It started with a spot of well-intentioned gardening. But it ended with the picturesque Nottinghamshire village of Upper Saxondale being pulled apart in three directions. For the past month, a row over maintenance work done to a woodland area has divided the small Rushcliffe community – and led to the resignation of both councillors and volunteers. Four residents who live behind the land took issue with the work – suggesting that, among other things, the cutting down of brambles infringed the privacy of their gardens. But locals who walked on the land had no idea there was a problem – until the parish council suddenly closed off the land, and two paths leading to it, in February. Signposts saying ‘PATHWAY CLOSED’ appeared, rooted into the ground. But why, wondered the locals? Minutes from the parish council’s February meeting revealed just that. It all began in early 2025, with the award of a £10,000 grant to the village from Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, for the upkeep of communal land behind homes on Serpentine Close and Queen Mary’s Close. In September, volunteers – village residents – began working on the site, clearing brambles, cutting down foliage and improving two existing pathways leading to an open meadow behind the properties in question. Rumours of discontent surfaced around December time – but it wasn’t until February’s parish council meeting that concerns were formally raised. “Residents experience persistent overlooking and surveillance of private living spaces,” a document on behalf of the four households said. “The quiet enjoyment of our homes and gardens has been significantly interfered with.” “The living areas of our homes are exposed to continuous public footfall.” There were also complaints about the visual impact of new water butts on the paths, and the removal of brambles further reducing homeowners’ privacy. The documents continue: “The impacts described are ongoing and have been observed consistently for three months. No prior notification, consultation or engagement was undertaken with the directly affected residents before the works commenced.” Finally, the papers ominously suggest that the council may have acted beyond its power and contravened legal grounds. They finish: “This matter is serious.” So the footpaths were closed. The council said the closure was temporary and necessary, so it could seek legal advice. It says it was then told, by insurers, a Rushcliffe Borough Council monitoring officer and the National Association of Local Councils (NALC), that a risk assessment of the paths was required immediately, meaning the paths needed to remain closed. The council also asserts it is not obliged to engage in consultation with external parties regarding developments or works on land they own. But the matter was controversial, with both residents and users of the land complaining. It then transpired that one of the four complaining households was in fact home to a parish councillor themselves. The parish councillor in question, Iris Morgan, denies being involved, and says it was a separate resident of the household who was concerned, and asserts she has always acted properly. But outrage ensued. Some locals theorised that the closures were permanent – after all, the document said that the four residents “unanimously agreed” that the “immediate and permanent closure” of one of the footpaths was “necessary and proportionate”. Furious walkers broke down the signposts and continued to use the paths. Some even buried the signs in the undergrowth. And a notice was stuck up: “Attend the next parish council meeting to see democracy in action.” Residents blasted a “lack of transparency” from the council over what was going on – though the council says that all meetings are open for residents to attend, with agendas and minutes published on the website and noticeboards for transparency. One councillor, Kim Kupfer, also resigned – but when asked why, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service she’d prefer not to comment. And two volunteers, who had created the paths in the first place, resigned from their positions in protest at the parish council’s handling of the situation – viewed by one as “caving in” to the complainants by closing the paths. The authority reiterates that its insurers mandated them to do a risk assessment, which means they needed to shut the routes off. At a crunch parish council meeting on Tuesday, March 23, villagers flooded through the doors. More than 60 onlookers eventually crammed into the tiny room at the Upper Saxondale village hall – with space so tight that some had to stand up. “Normally we only have three people in here,” quipped one councillor. Then two – including Councillor Morgan – left, declaring an interest in the matters. The council explained that closing the path was part of a “holding position” it was taking after learning of the formal representations just before the previous meeting in February – despite suggestions they had known about the concerns since December. Then, two potential resolutions were brought forward. The complainants suggested: Putting the water butts at the end of path one to stop people getting to the meadow, with plants around them to make them look nicer Redirecting one of the paths away from homes, and discouraging access to the meadow from there too Planting new hawthorn where the brambles were removed and at the back of the meadow, as a screen from the properties – paid for by residents as an “act of good faith”. Original volunteers have no involvement in this work – new volunteers or third-party contractors only The council’s proposal was almost the same, except they did not mention the exclusion of existing volunteers and suggested keeping the water butts where they are, but using plants and bushes to screen them from the homes. They also suggested creating a further new path on the far side of the meadow perimeter to link the two paths and discourage people from walking across the meadow and near the homes. And signage requesting people “stay on the path” would be erected. “I am still at a loss to how this has all blown up so quickly,” said one councillor, Phil Wigginson, who only became a member nine months ago. “I feel very emotional about it and very upset that as a result of the poor handling of the situation councillors and volunteers, who have given so much of their time to improve this area, have felt the need to step down,” said a resident, Andrea. “Some of the residents whose houses back onto land have been extremely aggressive and intimidating to other residents walking around. This is unacceptable and has to stop.” The residents accused say that they have presented themselves “calmly” in general and at meetings. Volunteer Jan Stevenson said that having one volunteer and one complainant in the working group as opposing parties “immediately created a division”. She said: “We are not an autonomous group. We are not overly-enthusiastic guerilla gardeners as was said to one of us. We are part of you and our community. We work on behalf of the council. “It is deeply disappointing that (the council) chose to put us on one side opposite and at odds with our friends and neighbours over this. By neglecting to deal with this situation in December, they have taken away the opportunity for the volunteers to address claims in public.” Then one of the complainants spoke. “At times we have felt intimidated by some comments,” he said. “It has felt like mob behaviour. We have felt attacked. And we expected it. But our objection has never been against volunteers at all. It’s been against the parish council for its procedures and processes. “We really do want a resolution to this that is acceptable to both parties. Our family joined in with planting the trees years ago. I still contribute £5 per month to the orchard. So if you think there’s something missing in my community spirit there isn’t. “We’re far from NIMBYs, as some people have labelled us very publicly.” But someone else said: “I’ve lived here for 29 years and our house backs onto parkland on both sides. We have people come right up to our gates with their dogs sometimes. Not once have I ever thought of trying to stop that. “If you have a house that borders parkland, you have to accept that it’s a public park. So I don’t quite understand you saying you’re not a NIMBY when you’re trying to stop people accessing a park in your backyard.” The four councillors considered the two proposals, and, with a majority suggesting that the complainants’ proposal was not a “sensible use of public funds”, voted in favour of the council’s option. The paths were to be reopened immediately as they were. And so it was sorted. A conclusion had been agreed and the concerned residents had been appeased. The saga was over. Or was it? A spokesperson for the residents who live behind the meadow said: “The paths were laid on conservation land by volunteers apparently without the knowledge or approval of the parish council, and without any prior notice, communication or consultation with any residents of Upper Saxondale. “The parish council publishes minutes, has a noticeboard and a newsletter and no notice of intended works was given. Neither were the paths part of the grant funding that the council received for work in the area.” The LDRS understands that the volunteer group included members of the parish council, that discussions were had in parish council meetings about the work, and that the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust welcomed the use of the grant to create the footpath. The spokesperson continues: “Directly affected households have asked the parish council a number of questions around process failures which are still outstanding. “The affected residents had hoped, and still hope to achieve a compromise on the layout – by re-routing the paths and implementing a sensitive planting scheme – and the future management of the area, a situation that could have been achieved by now had we have been consulted before works were undertaken. “For the avoidance of doubt, our questions about the newly-instated paths were about procedure and governance, which goes to the core of protecting all residents – and ensuring that a dangerous precedent is not set. “The reaction to such simple questions has been disproportionately blown out of proportion.” A spokesperson for Upper Saxondale Parish Council said: “The parish council acknowledges the concerns raised by a number of residents regarding the temporary closure of the footpath and the matters discussed at recent meetings. The council wishes to make clear that the decision to close the woodland paths was taken responsibly and as a precautionary measure. “While the council notes the criticisms regarding consultation and communication, it does not accept that it acted improperly. The council acted in good faith, based on the information available at the time, and in line with its duty to ensure public safety and operate within its legal responsibilities. “The council also rejects any suggestion that its actions were taken to favour particular individuals or groups. All decisions were made in the interests of the wider community.”