Agenda item

This report seeks to assist the Executive Member in determining whether or not to make a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to add this route to the Definitive Map, as a Public Footpath.

RESOLVED:       i) That the Executive Member agrees that public rights are reasonably alleged to exist;

      ii)  The Executive Member resolves that

(a)The Director of City Strategy be authorised to instruct the Head of Legal Services to make a Definitive Map Modification Order to add a public footpath, along the route A – B on Plan 1 attached at page 12 of the report, to the Definitive Map;

 (b) If no objections are received, or any objections that are received, are subsequently withdrawn, the Head of Legal Services be authorised to confirm the Order made in accordance with (a) above; or

(c)If any objections are received, and not subsequently withdrawn, the Order be passed to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

REASON:                  All the available relevant evidence suggests that this has probably never been a heavily used path, but that it is nonetheless a public right of way, which has been subject to use from the mid Nineteenth Century until the latter part of the Twentieth Century. As there is evidence in support of the existence of a public right of way over the application route the authority is required to make the order under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 53(3)(c)(i).

The Executive Member considered a report which had been prepared to assist him in determining whether or not to make a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to add this route, shown on Plan 1 at page 12 of the report, to the Definitive Map.

Representations were received from a local resident, Bridget Gratton, who confirmed that this path had been little used since 1957. Mrs Gratton explained that it ran close to farm buildings and that users would have difficulty in accessing the full route. She also stated that, if adopted, there would be safety issues using the proposed route and that an adjacent alternative location would be preferable.

The observations of the Executive Member contained within the report sought to clarify the position of a section of the claimed route commencing at its junction with Church Lane and subsequently passing through a house as implied on the map attached to the report. The Definitive Map Officer explained that the DMMO application had been received by the Council in 1993 prior to the development of the existing housing estate. She confirmed that the developer had been informed of the DMMO application, however it had subsequently transpired that provision had been made for a path but not on the claimed route applied for, the alternative path provided was located to the east of the claimed route. It was reported that the alternate route was overgrown and obstructed by a fence which would necessitate some work to open up the route. The Officer went onto explain that the claimed route was shown as in existence under the 1910 Finance Act. Mrs Gratton, in her statement, had raised the possibility of diverting the route to a preferred alignment. The Officer explained that the legislation did not allow some of the issues raised by Mrs Gratton to be taken into consideration. However the Officer pointed out that an application could be made at a future date for a diversion, if it met certain criteria.

The Executive Member confirmed that this was only the first part of the process and that it may be sensible for the path to be diverted to a more sensible alignment at a later date. Following further consideration the Executive Member considered the following options:

Option A:  If, having considered all of the available evidence the Executive Member decides that public rights are reasonably alleged to exist, the Executive Member should resolve that:

(a) The Director of City Strategy be authorised to instruct the Head of Legal Services to make a Definitive Map Modification Order to add a public footpath, along the route A – B on Plan 1 attached to this report, to the Definitive Map;

(b) If no objections are received, or any objections that are received, are subsequently withdrawn, the Head of Legal Services be authorised to confirm the Order made in accordance with (a) above; or

(c)  If any objections are received, and not subsequently withdrawn, the Order be passed to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

Option B:  If, having considered all of the available evidence, the Executive Member decides that the alleged public rights do not exist, he should resolve that:

(a)  The application to modify the Definitive Map be refused.

(b)   The applicant be advised of their right to appeal.

RESOLVED:       i) That the Executive Member agrees that public rights are reasonably alleged to exist;

      ii)  The Executive Member resolves that

(a) The Director of City Strategy be authorised to instruct the Head of Legal Services to make a Definitive Map Modification Order to add a public footpath, along the route A – B on Plan 1 attached at page 12 of the report, to the Definitive Map; ^1.

 (b) If no objections are received, or any objections that are received, are subsequently withdrawn, the Head of Legal Services be authorised to confirm the Order made in accordance with (a) above; or

(c) If any objections are received, and not subsequently withdrawn, the Order be passed to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

REASON:                  All the available relevant evidence suggests that this has probably never been a heavily used path, but that it is nonetheless a public right of way, which has been subject to use from the mid Nineteenth Century until the latter part of the Twentieth Century. As there is evidence in support of the existence of a public right of way over the application route the authority is required to make the order under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 53(3)(c)(i).