Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sarah Broughton, Wayne Hailstone and Diane Hind.

Councillors Mary Evans, Beccy Hopfensperger and Richard Rout were also unable to attend.

The following substitutions were declared:

Councillor Ian Houlder for Councillor Sarah Broughton.

Councillor David Nettleton for Councillor Diane Hind.

Councillor Patricia Warby for Councillor Wayne Hailstone.

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.

[Councillor Peter Thompson arrived at 5.04pm during the consideration of this item].

Mr Peter Newlands, being the objector to the proposed diversion addressed the Committee on Item 4 on the agenda; Highways Act 1980 Section 119 – Application to Divert Part of Rougham Public Footpath No: 7.  Following his presentation to the Committee on 29 January 2019, he trusted the Committee’s path inspection team enjoyed the exquisite public amenity that was the current position of this Right of Way across the Water Cottage garden.  He felt it would be a massive public disservice should the Committee decide to agree to place the line of the path behind a hedge, as proposed, as this would hide the view away from the public enjoyment, which it had for more than 100 years, if not more.  He then provided the following additional information:

Looking from the West to East of Rougham Footpath No: 7, from point H on the map to the second stile, the tree lined path was obvious.  These path lining trees were between 100 and 200 years old.  The path line continued with a beech hedge on the left to an indicator post shown in application photograph number 2.  Before the previous Water Cottage owners (who set the path diversion ball rolling after they took residence in late 2011) moved the post, depicted in photograph 1 to its current location.  If you had stood by the post in photograph 2, the next post in line, photograph 1, was clearly visible to the right of the tree in front of you.  Currently the post was hidden by the tree trunk following its repositioning from 4 to 5 metres nearer to Water Cottage and south of the cottage driveway.  Walking the line from the photograph 2 post to photograph 1 post’s old position, described above, puts you on a trajectory through the middle of the stable yard, along the join of old and new concrete, to cross the ditch (map point D) along the eastern railway sleeper of the current ditch crossing.  This was the ditch crossing point before 2012 and was always barrier free.

In 2011, following a report I submitted, SCC replaced the old crossing sleepers as they were too dangerous to use.  The new sleepers installed were redeployed in 2012 by the previous owners of Water Cottage in their construction of the ditch crossing as it was today.  I alerted the Rights of Way department to the alterations made.  They insisted that a new, but dangerously designed stile was removed and settled for the current walkers’ gate in its place, but unfortunately, denied my request to insist on moving the line of the path back to where it had been for at least my previous 25 years of using it.

The current owners of Water Cottage had inherited a Rights of Way office condoned non-approved alteration that the Committee might think was the “original” line.

The report before you suggests that the use of the path was purely for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Report No: LIC/SE/19/003

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 and subsequent adjournment.

Members were reminded that the Licensing and Regulatory Committee considered this application at its meeting held on 29 January 2019, and resolved that the application be deferred to allow officers to arrange a site visit for members of the Committee.

A site visit was undertaken on 11 March 2019, and attended by Councillors Mike Chester, David Nettleton, Clive Springett and Patricia Warby.  Also in attendance were Councillor Karen Soons (Suffolk County Councillor); the Public Rights of Way Manager (Suffolk County Council);  the Communities Officer (Public Rights of Way); and the Highways Officer and Service Manager (Property) from St Edmundsbury Borough Council.

The Committee received Report No: LIC/SE/19/003, 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.

The report included information on the background; legislation; consideration of tests; consultations; the objection and comments on the objection; determination of opposed orders; costs and conclusion.

There had been no material change to the issues raised in Report No: LIC/SE/19/001, since members last considered this item at its meeting held on 29 January 2019.

As previously reported, 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 find balance between public and private interests.  The tests for an Order under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 could be met, although the objection and associated costs arising from the matter being referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should be noted by the Committee.

In response to concerns raised by Mr Newlands regarding the route being wrongly signed, Sharon Berry explained that this had been acknowledged in the report (LIC/SE/19/003).  SCC could resign the route, but had chosen not too, until the outcome of this application was known.

In response to a statement made by Mr Strong, she was surprised that any objection submitted to the Secretary of State would only be considered by written representation, as any objection could also be considered by a local enquiry or by the Planning Inspectorate.  She explained that written representations would be an involved, slow process.

In summing up Sharon Berry explained that the Committee needed to consider the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.