Agenda item

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 balance between the owner and the public.

The Committee then considered in detail the application for the diversion of the footpath.

Members asked questions of officers, in particular Sharon Berry

In response to a question raised regarding what the cost of an appeal to the council would be, members were informed that it would depend on how the case was heard.  It could cost up to £5,000 for an public enquiry.  It was difficult to quantify.

In response to a question raised regarding who owned the shed located a point B on the map, members were informed that Mr Strong owned the shed.

In response to a question raised regarding not being able to walk the official route at point B on the map, and whether SCC could apply to change the route from D to G, members were informed that there would be no benefit to SCC.  SCC had their own powers under Section 119.  They could divert the route, but would have to go through the same consultation process.

In response to question raised regarding whether SCC could ask for the shed to be moved, located at point B on the map, members were informed that SCC  had the powers to open up the legally recorded route.

In response to a question raised regarding the difficulty of walking down the route marked G to F on the map which was overgrown, members were informed that the hedge would need to be cut down.

In response to a question raised regarding the failings of SCC, members were informed the Committee had to make its decision on the solid bold line marked on the map.  SCC should have had the route marked correctly. 

Members asked questions of the objector, Mr Peter Newlands

In response to a question raised concerning the tree line between points A and D on the Map, Mr Newlands informed members that these trees were not under threat. 

Members asked questions of Councillor Karen Soons (against)

In response to a question raised regarding what SCC thought was a large amount of taxpayers money to divert the footpath, Councillor Soons explained, she personally felt a large amount would be over £1,000.

Members asked questions of the applicants, Mr Glen and Mrs Davina Strong

In response to a question raised regarding the proposed path from Points A to D, E, F to G, members were informed the hedge from F to G would be removed and the path would then be defined by logs from D, E, F and G by fallen down laurel trees.

In response to questions raised regarding how long they had lived at the property, and whether land searches brought up the footpath, members were informed they had lived at the Water Cottage for five years.  Mr Strong explained that they had been misled by the previous owners and the estate agent.  Mr and Mrs Strong were not aware of the two footpaths, and the route being walked was not the definitive route.  The previous owner advised that the application to move the footpath was nearly completed. Furthermore, the solicitor had not picked up on the issue.  Mr and Mrs Strong stated that their preference would be to have the footpath go around the edge of their garden.  If the application was not approved, then we would have to submit a DMMO to move the footpath.

In response to a question raised regarding what would happen if people walked the footpath from D to G, members were informed that the footpath through the garden would be clearly marked out with logs and bark chippings.

Once members had completed their questioning, at 5.44pm the Committee adjourned the meeting, and all those present other than the members of the Committee, the Lawyer (Licensing / Regulatory) and the Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny) would be asked to leave the meeting to allow the Committee to give further consideration to the application to divert the public footpath.

At 6.10pm all parties were recalled back to the meeting, where the Chairman informed all those present that the Committee had debated in depth the application before it, and considered both the applicants and objectors comments. 

Councillor Chester then stated that having considered the interests of the owners of the land crossed by the public right of way and that of the public, it was proposed to reject the application for this diversion.  This was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton, and with the vote being 5 for, 3 against and 1 abstention, it was:

          RESOLVED:

That the application to make an Order to divert part of Rougham Public Footpath No: 7, be REFUSED.