The brother-in-law of the Princess of Wales has argued for enhanced security at his West Berkshire property, citing his family's prominent public profile, as a planning inquiry considers whether part of his drive should be designated a public footpath.
Background of the Dispute
James Matthews, who is married to Kate Middleton's sister Pippa, relocated with his family to Barton Court in autumn 2022. The hedge fund boss installed an electric security gate on the drive in September 2022, a move that sparked the current controversy. This prompted the West Berkshire Ramblers group to seek a definitive map modification order in January 2023, aiming to formally recognise a public right of way across the land. Following an investigation, West Berkshire District Council determined that the route was reasonably alleged to exist as a public right of way based on evidence, legislation and case law, according to inquiry documents.
Matthews' Testimony
Mr Matthews objected and told the inquiry the route is rarely used and the gate raised no objections from the local parish council or neighbours. Speaking at the inquiry on Thursday, Mr Matthews added there was nothing in the conveyancing process which alerted him to any public use of the drive when he purchased the property in August 2022.
Mr 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. Therefore to improve security for my family, before we moved in, I arranged for an electric security gate to be erected on the drive. This is the gate at Point X. It was installed in September 2022. It is kept shut, except perhaps on the odd occasion such as when a visit by family or friends is expected. 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. In the period after the footpath application, unfortunately there has been a continued need to enhance security and the gates at Station Road have therefore been upgraded in the summer of 2025 and kept closed.
He also said in the last three-and-a-half years he has seen only a handful of people, on maybe two or three occasions, walking along the drive. Each time he said he spoke to those on the drive and told them it was not a public footpath and they acknowledged that it was not a footpath. Just over a dozen people sat in the public seats as Mr Matthews spoke and he was not asked any questions afterwards.
Council's Position
In a statement to the inquiry, West Berkshire District Council said the application was based on the legal principle that a public footpath can be deemed to exist if it has been enjoyed by the public for an uninterrupted period of 20 years, without force, secrecy or permission, or if evidence infers that a public footpath has been dedicated by a landowner at some point in the past and that dedication has then been accepted by the public (i.e. by being used by the public). The inquiry is being heard in Kintbury Coronation Hall in Hungerford.
Family Spokesperson's Response
A spokesperson for Mr and Mrs Matthews said: James Matthews has the right to create a safe environment on his private property, for his young children playing outside, away from foreseeable risks through uncontrolled trespassers and traffic. For as long as records exist, there has never been a footpath/public right of way on the land currently under discussion. For decades past there has always been signage pointing out this is the driveway to a private property, with no public access. There are other clearly marked footpaths nearby.
Witness Testimonies
David Hill, who was the estate manager for Barton Court between 2016 and 2022, told the inquiry on Thursday morning he does 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. Occasionally I would come across someone who appeared to be lost or unaware that they should not be there. It is hard to estimate but probably one person every two-to-three months although sometimes not as often as that. Always individuals, never groups. In those instances, I would ask whether they were lost or whether they needed assistance. I would tell them that it was not a public footpath and was a private drive. They would either turn back the way they had come, or if they were close to the other end of the route, I might allow them to continue.
Anthony Stansfeld, 80, told the inquiry the case for making the front drive to Barton Court a public footpath is based on fallacies and the drive to Barton Court is private and always has been. He said: The Matthews family have, now that the technology is available, put electric gates on their drive. That seems eminently sensible, especially in view of their security arrangements. He added: I personally do not know the Matthews family. I have only met them once when I sat behind them in church at a carol service just before Christmas two years ago. I remember it particularly as their young son kept trying to pinch my hymn book!
Trevor Coles said in a written statement: Past proprietors of Barton Court have always respected the authenticity and value of this right of way and it is only since new owners have been in residence that obstructions have appeared. Historically, I have absolutely no recall of any hindrance being put in the way of locals and ramblers.
In another written statement, Neal James Pike said: I do not understand why the present owners are trying to close the use of Mill Lane when it has been used by the walking public for decades. It will interrupt free movement of people who appreciate the lovely village of Kintbury and its surrounding countryside. The inquiry continues.
