Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Director for Environment and the Economy.

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning with reference to an objection to the Dorset County Council part of Footpath 10, Spetisbury Public Path Diversion Order 2017, the grounds on which this was based and what options were available to the Committee in their discussion and consideration of the matter, in recommending that the Order be supported by the County Council and sent to the Secretary of State forconfirmation.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the background to the Order

and how the recommendation now being made had arisen. Photographs and plans

were shown to the Committee by way of illustration showing the proposed diversion,

 and the characteristics of the route. Officers further explained that there had been an earlier diversion to allow garden extensions, but the boundary change had not been reflected on the Ordinance Survey base map used in the Order plan. This diversion was proposed to correct this and record the route as originally intended.   

An objection to the Order meant that the County Council was unable to confirm the

Order itself so consequently, if supported, there would be a need for it to be sent to

the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for confirmation.

Details of the objection received and the grounds on which this was being made was

drawn to the attention of the Committee and summarised in the report, together with

the options the Committee had available to them to deal with the matter.

Officers explained that as the Committee had previously supported the application -

and it was considered that the outstanding objection did not undermine the Committee’s decision to make the Order - it was now being recommended that the County Council should take a supporting stance in any further proceedings.

The Committee heard from Eric Bubb who was objecting to the Order on the basis that there was an ongoing dispute over ownership of the land over which the route ran and, in particular, where the extent of the boundary of Little Oaks and the property at Camelot was situated. He had provided evidence of public path diversion documentation and explained how he considered this to have a bearing on the  land ownership. Further he said that what was recorded with the Land Registry demonstrated that he was the rightful owner of the land and that what was being proposed  would be to his detriment. He asked the Committee to take this into account in their considerations.

Simon Lauder, the applicant, then confirmed that he had evidence to support his ownership of the land and had the title of the land to that effect. He said that he had used the affected land since 1986 and was sure that he owned it. Acceptance by the committee of the diversion order would achieve a desired outcome for him and regularise the course of the route and where it ran. Accordingly he asked the committee to support his application.

Before consideration was given to this matter, the Committee was advised by the Senior Solicitor that it was not being asked to consider the merits of the landownership or any implications form this but to give consideration to what stance should be taken in proceedings.

On that basis, the Committee considered that the proposed diversion satisfied the

requirements for confirmation but understood that as the objection remained

outstanding, the County Council was unable to determine the matter itself and it must

be sent to the Secretary of State for determination if support was maintained. As the County

Council had previously supported the application, on being put to the vote, the Committee considered that this should be endorsed and that a supporting stance should be taken in any further proceedings.

Resolved

1)         That the Order be submitted to the Secretary of State for determination;

2)         The County Council supports the order at public inquiry, hearing or written representations.

Reasons for Decision

(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.

(b) The diversion, which is the subject of the Order, complies in all respects with the law. Supporting the Order is consistent with the decision of the Service Director, Highways and Emergency Planning and Chairman of the Regulatory

Committee who used delegated powers to approve the application.

Decisions on applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders ensure that changes to the network of public rights of way complied with the legal requirements and achieved the Corporate Plan objectives of:

Enabling Economic Growth

-       Work in partnership to ensure the good management of our natural and historic environment

-       Work with partners and communities to maintain cycle paths, rights of way and disabled access

-       Encourage tourism to our unique county

-       Support community transport schemes

Promoting Health, Wellbeing and Safeguarding

-       Actively promote physical activity and sport

-       Develop and maintain safe, convenient, efficient and attractive transport and green infrastructure that is conducive to cycling and walking

-       Improve the provision of, and access to, green, open spaces close to where people live.