Agenda item
Application to divert Footpath 51, Dorchester and Footpath 6, Winterborne Monkton
To consider a report by the Executive Director for Place.
Minutes:
An application to
divert Footpath 51, Dorchester and Footpath 6, Winterborne
Monkton - as shown on Drawing 18/20/1 of the officer’s report - was considered
by members, with particular emphasis being given to the objections received in
response to the formal consultation on the application, how these should be
addressed, and how to proceed in light of the officer’s recommendation that an
Order be made.
Prior to the meeting, the
Committee had visited the site of the application, to see at first hand what this proposal entailed and to have a more
meaningful understanding of the material considerations, to help inform their
decision.
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; the points
between which it
ran; and the characteristics of the alternative diversion being proposed. Views
from various points along the length of the current route and the proposed
diversion - showing its topography; its relationship with the neighbouring town
development - were drawn to the attention of the Committee.
The main reason
for the application being made was on public safety grounds: so that it would
not be necessary to cross the A35, as those using the route currently had to.
The footpath crossed land owned by the Duchy, with the proposed diversion also being
beneficial to the affected landowner and its tenant farmer.
Public consultation in 2018 had resulted in four objections - Councillor
Roland Tarr (the local Ward member for Winterborne and Broadmayne); a
local resident; the Ramblers Association; and the Open Spaces Society,
primarily on the basis that public enjoyment of the route would be diminished
and that it was less convenient and attractive due to the extended length and
route of what was being proposed. Other concerns expressed related to its
character; proximity to the bypass and route through a business park; number of
gates; its width and surfacing.
Whilst the objections had been considered on their merit, officer’s
confirmed that their view was that the proposed diversion met the statutory
legal tests for both Order making and Order confirmation under Section 119 of
the Highways Act 1980. Officers clarified what those tests constituted:-
·
That it was in the interests of both the landowner and the
public,
in that public safety would be considerably improved by the diversion,
benefitting from the utilisation of an already established underpass, so
avoiding the need to cross the A35. The safety improvements for the public
using the footpath were considered to be substantial, given that the current
route was seen to pose a danger owing to the speed and volume of traffic at the
point at which it crossed the road.
·
Officers
were satisfied that the diversion was in the interest of the landowner as it
improved land management, given that the new route would no longer need
to interact or interfere with those agricultural activities taking place.
·
The
new termination points of the footpath maintained their connection with
the same, or connected, public highways and were substantially as convenient to
the public.
·
The
proposed new route had been available on a permissive basis for several
years and was already well used. Although the proposed route was longer than
the current route, this was more than outweighed by the safer crossing of the
A35 and the provision of a shallower gradient which was accessible to all users.
The diverted route was therefore not substantially less convenient to the
public.
·
The
diverted route largely retained access to farmland and views to the south,
especially of Maiden Castle, maintaining public enjoyment of the route.
Therefore the diversion would have no adverse effect on the enjoyment by the
public of the route as a whole and would be beneficial to land currently served
by the path.
·
There
were several gates along the path which were to be rationalised, with only three
needing to be retained for safety reasons.
·
The
width of the new route met Dorset Council’s recommended minimum width for new
footpaths, which was 2 metres, allowing for two people or two wheelchairs to
pass unobstructed.
·
Before
any Order was confirmed, new route will be inspected and certified by Dorset
Council with any issues regarding the surfacing or drainage which needed
attention being resolved before Order confirmation.
·
The
proposed diversion affected only the applicant’s land and therefore no
compensation was necessary under section 28 of the Highways Act 1980.
·
The
proposed diversion accorded with the principles and provisions of the Council’s
adopted Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP).
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
and public safety. Their recommendation was being made on that basis.
Support for the application had been received from the
tenant farmer as it benefited his land management; Dorchester Town Council; Highways England, as it reduced risk and was a safety
improvement, with the local Ward member for Dorchester Poundbury, Councillor
Richard Biggs, not raising any objection to the diversion. The application was
also supported by one of the Ward members for Dorchester West, Councillor Les
Fry, believing it would improve public safety and accessibility.
Public Participation
David Green was given the opportunity to address the
Committee but considered that he had nothing further to add to that which he
had heard.
Dr Janet Davis on behalf of the Ramblers Association,
considered the proposed new route to be deficient in what it was offering, on
the grounds that part of it was now to run parallel to the A35, raising
concerns of a potential conflict with traffic in the event of an incident as no
safety barriers were being proposed; increased noise nuisance and exposure to
traffic fumes. Whilst these concerns were enough, given that part of the route
was now to run through an industrial estate, she considered this alone failed
one of the legal tests, as it significantly reduced public enjoyment. The
Ramblers had suggested an alternative route which would avoid these issues and,
on that basis, she considered the application should be refused.
John Hoskin, the tenant farmer, considered that the
application should be approved on the basis that it would considerably improve
land management and his ability to work the land in a more effective way. He
could see no reason why the hedgerow at the western end of the route could not
be kept well trimmed, or removed altogether if
necessary, given that it was of little ecological or practical value, so as to
maintain good views. Whilst supporting the application, he asked that
consideration be given to the retention of all of the gates that were due to be
removed, so as to aid the effective management of livestock as necessary, with
these being kept open in the main but able to be closed, on occasion, to
facilitate livestock crossing. Subject to this, he asked members to approve the
application.
Peter Lacey, representing the applicant - the Duchy - ,
considered that the diversion would improve public safety considerably, in not
having to cross the A35; would facilitate more effective land management for
the farmer including reducing sheep worrying
and dog fouling; and was readily deliverable with the already existent
underpass available for use. This was currently available on a permissive
basis, but being dedicated a right of way would formalise this arrangement. He
confirmed that the application complied with the ROWIP in addressing and
improving road safety and making practical improvements and that this safer,
more accessible route, should be welcomed.
Drawn to the attention of the Committee was the view of the
Ward member for Winterborne and Broadmayne, Councillor Roland Tarr
– as appended to these minutes, along with the officer’s response. He was concerned that the application would
not address the issue of how cycling could be better promoted and encouraged,
given that this would not be permissible on any new route. Given discussion
about this was currently ongoing with the Duchy, he asked that, at the very
least, the issue be deferred pending more dialogue in this regard. Officer’s response addressed the issues
raised and what could be done to achieve cycling provision improvements.
The Committee were then provided with the
opportunity to ask questions of the officer’s presentation and what they had
heard from invited speakers, with officers providing clarification in respect
of the points raised.
In particular,
consideration could well be given to the retention of the gates to aid
livestock management on the basis of the request by the tenant farmer and that,
where practicable, the hedgerows be managed so that southern views currently
enjoyed were retained as far as they might be. In response to the possibility
that vegetation be trimmed at the approaches to the underpass, officers
confirmed that the Council’s Ranger service, in conjunction with the farmer,
could manage this as necessary.
As to the safety
aspect of that part of the route running parallel with the A35, officers
confirmed that Highways England had seen no reason to believe this would be an
issue and did not necessitate barriers being installed. Moreover, regarding the
alternative route proposed by the Ramblers, officers confirmed that was a
significantly longer distance and, along with where their proposed termination
point was to be, was seen as less convenient to the user. The Senior Solicitor clarified though that
what the Committee were being asked to consider was the application as it
stood, and that any alternative suggestion could not be taken into account.
As observed by one
member on the site visit, any perception that the permissive route as it stood
was seen to be uninviting would be rectified so as to ensure it complied with
necessary regulations governing rights of way.
The Vice-Chairman also considered that thought be given to the
possibility of solar illumination of the underpass, if at all practicable.
Officers
considered that given all of this, now satisfactorily addressed what concerns
there had been so, on that basis, were recommending that permission be granted
for the approval of the application.
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, and those
invited speakers - notwithstanding the views of the
Ward Member for Winterborne and Broadmayne
– the Committee were satisfied in their understanding of what the
application entailed and that the necessary statutory tests had been met. On
that basis, and on condition that the issues raised about the gating and
vegetation were taken into account - on being put to the vote - the Committee
agreed unanimously that the application should be approved on the basis of the
recommendation contained in the officer’s report, and
having regard to the provisions of the Update Sheet, and how the gating and
vegetation would be managed.
Resolved
1)That
the application to divert Footpath 51, Dorchester and Footpath 6, Winterborne Monkton from A – B – B1 – C to D – E – F – G –
H – I – J – K – L – M – N – O – O1 – P – Q – R be accepted and an Order made
subject to the following provisos:-
a)
That the
hedge alongside the proposed new route O1 – P be either removed or cut back to
the height of the fence before the Order comes into effect;
b)
That new
latch posts be installed for the 4 pedestrian gates at O and O1 (so that they
can be locked open except when livestock are being moved across the footpath)
before the Order comes into effect;
c)
If the Order
is confirmed, that the vegetation either side of the underpass be regularly
inspected by the Council’s Ranger Team and the area is kept as open as
possible.
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) If the Order is unopposed, or if any objections to
the Order are of a similar nature to those already considered by the Committee,
it be confirmed by the Council or submitted to the Secretary of State without
further reference to the Committee.
Reasons for Decisions
The proposed diversion met the legal criteria set out
in the Highways Act 1980.
The inclusion of these provisions in a public path
order meant that there was no need for a separate legal event order to modify
the definitive map and statement as a result of the diversion.
Accordingly, the absence of objections might be taken
as acceptance that the proposed new routes were expedient and therefore Dorset
Council could itself confirm the Order.
In
the event that objections of a similar nature to those already considered were
received to the pre-Order consultation,
the Order should be submitted to the
Secretary of State for confirmation without further reference to the Strategic
Planning Committee.
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.
Supporting documents: