To consider any petitions received from members of the public.
Petition against the closure of the footpath, known as ‘God’s Path’, in Pretty Corner Woods, Sheringham
On the 13th of August 2025 a paper petition with 738 signatures from residents stating addresses or post codes from within the North Norfolk District was submitted to the North Norfolk District Council. A further 27 signatories were provided but may not fall within the criteria to be accepted within the petition scheme due to insufficient information to support the signatory living, working or studying within the North Norfolk District Council area. The petition has been accepted as a valid petition.
The following aims of the petition were stated:
To restore public access to the footpath known as ‘God’s Path’ in Pretty Corner Woods, Sheringham.
Minutes:
The Committee heard from, Amanda Swann, speaker for the petition group looking to restore access to the path known locally as ‘God’s Path’ in Pretty Corner Woods, Sheringham.
Cllr Rouse asked the Countryside team how much it would cost to re-open the path. The LLSM said he would not be able to put a cost on that at that time. The ADELS wished to point out that the path, a ‘desire line’, was not a waymarked trail and nor would the Countryside Team recognise it as a path within Pretty Corner. They explained the path cut the corner off one of the waymarked trails. If they were to open that path it would mean a change to how they managed that block of woodland trees and there was an existing path already around it.
Cllr Heinrich felt aerial photos, from the Ordnance Survey, clearly showed the official paths but the path known locally as God’s Path was less visible and whilst acknowledging that the path was clearly well used the Committee would need more detail as to why it could not be re-opened. LLSM explained that the standard approach to managing sites was to use the waymarked trails as they were known to be safe and accessible. Woodland blocks were reserved for nature and regeneration. The Pretty Corner site was a County Wildlife Site, meaning it had been identified as rich in wildlife and sought to support locally threatened wildlife species and habitats. The Council was obligated to protect that and develop the wildlife habitats that existed there. As part of the County Council Nature Recovery Strategy, Pretty Corner had been identified as being of particular importance for Biodiversity. The block was due to be thinned, under a Felling License issued by Forestry England, to allow for natural regeneration which wouldn’t occur if people or dogs were walking through it. This approach was supported by partners, and the site had been awarded Green Flag status receiving the highest possible score. Local ecologists and the Wildlife Trust also supported the management of the site, highlighting that when desire lines go through blocks of trees it caused detrimental damage, including soil compaction and damage to tree root systems. The Countryside team firmly believed what they were doing was the right thing. There were approximately 8km of waymarked trails at Pretty Corner where people could walk and enjoy nature.
Cllr Boyle asked how much further someone would have to walk if they were to take the waymarked path. The LLSM did not have an exact distance to hand but said not much. He admitted as you went around the corner of the waymarked trail it went downhill and could be a little more challenging and as with all woodland sites it was undulating and could be difficult to access by its very nature. Cllr Boyle wished to confirm her understanding that some of those trees where the ‘God’s Path’ cut through were very mature and that is why they were being felled. CSTL explained some were reaching maturity so thinning would be the next step. In answer to an additional question by Cllr Boyle, the CSTL, explained Health and Safety (H&S) was of paramount concern as there were trees within that block that were deteriorating and to make an area safe for people the Countryside team would have had to have felled more trees than otherwise necessary. Surveying would need to be increased around the site if any new path were to be created, further reducing the area of natural habitat. That is not what the Countryside team were trying to achieve in managing a County Wildlife Site or with their felling licence.
Cllr Housden asked how many trees would need to be felled, if the path stayed, in comparison to what needed to be thinned within that block for the management of natural regeneration. The CSTL explained a felling licence was for volume rather than the number of trees. The management of thinning trees was different to having to fell trees for H&S. Cllr Housden argued therefore that H&S took precedence over habitat. The CSTL explained it was a balance across those areas. The ADELS explained that the felling licence allowed you to thin trees based on percentage of trees within that block but if a new path was created, they would have had to fell trees based on the H&S risk so may have ended up felling trees that could have provided deadwood and food for insects. The ADELS said they managed all their sites on 3 principles, one of which was H&S, which had to be paramount, they had to manage that risk as a Council with regular tree surveys. They also managed those woodland sites with habitat and public access in mind. Cllr Housden wished to confirm therefore the path could not be reopened due to H&S grounds and existing programme of tree felling, with wildlife also a given concern. The ADELS confirmed it was.
Cllr Hankins asked if the path had been in use for a considerable amount of time. The LLSM did not believe so. He felt that it was only really used since the Covid lockdown and only as recently as the start of 2025 did the Countryside team notice that people were creating this desire line and using it more often. In response to Cllr Hankins asking what, and who, initiated the change in closing the path, the LLSM explained the Countryside Rangers noticed the path was being used so installed some low-level dead hedging to encourage people not to use that area. Unfortunately, it continued to get walked through so the Countryside team increased the level of dead hedging to make it more obvious there was no access to the woodland block.
Cllr Boyle wished to confirm that thinning the trees would still have had to be carried out within that block regardless of whether the ‘God’s path’ was to be opened. The CSTL explained it would, but you would have to consider that if the path was opened you would need to fell more trees than were otherwise necessary than if just thinning. They found people were exploring that whole block when gaining access through the self-titled God’s Path, many trees where habitat and wildlife were known to live would be affected, such as bats which are protected by law and known to live in some of the dead wood. With high winds becoming a more frequent extreme weather occurrence, any trees surveyed that were vulnerable to falling over any new path would have to be felled as well. Wild birds were also protected by law so there would be an increased harm to them.
Cllr Rouse did not feel it would be worthwhile to open the path given the obvious disruption to the ecological system and wildlife and with the H&S implications involved for what was a very minimal shortcut.
The Chair asked about accessibility and was the feature of gradient a factor for people using God’s Path instead of the waymarked trails. The ADELS said they believed God’s Path was still on a significant gradient, with uneven terrain equal to the waymarked trail, so did not believe the path in question made the site more accessible in any way.
Cllr Shires thanked the Countryside team for the work they do and compared the issue to one they had in the woods in North Walsham and the fine balance required between people enjoying the woods peacefully and ensuring nature prevailed there. It took some time then for residents to realise the Council was trying to protect the wildlife and not trying to stop people from enjoying the beauty of the woodland. Cllr Shires affirmed it was her belief the designated paths were there for a reason, to allow us to enjoy the woodland but not to stray and if the Council was to create new trails where would that end and where would that leave the natural habitat that the Countryside team were trying to protect. The ADELS confirmed those existing trails had been there for a long time and were historic trails and formed part of the Green Flag application. Each year they considered opening new trails, and it was part of that application to consider whether the site was accessible. The Countryside team agreed that their concern would be where would that stop and what would stop someone else from opening their own path. Having a woodland where people could roam free was a completely different type of woodland management and not one the Countryside team subscribed to at that time.
In response to the Chair’s question, the CSTL explained you had two types of felling, felling for H&S risk and felling for thinning but within the Forestry Commission you can additionally fell for regeneration. All tree work, governed by Forestry England, that was carried out in the woods was analysed and checked.
The ADELS explained to the Committee, in response to the Chair’s query, they had attended two meetings, one being the Sheringham Town Council Environment Committee in March to discuss with the group their concerns and they had also met individually to discuss. The Countryside team had a corporate complaint in from an individual on the matter and would now respond to that accordingly. The Chair believed the complaint was around separate issues associated with the path and not specifically about its re-opening.
The Chair felt that there was enough divergence within the Committee that it would be a good idea to be kept updated. The ADELS explained the Countryside team would not be changing their decision. She reiterated they had openly discussed the matter and the reasons behind it and their opinion, after consulting with stakeholders, would not be changing on the matter.
Cllr Bailey suggested that once the Corporate Complaint had been responded to the Committee could be kept informed so they could review at that point.
ACTION Countryside Team to provide an update to the O&S Committee once the existing formal complaint has been responded to.