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 having considered the available evidence the Executive Member agrees that the alleged public rights do not exist and resolves to refuse the application to modify the Definitive Map.

ii)  That the applicant be advised of their right of appeal.

REASON:                  Taking the evidence as a whole there is not a prima facie case in favour (i.e. there is a reasonable allegation) of the establishment of public footpath rights over the application route

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 page 128 of the report, to the Definitive Map, as a Public Footpath.

The Definitive Map Officer updated that Annex 6 of the report only related to the Ordnance Survey maps and not to the 1910 Finance Act. She also confirmed that there had been clear evidence of use of the path between two separate periods of time namely 1971 to 1991 and 1973 to 1993, thus fulfilling the full period of 20 years, meeting the necessary test.

Representations were then received from Bridget Gratton, as landowner, who stated that she did not support the claim of usage, detailed in the report. She referred to their farms internal road network, which was in constant use by farm machinery and their dairy herd. She stated that in many areas there was no permanent barriers just electrified post and wire fencing and that part of the paths route was visible from the house. She confirmed that during their time at the farm no one had been seen using the paths.

Rod Dawson, confirmed that he had given evidence as to use of the path as part of the investigation and he confirmed his use of the path on a regular basis.

Officers appreciated that landowners did not wish to have public rights of way on their land but that if there was evidence that reasonably alleged the existence of a public right of way then the authority were obliged to add the route to the Definitive Map.

The Executive Member then considered the following options and referred to there being very little in the way of documentary evidence in this case. He referred to the claims on both sides and on balance he confirmed that he was not convinced that there was evidence that a PROW existed in this case.

Option A:  If, having considered all of the available evidence the Executive Member decides that public rights are reasonably alleged to subsist, 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 (Annex 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.

(d)        A decision be made regarding the Authority’s position in respect of the confirmation of the Order (i.e. support, or seek non-confirmation)

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

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

(b)  The applicant be advised of their rights of appeal.

RESOLVED:      i) That having considered the available evidence the Executive Member agrees that the alleged public rights do not exist and resolves to refuse the application to modify the Definitive Map. ^1.

ii)  That the applicant be advised of their right of appeal.

REASON:                  Taking the evidence as a whole there is not a prima facie case in favour (i.e. there is a reasonable allegation) of the establishment of public footpath rights over the application route