Right of way row rumbles on

Right of way row rumbles on

28 October 2015

AN acrimonious, four-year dispute over an alleged right of way on the picturesque shores of Strangford Lough shows no sign of abating.

On the one side is businessman, Chris Canning, and opposing him are scores of his neighbours who were incensed when he put up a fence in 2011 which prevented people walking along a section of shore near his home.

The residents formed the Concerned Ringhaddy Area Residents protest group, claiming the shoreline was a long standing right of way and should be kept open for the benefit of local people.

But Mr Canning has stuck to his guns and is refusing to remove the fence, disputing claims there was ever a right of way.

Even when the former Down Council passed a motion asserting the right of way, after a monumental investigation, Mr Canning challenged the findings and persuaded the new Newry, Mourne and Down Council to reconsider the matter.

On Saturday the residents’ group held a protest to highlight the ongoing saga and protest at the lack of action by the new super council to open what they believe is a proven right of way.

But so fractured are relationships between the two sides that on hearing of plans for the protest Mr Canning issued High Court proceedings against the residents’ group on Friday, claiming harassment and the infringement of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Before Mr Justice O’Hara a compromise was thrashed out which allowed the protest to go ahead provided the it took place at least 250 metres away from Mr Canning’s Ringhaddy Road home and that he and his family were not obstructed.

So it was that several dozen protesters gathered peacefully on private land well away from Mr Canning’s home, welcoming politicians who turned up to support them and photographers to record the event.

“Jim Shannon, MP for Strangford, attended in person and messages of support were received from councillors William Walker, Terry Andrews and Cadogan Enright. Also from Mike Nesbitt who was attending his party conference,” said a spokesman for the residents.

“Margaret Ritchie is also a supporter and adds to the cross party aspect of the campaign although it is not within her constituency,” he added.

“Many of the protesters had been regular users of the right of way until it was blocked in 2011.

Some had ridden horses, others had driven cattle along it and many more walked their dogs along it or just rambled.

“It is hoped that the council will now ensure that the right of way is once again open for locals, farmers, tourists, artists, birdwatchers and residents,” he continued.

However, Peter Bowles, a solicitor representing Mr Canning rejected claims the right of way existed and said the businessman is prepared to fight the case through the courts.

Describing the ongoing situation as a “personal campaign” against Mr Canning, Mr Bowles said the basis of the group’s protect is fundamentally flawed.

“It appears to be demanded on the basis that the legacy council, Down District Council, has asserted a public right of way; it has not,” said Mr Bowles. 

“A motion was passed by the council on January 26, 2015. It was, however, confirmed by the council’s solicitor that the new council would reconsider the matter following a pre-action protocol letter issued on behalf of my client, prior to applying for leave to apply for a judicial review.  That is where the matter rests. 

“My client is not blocking any right of way and is simply protecting the integrity of his property, property in which the title dates back to January 2, 1911.

“There is no right of way over this land, there never has been and any attempt to try and assert one by the council or any other body will be vigorously challenged by my client.”

And Mr Bowles concluded: “My client has no desire to be involved in litigation with his neighbours. However, in the context of a residents’ group who appear to have no other reason to exist other than to oppose every planning application my client makes, he has no option.”