The ongoing property dispute surrounding Barton Court has taken a sharp turn as James Matthews, husband to Pippa Middleton and brother-in-law to the Princess of Wales, issued a resolute statement defending the installation of security gates on his £15 million Berkshire estate.
As a crucial public planning inquiry resumed, Matthews asserted that his family’s high public profile warrants enhanced security, directly pushing back against demands from local walking groups.
Security Concerns Take Center Stage in Berkshire Footpath War
At the heart of the conflict is a 430-yard driveway on the 145-acre estate, which Matthews purchased in 2022. Shortly after moving into the 32-room Georgian mansion, Matthews installed an electric security gate, effectively blocking Mill Lane—a path local residents claim has been used freely by families and dog walkers for generations.
The West Berkshire Ramblers escalated the matter by applying for a “definitive map modification order” to officially declare the route a public right of way, arguing that the blocked lane forces pedestrians onto dangerous, narrow village roads.
However, in a written statement delivered on the first day of the public inquiry at Kintbury Coronation Hall, Matthews firmly stood his ground:
“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.”
“Never a Public Footpath,” Claims Matthews
Matthews maintained that during his initial visits before purchasing the home, he saw no public usage of the drive, nor did his property conveyancing process indicate any existing public access rights.
A spokesperson for the family reinforced this stance, stating that records show the lane has always been private property. They added that historical signage has consistently labeled the area a private driveway and that the measures were entirely meant to protect their three young children from uncontrolled trespassers.
Furthermore, Matthews stated that in the past three and a half years, he has only seen a “handful of people” attempt to walk the driveway, all of whom acknowledged it was private when approached.
What Happens Next?
While the Matthews family emphasizes the necessity of privacy and security, the Planning Inspectorate’s appointed inspector, Ken Taylor, noted that privacy concerns fall outside the core legal scope of the inquiry.
The legal battle will now hinge strictly on evidence: locals must prove continuous, uninterrupted public use of the pathway over a 20-year window (spanning from 2002 to 2022). If successful, the council will legally enforce the reopening of the route.