The current state of the access to the former Cavendish Road car park in Matlock. Image from David Hughes
Report by Local Democracy Reporter – Eddie Bisknell
Concrete Lego blocks placed around an 81-year-old woman’s court-enforced access to her home are “practical, not punitive”, a Derbyshire council has said.
Dozens of large Lego-like bricks were installed by Derbyshire County Council around the access to Helene Ball’s house, through the authority’s former car park in Cavendish Road, Matlock.
The council had cemented a metal fence panel across a 98cm gap in her rear garden wall, leading to a three-year legal battle that cost her in the region of £50,000.
The gap, which once housed a small metal fence of its own, installed by Mrs Ball’s husband, had been used to access the property unopposed for 59 years – since 1967.
A recent tribunal hearing ruled in her favour with the presiding judge, Robert Brown, saying the evidence provided by Mrs Ball and her son, David, far exceeded the “limited evidence”, “surprisingly combative” and “unsubstantiated assertions” of the county council.
Former teacher Mrs Ball said she has felt “bullied” by the council, adding that they have acted childishly, like the children she taught.
In April 2023, the county council, under the Conservative administration, installed the fence and started the dispute, but the legal case, including the recent tribunal decision, proceeded under Reform UK leadership, as have the actions since the ruling.
Mrs Ball remains unable to access her property by vehicle via the court-supported access off Cavendish Road, and costs are the only part of the case yet to be decided, with the ruling already passed.
Pedestrian access also remains hindered by the concrete blocks and orange plastic fences.
Concrete blocks were also installed on the grass on either side of Mrs Ball’s rear garden gate.
So far, even if the entrance was clear, Mrs Ball would need to either reverse up or down the limited route enabled due to the installed concrete blocks, which she says she would need assistance to navigate.
Mrs Ball has told the Local Democracy Reporting Service how frustrated and exhausted she is about the issue and that she wishes to be left by the council to enjoy her remaining years in peace.
The Reform UK-led authority had provided a “no comment” response when approached for a statement, later issuing an apology but saying it “would not be appropriate” to comment further.
However, Councillor Stephen Reed, deputy leader, has issued two lengthy press statements on behalf of the Reform administration and spoken extensively on the radio about the issue.
Cllr Reed said “This situation has caused her genuine distress. The council acknowledged that the original fencing blocked access into neighbouring gardens and apologised for the upset caused. That apology was right, and I repeat it.”
He said Mrs Ball was entitled to express her frustration, but opposed the idea that the council “supposedly bullied an 81-year-old woman”.
On the concrete Lego bricks, he said: “Following the judge’s initial findings, work was undertaken to create a protected route to the rear gate. The concrete blocks were installed to enable vehicular access while restricting access to the remainder of the closed site and deterring fly-tipping, racing and other antisocial activity.
“Temporary blocks remain at the entrance while the final judgment is awaited and the arrangements are checked against it.
“That does not mean the blocks are attractive. It does mean their purpose was practical, not punitive.”
Cllr Reed claimed the concrete bricks were “temporary” and there to “protect her access” and safeguard against “fly-tipping, anti-social behaviour and Travellers”.
He claimed the council has provided immediate access, in accordance with the court ruling, but it has not done so, with the continued blocking of the car park entrance and introduction of new bricks.
Cllr Reed said the “temporary” fencing is “easily moved”, but this is not the case for Mrs Ball, and concrete blocks remain behind those fences.
He said: “Is it perfect? No, and I’ve seen the photos, and I’ve looked at that and gone, why? But we’ve immediately addressed it with the court as a temporary measure to do the right thing by Mrs Ball. Again, we’ve apologised for the distress caused.”
Cllr Reed agreed it would be better to communicate more with Mrs Ball and let her know about the intended arrangements, but claimed “live legal proceedings” prevented him or the council from doing so.
He agreed it did not “feel good” how the council had behaved towards Mrs Ball, saying: “I agree with that. But from my perspective on this, like we’ve said, we’ve already acknowledged the distress caused to Mrs Ball.
“The council has already apologised. We’re working to do everything we can within that respect. And there’s only so much we can do there, and I can’t comment more or tell more of the further story until the legal proceedings are over, and we get the final decision from the court.”
The final court decision has already been issued, with only costs to be decided.
Cllr Reed said: “Directly to Mrs Ball, I would say look, we are really sorry from administration and from the council for the distress this is caused.
“We’ll wait for the legal proceedings to finish, and obviously be concluded. But again, no one wants to see any resident in this sort of state. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve inherited, and again, sincerely from me, we apologise.”
