Lock towpath should be on the map
Letter printed in the Driffield Times 11/04/2003
driffield today archive source
Lock towpath should be on the map : Fred Peeke, of Bridge Street, Driffield writes . ..
ON Thursday December 19 I decided to go for a walk down the old towpath towards Wansford. At about 2pm, alongside the filtration beds on the canal side, I was confronted by two high iron gates with a notice on declaring "private road" with a further notice attached below stating "no access without permission". The gates were closed but unlocked and so I entered and enjoyed my walk. I closed the gate upon my return and walked towards Riverhead. I hadn't walked far before I heard the sound of the gates being opened behind me and I turned at the sound to see a lady opening both the gates to allow her husband to drive out in his car, after which she joined him in the car and drove towards me. It is only a narrow road so to allow him maximum space I walked on the grass on the canal side. Upon drawing level with me, the driver slowed down, lowered his window and asked me who I thought I was in an offensive manner.
I asked him who wanted to know. He then asked me if I could read. I replied that I thought I could read as good as he. He asked me what I thought the notice was for. I replied that I thought it was very offensive and that as far as I knew it was not a private road, the house name would look better on the house wall or in the well kept garden and if he had put up the no entry sign he hadn't the guts to sign it. He asked my name and I told him, even spelling Peeke for him. I mentioned that I was Driffield born and bred, had walked that area man and boy during my 70 years lifespan, that I was law abiding and until I read it in the Driffield Times that it was illegal to walk that path I would continue to do so.
Your paper was pooh-poohed as the local rag and that to confirm the notice I had to get in touch with a Mr Mumby at the highways department of the ERYC at County Hall, Beverley.
The dispute with the ramblers, the navigation boards, the public council meeting and a letter in your paper were mentioned along with the now non-existent public footpath sign. The path and access leading to an area larger than the Beverley Westwood alongside the canal and fishing streams with all the fauna and flora I had believed was a privilege belonging to all.
Is it possible that some high ups somewhere with no idea of what's involved can crack the whip and make the decision to refuse access to an area that has been available to the public since the building of the canal?
Areas encroached upon, well looked after, squatters' rights claimed, built upon, fenced in and then declared private, no access.
I expect that once a right of way, always a right of way and that it took an Act of Parliament to take it away from public use. As a child, before the advent of television, a walk from the canal head on either side of the river to Whinhill Lock, returning on the opposite path, was enjoyed by families, courting couples, dog walkers etc on sunny summer evenings. The Driffield lock and surrounding areas was accessible from both Lock Field and the now alleged private road. A lot of hard work has gone into the enhancement of the area which is a credit to the owner but with gradual encroachment by parties and apathy by the authorities concerned it now appears that this pleasant Driffield facility is going to be denied all.
This is an issue that I feel very strongly about, hence this letter, and I would urge anyone of a similar mind to back Mrs Christine Clubley in her efforts to have the lock, towpath and access put on the Driffield area map.
11 April 2003
Letter printed in the Driffield Times 09/01/2003
driffield today archive source
Riverhead footpath issue :F Peeke, of Bridge Street, Driffield writes . . .
I wish to clarify a matter concerning a dispute which I wrote of as regards my access to the old river tow path on December 19. See the Driffield Times dated January 1.
The notice in the middle of the six foot high iron gates across the canal side road which I personally found offensive and ignored actually reads 'Private Driveway to Lockview and Sedgefield' with the attached notice underneath 'No access without permission.'
I would like to make it clear that the confrontation on that day was between the owners of Lockview (the first bungalow) and myself. Please apologise through your newspaper on my behalf for any misconception or embarrassment which may have been caused unwittingly by myself with the publication of that letter to the owners of the second bungalow Sedgefield. I have been assured that they themselves are dog walkers who are pleased to see like- minded people or anyone enjoying the open areas on the river and fishing stream banks beyond their home towards Wansford.
09 January 2003