Pippa Middleton has been accused of using her sister’s royal status to justify banning ramblers from walking on a footpath on the country estate she shares with her husband, James Matthews.
As reported by the Mail last month, Ms Middleton and her hedge fund manager spouse are at war with Britain’s walking charity over access to a path at Grade I-listed Barton Court in Berkshire.
The 145-acre sprawl is familiar to locals in neighbouring Kintbury, who have been using its thoroughfare as a safe means of reaching the village instead of walking on narrow Station Road, which has blind turns, heavy traffic and no pavement.
Mill Lane links the country road with a causeway known locally as The Avenue, which leads to Kintbury via a bridge over the railway and a scenic riverside path.
Locals say the gates of Mill Lane were always left open by the estate’s previous owner – the late Habitat founder Sir Terence Conran – on the understanding that it could be used as a public passageway.
But shortly after snapping up the estate for £15million in 2022, Ms Middleton and Mr Matthews – heir to a Scottish feudal title – installed electric gates and signs reading ‘Private: No Public Access’ and ‘No Trespassing’ at both ends of the path.
Thirty-five residents, backed by The Ramblers’ Association, appealed to West Berkshire Council to have the lane declared a public right of way – but Ms Middleton and her husband have pushed back.
A Planning Inspectorate hearing began in the village hall on Wednesday, attended by Mr Matthews, who sought to claim security and privacy concerns should win out. He lives on the estate with Ms Middleton and their three children.
Pippa Middleton and her husband James Matthews are at war with a group of local ramblers over access to a path on their estate
Mill Lane sits on the couple’s Barton Court estate – linking a public footpath with a busy main road
A diagram showing Mill Lane in its entirety, from the Avenue (A) to the junction with Station Road (C), which locals say is not safe to walk on
But some locals have claimed the sister of the Princess of Wales is exercising her sibling’s royal status to suggest she and her husband deserved special treatment owing to their need for privacy.
One angry local thundered to the Mail in April: ‘They’re not even the proper Royal Family.’
Samuel Robins, who has lived in nearby Little Wawcott all his life, said he had used the footpath for years without challenge.
He told the inquiry: ‘I can state categorically that I have never been told to stop and turn back. It is difficult to see what security and privacy issues are caused.’
Tony Vickers, a local Liberal Democrat councillor, said he had never used Mill Lane as it was not a designated public path, but said he understood locals preferred it to walking on the main road.
But Paul Wilmshurst, the barrister representing Mr Matthews, said in a written submission that declaring the path a public right of way would ’cause very real practical [and] privacy difficulties and security issues’.
‘The route is over land, which, at all material times, has formed and has had the local reputation as being the private drive to the house at Barton Court,’ he added.
He was supported by life-long Kintbury resident Anthony Stansfield, who said in his own written submission: ‘I have never met the new owners. But I can quite understand their concerns about this.’
It is reported that Lady Victoria Conran, Sir Terence’s widow, will give evidence in favour of Mr Matthews and Ms Middleton.
But Ken Taylor, the Government-appointed planning inspector, said questions of privacy and security were outside of the scope of the inquiry – suggesting Ms Middleton’s royal connections will hold no sway.
Instead, the decision will be made based upon the law as it stands on public rights of passage.
Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, a private path can be claimed as a public right of way if the public has had 20 years of ‘unfettered access’ prior.
Mr Matthews attended the opening of the Planning Inspectorate inquiry held at Kintbury’s village hall – unaccompanied by his wife
The inquiry was well attended: 35 locals have opposed Ms Middleton and Mr Matthews’ plans to close off Mill Lane
The couple rejects any notion that the estate’s previous owner allowed locals to pass (pictured: a ‘Private Property’ sign on the estate
But Mr Wilmshurst said this was not the case, as the rail bridge on the Avenue was closed for six months in 2016 so it could be replaced, and that the estate’s gates were locked around eight years ago after being damaged by a lorry, reported The Times.
Last month, West Berkshire Ramblers chair Eugene Futcher told the Mail on Sunday the decision to close Mill Lane was putting members of the public at risk.
‘People have used it for a very long time – certainly since the 1960s,’ he said.
‘Taking it away will be inconvenient, especially when walking is so important to mental health. It will force people on to the main road, which is very dangerous.
‘There is no footpath or verge. The paths were never closed under Conran – he actively encouraged people to use them.’
This isn’t the first time the couple have rubbed locals up the wrong way: Mr Matthews’ 50th birthday party last September featured a Spitfire display, upsetting local dogs, and was allegedly a source of noise until 1.30am.
A spokesperson for Ms Middleton and Mr Matthews has rubbished claims that Sir Terence Conran allowed locals to use Mill Lane as a right of way.
‘For as long as records exist, there has never been a footpath or public right of way on the land currently under discussion,’ the spokesperson told the Mail.
‘For decades past there has always been signage pointing out this is the driveway to a private property, with no public access. There are other clearly marked footpaths nearby.
‘Contrary to media reports the previous owners at the property from as far back as the 1970’s, did not allow public access to the land under discussion. It has always been private property.’
