Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Service Director – Environment, Infrastructure and Economy.

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director - Environment Infrastructure and Economy on a proposed Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order for Footpath 30 at Charmswell, Church Knowle. Members were being asked to consider the evidence relating to the recorded route of Footpath 30 and giving consideration to modifying the Definitive Map and Statement.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and in taking into account the provisions of the Update Sheet and the Statements from Third Parties made available to members prior to the meeting and appended to these minutes, the basis for the proposal was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed the proposed route, its characteristics and setting within the landscape and the points between which it ran. The documentary evidence contained in the report was referred to in detail and how this was applied in the officer’s reasoning for coming to the recommendation they had. The weight to be given to the evidence was explained. The Committee’s attention was drawn to what they were being asked to take into consideration in coming to their decision. For the reasons set out in the report, officers considered that analysis of the evidence showed that - on the balance of probability - the proposed modification should be supported.

Officers explained that the route of Footpath 30 at Charmswell had been much disputed and, having thoroughly assessed the available evidence, it was clear that there had been a drafting error on the Definitive Map which had given rise to this anomaly and all its consequential implications.

Officers confirmed that a right of way not shown on the Definitive Map and Statement subsisted, or was reasonably alleged to subsist, in respect of the proposed route A-C-B, as that route was not currently recorded with public rights. The balance of evidence demonstrated that the currently recorded route was shown in error on the Definitive Map and that this should be modified to the route, as proposed. Therefore, officers were now recommending that the Definitive Map and Statement should be modified to delete part of Footpath 30, Church Knowle as shown A-B and instead to add it as shown A-C-B on Drawing 14/44 of the report.

As part of the public consultation in respect of the proposed Modification Order, two objections had been received - from Tim Kavanagh, owner of Charmswell Cottage and from Purbeck District Council.

The opportunity was given for public speaking. Tim Kavanagh opposed the Modification Order on the grounds that it would be unsafe and would be highly inconvenient to use and, in his view, it was clear that the route shown on the Definitive Map had migrated over the years which had led to the discrepancy now being seen. He was also critical of the process that had been followed in officers coming to their view and the means by which the evidence had been used in that regard. Mr Kavanagh had also taken the opportunity to ask two questions of the proposal - in that relevant documentation and maps be made readily available at the meeting - and a response to these had been provided by officers.

Madeleine Hemsley - Rambler’s Association, Purbeck Footpath Secretary - also objected to how the route was proposed to be modified in that there was no reason for it to take such an inconvenient route up a cliff, as was being proposed. She maintained that, in her experience, there was no reason for rights of way to take a route other than that which was most direct and convenient, certainly not one which caused such travail. Her view was that the correct route suggested by Mr Hard at Purbeck District Council. Given this she asked that any decision be deferred so that members could make a site visit to see at first hand what these routes entailed.

The County Councillor for Purbeck South, Cherry Brooks, was of the view that given that the Definitive Map was incorrect, there was an obligation to amend it. Whilst she didn’t wish to undermine the analysis of the evidence made by officers, she asked that any decision be deferred so that a site visit could be held.

The Committee were then provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the officer’s presentation and about what they had heard and officer’s provided clarification in respect of the points raised as necessary.

Members asked for clarification that all that could be possibly done to resolve this issue from discussions with Purbeck District Council had taken place and no more could be achieved. Officers remained confident that the assessments made, which had been based on all available evidence, were correct. It was confirmed there had been an exhaustive exchange of documentation between the Rights of Way section and Purbeck District Council over this issue and there was no reason to believe that any further discussions would deliver a different outcome.

Nevertheless, given the stance being maintained by the District Council in its take on the issue, a proposal was made to defer the decision for officers to pursue further discussions with the District Council so that members could be reassured there was nothing further that could clarify the situation. This proposal was seconded.

Some members of the Committee - including the Chairman - were of the view that, in coming to their decision and their reasoning for this, rights of way officers had thoroughly analysed all the evidence there was available and that he had no reason to believe they would have come to the conclusion they had if any doubt remained. They could see no benefit in any further dialogue with the District Council when nothing further could be achieved. 

The proposal was then voted upon and, on being put to the vote, there was an equality of votes. In the circumstances, the Chairman used his casting vote to vote against the proposal, which consequently fell.

A further proposal was then made and seconded to make an Order in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. The Committee, having taken into account the officer’s report, what they had heard at the meeting from the case officer, legal advisor and invited speakers, were satisfied in their understanding of what those proposals entailed and the assurances provided by officers in how the analysis of the evidence had been made so on that basis, on being put to the vote, it was

Resolved

1). That an Order be made to modify the definitive map and statement of rights of way to:

(i) Delete part of Footpath 30, Church Knowle as shown A – B; and

(ii) Add part of Footpath 30, Church Knowle, as shown A – C – B on Drawing 14/44 (Appendix 1); and

2). If the Order was unopposed, or if any objections were withdrawn, it be confirmed by the County Council without further reference to this Committee.

Reasons for Decisions

The available evidence showed, on balance, that

(a) (i) There was no public right of way over land as shown A – B as a highway of any

description; and

(ii) A right of way, a public footpath subsisted, or was reasonably alleged to subsist over land as shown A – C – B; and

(b) The evidence showed, on balance, that the route of part of Footpath 30, Church Knowle required modification as proposed. Accordingly, in the absence of objections the County Council could itself confirm the Order without submission to the Planning Inspectorate.

Decisions on proposals for definitive map modification orders ensured that changes to the network of public rights of way complied with the legal requirements and supports the Corporate Plan 2017-19 Outcomes Framework:

People in Dorset are Healthy:

• To help and encourage people to adopt healthy lifestyles and lead active lives

• We will work hard to ensure our natural assets are well managed, accessible and promoted