Agenda and minutes

Venue: County Hall, Chichester, PO19 1RQ

Contact: Tracey Guinea on 033 022 28679  Email:  tracey.guinea@westsussex.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

19.

Declarations of Interest

Members and officers must declare any pecuniary or personalinterest in any business on the agenda. They should also make declarations at any stage such an interest becomes apparent during the meeting. Consideration should be given to leaving the meeting if the nature of the interest warrants it. If in doubt, contact Democratic Services before the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.1   In accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct, Cllr Joy declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 - DMMO Application 5/18 and Agenda Item 5 - DMMO Application 6/18 because he knows Mr D W Langmead, the landowner, having been at school with him.

 

19.2   In accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct, Cllr Sharp declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 - DMMO Application 5/18 and Agenda Item 5 - DMMO Application 6/18because she is a founder member of Chichester District Cycle Forum, although it does not geographically cover Yapton.

20.

Minutes of the last meeting of the Committee pdf icon PDF 119 KB

The Committee is asked to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2021 (cream paper).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

20.1   Resolved – That the minutes of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee held on 12 October 2021 be approved and that they be signed by the Chairman.

21.

Urgent Matters

Items not on the agenda that the Chairman of the Committee is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency by reason of special circumstances.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

21.1   There were no urgent matters.

22.

Definitive Map Modification Order pdf icon PDF 292 KB

Report by the Director of Law and Assurance.

 

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the following application:

 

DMMO 5/18 Definitive Map Modification Order Application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for Chichester to upgrade FP 155, Drove Lane to a restricted byway from Point A to B, upgrade to a bridleway from Point B to C and to add a restricted byway from Point B to D, in the parish of Yapton.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

DMMO 5/18 - Definitive Map Modification Order Application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for Chichester to upgrade FP 155, Drove Lane to a restricted byway from Point A to B, upgrade to a bridleway from Point B to C and to add a restricted byway from Point B to D, in the parish of Yapton.

 

22.1   The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance, as amended by the Agenda Update Sheet and also by Agenda Update Sheet No. 2 (copies appended to the signed copy of the minutes).  The report was introduced by Georgia Hickland, Trainee Legal Executive, who outlined the proposals and the key points.

 

22.2   Jonathan Cheal, Solicitor at Mogers Drewett, representing Mr D W Langmead, the landowner, spoke in objection to the application.  Evidence is insufficient to demonstrate historic public carriageway status on Path 1 and Path 3 or bridleway status on Path 2.  Neither restricted byway nor bridleway status has been established.  Drove Lane lies within a long established farm tenancy.  The whole route is privately owned and maintained.  None of the archival evidence proves public status.  There is none on the Inclosure Award evidence and Tithe evidence does not prove public status.  The Finance Act 1910 map shows the whole route included within the hereditaments.  The handover map is not available.  WSCC road records classified Drove Lane as non-maintained, under private lane.  The parish survey and the Definitive Map process consistently show the Drove Lane, Point A to Point B to Point C, as a footpath only.  Adcock Highways Classification 1890, which is a list of public highways in each parish, shows 9 routes in Yapton but not Drove Lane.  Drove Lane is an old route shown on old maps, but evidence of existence is not necessarily evidence of public status, e.g. the Greenwood map included private and public routes, but it does not prove public status.  Neither public vehicular status nor bridleway status have been established.  The bridge over the rife is narrow and marked FB, for foot bridge.  The Inclosure Map and award for the parish to the south shows the path continuing southwards as a footpath over the footbridge and on towards the neighbouring parish still as a footpath: this shows consistency between parishes and it is virtually inconceivable that it was ever a through route public carriage way.

 

22.3   Paul Brown, representing the Open Spaces Society, spoke in support of the application.  The objective for safe routes and the limited opportunities for walking, cycling and horse riding are noted in the West Sussex Rights of Way Management Plan 2018-28.  Para. 6.14 of the Committee report regarding Felpham Inclosure Award 1826 confuses carriageway status when the application is for a bridleway.  The name of Drove Lane stems from historical evidence of droving.  Para. 7.5 fails to confirm that a public footpath does not contain the right to drive livestock, which is indicative of public bridleway rights.  Para. 6.12 regarding the 1815 Deposit Plans for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

23.

Definitive Map Modification Order pdf icon PDF 255 KB

Report by the Director of Law and Assurance.

 

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the following application:

 

DMMO 6/18 Definitive Map Modification Order Application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for Chichester to upgrade FP 157 to a restricted byway from Point A to B and to add a bridleway from Point B to C, in the parish of Yapton.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

DMMO 6/18 - Definitive Map Modification Order Application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for Chichester to upgrade FP 157 to a restricted byway from Point A to B and to add a bridleway from Point B to C, in the Parish of Yapton.

 

23.1   The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance.  The report was introduced by Georgia Hickland, Trainee Legal Executive, who outlined the proposals and the key points.

 

23.2   Jonathan Cheal, Solicitor at Mogers Drewett, representing Mr D W Langmead, the landowner, spoke in objection to the application.  Evidence is insufficient to demonstrate historic public carriageway status on route Point A to Point B, Tack Lee Lane or bridleway status on route Point B to Point C, which cannot be reasonably alleged to subsist.  The northern part of Point A to Point B is a short stretch serving an adjoining housing estate.  Tack Lee Lane is a cul-de-sac and lies within the ownership of Mr Langmead.  It is not a public carriageway or a through route.  It was historically access to fields called Tack Lee, part of which is owned by Mr Langmead.  The southern part of route Point A to Point B is access to their private land only.  Route Point A to Point B is not shown on the Adcock Highways Classification 1890.  Route Point B to C is claimed on a non-existent route over private land and there is no user or documentary evidence of a bridleway.  Where Point C joins Drove Lane, in looking at the maps for DMMO 5/18 as well the Inclosure Map and award for the parish to the south, this shows the path continuing southwards as a footpath over the footbridge and on to the neighbouring parish still as a footpath: this shows consistency between parishes and it is virtually inconceivable that it was ever a through route public carriage way.

 

23.3   Paul Brown, representing the Open Spaces Society, spoke in support of the application.  The objective for safe routes and the limited opportunities for walking, cycling and horse riding are noted in the West Sussex Rights of Way Management Plan 2018-28.  The Committee report largely ignores the historic contextual evidence, prior to accurate mapping in the 18th century, that includes information about the route’s juxtaposition to Yapton centre and the church and the links to Drove Lane.  This route crosses the Portsmouth to Arundel Canal by yet another stone bridge in Yapton.  The deposit plans for turnpikes, canals and railways provides strong evidence of public versus private status.  In the Book of Reference, Tack Lee Lane is shown with no owner.  A line was crossed by the canal at point number 10 on the 1815 Deposit Plan and was considered a public road with no owner cited, so no compensation was paid nor could be payable.  That the stone bridge was built in this way is significantly in support of Tack Lee Lane being a public road at the time.  Para 7.7  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

24.

Date of Next Meeting pdf icon PDF 83 KB

The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10.30 am on Tuesday, 5 April 2022.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

24.1   The next scheduled meeting of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee will be on Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 10.30 a.m.