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 an application to divert part of Footpath 9, at Dudsbury Fort, West Parley, as shown from A – B – C to A – D – E – F – G – G1 – G2 – H – C on the Service Director’s report.

With the aid of a visual presentation, the basis for the application and what it entailed was explained. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration, showing how the footpath was being proposed to be diverted; its current characteristics and those associated with its setting within the landscape; what were the characteristics of the ancient scheduled monument of Dudsbury Fort;  the points between which the route proposed to be diverted ran; and the characteristics of the alternative route being proposed and what practically had been done to improve the management of this route. 

The application was made by the Bournemouth Guide Camp Association on safeguarding and privacy grounds. The footpath crossed land owned by the Association for their camps and a residential owner on the neighbouring property. Officers considered that  the proposed diversion would be beneficial to the affected landowners.

Officers explained that the current definitive route of Footpath 9, West Parley ran from point A to point B, through a wooded area south of the property Castle Rings (176 Christchurch Road). The footpath was fenced along its northern side between A and B. At point B the footpath entered the guide camp and continued across an open grassed area to point C. Both the current definitive and proposed new footpaths were within the Scheduled Monument. The definitive line of Footpath 9 was obstructed by a hedge, just south east of point C, and the used route detoured around the end of the hedge, slightly northeast of the definitive line of the path.

The proposed new route of Footpath 9 would avoid the need to cross the site used by the association or run through the middle of Castle Rings’ land and officers confirmed that the proposed diversion would have no effect on the enjoyment by the public of the route as a whole and was expedient in the interests of the landowners.

Officers explained that with the line of the current footpath running through the middle of Dudsbury Guide Camp site, this was causing significant safeguarding issues as well as disruption and inconvenience to the various camping activities taking place there.  The Guide Camp had provided examples of some adverse incidents which had been experienced, given that there was nothing obvious to stop the public freely roaming around the camp, which interfered with their camping activities. The proposed new route would follow the perimeter of the hillfort and in doing so would move walkers away from and guide camp users. Part of the proposed diversion (around the Association’s land) was already in permissive use and was already seen to have made a positive impact on the site. The diversion therefore improved privacy and security for the guide camp and also for the owners of Castle Rings. 

The Committee was informed of what consultation had taken place and what measures to actively manage the process had been put in place as a result of the responses received to this. Officers reported that the diversion was supported by one of the two County Councillors for Ferndown, Andrew Parry, who was satisfied that the new route would not impact on public enjoyment and that the diversion would improve safeguarding for the guide camp (no response had been received from the other).

Four outstanding objections had been received, including from Historic England. Whilst Historic England supported the diversion on the guide camp’s land, it opposed diversion of A – B mainly because it might lead to the need for higher security fencing at A – D – E. Moreover, both Historic England and West Parley Parish Council raised concerns about the negative effect of the diversion on the hillfort. Additionally, three of the objections received were concerned about the effect the diversion would have on the Stour Valley Way.

Officers considered that the proposed new footpath would be more enjoyable for walkers than the current route, as it followed the ramparts of the hillfort and access an interpretation board and a viewpoint which enhanced the experience of being on a hillfort. Furthermore, the termination points of Footpath 9 would be unaffected and, whilst there was an increase of some 171 metres in the length of footpath, this was balanced by the route following a more interesting and scenic path around the scheduled monument.

On that basis, officers were satisfied that the application to divert part of Footpath 9 at Dudsbury Fort, West Parley met the necessary tests set out under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 and therefore should be accepted and an Order made.

The Committee then heard from those wishing to address them. Debbie Thorpe considered the diversion to be wholly necessary on safeguarding grounds and that

their guiding activities were being regularly, adversely affected by the unfettered access of the public in being able to roam across the site. Given this, there had been a marked decline in bookings for the facility, which was having an effect on the Association’s finances. She felt that the security and privacy of the site was a priority for the sake of those using it and, for that reason, supported the application.

Lin Growcott explained that the safeguarding issues which had been identified meant that guides would look for other camp sites.  She said that the Association finds it difficult to engage with walkers who are trespassing and who treat the camp as open access.  Some walkers have been verbally abusive to Guiding leaders.  The diversion would avoid these issues.

Racheal Tattum set out the benefits of the camp.  The Association’s risk assessments and also complaints received made several activities such as fencing and archery difficult due the danger of walkers roaming over the site.  The site would be in jeopardy without the fenced diverted route.

Nick Davies was pleased that the diversion was being recommended in that privacy  and security of the site and his property of Castle Rings would be enhanced. He considered the diversion of the route would enhance the experience of the user, would be more convenient and would benefit all.

The County Councillor for Ferndown, Andrew Parry, reiterated the sentiments he had made in response to the formal consultation in that he was satisfied that the new route would not impact on public enjoyment and that the diversion would improve safeguarding for the guide camp and was a positive improvement to the amenity of the area.

The Committee were then provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the

officer’s presentation and officer’s provided clarification in respect of the points raised including about the level/steepness of the proposed route, the effect on the Stour Valley Way and use of the permissive route.

Having had an opportunity to consider the merits of the application; having understood why the application was necessary; having taken into account the officer’s report, what they had heard at the meeting from the case officer, legal advisor, local member and public speakers, the Committee were satisfied in their understanding of what the application entailed and that the statutory tests had been met. On that basis - and on being put to the vote - the Committee agreed that the application should be approved on the basis of the recommendation contained in the officer’s report.

Resolved

1) That the application to divert part of Footpath 9, West Parley at Dudsbury Fort from A – B – C to A – D – E – F – G – G1 – G2 – H – C be accepted and an Order made; 

2) That the Order include provisions to modify the definitive map and statement to record the changes made as a consequence of the diversion; and

3) That if the Order was unopposed, or if any objections are withdrawn, it be confirmed by the County Council without further reference to the Committee.

Reasons for Decisions

1)The proposed diversion met the legal criteria set out in the Highways Act 1980.

2) The inclusion of these provisions in a public path order means that there is no need for a separate legal event order to modify the definitive map and statement as a result of the diversion.

3) Accordingly, the absence of objections may be taken as acceptance that the proposed new route is expedient and therefore the County Council can itself confirm the orders. 

Decisions on applications for public path orders ensure that changes to the network of public rights of way comply 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. 

Dorset’s economy is Prosperous:

• To support productivity we want to plan communities well, reducing the need to travel while ‘keeping Dorset moving’, enabling people and goods to move about the county safely and efficiently.

Before confirming a public path creation, diversion or extinguishment order a council or the Secretary of State must have regard to any material provision of a rights of way improvement plan prepared by the local highway authority. Dorset’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan sets out a strategy for improving its network of Public Rights of Way, wider access and outdoor public space.