Agenda item

Report by the Director of Highways and Transport.

The Committee is asked to consider a consultation by Adur & Worthing Councils in respect of the following Environment Agency proposal:

Lancing: Proposed Diversion of Part of Public Footpath 2048.

Lancing: Proposed Diversion of Part of Public Footpath 2048

6.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Highways and Transport concerning an application, upon which the County Council, as the highways authority, has been consulted by Adur & Worthing Councils.  The Environment Agency proposes to divert part of a part of public footpath 2048 between Old Shoreham Road and a bridge carrying the south coast railway to the south.  Given officers’ concerns, and that the scheme is clearly of significance and with a high profile, the Committee is asked to decide whether the County Council should object or not to the Order.  The following points, in addition to the report, were provided for the purposes of clarity:

·         It is understood it is now intended that the drainage ditch adjacent to Cecil Pashley Way will be modified to a French drain (a sculptured ditch filled with porous materials) rather than as noted in the report.

·         There are concerns regarding safety and potential conflicts between users, particularly the use by cyclists riding at speed.

6.2     Laura Floodgate, Solicitor clarified that an application for outline consent has been made but not yet granted for development at New Monks Farm.  Mr Whittington clarified that this development is not specifically mentioned in the report but it lies to the north-west of the airfield.  It will be a large residential and business development and includes plans for the realignment of roundabout junctions on the A27.  The County Council’s Walking and Cycling Strategy notes this will be a key route to the town centre and railway station, which will link with the national cycling network.

6.3     Mr Graeme McClure, Project Manager, Environment Agency spoke in support of the application to Adur & Worthing Councils.  The Environment Agency intends to invest £40 million in this location to protect 2,300 houses and 390 businesses in Shoreham from the risk of tidal flooding.  The intention is to replace the existing embankment, which is in poor condition and has a low residual life; seepage was noted this January.  As recently as 2013, a flood event caused Shoreham airport to flood, temporarily closing it and the footpath.  A higher embankment is intended to protect against a 1 in 300-year flood event.  This new embankment will be further from the river and up against the ditch.  This is to replace habitat which has been lost elsewhere by building the new flood defences.  Requirement to provide habitat and the presence of the road and ditch are constraints.  However, the footpath will be an improvement on what is currently there and provides sections of wider passing places.  A section 73 amendment to the planning consent is being prepared in relation to the works on the ditch.

6.4     The Committee noted that Mrs Bridges, local member for Lancing advised she will not attend the meeting.

6.5     The Committee sought clarification on the following points:

·         Could the width of the path be improved if the drain could be moved?

The Environment Agency does not propose to alter the alignment of the existing drain, which is close to the road, so this will remain a limitation for the future.

·         Could more consideration be given to the widening the path? 

The Environment Agency has conflicting duties which are limiting the proposal.  Whilst the County Council has been in discussion with the Environment Agency for some years, this proposed route does not meet the minimum standard of the County Council.

·         The duty of the Environment Agency to replace habitat lost was acknowledged, but it was questioned if this replacement habitat could be provided elsewhere to allow this scheme to then meet the County Council’s standards for footpath width and safety? 

The Environment Agency can do this but it is understood that it has examined other options in Shoreham Harbour and has not found the size of area it needs to create replacement habitat.  The Committee questioned if compensatory habitat needs to be in the area of Shoreham and were advised that if this is the wish of the Committee then it can be made clear to the Environment Agency this should be explored.

·         Is the minimum path width of 2 metres a County Council requirement or a recommendation? 

2 metres has been the County Council’s standard for several decades.  No recollection can be made of any path diversion less than this.  Best practice aims to achieve more than this for popular paths.

·         Could the Environment Agency proceed without the County Council’s approval, given that it is only a statutory consultee on this application?

Planning consent and consent to divert a highway are separate matters.  Planning consent means that the Agency could proceed, but without a Path Diversion Order the existing route cannot be stopped-up; so, on completion of the new embankment the old embankment must remain until the path is legally diverted.  Adur & Worthing Council cannot confirm a diversion order with an unresolved objection in place, meaning the matter would be referred to the Planning Inspectorate for decision.

·         Would a decision by the Committee to maintain an objection hold up the essential work on the new flood defences by the Environment Agency? 

The work has started already.

·         What would happen if the Committee were to object to the proposal? 

There would be two likely options: 1) to ask the Environment Agency to revise its proposal; and, 2) that this Committee’s objection is noted by Adur & Worthing Councils meaning it cannot confirm a diversion order and the matter would be referred to the Planning Inspectorate.

·         Who is liable for any incidents if this scheme is approved, even by the Planning Inspectorate? 

Liability is determined on a case by case basis but as a highway authority we have a considerable duty to ensure highways are fit for purpose.  What is being proposed does not meet the standards of the County Council.

6.6     In reaching a decision the Committee made the following points:

·         It is not for the Committee to provide solutions, which lie with the Environment Agency who is obliged to carry out the flood defence works and wants to provide a path which does not meet the County Council’s standard.  It is incumbent on the Committee to oppose a scheme which is not to this standard.

·         The Committee stressed it was concerned not to put at risk the much needed investment by Environment Agency in the area.

·         Increased use of the path is likely and this is a concern, especially with the proposed width.  Some Committee members were very familiar with the existing path and noted how narrow it is and the fact that the proposed path is not much wider.

·         Recent seepage and likelihood of the failure of the embankment consideration needs to be given to a pragmatic decision.

·         The proposal means that views from the new embankment will be a bit further from the river but are still nice, as are views from the other side.  There will also be views of the new area of marshland.

6.7     The motion below was proposed by Mr Acraman and seconded by Mrs Duncton, and was voted on by the Committee and approved unanimously:

That Rights of Way Committee requires the County Council to maintain its objection to the Environment Agency’s application to Adur & Worthing Councils on the following grounds:

That the proposed provision of the new alignment of Public Footpath 2048 (FP2048) between Old Shoreham Road and a bridge carrying the south coast railway to the south is not to the standard the County Council ordinarily requires to support a diversion, and it is counter to the County Council’s on-going duty ‘to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority’ (Highways Act 1980 Section 130).

6.8     Additionally, the Committee stated that it hoped for an ongoing dialogue between the County Council and the Environment Agency about this scheme.

6.9     Resolved – That Rights of Way Committee requires the County Council to maintain its objection to the Environment Agency’s application to Adur & Worthing Councils for the reasons already stated: