Agenda for St Edmundsbury Licensing and Regulatory Committee on Tuesday 29 January 2019, 5.00 pm

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Conference Chamber West, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds IP33 3YU

Contact: Christine Brain  Email: christine.brain@westsuffolk.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

103.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sarah Broughton, Mary Evans, Diane Hind, Beccy Hopfensperger, Margaret Marks and Richard Rout.

 

Councillors Wayne Hailstone and Peter Thompson were also unable to attend.

104.

Substitutes

Minutes:

The following substitutions were declared:

 

Councillor David Nettleton for Councillor Diane Hind

Councillor Patricia Warby for Councillor Sarah Broughton.

 

105.

Public Participation

Members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to put one question or statement of not more than 3 minutes duration relating to items on Part 1 of the agenda only. If a question is asked and answered within 3 minutes the person who asked the question may ask a supplementary question that arises from the reply. A person wishing to speak must register to speak at least 15 minutes before the meeting is scheduled to start. There is an overall time limit of 15 minutes for public speaking which may be extended at the Chairman’s discretion.

 

Minutes:

Mr Peter Newlands, being the objector to the proposed diversion addressed the Committee on Item 5 on the agenda; Highways Act 1980 Section 119 – Application to Divert Part of Rougham Public Footpath No: 7.  He stated he used the footpath several times a year when he visited Bury St Edmunds, which he had done for about 30 years.  He explained the applicants tried to contact him several times by telephone before the Committee meeting notice was published as the objector to their proposal. Failing to contact me, they then sent a letter, which contained the following:

 

“If the present walked route became the definitive route, we would erect a high fence along both sides of the route to form a corridor”.

 

He wished to confirm to the Committee his continued objection to the proposed changes.  He hoped the Committee had before it, in addition to the official objection, a copy of the subsequent email exchanges between Sharon Berry, Communities Officer (Public Rights of Way Department) and himself between 25 January and 24 April 2016.  It questioned the accuracy of the line of the path, as depicted on the Definitive Map, when set against the current line on the ground, which appeared to follow the actual historic line of the path as recorded on a Suffolk County Council (SCC) map “Rougham Public Footpath 7 OS, second edition County Series Map Circa 1904”.  It made the Definitive Map line very questionable, and showed that the footpath had never been routed along the western end of the intended change, which would take the path along the Rushbrook Lake outflow sluice.  Much of the path had been where it currently was for more than 100 years.  These email correspondence included Mary George, Senior Definitive Map Officer, Rights of Way and Access Team at SCC.  At no time was it suggested to him that this subsequent substantive research and correspondence would be omitted from any possible future hearing.  He stressed that any decision by the Committee must take into account that SCC were not happy with the accuracy of the Definitive Map line of the footpath, given the photographic evidence and comprehensive review supplied by himself to both SCC and St Edmundsbury Borough Council on 23 February 2016, as part of that email exchange.  Following a meeting with Mary George in February 2016, it was suggested that SCC would need to take out a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO), effectively against themselves to correct the Definitive Map line.  Therefore, having provided the evidence the matter was left because from the perspective of SCC, such a move to a DMMO would be costly, and that the importance was of a low priority to them.

 

Mr John Drewienkiewicz, being the Footpaths Warden for Rougham and Rushbrooke addressed the Committee on Item 5 on the agenda; Highways Act 1980 Section 119 – Application to Divert Part of Rougham Public Footpath No: 7.  He informed members that he had been the Footpath Warden since 2013.  He explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

106.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 100 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 3 July 2018 and 4 December 2018 (copies attached).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meetings held on 3 July 2018 and 4 December 2018 were unanimously accepted by the Committee as accurate records and were signed by the Vice-Chairman in the chair.

107.

Highways Act 1980 Section 119 - Application to Divert Part of Rougham Public Footpath No 7 pdf icon PDF 112 KB

Report No: LIC/SE/19/001

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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.

 

In this section