Pippa Middleton and her husband embroiled in bitter feud over restrictions on…

Pippa Middleton and James Matthews have sparked controversy in their West Berkshire village by closing off a footpath on their £15million estate.

The decision has divided the local community, with some residents upset about losing access to a long-used path, whilst others support the couple’s right to privacy.
The Princess of Wales’s sister and her finance tycoon husband moved into the 145-acre country property two years ago.

The estate was previously owned by the late Sir Terence Conran, who allowed locals to use a country lane leading to the mansion’s private drive.

One villager expressed outrage at the couple’s decision, stating: “I like to walk, and I don’t see why I can’t walk there. I have been walking along there for 50 years.”
The resident added: “When Sir Terence had it, he had no objections. I think we should have a right to roam.”

Another local echoed these sentiments, saying: “It is a lovely walk. Although it wasn’t officially a footpath, Sir Terence didn’t have any objections. He was very nice. Everyone liked him. He was quite involved in the village.”

Some villagers feel the couple are “depriving the village of an amenity” and “throwing their weight around.

Middleton and Matthews have taken decisive action to restrict access to their property. Signs warning “Private: No Public Access” and “No Trespassing” have appeared around the estate.

In March, Mr Matthews submitted a Highway Declaration Notice to West Berkshire Council through his estate manager. This document clearly marks out the couple’s private territory.
The road previously used by locals is now off limits. However, the decision is not yet final.

Eugene Futcher, chairman of the West Berkshire Ramblers, has launched a counter application. He seeks to have the driveway declared a public right of way.

The council is expected to reach a decision next year. Until then, the Matthews family can impose their own restrictions as landowners.
However, some villagers have expressed support for the couple’s decision.

A local business owner defended their right to privacy, saying: “The public assume it is a right of way. It has never been a right of way.

“They were always allowed to walk it by the previous landowner but now it’s owned by somebody else. [The Matthews] have just exercised their right.”

The same supporter criticised those opposing the closure, stating: “Ramblers are narrow-minded people who don’t have anything and don’t want other people to have anything. It is jealousy. If it was their house or garden, would they want anybody to walk through it?”