Agenda and minutes

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.

8.1        The following declarations of interest were made in relation to Agenda Item 4 – Definitive Map Modification Order DMMO 11/18:

·        In accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct, Cllr Gibson declared a Personal Interest due to his membership of the British Horse Society (BHS).  The Committee noted that BHS is not in support of the application, as stated by Miss Wood, speaker in objection (see minute 11.2 below).

The Committee is asked to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18 May 2022 (cream paper).

9.1     Resolved – That the minutes of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee held on 18 May 2022 be approved and that they be signed by the Chairman.

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.

10.1   There were no urgent matters.

Report by the Director of Law and Assurance.

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

DMMO 11/18 - To upgrade parts of public footpaths 165 and 166 to bridleway and to add new lengths of bridleway in the parishes of Yapton, Climping and Middleton-on-Sea

DMMO 11/18 To upgrade parts of public footpaths 165 and 166 to bridleway and to add new lengths of bridleway in the parishes of Yapton, Climping and Middleton-on-Sea

11.1   The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance, as amended by the Agenda Update Sheet (copies appended to the signed copy of the minutes).  The report was introduced by Georgia Hickland, Trainee Legal Executive, who outlined the proposals, key points and amendments and advised that the approximate location of Park Farm, as noted in the Committee report, was marked on the plan on the Committee presentation.

11.2   Miss Amanda Wood, local resident, horse owner and rider, spoke in objection to the application.  The claimed route [F to G] cuts a diagonal line across her land including a private driveway, outbuildings and pony paddocks.  The route was only ever a footpath.  It was formally diverted away from the property by the local authority in 1954.  The diverted footpath, marked on all OS maps, is clearly indicated on Ancton Lane pointing along Kingsmead Road and Sunnymead Close.  It would not be lawful to rescind an official diversion.  The claimed route would be disruptive to the business.  Lost grazing would mean pony owners being forced to find other facilities.  Horse riders could be a danger to users of her static caravan site, who access the site along the private driveway.  It would increase security concerns and may impact on her insurance premiums.  The rest of the proposed route is unsuitable as a bridleway without considerable upgrading and expense.  The footpath through the woods is too narrow and trees protected by TPOs may need to be felled.  Crossing the busy A259 is dangerous and would require an underpass.  The whole route does not link to anywhere of interest to a horse rider.  Mark Weston, Director of Access, British Horse Society via email on 30 November 2018 states the BHS has not chosento support this claimed route.

11.3   Mr Jonathan Cheal, Solicitor at Mogers Drewett, representing Mr D W Langmead as owner of the route between the parish boundary and point D, and also Mrs S M Abbot, the owner of the central section of the route from the parish boundary northwards to point C, spoke in objection to the application.  Reference is only to points C to D and Mr Cheal does not represent nor speak for any of the owners of the rest of the route.  The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that public bridleway rights have come into being between point C and D, which is privately owned; the definitive route is public footpath and the applicant has failed to supply proof of a higher status, based on the historic documents available.  There is no real evidence that the route has become a bridleway, whether by creation or dedication.  There is no inclosure evidence to demonstrate bridleway status and no Tithe evidence - the Climping Tithe Map does not show the route at all.  The Yeakell  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Report by the Principal Rights of Way Officer

The Committee is asked to note the following report:

Public Rights Of Way Annual Progress Report 2021

12.1   The Committee considered a report by the Principal Rights of Way Officer who set out the key points of the report.

12.2   During the debate the Committee raised the points below and a response or clarification was provided by the Principal Rights of Way Officer, where applicable, as follows:

Condition of structures on public rights of way (PROW)

Points raised – What can be done to encourage landowners to maintain structures, e.g. bridges, to a good state of repair?  If a bridge is reported as defective, where does the risk liability lie?

Response – Where a structure is an accommodation bridge for private access with a PROW over it, the main responsibility lies with the landowner although the Highways Authority has an interest in it.  Reported issues with structures are assessed.  Officers work with the landowner to agree repairs.  Bridges under the ownership of the Council are assets which the Council is responsible for.  The PROW team assesses smaller wooden bridges, larger structures are assessed by the Structures team.  Assessments lead to a recommendation on the timescale for repairs.  Resources would have to be found to do so.  Regarding liability for a privately owned structure which carries a PROW, the Council has responsibility for the public status of the route and would work with the landowner.  If a structure is unsafe then it may need to be closed to the public until made safe.

Reduction in compliments

Point raised – What has accounted for the reduction of compliments to 6 from 19?

Response – There is an element of expectation that the Council undertakes the work it should.  It is felt that the PROW team does an excellent job and has not reduced the volume or standard of work.  Compliments are dependent on the individual.

Ploughing

Point raised – How often has the PROW team had to engage with farmers who have encroached on PROWs through ploughing?

Response – Officers did not have statistics to hand; however, it was clarified that any reports or incidents raised through inspection would be assessed and prioritised against the reporting standards - Low, Medium and High.  If a High priority then Landowners would be contacted and encouraged to reinstate the path.  If Low or Medium priority it would usually wait until the next routine maintenance inspection.  Most landowners are open to reinstating paths, but enforcement procedures are available although used as a last resort.

Vegetation

Point raised – Only about 10% of PROW vegetation is cut back.  Does this keep up with annual growth or is some useability of the network affected?

Response – The PROW team’s budget allows for cutting back 10% of the network under the Summer Clearance Contract, which focuses on reported heavily overgrown paths that restrict access.  This is separate to the 15-month Routine Maintenance Contract cycle.

Ash Dieback

Point raised – How is Ash Dieback affecting operations and the network, including the risks to users and blocking of watercourses from failing trees?  And, to what degree is this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

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

13.1   The next scheduled meeting of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee will be on Tuesday, 8 November 2022 at 10.30 a.m.