James Matthews says Barton Court needs higher security in footpath row

james matthews told a planning inquiry that Barton Court needs higher security as he opposed a bid to recognise a public footpath across part of the drive at the Kintbury property. He said the family home in West Berkshire faces different security needs because of their public profile. The hearing at Kintbury Coronation Hall in Hungerford heard how the dispute now turns on whether the route has enough public-use history to count as a right of way.

Barton Court inquiry

Matthews said, "There are implications for my family, due to their high public profile, which means there is a need for a higher level of security than would otherwise be the case if the circumstances were different". He also said, "When the gate was put in, no one from the parish council or the village came to speak with us, or contacted us, about the gate to say that there was any problem with it being there."

West Berkshire Ramblers applied in January 2023 to recognise the public footpath on the land. West Berkshire Council found that the route was reasonably alleged to exist as a public right of way, using a legal test that can be met if the public has used a route for 20 years without force, secrecy or permission. The council said a route can also be designated if evidence shows a landowner dedicated it in the past and the public accepted that dedication by using it.

Security gate in September 2022

Matthews purchased Barton Court in August 2022 and installed an electric security gate the following month. He said he had no warning in the conveyancing process that public use of the drive was an issue, and he said the route is rarely used. Matthews also said the gates at Station Road were upgraded in the summer of 2025 and kept closed.

The security argument was challenged by evidence from David Hill, who was estate manager for Barton Court from 2016 to 2022. Hill said he did not recall regularly encountering people on the drive who were being told not to be there. He said, "There was no consistent pattern of people coming and going."

David Hill at Barton Court

Hill said he occasionally came across someone who appeared lost or unaware they should not be there. He estimated that happened probably one person every two to three months, although sometimes not as often as that. That account gives the inquiry a narrower picture of use than Matthews’s claim of a drive that needs tighter control.

The case now rests on whether the evidence of public use meets the 20-year test, or whether the landowner’s conduct and the later gate installation point the other way. For Matthews, the immediate issue is not just access across a drive; it is whether Barton Court’s security arrangements can stay in place while the public footpath claim is tested.