Prior to receiving the report,
the Vice-Chairman in the Chair (Chairman) outlined the
procedure for the conduct of this particular Licensing and
Regulatory Committee meeting.
The Committee then received Report No:
LIC/SE/19/001, presented by Sharon Berry, Communities Officer
(Public Rights of Way) from Babergh and Mid-Suffolk District
Council, which sought authority to make an Order to divert part of
Rougham Public Footpath No: 7, under the provisions of Section 119
of the Highways Act 1980.
Attached to the report were a number of
appendices, namely:
-
Appendix 1 – Proposal map in light of an objection from a
local resident
-
Appendix 2 – Location map and images
-
Appendix 3 – Applicants statement of reasons for requesting
the Order
-
Appendix 4 – Letter of objection dated 21 October 2015.
Background
The Borough Council had received an
application to divert part of Rougham Public Footpath No: 7, which
crossed the garden of a property known as “Water
Cottage”. The application was
submitted by the owners of Water Cottage on the grounds that it was
in their interests to divert the footpath for reasons of privacy
and security, (Appendix 3).
The proposal included a minor diversion of a
section of Footpath No: 7 which crossed a meadow to the north-east
of Water Cottage. The proposed route
through the meadow closely reflected the route that members of the
public were currently walking, and the owners of the meadow had
consented to the diversion proposal.
The existing definitive (legally recorded)
route of the footpath was not currently available. It was obstructed by an established boundary hedge
at point C on the map, a post and wire fence at point B and dense
vegetation south of point B. There was
no bridge across the ditch at point B.
Walkers had been using an “unofficial
route” for many years and currently access the applicants
land from the adjacent meadow through a pedestrian gate at point
D. The route across the garden of Water
Cottage was not clearly defined.
Walkers currently exit the applicant’s property via a stile
at point G. The stile was not on the
definitive line of the footpath.
The existing footpath had no legally recorded
width. The proposed footpath would be 2
metres width. The applicants were
proposing to remove the laurel hedge between points G – F,
and the conifer hedge between points D – E to achieve the
width.
The report also included information on the
legislation; consideration of the tests (expediency in the
interests of the owners of the land; termination points and
convenience of the public); consultations; the objection and
comments on the objection; determination of opposed orders; costs
and conclusion.
It was reported that the purpose of the public
path order was to allow changes to be made to the rights of way
network to suit evolving needs and to ensure that, in making those
changes, opposing interests were not disproportionately affected.
In this case there was a fine balance between public and private
interests. ...
view the full minutes text for item 107.