7 Agenda Item 7
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD
PROPOSED PUBLIC PATH EXTINGUISHMENT AND CREATION ORDER - PUBLIC FOOTPATH F76 AT BOTTESFORD
REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
PART A
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Board’s approval of the extinguishment (parts) and creation (part) of public footpath F76 at Bottesford.
Recommendation
2. It is recommended that an Order be made under the provisions of Sections 26 and 118 of the Highways Act, the effect of which will be to extinguish parts and create part of public footpath F76 at Bottesford, as shown on the Plan no. 2286 attached to this report.
Reasons for Recommendation
3. Given the historical evidence and the situation which exists on the ground today, it would appear that parts of public footpath F76 are not needed for public use and can therefore be extinguished and that an existing path on the ground is needed as part of the public path network and should therefore be included on the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way for Leicestershire.
Circulation under the Local Alert Issues Procedure
4. Mr. J. B. Rhodes CC
Officer to contact
5. Mr. Alan Glenn, Chief Executive’s Department Tel 0116 305 7008
8
PART B
Background
6. An application has been received from Mr. G. W. Foster on behalf of himself and Mr. G. J. Storrie and Mrs Collette Cullen to delete parts and add part of the public footpath F76, as shown on the plan attached to this report.
7. The application is being processed under the provisions of Sections 26 and 118 of the Highways Act 1980.
Historical Evidence
8. The Director of Environment and Transport has provided the following history in connection with the parts of footpath F76 as detailed below:-
8.1 A series of Public Path Diversion Orders in 1965 and 1983 moved the path from its historic line across the fields between Albert Street and Pinfold Lane.
In 1965 the northern end was diverted to enable the construction of 26 Pinfold Lane.
In 1983 the Chestnut Farm Estate was constructed and the path was again the subject of a diversion order. The path that now runs to the rear of numbers 17 and 18 Riverside Walk was provided as the alternative route. At this time an error was introduced in that the alternative route left a gap in the mapped route of the footpath of approximately 17 metres.
8.2 This resulted in two dead-end paths. The matter of the missing link has never been resolved and in the meantime these sections of the route have become blocked.
8.3 The landowners affected have now submitted an application to extinguish the two dead-end parts of the footpath and to formalise the link between points “A” and “B” as annotated on the attached Plan No. 2286.
Consultations
9. The following parties have been consulted and have made no objection
Melton Borough Council Owners / Occupiers of Rectory Farm Pinfold Lane Bottesford NG13 0AR 22 Pinfold Lane Bottesford NG13 0AR 19 Riverside Walk Bottesford NG13 0AT 16 Riverside Walk Bottesford NG13 0AT
9
Leicestershire Footpath Association
The Association has stated that it would raise no objection to the proposal on the assumption that the width of the footpath between points “A” and “B” will be 1.8 metres. The path available on the ground (“A”- “B” on the plan) is narrower than 1.8 metres at present.
The Ramblers’ Association
The Association would not wish to object to this proposal but points out that although the route proposed between points “A” and “B” appears well used, it is somewhat narrower than the rest of the route alongside the river and may not allow the passage of push-chairs.
BSkyB Telecommunications Services Ltd Plant Enquiry National Grid The Gas transportation Company Limited KCOM Group PLC Vodaphone Limited electronic communications network Virgin Media Natural England Colt TATA English Heritage Environment Agency
Despite all other interested statutory undertakers having been consulted no other replies have been received.
Objections
10. The following objections have been received:
Bottesford Parish Council
Councillor P. M. Chandler, the Ward Councillor for Bottesford, Melton Borough Council.
Mr Anthony Taffs
Gail Parkinson
Assessment of the application
11. The objections to the proposed extinguishment rely on two points, one of principle that a lengthy period of unlawful obstruction should not justify formal closure, and the second on loss of amenity. The first point is accepted and to pursue the extinguishment on this ground would not be sound. The application for extinguishment must be considered on “need”. The amenity of a route is one element which expresses need and is therefore very relevant. However, it is suggested in this case that the claimed loss of amenity value is an argument dependant upon creating a through route.
12. As they stand the two dead-end sections of footpath F76 have little amenity value in isolation from one another. The western end (off 10
Pinfold Lane) runs around two sides of a residential garden with little or no view and no promise of reaching any desirable destination. The eastern end continues the footpath along the river bank and has the potential of being scenic. However, the path crosses the garden of 17 Riverside Walk, cutting across a patio area and decking. With some modification the path could be made accessible to the public but experience has shown that a path in such close and visible proximity to a residence is uninviting and uncomfortable to use. The path continues along a narrow bank between the boundary hedge of 18 Riverside Walk with a drop to the river. The bank is overgrown but could be cleared regularly. However officers have concerns regarding the width and stability of the bank. It is not a stretch of footpath on which the public would be encouraged to linger nor is it a route which many (if any) people would be expected to use even if all obstructions were removed since it is a dead end. At the time of construction of the estate, an alternative route through to Riverside Walk was provided. This is now proposed to be formalised.
13. The Parish Council both opposes the order and would like the path restored to a through route whilst the landowners would wish to maintain the status quo, i.e. that the parts of the path across their gardens be extinguished.
Conclusion
14. In order to support a Creation Order for the missing link the County Council must be satisfied that there is a need for the footpath. Conversely to support the application for extinguishment, it would have to be satisfied that there is no need.
15. To create a through route linking the two dead-end sections the criteria under Section 26 would have to be balanced against an expression of public need. There are already two routes linking Riverside Walk and Pinfold Lane and the creation of a further link would have a significant effect on the owners of the land.
16. It is therefore proposed that the deletion of parts of Footpath F76 between the points marked “A” – “C” and “D” – “E” and the addition of part of footpath F76 between the points marked ”A” – “B” as shown on Plan no. 2286 is supported.
Appendix
Plan no. 2286
Equal Opportunities Implications
17. None arising from this report.
Background Papers
18. Correspondence on file HTWMT/1995