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.

28.1     In accordance the County Council’s Constitution, including the Code of Conduct as well as the Code of Practice on Probity and Protocol on Public Participation in Planning and Rights of Way Committees, the following declaration was made in relation to the lobbying of members regarding Item 4 DMMO 2/19:- the Chairman confirmed that all Committee members had received a submission from Woodmancote Parish Council that was an objection to the application.

28.2     No other declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee dated 5 December 2023 are in preparation and will be submitted for confirmation to the next meeting of the Committee.

29.1     The Chairman confirmed that the minutes of the previous meeting on 5 December 2023 were still in preparation and would 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.

30.1   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 2/19 - Definitive Map Modification Order to modify the definitive map and statement for Chanctonbury to upgrade footpath number 2540 from its western extremity at point A along Furners Lane to point B to a Restricted Byway and to add a Restricted Byway from Point B to Blackstone Lane at point C.

DMMO 2/19 - Definitive Map Modification Order to modify the definitive map and statement for Chanctonbury to upgrade footpath number 2540 from its western extremity at point A along Furners Lane to point B to a Restricted Byway and to add a Restricted Byway from point B to Blackstone Lane at point C [additional information and clarification of the details of the proposed route - To upgrade part of footpath 2540 to a Restricted Byway and add a Restricted Byway along Furners Lane from the commencement of footpath 2540 at its western end to where the route meets Blackstone Lane, in the parishes of Henfield and Woodmancote].

31.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance (copy appended to the signed minutes).

31.2     The report was introduced by Charlotte Nash, Trainee Legal Executive, who outlined the application and the key points.  A presentation was shown which provided updated versions of Appendix A and Appendix B to clarify the area (copy appended to the signed minutes).

31.3     An Agenda Update Sheet was also circulated to provide amendments to paragraph 7.4 in the report (copy appended to the signed minutes).

31.4     Michael Wood spoke on behalf of the Executors of the D. C. Allen Will Trust, who have the legal freehold interest in Blackstone Farm, in objection to the application.  The application needed to be considered in its entirety and no elements should be considered in isolation.  Paragraph 8.29 of the Committee report outlined that the evidence for the route from points B to C was not sufficient to support a reasonable allegation of public rights; for which the client agreed with.  The footpath had been considered in the 1950s, where the residents would have likely had a better understanding of the route.  The evidence in support of the claimed route did not meet the required legal tests for an Order to be made.  The officer’s recommendation to not make an Order for the claimed route was supported.

31.5     The applicant Hilary Pierce, on behalf of the British Horse Society, spoke in support of the application.  It is felt that some pieces of evidence supporting the application had been overlooked by the case officer.  There were areas with no clear ownership in the Tithe records, the Woodmancote Tithe map had no apportionment numbers and the Henfield Tithe map marks the route as a road.  Both Tithe maps show the route as ‘to and from’ two places which would suggest public rights were in place.  It was inconceivable that all inter-connecting roads as shown on Tithe maps would be private use.  The Finance Act 1910 map shows Furners Lane as a “white road” excluded from the hereditaments, which would indicate it was a vehicular public road.  Legal documents dealing with the transfer of land either side of Furners Lane refer to the claimed route as a highway or lane.  If there was no ownership then the landlord had no authority to make the usage private.  In 1949 Chanctonbury Rural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10.30 am on Tuesday, 6 February 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.

32.1     The Committee noted that its next scheduled meeting would be held at 10.30 am on 6 February 2024 at County Hall, Chichester.

32.2     Officers confirmed that DMMO 8/19 and TVG 31/52 were likely to be on the February agenda.  There would also likely be an update on TVG 30/53 at the March Committee meeting.

32.3     The Chairman queried the process for Public Path Orders (PPOs).  – Officers confirmed that the Public Rights of Way Team had reopened their books for PPOs.  The process had been streamlined following the Deregulation Act.  An update would be sent to the Committee on the new process.