Following the combative appearance, in August, of Langness landowner Graham Ferguson Lacey, and the decision to extend the Public Inquiry - into whether rights of way have been established on Langness peninsula - to allow further witnesses to appear to counter the evidence of the pro footpath group PROWL, there was an expectation the public inquiry would draw to an unpredictable and contentious conclusion. However, in the event, a ‘no-show’ (12^th October) by any witnesses, to support Mr Ferguson Lacey’s contention that no public rights of way exist on the peninsula, meant the inquiry petered out in a very disappointing fashion.

The inquiry was informed by independent inspector, Roy Hickey, Mr Ferguson Lacey has decided to take the stance the Dept. of Transport has exceeded its Tynwald remit, and is acting ultra vires in considering the area including the golf course, and, therefore, would take no further part in the inquiry.

Mr Hickey said an additional 19 written submissions had been received since the August adjournment and some documents relating to the planning inquiry, held in the 1990’s, into the proposed second golf course, had been added to the inquiry papers. However, he added no evidence had come to light to support Mr Ferguson Lacey’s assertion the Attorney General, or his Chambers, had been substantially involved in the 1990’s inquiry.

So after a three short submissions, two in favour of PROWL’s stance and one supporting the lighthouse compound owners, the Clarksons’ position, Mr Hickey – having established there would be no objection to PROWL spokesman, Ian Costain, making closing submissions on behalf of all ‘pro’ footpath witnesses and advocate Jenny Holt on behalf of the Clarksons - adjourned the inquiry, until the following day, to allow time for a site visit to the northern end of the peninsula.

Mr Hickey invited the Clarksons’ legal representative, Jenny Holt – in the absence of their QC, James Ramsden, unavoidably detained by the Trevor Baines trial – to close first.

Ms Holt essentially stated the Clarksons’ position is no public rights of way have been established as access to the land has been by kind permission of the land owners. She drew attention to the evidence of Simon Riggle and actions taken to make clear there was no intention to ‘dedicate’ any footpaths.

She said the Clarksons did not align themselves to the position of Mr Ferguson Lacy; and added it was unnecessary to do so as it was irrelevant to the situation regarding her clients’ land.

She argued that by notice of the A G, following the access dispute in 1976, entry onto the land had been put on to a formal permissive basis.

Ms Holt also pointed out with the establishment of the ASSI, in the early 2000’s, it had set out the terms for entry on to the land, which included dogs being kept on a lead and being by ‘kind permission’ of the landowner, and that nobody had challenged these terms.

Therefore, she urged the inspector to find that insufficient evidence had been adduced to support the contention public rights of way exist.

Ian Costain commenced his lengthy closing submission, which lasted about an hour, by clarifying PROWL do not see this, as characterized by the press, as a ‘right to roam’ versus a ‘right to privacy’ as they are both irrelevant.

He said PROWL are just drawing attention to the network of well defined paths around the peninsula, which he claimed have been in use for centuries, and seek to get them recognised and ratified.

Mr Costain said ownership and personalities are also irrelevant factors; and whilst it may be inconvenient for the landowners to have the footpaths on their land, this too is also irrelevant.

Of main concern to PROWL, and others, is, he continued, if one part of the network is allowed to be closed off where would this lead in the future if these paths are not protected.

Contrary to Ms Holt’s interpretation of case law appertaining to the creation of rights of way, Mr Costain asserted the Godmanchester & Drain case makes it clear it is not just what the landowner has in mind but what they have communicated to the public.

In this case, he stated, the landowners have failed to convey to the public their intentions.

Mr Costain put to Mr Hickey overwhelming evidence had been presented to the inquiry of long use – and for well over 21 years – by the public of the footpaths, openly and without force or permission; and no witnesses had come forward to say they had seen notices, or obstructions, to support the opposing view.

Therefore, in conclusion Mr Costain maintained the requirements of the Highways Act 1986 had been satisfied and: “the footpaths can be deemed to have become dedicated as highways, and that this dedication should now be confirmed and the routes recorded on the Definitive Map.

The footpaths across this special and significant landscape will have been preserved for future generations, and designated routes along the shores and headlands will mean that the coastal paths around the whole of this spectacular peninsular can take their rightful place in the Raad ny Foillan, the Way of the Gull”.

Mr Hickey, before finally calling the inquiry to a close, thanked a long list of people for their help and assistance during the inquiry, including the public who he said had presented their evidence in a focused way and had avoided straying into areas of innuendo and accusation.

Mr Hickey is expected to complete his report fairly promptly and said he anticipated a copy, or bizarrely “a version of it”, would be made public when the DOT Minister (Glenfaba MHK David Anderson) makes his decision known.

The Manx Herald hopes this was a ‘gaffe’ and does not mean he will be asked to rewrite his report - as it is believed other inspectors in the past have been so requested by government - until he gets it to read how government wants it to read.

Putting aside any doubts about the possible integrity of the published report, the Manx Herald is fairly certain though a legal challenge will follow if the inspector, and the Minister, find in favour of PROWL’s evidence.