DOG walkers have expressed fury over the sudden closure of a public footpath, with no prior warning or explanation, by the landowner – and they have questioned the legality of the action.

Furthermore, while some attempt has since been made to reinstate the path, they say that it is now too churned up to walk on.

But the farmer says that, as custodian of the path, he is well within his rights to plough it up while cultivating the land it crosses, and that he will continue in his duty to maintain it as a public right of way.

Richard James believes that some members of the public do not understand the balance that has to be struck by a landowner in farming land crossed by footpaths.

He explained that while in the past 15 to 20 years he has fenced the footpath down one side and kept cattle on part of the land, cattle farming has become unprofitable and so he has decided to return the field to arable.

He added that the field had been ploughed up one day and drilled two or three days later when the ground was dry enough and sown with winter wheat. Tractor lines had been used to reinstate the line of the footpath.

Registered by Hampshire County Council as Footpath 53, the path runs from Borovere Farm to Windmill Hill and is a regular route, especially for dog walkers.

Resident Thelma Wallis said that no notice was given prior to the ploughing of the field which obliterated the footpath.

However, a HCC rights of way officer has confirmed Mr James' statement, that it is a landowner's right to plough and sow land traversed by a public right of way, provided the footpath is reinstated within 14 days.

"The ploughing and sowing is not illegal. Legislation allows farmers with cross-field (those that cross fields as opposed to headland paths along the edge) paths to plough and otherwise cultivate them provided that the initial disturbance (first plough) is reinstated within 14 days and any subsequent cultivation is reinstated within 24 hours.

"Headland paths must not be ploughed or cultivated. It appears that a headland path that looses its headland feature(s) (ie hedge or fence) has no further protection and becomes effectively a cross field path."

Referring specifically to Footpath 53, he continued: "The farmer has not ploughed any headland paths to our knowledge.

"By all reports, the farmer's contractor reinstated the path promptly as would normally be the case with most farmers by simply re-delineating the line of the path by a few passes of the tractor wheels. This being the case, and following reassurance to me from the landowner that any crop growth will be managed by him as it grows so as not to interfere with path users, means then I have no further action to take at this time."

According to the officer: "Hundreds of paths across the county are farmed in exactly this way each year, with only a very limited number of farmers failing in their obligations.

"The difference here is that the path is close-by extensive housing and many walkers will not be expecting a farmed landscape on their morning walk with the dog.

"The farmer has chosen to alter his field access and to bring this area of land back into cultivation.

"It can be easily appreciated how such a change can be a surprise to path users, but Rights of Way are governed by legislation that covers such action and provided this is adhered to and the public can still walk through then no Right is impinged upon."

While Mrs Wallis has confirmed that a tractor has now been driven over the land to mark where the footpath is supposed to be, what was once a fairly solid walkway has now become "a sea of mud".

Unhappy over the state of the path, the sudden closure and unsatisfactory reinstatement has triggered alarm bells among users, concerned about the long-term future of this long-established pedestrian route.

Mr James has confirmed that while he is under no obligation to give prior notice of ploughing the field, the footpath will remain as is.

He further points out that farmers, like himself, do a lot to help keep the countryside open to the public by maintaining footpaths, hedges and gateways but with with very little thanks.

He said he was willing to talk to anyone with any concerns about footpaths crossing his land.