was made and, unlike many other changes toThe footpath has been confirmed as a public right of way and as such cannot be obstructed without permission from the Council as the local highway authority. Officers who attended on 10 September explained this to the scaffolding company. The company were told a licence would be needed and requested that the scaffold be built in such a way as to not obstruct the footpath. The scaffolding company informed officers that this was not possible with the current design for the scaffold and so agreed the scaffold would need to be removed at that time, redesigned and then installed at a later date to give access.
The Council’s Building Control officers visited number 56 to assess the state of the wall on the same date and, whilst they were present, were made aware by you that you had concerns about the chimney at your property and were asked by you to assess it from a safety perspective. You granted access to your property to the Building Surveyor and they visually inspected the chimney from outside. The Surveyor considered that the chimney appeared to be sound but that the lean-to which is built onto the chimney, was in a poor state of repair. You were advised to seek advice from an independent structural engineer.
The Order that has been made is known as a legal event modification order, made under s53 (3) (a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This Order records, on the Definitive Map, legal changes to the map that have already taken place. In this case, the Council as local highway authority clearly considered and treated the path as public highway – it maintained and treated it as such for well over 20 years. As a result, the Order was made and, unlike many other changes to the Definitive Map, this does not require confirmation from the Planning Inspectorate to take effect. It took effect on the date it was made. The Order was made available for public inspection and it can be seen on the Council’s website.
If you remain concerned regarding the issues you have raised, we would advise you to seek your own legal advice in this regard.
the Definitive Map, this does not require confirmation from the Planning Inspectorate to take effect. It took effect on the date it was made. The Order was made available for public inspection and it can be seen on the Council’s website.
All very frustrating – almost one year since the wall fell down ………..
A path can belong to a land owner and still be a public right of way.
Many public footpaths and bridleways are not owned by councils but by farmers and others. However, there can be a right of way across that land that the landowner cannot remove. It is a criminal offence to block that right of way and there are obligations to maintain.
A landowner can also give permissive access across land. This is shown differently on maps and there will also be an agreement in place for this as well as possible other actions (eg. closing for at least a day a year)
This family does urgently need legal advice. Ownership isn’t the issue here – the right of way is. Permissive could be a claim – but where is the agreement? I can’t see their legal case from what is stated – but they could have their right to an expensive day in court….
The council and their staff now seem motivated to move quickly after a year of delays. Let’s hope this is reopened soon
Dear Brighton & Hove City Council,
On the morning of Tuesday, 10th September at approximately 9:00 am, scaffolding was being erected at our property, 54 Woodland Drive, to address an unsafe structure. During this process, we were unexpectedly approached by Sussex Police, council representatives, and contractors who demanded the immediate dismantling of the scaffolding and the reopening of the adjacent pathway to the public. The representatives arrived equipped with bolt cutters and issued a Legal Event Modification Order pertaining to the pathway. Under the threat of a £4,500 fine, the scaffolders were compelled to dismantle the scaffolding and vacate the site without completing their work.
Throughout this encounter, I repeatedly requested the presence of a Health and Safety Inspector to assess the situation. At the very last minute, the council agreed to dispatch two inspectors from Building Control. They arrived within half an hour, and we welcomed them into our property. Following their inspection, they confirmed that the wall was indeed unsafe. Only after this inspection did the police, council representatives, and contractors depart from the site. We have video footage documenting the entire sequence of events.
Following this ordeal, we contacted the Planning Inspectorate under the Secretary of State for clarification regarding the order issued on the pathway. The response we received was as follows:
—
**Dear Mr Shahin,**
Thank you for your email.
Looking at the pictures you have attached, I would advise that the Order is premature. Therefore, it will not have been submitted to us yet. If the Council receives objections, and they cannot be resolved by the Council, the Order will be referred to us, the Secretary of State, for determination.
The Order states it was made on 9 September 2024. The Council will now publish a notice, to which you will be able to respond and send your objection to the Council. There is usually 42 days (but it will specify on the Notice from the Council) for you to submit this objection.
I hope the above is of help.
Kind regards,
Nabiha Hussein
—
We find ourselves in an intolerable position, as the only victims in this situation, having endured constant abuse, including verbal harassment, stalking, incitement of hatred, vandalism, and even the throwing of dog excrement into our property. We have CCTV evidence to substantiate these claims. In addition, individuals have urinated on our property, further aggravating our distress.
With regard to the pathway, we believe that we are the rightful owners. Our deeds clearly state that the plot size must not be less than one-sixth of an acre. Without the inclusion of the pathway, our plot size falls below this requirement. Additionally, the deeds for 56 Woodland Drive explicitly reference the north and west walls as being under their ownership, with no mention of the southern boundary wall. The fact that the bricks of the southern wall match those of our property further supports our belief that the wall belongs to us.
Furthermore, the deeds of our property stipulate that no easement or implied easement is permitted, indicating that the alleyway in question was originally created as a permissive walkway, with exclusive rights reserved for the landowner. This confirms that the pathway was never intended to serve as a permanent public right of way. In contrast, 56 Woodland Drive is located within a conservation area, and the wooden panels that were added to the southern wall, which directly contributed to the wall’s collapse, should never have been installed. Additionally, there are trees within 56 Woodland Drive whose roots have caused significant damage to our property, further exacerbating the ongoing issues we have faced.
We are currently pursuing legal action against the owners of 56 Woodland Drive, as their actions directly led to the collapse of the wall. The installation of extra panels on the wall effectively acted as a sail, which ultimately caused the wall to collapse. In 2017, 56 Woodland Drive was ordered to remove panels from the front wall of the property. Had the panels on the southern wall been removed at the same time, we would not be in this position today. Given that the property is within a conservation area, the installation of these panels should have been strictly prohibited in the first place.
While the alleyway holds no inherent value to us, we cannot continue to endure this distressing situation. We feel it necessary to address this matter through legal channels to prevent any recurrence in the future. As I approach retirement, I seek peace and security in my home, free from further conflicts of this nature. I must also express that, throughout this ordeal, we have never been directly contacted by the council, and it is deeply concerning that we have been left without any form of communication or explanation regarding the council’s actions.
Moreover, due to the treatment we have received, we are now unable to secure scaffolders willing to work on our property out of fear of fines or legal repercussions. It is profoundly disheartening that we have been made to feel like second-class citizens, subjected to undue pressure and mistreatment. Every point we have raised is backed by substantial evidence, and we kindly ask that the council now take the time to explain its actions and provide the support we deserve.
Yours sincerely,
Nader Shahin
54 Woodland Drive
Brighton & Hove
BN3 6DJ
To this date, we have never received any correspondence from Brighton and Hove Council regarding this matter.
Seems like you’re trying to pull a fast one. Looks like it’s a public footpath and you can’t do anything about it.
Greed is rife in Hove
Worth seeking legal help. You need advice on whether your evidence would meet the needs of a court. I doubt it from what you have said, but you need some advice IMHO. The land may or may not be yours, but in whatever case it can still have a right of way across it. Many farmers own fields that have footpaths crossing them.
Also, I think it’s worth considering what you have written: “We find ourselves in an intolerable position, as the only victims in this situation”. Others will see themselves as victims and hurt in this situation too. A route many of them have used for many years is not available at the moment, causing them hurt and inconvenience over many months.
It is worrying that the council haven’t explained their position to you. But have you written to them and set out your evidence? If they haven’t replied then there are routes to complain. Ideally, a meeting would help move things forward, although I suspect that they may be concerned about doing this with legal threats, shouting and so on. But before this, it is worth getting advice on your legal position as it doesn’t look as strong as you think it is. For example, have you looked up permissive paths? Have you got any photos of signs that say that it is permissive and who can use it over the last 20 years, ideally dated? Any bills for the maintenance (the council says they have maintained for over 20 years which is strong evidence). Any written agreement with the council for permissive access (which is the usual way a landowner agrees this)
It isn’t good that you are not feeling safe and secure in your home. Hopefully, this can be resolved quickly and you and all those who are affected by this can find a way forward.
Victims?are you serious wake up pal
54 are totally clueless and have no proof of anything beyond their own stupidity. They have used some ancient Indian laws to back up their pointless rants as evidence of their right to occupy the path.
All maps, land registry deeds, 50 years of residents access and indeed all previous documentation from themselves in planning permission clearly show this is a footpath. The only evidence to the contrary is a metal fence they have put up and padlocked!
The excrement and urination makes for great reading but I feel fairly sure would have been shared as actual evidence were it to be true. The only person who has been arrested in this sorry story so far is the son who was seen being placed into a police van on Friday. No one else has done anything on their property and the only harassment is a continual group of people seeking to use this pathway.
A truly unpleasant household seeking to capitalise on number 56 being repossessed. They once applied for permission for a nursery on this site. How anyone would ever have entrusted them with their own children is beyond comprehension.
The council have been ultra slow in dealing with this and our only hope is that they pull their finger out given they now have the right to reopen this now…
The evidence provided by the home owner is circumstantial at best whereas Nic Drys is well presented and clear. The whole while the family waste time through the legal process it leaves no access and costs for the council which we all pay.
The easy solution is to put the bricks back in next doors garden and open the path while it goes through the court. However the family living there clearly don’t want this and are fighting it inconveniencing eveyone
It’s disappointing and laughable that all concerned are so invested in this situation, especially the residents of 54,I say this while I consider the events in Gaza and southern Lebanon etc , committed by the so called state of Israel,that I see in the news.
I’m not able to post my true feelings, however I hope and trust time will show moral justification against said “state”.
I clearly digress a little.opps
Again sort your sad , narrow minded,inbred lives out.There are much more important issues happening..
Not sure, as you say, what the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East has to do with the situation in woodland drive. I assume you still manage to do your daily shopping and get out for the odd walk etc whilst the situation unfolds. I think we can forgive you this as we appreciate you cannot single handedly resolve the issues there. I am not sure as that makes you inbred? But thanks for the childish and slightly unusually thought out comment 😉
Soooo. The Councillor has stated, and provided numerous, complete, document identifiers for the other party and the general public to verify themselves.
The councillor, on behalf of BHCC by proxy, has put in writing on a public forum ( this place) a direct legal claim & asserted it’s legal authority to state the lands access as public land.
Therefore anyone is free to access that land at will for any legal purpose they see fit without need for notice to anyone or any entity.
So a fallen down wall is the issue. It is the wall of the currently vacant number 56. I see no reason at all why, should the mood take me, I ( or anyone else for that matter) cannot come over all public spirited and spend an afternoon picking up those bricks and placing them back within the visually apparent boundary of #56.
I’d also probably remind myself that were I to decide doing so would make for a productive afternoon that as I’d be on public land going about my business that in this day and age it is wise to be mindful of ones surroundings. That if anybody, for any reason, was to try and restrict my free movement, let alone make verbal or physical threats to my person that I maintain the legal right to defend myself from physical harm if I genuinely believed I was at imminent risk, acted with the minimum force I believed needed at said time and took steps to report the crime against my person and/or take reasonable steps to obtain police assistance.
I’ve no idea if that kind of mood might randomly pop into my head of course & id have to check my diary anyway. Does make for an interesting thought experiment though, doesn’t it.
Agreed. Sadly the council will not actually agree that the public land is reopen yet. When some kind minded residents tried to do as you suggest the police were called and asked them to leave. Until the council agree the path is safe we are apparently not allowed to reopen the path by moving the bricks. Again it lies in the councils hands and specifically Bella Sankey and Trevor Muten.
Lets hope the guy’s knowledge of Gas engineering is better than his knowledge of the law, otherwise the fire service is going to be busy
A local resident
That is a public right of way it was there before the houses where built I’m surprised that 54 hasn’t tried to extend his back garden a few feet into the copes it’s just a fact he doesn’t like kids going through there at night time
Unless Mr Shahin can produce evidence of his rights to the land, it isn’t his. Zone which case the council should prosecute him.for blocking a public right of way, and he should be forced to clear the path of his rubbish, of face a prison term
Unless Mr Shahin can produce evidence of his rights to the land, it isn’t his. In which case, the council should prosecute him for blocking a public right of way, and he should be forced to clear the path of his rubbish, of face a prison term
Brighton is awash with public rights of way so no 54 needs to familiarise himself with the egalitarian nature of Brighton and Hove’s land laws. This particular twitten is for public access to the ancient Three Cornered Copse and that can’t and shouldn’t be changed.