Minutes:
Minute 6
Application for a definitive map and statement modification order to record a footpath from Footpath 125, Weymouth to Castle Cove Beach; and Proposed definitive map and statement modification order to correct the recorded route of part of Footpath 125, Weymouth
· Update: Questions from Mr A Dobbs, the Applicant
First Question
Referring to paragraph 13.12 [not 13.2] of the report which states the following;
"Several documents refer to the steps at Castle Cove, the application route, being under licence or subject to longstanding agreements. The Borough Council is on record as acknowledging that it had a longstanding agreement with the landowners dating back to the 1960s, but it must be noted that no other licences or agreements prior to those of 2008/09 and 2012 have been discovered or submitted."
· Mr Dobbs asks if the Officer please list those documents that apply in the 64 year period from 1938 to 2002 and the specific evidence that demonstrates they qualify as "longstanding"?
· If the proposed missing agreements have a duration of 5 years as has been speculated in Para 11.6 there should be 8 such agreements between the 1960s and 2000. What evidence is there concerning the nature and scope of the agreements "dating back to the1960's"?
Officers Comments:
Evidence referring to the ‘longstanding’ arrangement is discussed at paragraphs 8.15 and 8.21 of the report.
The first relates to a letter of 28 October 2003 in which Mr Gallivan, Engineering and Harbour Services Manager, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, responded to an enquiry from Mr J Knight, who was at that time the MP for the area, confirming that the beach was privately owned but the steps were a result of a longstanding arrangement with the landowner to provide access to the beach.
The second refers to an email of 28 November 2008 sent by Mr Good, Operations Officer Weymouth and Portland Borough Council to Members of the Borough Council stating that the steps had been in place since the 1960s which had a licence fee of £1 per annum. Mr Good refers to negotiations in respect of a licence to retain the steps.
As is stated within the report, although reference is made to the existence of earlier licences, prior to 2008, with the exception of the licence of 1936 no others have been submitted. However, evidence as to the probable existence of previous licences can be found in Mr Good’s statement which demonstrates that the negotiations he was undertaking were in respect to the renewal of a licence for the retention of the steps. This demonstrates that a previous licence(s) existed, something acknowledged by the Borough Council as being the case back to the 1960s.
It seems likely that the terms and conditions of previous licences would have been similar to those that have been submitted in evidence, although there is no conclusive evidence to that effect. Nevertheless, as the Borough Council admit to having a longstanding arrangement in respect of access to the beach by means of the steps, it is reasonable to conclude that such use was by permission
Second question
In response to evidence in para 11.6 the Officer observes:
"By its very nature this access could not be construed as access by the public ‘as of right’. It is reasonable, without evidence to the contrary, to interpret that, as far as the Landowner(s) and the Borough Council were concerned, any public access to the beach by means of the steps was through the granting of the licence, in other words through the permission of the Landowner.
· This refers to the 1936 Agreement. Since the agreement only refers to "the corporation" as having permissive access, the public is never mentioned. And the agreement is concerned specifically with building and maintenance of steps. How is it possible to be so clear and specific about the implications for public access?
Officers Comments:
Paragraph 11.6 of the report refers to the 2012 agreement being "essentially the same" as that of 1936, especially so in respect of the terms and conditions.
The 1936 agreement does not mention the public, however, the fact that the "Corporation" required consent to enter onto the land and construct the steps suggests that at this time it was not regarded by them as a public highway. Had that been the case consent would not have been required for the improvements to it (the provision of steps) and no annual fee would have been payable. On balance it is considered that this provides evidence of permitted access and not to the existence of a public highway.
Third Question
· The Trustee of Castle Cove Sailing Club has said that there was no lease enforced on the public from the early 1970s to 2002, and in 1999 the Chief Executive of WPBC declared that they had looked for a lease but couldn’t find one. This is unequivocal. But Mr Kevin Good said in an email of 2008 that "step access had been in place since the 1960's" and that the "existing licence fee was £1". Could the Officer explain why he disregarded the evidence of the Sailing Club Trustee and the Chief Executive, and accepted the evidence of the WPBC employee instead?
Officers Comments:
Mr Abbott’s submission is summarised and analysed from paragraph 10.16 of the report. Mr Abbott makes no reference to the existence or not a lease, the term lease in not used within his submission. He does state that to the best of his knowledge throughout the period of their ownership from 1970s to 2002 the public used the route in a free and open manner and the club did not prevent such use or erect notices to that affect.
The period of ownership falls within the period that the Borough Council have acknowledged they were under licence to the owner(s). The actions Mr Abbott describes the club having taken are not inconsistent with use under the terms of a lease or licence.
Paragraph 8.10 of the report refers to a memorandum from the Chief Executive dated 1996 (not 1999) and in which it was stated that no records in respect of the steps could be found. This was the case from 1996 to 2003. However, whilst records could not be found it does not follow that records did not exist and subsequently information came to light from which the Borough Council then acknowledged that they did have the longstanding arrangement referred to in question 1 above.
· Statement received from Mr Richard Tinsley on 14 August 2017 on behalf of Commodore’s ROW Management Limited
"Commodore’s Row Management Limited is sorry that the public lost their access to Castle Cove beach using the steps, located on the section C to E, after they were removed by the Borough Council. These steps, which were provided and maintained by the Borough Council, were removed in 2013 after the section of FP125, which led from Old Castle Road to these steps, was closed by the Highways Authority because of concerns that the footpath may no longer be safe after a landslip caused by ongoing coastal erosion. As result of the land slip there has been significant deformation of the route which is still closed.
From 1936 until 2013, the Borough Council entered into various licence agreements with the landowners to provide and maintain steps to the beach from FP125 that enabled permissive public access. Since 2003, the landowner has been Commodore’s Row Management Limited. The steps were removed in 2013 by the Borough Council who also gave notice to terminate the last agreement advising Commodores Row that they could not accept "the potential liability should a personal injury occur and that until a suitable stable area can be identified then no plans are afoot to install any access".
We object to the application to record a Right of Way from FP125 to Castle Cove Beach marked C to E. The beach access over this land has always been provided on a permissive basis using a flight of steps. The Borough Council have confirmed that there have been a series of permissive agreements, over a long time, for the provision and maintenance of those steps. This is supported by documentary evidence. If a Right of Way were to be recognised from C to E it will burden the landowners with unknown costs and unquantified liabilities over recognised inherently unstable land, costs and liabilities which until 2013 were the responsibility of the Borough Council when the access steps were removed.
Commodore’s Row Management Limited is committed to working with all parties to re-establish safe and sustainable access to the beach. We are working with Friends of Castle Cove Beach Charity who wish to fund an access route to the beach and have a Heads of Terms in place with them.
We do not object to the proposal to correct the recorded route of FP125. D to B.
We would like to thank the Council team for their comprehensive analysis of the evidence and extensive investigation."
· Statement from Kate Goucher
"My name is Kate Gocher, I am a member of the Ramblers and I am also the Footpath Secretary for the South Dorset Group of the Ramblers. I submitted witness evidence and welcome this application. During the years between 1976 and 1985 I used the path concerned. I was not aware of any restrictions on its use as a footpath and considered it to be an extension of Footpath 125, Weymouth. It was my view during that time that the footpath (using the steps) to Castle Cove was a Right of Way. I have read the report and nothing convinces me otherwise."
Minute 7
Dorset County Council (Part of Footpath 10, Spetisbury) Public Path Diversion Order 2017
Update:
1) Reasons for Recommendation
a) As there has been an objection to the Order the County Council must submit it to the Secretary of State for an Inspector to be appointed to consider confirmation
Should read
a) As there has been an objection to the Order the County Council is unable to confirm it itself; instead it may be sent to the Secretary of State for an Inspector to be appointed to consider confirmation
2) Mr Bubb (objector) has sent several emails dated 13th and 14th August with attached documents which include Diversion Orders dated 1979 and 1986 and a Land Registry plan dated 1978.
Officers Comments: The Diversion Orders were examined as part of the research undertaken for this application. The current definitive line of Footpath 10, Spetisbury is correctly shown on the Order plan. With regards to landownership, the current Land Registry registered title shows that Mr Lauder owns both the current route of Footpath 10 to be diverted and the proposed new route. Any dispute over property cannot be resolved by the County Council and is beyond the remit of the Public Path Order process.
Minute 8
Modification of planning conditions at Lyme Regis Golf Club
Update:
Further representations have been received.
Sir Oliver Letwin MP has written in support of the application, noting that he has been involved with this project for a considerable time and is aware of the crucial role that it will play in sustaining the Golf Club. He considers that the project is genuinely important for the sustainability of an important local facility and urges the Committee to look favourably upon it.
Councillor Ian Thomas, (Ward Member for Trinity, East Devon) has noted the comments in the Service Director’s report, but disagrees with the conclusions on numerous aspects of the application, including but not restricted to, its approval within adopted Dorset County Council policy, the likely impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties, the natural environment of the East Devon and West Dorset AONB, and the economic justification presented.
Further concern has been expressed by a respondent to the application that:
· the application calls for 48,000m3/72,000 tonnes and falsely sates that this is in effect a reduction from the planning approval of 67,000m3 / 100,000 tonnes, noting that there is no record whatsoever prior to the current application being made of 67,000m3 / 100,000 tonnes; and
· the Regulatory Committee is being encouraged to ignore the limitation of 40,000 cu.m for an open ended amount, that this is undemocratic and that it is clear that a calculation was not made by the planning office before the application was granted. Further noted that the comment at paragraph 6.35 of the report is a ham-fisted attempt to cover up lack of calculation and that if this application goes through, the good reputation of Dorset County Council will be compromised. Considered that the applicant should be asked to withdraw the application.
Officers Comments:
The further representations do not raise any material considerations not addresses in the report. There is no change to the recommendation set out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------