Police were called to a blocked right of way for the second time in four days after a councillor organised a gathering at one end of the path for a photo opportunity.
The Conservative councillor, Ivan Lyons, was barracked at length by the occupants of a neighbouring property as he tried to update angry neighbours on why the twitten remained closed.
He was joined by Labour councillor Trevor Muten, the council cabinet member responsible for highways and rights of way.
Councillor Muten tried to explain the legal steps being followed by Brighton and Hove City Council to bring the twitten back into use.
These include dealing with the owner of a property where parts of a boundary wall and fence have collapsed across the path and parts remain unstable.
He said: “I am pleased to report that we have successfully make a legal order confirming this much-loved and well-used twitten as an official public footpath.
“I’d like to thank over 80 members of the local community for their support in evidencing how important this path is to residents.”
As well as having been used by many dog walkers heading to and from the Three Cornered Copse, the path was used by many people living in Woodland Avenue and neighbouring streets to reach shops in Woodland Parade.
Councillor Muten said that he had visited the site a number of times since being made aware of the extent of the problems there.
He said: “We had intended to clear and reopen the path on Tuesday. However, when inspecting the site, it became clear that other sections of the wall are at risk of collapse.
“We have unfortunately had to keep it closed until the area has been made safe by the wall’s owner which may require legal action to be undertaken.
“We are working to get the path reopened as quickly as possible.”
A number of residents told the councillors that the path had been blocked since last October and patience was wearing thin. Several have threatened to deal with the situation themselves.
Sussex Police said that officers attended on Tuesday to prevent a breach of the peace and, without prompt signs of action, the risk appears to remain.
Yesterday (Friday 13 September) Councillor Muten urged residents to give the council more time to follow the due legal process and not to take the law into their own hands.
Last Friday, Councillor Muten met another ward councillor, Samer Bagaeen, an Independent, at the twitten and they spoke with neighbours. Councillor Bagaeen brought the problem to Councillor Muten’s attention earlier this year.
Councillor Bagaeen said earlier this week: “The council was supposed to register the path as public yesterday and open it today, with police in attendance.”
On learning that it remained closed, he added: “I am of course very disappointed for the residents.”
I’m glad no one actually reads this publication. Not one of the concerned residents whom attended the meeting was abusive to the council.
However, two Residents on the adjoining property were very angry and abusive at the prospect of the Twitten being reopened
The article highlights why published media are inaccurate, incompetent and incorrect
I can understand why the residents in the adjoining properties are upset. Twittens do bring about other issues, loss of privacy, noise, loitering to say the least. I actually had to persist with someone loitering, and was told the police and council are very busy, and that may be. Anyway the loitering has stopped.
What nonsense . The Twitten has been there for years and used by local residents constantly . Was the twitten there when they purchased the house?
Same sort of nonsense people complain about when buying a house next door to a pub.. it’s noisy..
Well done Sherlock !
Like the people who moved close to Gatwick Airport then complained about the planes.
You couldn’t make it up could you.
What is this ‘buying a house next to a pub’ trop that idiots seem to be using at the moment? It is really pathetic and makes people look like morons. Using this childish analogy…If you buy a house next to a pub that then routinely breaks the law, you have every right to complain. Grow up.
Well it’s quite simple. Don’t move into a property next to a twitten 🤔🤔🤔….bit like people who move in next to pubs and music venues and complain
It’s a public right of way.
The residents of the property must surely have known it was a public area before moving in.
No loss of privacy, that’s what fences are for.
Loitering happens anywhere.
But in Brighton ‘loitering’ usually means drug dealing and use…and those of us who are not drug dealers dont like that very much.
You probably ought to read it again, Dick. It doesn’t say that any of the concerned residents was abusive to the council.
It does say “The Conservative councillor, Ivan Lyons, was barracked at length by the occupants of a neighbouring property”.
Which is true. The young man can probably count himself lucky not to have been arrested.
Technically, the subtitles for one of the photos does, in fact, say they faced a “torrent of abuse”.
Why was the owners son acting like a 10 year old child,
Why did the owners son make a change of clothing as the police arrive
What was the need for all the disgusting language and insults to the councillors
The small lane has been used by local people for 10’s of years and then you get a family trying to make a land grab, it might be acceptable in some country’s but not in the civilised quarters of Hove
So a path that has been used by the public for at least 60 years to my knowledge, is now the subject of an attempted land grab by a property owner, who is unhappy that he moved into a house next to a public right of way? Perhaps he should move out and live elsewhere.
Has he deliberately damaged his wall and fencing and blocked the path? If so, he should be prosecuted.
Doesn’t matter if he damaged his wall on purpose. Clear the path and that’s it. He’s responsible for his boundery wall/fence so if he doesn’t have anything it’s not anyone else’s problem
So a path that has been used by the public for at least 60 years to my knowledge, is now the subject of an attempted land grab by a property owner, who is unhappy that he moved into a house next to a public right of way? Perhaps he should move out and live elsewhere. Has he deliberately damaged his wall and fence and blocked the path? If so, he should be prosecuted.