|
|
Case ID
25026136
I provide here further information responding to the inadequate and inaccurate reply received from Plymouth City Council [PCC] on the 13th of February 2026 about ‘the path’.
Firstly, PCC are factually incorrectly that the path was closed in 2019. It was in spring 2020 that the landowners temporarily closed the path at short notice. Yet contrary to PCC’s letter, the path is shown still today as open on the South West Coast Path map [at bottom of page]. I had been unaware that the closure of the path was deemed permanent, which is why I made my complaint to PCC in 2025.
Since my initial letter, I have since now learnt that there were multiple attempts by other residents to establish the reason for the paths closure, however they also received no or limited replies from PCC since 2020. This PCC rightly admit was the fault of their online complaints procedure which they acknowledge needs rectifying.
Yet I also recently learnt there was a formal Freedom of Information request sent to the council by a local resident on 22/11/24, whereby PCC were unable to provide further information about the matter of the path. This was despite PCC having identified 22,000 emails about the path, yet when the search criteria were narrowed, it produced 0 results. Consequently, PCC refused to share the information as it would require hand searching. This further hampered attempts to establish if the path was permanently closed.
However, PCC has never maintained an accurate Definitive Map and Statement for the city. Firstly, the document was last published in 2014 with multiple new roads and housing not recorded on it. Secondly, many old rights of way well known to exist in the city at that time, were not accurately recorded. Finally, while updates exist on the modification register, the last recorded modification was in 2019, further compounding the document’s inaccuracies.
The map’s inaccuracies therefore partly relieve PCC of conducting a public path order. However, they also rightly acknowledge that a path without being on the Definitive Map can still have public rights. They also acknowledge PCC knew the path was well used by the public. Indeed, the path’s modernised concrete steps and steel walkway was well publicised, as it was funded at public expense by the ‘Plymouth Development Corporation’ and well documented in the local media.
The current landowners then took over the land by 1998. They too were fully aware of their responsibilities towards the public rights over the path as the title deeds describe a ‘footpath and steps’ traced on its plan. It states the path should have, “The right of the public at large to pass and repass over and along the Footpath as if the same were part of the highway maintainable at public expense subject to such temporary interruption as may be reasonable.”
Furthermore, PCC wrongly claim that the new route is adequate and very similar. The new route has worryingly had in the last six months X2 crashes involving multiple cars which has warranted police investigation. In addition, as the road is subject to heavy traffic, the path’s benefits to mental health benefits and unpolluted fresh air have been lost to me and my family. It also bypasses a café I mentioned which has suffered from reduced footfall/trade.
Nevertheless, the integrity of the path must be discussed.
PCC are wrong to claim the path is significantly eroded. The local geology is Devonian limestone which is established to be a dense, hard wearing and durable rock. The path is also not subject to the coastal erosion seen in other parts of the country. This is because whilst it is at height, it is on the lee shore of a very sheltered bay of a tidal river. [Above] you see a photo taken in 2024, and the second in March 2026, as you see there is minimal change. This is despite the section shown having been subject to x8 named storms and one of the wettest winters on record!
PCC were wrong to agree to a permanent closure based on the presence of solely the landowner's representative, a PCC employee and a Trails Officer. Indeed, another resident arranged a meeting with the then PCC Service Director for Street Services. He intimated in other areas of the county there were many other paths with significantly poorer structural integrity, which were easily repaired, and he personally supported this repair.
Sufficient evidence that the walkway is putting the public at significant risk should be available for inspection by the public. Fortunately, I have obtained knowledge of a structural engineer’s report following an inspection in 2024 by a structural engineer with noteworthy professional qualifications of MEng (Hons), CEng, MICE Associate. His main findings are detailed below
A section of the cliff face has fallen away, and it appears some concrete blinding has also fallen with it. There is very little evidence of this debris down below. The walkway appears to be directly cast on the rock of the cliff, but the rock beneath that remains appears of reasonable condition. It is unknown if there is any reinforcement in the path itself, and typically these are unreinforced. However, it still being in place suggests there may be some.
He suggests the following, very workable solution, below:
In order for the walkway to be supported, the now suspended structure needs to be supported by the rock below. A sensible option may be to fix some reinforcement into the rock face (chemically fixed) and then cast a section of concrete beneath the footway and to the rock approximately 1.5m below. Access from the lower side is challenging, so it would need to be from above. A scaffold structure may be suspended from above to allow a working platform to form the shuttering. The missing section could then be filled in with concrete.
PCC are incorrect to suggest that they need to actively look to secure funding or have an unfunded capital scheme to attempt repairs. This is because it is the landowner’s responsibility. Fortunately, the landowners are a large a multinational called Yacht Havens Limited. They state in their financial statement on Companies House for 2025 that ‘the financial position of the company is strong, the cash position of the group is one of strength, and healthy cash flows are projected forward.’ The company could approach their insurance company if they wished.
PCC have a prime opportunity to demonstrate that they can meet the needs and desires of 1000’s of their residents who are passionate about the path, without capital cost to themselves.
I look forward to your response.
25026136
I provide here further information responding to the inadequate and inaccurate reply received from Plymouth City Council [PCC] on the 13th of February 2026 about ‘the path’.
Firstly, PCC are factually incorrectly that the path was closed in 2019. It was in spring 2020 that the landowners temporarily closed the path at short notice. Yet contrary to PCC’s letter, the path is shown still today as open on the South West Coast Path map [at bottom of page]. I had been unaware that the closure of the path was deemed permanent, which is why I made my complaint to PCC in 2025.
Since my initial letter, I have since now learnt that there were multiple attempts by other residents to establish the reason for the paths closure, however they also received no or limited replies from PCC since 2020. This PCC rightly admit was the fault of their online complaints procedure which they acknowledge needs rectifying.
Yet I also recently learnt there was a formal Freedom of Information request sent to the council by a local resident on 22/11/24, whereby PCC were unable to provide further information about the matter of the path. This was despite PCC having identified 22,000 emails about the path, yet when the search criteria were narrowed, it produced 0 results. Consequently, PCC refused to share the information as it would require hand searching. This further hampered attempts to establish if the path was permanently closed.
However, PCC has never maintained an accurate Definitive Map and Statement for the city. Firstly, the document was last published in 2014 with multiple new roads and housing not recorded on it. Secondly, many old rights of way well known to exist in the city at that time, were not accurately recorded. Finally, while updates exist on the modification register, the last recorded modification was in 2019, further compounding the document’s inaccuracies.
The map’s inaccuracies therefore partly relieve PCC of conducting a public path order. However, they also rightly acknowledge that a path without being on the Definitive Map can still have public rights. They also acknowledge PCC knew the path was well used by the public. Indeed, the path’s modernised concrete steps and steel walkway was well publicised, as it was funded at public expense by the ‘Plymouth Development Corporation’ and well documented in the local media.
The current landowners then took over the land by 1998. They too were fully aware of their responsibilities towards the public rights over the path as the title deeds describe a ‘footpath and steps’ traced on its plan. It states the path should have, “The right of the public at large to pass and repass over and along the Footpath as if the same were part of the highway maintainable at public expense subject to such temporary interruption as may be reasonable.”
Furthermore, PCC wrongly claim that the new route is adequate and very similar. The new route has worryingly had in the last six months X2 crashes involving multiple cars which has warranted police investigation. In addition, as the road is subject to heavy traffic, the path’s benefits to mental health benefits and unpolluted fresh air have been lost to me and my family. It also bypasses a café I mentioned which has suffered from reduced footfall/trade.
Nevertheless, the integrity of the path must be discussed.
PCC are wrong to claim the path is significantly eroded. The local geology is Devonian limestone which is established to be a dense, hard wearing and durable rock. The path is also not subject to the coastal erosion seen in other parts of the country. This is because whilst it is at height, it is on the lee shore of a very sheltered bay of a tidal river. [Above] you see a photo taken in 2024, and the second in March 2026, as you see there is minimal change. This is despite the section shown having been subject to x8 named storms and one of the wettest winters on record!
PCC were wrong to agree to a permanent closure based on the presence of solely the landowner's representative, a PCC employee and a Trails Officer. Indeed, another resident arranged a meeting with the then PCC Service Director for Street Services. He intimated in other areas of the county there were many other paths with significantly poorer structural integrity, which were easily repaired, and he personally supported this repair.
Sufficient evidence that the walkway is putting the public at significant risk should be available for inspection by the public. Fortunately, I have obtained knowledge of a structural engineer’s report following an inspection in 2024 by a structural engineer with noteworthy professional qualifications of MEng (Hons), CEng, MICE Associate. His main findings are detailed below
A section of the cliff face has fallen away, and it appears some concrete blinding has also fallen with it. There is very little evidence of this debris down below. The walkway appears to be directly cast on the rock of the cliff, but the rock beneath that remains appears of reasonable condition. It is unknown if there is any reinforcement in the path itself, and typically these are unreinforced. However, it still being in place suggests there may be some.
He suggests the following, very workable solution, below:
In order for the walkway to be supported, the now suspended structure needs to be supported by the rock below. A sensible option may be to fix some reinforcement into the rock face (chemically fixed) and then cast a section of concrete beneath the footway and to the rock approximately 1.5m below. Access from the lower side is challenging, so it would need to be from above. A scaffold structure may be suspended from above to allow a working platform to form the shuttering. The missing section could then be filled in with concrete.
PCC are incorrect to suggest that they need to actively look to secure funding or have an unfunded capital scheme to attempt repairs. This is because it is the landowner’s responsibility. Fortunately, the landowners are a large a multinational called Yacht Havens Limited. They state in their financial statement on Companies House for 2025 that ‘the financial position of the company is strong, the cash position of the group is one of strength, and healthy cash flows are projected forward.’ The company could approach their insurance company if they wished.
PCC have a prime opportunity to demonstrate that they can meet the needs and desires of 1000’s of their residents who are passionate about the path, without capital cost to themselves.
I look forward to your response.
