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.

26.1   There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee dated 8 October 2024 are in preparation and will be submitted for confirmation to the next meeting of the Committee.

27.1   The Committee noted that the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee dated 8 October 2024 are in preparation and will be submitted for confirmation to the next meeting of the Committee.

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.

28.1   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 1/20 - Definitive Map Modification Order to modify the definitive map and statement for Chichester by adding a footpath east of Yapton Lane at point A running past Walberton Farm at point B, south to Lower Farm at Point C and over the West Coast Railway line to the east of North End at Ford Lane at point D.

DMMO 1/20 - Definitive Map Modification Order to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for Chichester by adding a footpath east of Yapton Lane at point A running past Walberton Farm at point B, south to Lower Farm at point C and over the West Coast Railway line to the east of North End at Ford Lane at point D.

29.1   The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance.  The report was introduced by the consultant investigating the application on behalf of the Council, Claire Goodman-Jones of Birchill Access Consultancy, who outlined the details of the proposals, the key considerations including analysis of all the documentary evidence, and the responses to consultations, noting that the landowners had not responded formally but had engaged informally, except for Binsted Farms Ltd and one other landowner.  The Committee was reminded that the application must only be determined on the basis of the legal tests and matters of suitability or desirability of the route cannot be taken into account.  The Committee was advised that there is a presumption in law that the processes undertaken during the first half of the 20^th century in determining and agreeing the Definitive Map and Statement were undertaken properly, and that presumption is irrespective of what evidence may or may not now be available regarding those processes.

29.2   The clerk to the Committee read out a statement in support of the application made by the applicant, Mrs Julie Robinson, on behalf of the Open Spaces Society.  Railway documents are regarded as some of the best sources of historic evidence and accepted by courts as evidence, the records had to be of good quality and there was plenty of opportunity for scrutiny in such schemes.  The path was crossed by two different railway schemes; identified in both as a public footpath.  The Committee report does not concede that dot and dash or dashed lines on Tithe evidence almost exclusively went on to be recorded as public footpaths; it is likely that these maps had the intention to show public rights of way.  The footbridge missing from one edition of Ordnance Survey only indicated that it was missing at that point in time, which is why the line is not shown as continuous.  The landowner in the 1950s may have claimed that the footpath was private, although the railway records would have shown it as a public footpath.  Yapton Parish Council minutes record that the County Council wrote to them in 1935 asking if they claimed the “path east of Yapton Railway crossing” as public, to which the Parish Council agreed they did and it should be added to the Definitive Map.  The County Council then recorded the line of the path, giving it number 351.  So, the County Surveyor cannot have undertaken proper historic research in the 1950s.  The railway evidence should have been sufficient to counter the Yapton landowner’s objection.  The only option would have been a stopping up order, which would have been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10.30 am on Wednesday,
4 December 2024 at County Hall, Chichester. 

Report by the Head of Planning Services, Director of Law and Assurance and Assistant Director (Highways Transport and Planning).

The Committee is invited to ask about planned agenda items and to note the following report:

Current Planning Applications, Current Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs), Town and Village Green Applications (TVGs) and Public Path Orders (PPOs) under investigation.

30.1     The Committee noted that its next scheduled meeting would be held at 10.30 am on 4 December 2024 at County Hall, Chichester.

30.2     Officers advised that applications that may be ready for determination at the 4 December Planning and Rights of Way Committee include Definitive Map Modification Order applications: DMMO 7/19, Barnham, DMMO 3/21, Arundel and Ford, DMMO 7/24 and DMMO 8/24, Shoreham as one report, and a report to delegate a decision to the South Downs National Park Authority.  It should be noted that the scheduling of all applications may be subject to change.