Dragon Interview: Village Association Chair Pleads His Case to Keep Path Open

Published on: 26 Feb, 2026
Updated on: 6 Mar, 2026

Dragon editor Martin Giles interviewing Lorimer Burn

Lorimer Burn has walked his dog along the field side path on the Hog’s Back twice a day for 20 years, so Loseley Estate’s decision to close the path has affected him directly.

But he is not the only one.

He is also the chair of the St Catherine’s Village Association, which has put information on its Facebook page and started a What’s App group. Both have attracted a big reaction showing that he is not the only one who feels strongly.

Aerial view showing location of blocked path. Apple Maps

Loseley Estate says the closure is because of damage to crops those using the path have caused. The path, which takes up between one and two hectares of land from the arable fields it borders, is not a right of way.

Please listen to Martin Giles’ interview with Lorimer Burn to learn more about why the Loseley Estate action is causing such a stir. And please note, as pointed out by Dragon reader Stephanie Webster, a path 2m wide by 1,000 m long is one fifth of a hectare, not two as stated in the interview.

Video filmed an edited by Isabelle Trubshaw.

Responses to Dragon Interview: Village Association Chair Pleads His Case to Keep Path Open

Stephanie Webster Reply

February 26, 2026 at 5:42 pm

If the path is 2m wide and 1000m long it takes up one fifth of a hectare – not 2 hectares.

Editor’s response: Thank you for pointing out my error. I will point it out in the article too.
Ros McMillan Reply

February 27, 2026 at 1:26 pm

Lorimer Burn is an excellent advocate for our community. I also grieve at the loss of access to a much loved path. But in his interview I feel he understated the damage that the tenant farmer has had to tolerate over the last five or six years.

The huge influx of walkers who arrived around Covid time resulted in the trampling down of two wire fences, one of which was to give access to a completely different and unofficial path at the side of the field. The other led to the path at the top of the field which we have used and enjoyed for years.

But the widening of this path from about two feet to six is not trivial. I have met people walking five or six abreast nonchalantly flattening three or more rows of newly sown crops. And giving a ‘So What?’ reaction when challenged.

I am most unhappy that our access to this outstanding walk has been stopped but very sadly I fear it was inevitable.
Dave Middleton Reply

February 28, 2026 at 9:30 am

I agree with Ros McMillan. I used to do pest control on that part of the Loseley Estate back in the 1990s and there was definitely no path or permitted public access along the top of those fields. Yes, there were occasionally people who would walk along the field edge, but they kept close to the edge and did not trample crops.

Having seen some of the photographs of the current “track” that’s now wide enough to drive a car along in places, I can fully understand why the estate are taking the action they are now.
Rebecca Nash Reply

March 1, 2026 at 9:23 am

This walk has offered our community so much for many years. The incredible views and landscape allow one to feel completely reinvigorated, free from the rat race, and enable a mental health reset.

My family and I have given the crops the respect and appreciation they deserve.

I sincerely hope a compromise can be reached.
Fiona Moore Reply

March 1, 2026 at 2:34 pm

I have used the unofficial path for decades, always walking single file and being respectful of the crop.

I understand that there are multiple considerations and interested parties. I believe the local residents are seeking a discussion and engagement to find a solution that works for everyone as a healthy community should, I 100 per cent support them in this and hope the estate see what an opportunity they are missing.
Debbie Green Reply

March 1, 2026 at 2:52 pm

We absolutely adore this walk, but I think we need to respect the land and the crops. I am very much against the walker tourism that the land attracts and I have seen younger people going into the centre of the fields to take pictures for social media.

No, that is wrong.

I would love it if there was a way we could enable those who truly respect and care for the land to still enjoy it. I would happily pay an annual “toll fee” to access it, not extortionate obviously, but say £50 a year to have access wouldn’t unreasonable, the for the amount of time I spend using the path.
Gerry Tebbutt Reply

March 1, 2026 at 7:03 pm

Having lived near the top of The Mount for thirty years I fully appreciate and support what Lorimer Burn is doing for the local community in terms of working closely with Loseley House in order to keep the footpath open on “South Field”.

This is an area of natural beauty that many locals cherish in terms of walking and enjoying the views toward the South Downs and of course the extraordinary sunsets. It would be devastating and concerning if this landscape was denied to the hundreds of people who are supporting Lorimer.

Of course, over the years the path has grown wider but surely if a narrow path was maintained by Loseley, maybe with signage, visitors and of course locals would respect the effort that Loseley Estate was making on behalf of the community.
Margaret Hollendoner Reply

March 1, 2026 at 9:43 pm

I think everyone would agree that we must respect the crops – but I don’t believe blocking access to walkers is required to do that.

Walking this path most days, throughout the seasons of the year, at different times of day, I have encountered other walkers and we are always sticking to the clearly separated pathway.

The walk and its views are unparalleled and offer such a huge benefit to the community. I do hope the path can be reopened for walkers sticking close to the upper edge and out of the way.
Margaret Rotherham Reply

March 2, 2026 at 11:17 am

I refer to Debbie Green’s comment that she is “very much against walker tourism” – Eh? So walkers should stick to their own local patch and not intrude into anyone else’s back yard?

We have so much wonderful countryside to enjoy in Surrey, not just for locals, but for everyone.

Eve Fraser’s eloquent and passionate piece perfectly describes how fundamental are our local paths, not just for our enjoyment and joy, but also for physical and mental health benefits, with family and friends or downtime by ourselves.
Becky Poulson Reply

March 6, 2026 at 12:18 pm

I am also so upset that access to the south field has been closed and very thankful to Lorimer Burn for speaking up for so many of us in the local community to help voice our complete dismay.

I am also not convinced the way that the hedge has now been destroyed to prevent access fits with any (agreed) environmental nor ecological standing. I have walked up The Mount and “South Field” most weeks for years, I have never seen anyone standing in the middle of a the south field crops for photos, walkers stick the path and are incredibly respectful of the farmers land.

I really hope the Loseley Estate will work to find a comprise solution with their local community.
Andrew Wilson Reply

March 8, 2026 at 10:32 pm

As a resident of Onslow Village for 35 years and having walked that path for all that time, I have not been surprised by the number of local people in Onslow, The Mount and St Catherine’s who have expressed their sadness at the loss of access to the footpath at the top of what is known as “South Field” on the Hog’s Back.

The messages people express are almost identical in terms of the huge physical and mental benefits of being able to walk in the view and their dismay at the attitude of Loseley Estate towards their neighbours and nature.

A similar event occurred in the spring of 2025 at Bummoor Copse in Compton [as reported in The Dragon]. The action and attitude displayed by Loseley Estate was the same causing much local action including the engagement of local MPs.

What I have belatedly learnt in the last few weeks is that Michael More-Molyneux is no longer running the estate which is now run by his son Alexander. The attitude difference between the two appears stark particularly in relation to their approaches to engagement with their neighbours and local communities. Maybe Alexander could learn from his father and adopt a more collaborative approach to enable a resolution to satisfy all parties?