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 Plans 1a and 1b attached at pages 98 and 99 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 (b) If no objections are received, or any objections that are received, are subsequently withdrawn, the Head of Legal Services be authorised to confirm the Order made in accordance with (a) above; or

(c)If any objections are received, and not subsequently withdrawn, the Order be passed to the Secretary of State for confirmation.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:                  There is evidence to support the existence of a public right of way over the application route based both upon historic evidence and modern user, thus requiring the authority to make the order under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 53(3)(c)(i).

The Executive Member considered a report which sought to assist him in determining whether or not to make a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to add the route, as shown on Plan 1 pages 98 and 99 of the report, to the Definitive Map, as a Public Footpath.

The Definitive Map Officer confirmed that although there appeared to be a lack of use of this path it was incorrect to say that it did not exist. She pointed out the path was shown on the 1910 Finance Act documents and if there was any conflict of evidence that this would be tested at any subsequent Public Inquiry. If felt appropriate application could then be made for a diversion of the path, subject to meeting the relevant legislative criteria.

Mrs Shepherd as landowner made representations, she referred to the reported evidence from the application map, which showed a diagonal route across fields on their land, which they contested. She stated that they had owned the farm since 1969 during which time the path had been little used as the fields had contained arable crops, which would have made a diagonal path very inconvenient. She also referred to existing trespass problems on their land and to a bridleway, which ended at their property.

Officers explained that there was a body of evidence that supported the allegation that public rights existed on the diagonal route across the fields. She also confirmed that discussions regarding improvements to signage and way marking could be undertaken at a later date.

The Executive Member confirmed that it appeared part of the route was well used and that the balance of documentary evidence suggested that a PROW had existed albeit in the distant past. He stated that this could be tested at appeal and any appropriate diversions to avoid agricultural activities could be put forward at a later date.

He then 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 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 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 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 Plans 1a and 1b attached at pages 98 and 99 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:                  There is evidence to support the existence of a public right of way over the application route based both upon historic evidence and modern user, thus requiring the authority to make the order under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 53(3)(c)(i).