Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 () Definitive Map and Statement The Borough Council of ( Road East, Brades Hall, Tividale Rowley Regis,) Definitive Map Modification Order 2013

Made 3rd December 2013

Highway Submission to the Secretary of State for purposes of confirming the above order as required under paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Regulations 1993.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Sandwell Freeth St Oldbury West Midlands

15th December 2015 as amended (ref WLK/Temple) Final Version

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

G

FOOTPATH

D H C

E F

B

A

DUDLEY ROAD EAST

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

Mr William King BSc (hons) MSc MRTPI will say :

I am employed by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council West Midlands. I hold Bachelor and Master of Science degrees obtained consecutively from Science and Engineering faculties at University. I am a chartered member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and former Graduate, previously Associate, member of the then named Institute of Biology.

My initial brief in respect of the highway functions of Sandwell MBC was to identify and introduce statutory procedures to undertake evidentially based definitive map order responsibilities with additional duties following, namely: The management of the Council’s minor highway network with associated tasks and stopping up main roads for development through the use of highway orders. I consequently introduced the courts to Sandwell Planning authority to alter both the minor and (by agreement with the Highway authority) major highway networks of the borough. To date all Definitive map order applications plus subsequent order work has been primarily processed through me with variable participation from law officers. I also undertook the Council’s 1st order to record alterations to public rights of way based on precursor highway orders but only as an isolated exercise.

I cover a wide range of statutory responsibilities directly required of a Highway Authority in respect of all its highway networks to include stopping up orders, public rights of way, highway enforcement, gating orders, maintenance liability assessments, legal profiling of sites for conveyancing and land charges, the generation of new practice and procedures from new legislation and case law as well designing and implementing electronic data bases to assist decision making.

I previously chaired the West Midlands Association of Metropolitan and District Engineers officer group that became the (Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the CSS (County Surveyors Society) sub regional West Midlands officer group which in partnership with the then Countryside Agency provided the government with technical advice on changing legislation. I participated in the Midlands (County based) Benchmarking club for public rights of way practice for which Sandwell was the only Metropolitan Council invited.

On behalf of Sandwell MBC, I lobbied Members of Parliament to successfully stop changes in pending legislation and have, both through and outside the government’s formal consultation processes, provided advice on practice and changes in highway law initially through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, then later legislation.

Again, on behalf of the relevant directorate at Sandwell MBC, although being eventually put on hold, I revised and restructured the 1st proposed highway based gating legislation as it proceeded through Parliament. This provided a means to expand the terms of reference of the pending statute into non highway registered accesses.

I set up Sandwell’s first Independent Local Access Forum, devising its original member briefs to coincide with statutory guidance and local circumstances and sought to recruit members accordingly. This enabled the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV) at University to participate in the membership for the more technical briefs. However I did not prepare its constitution and am not associated with the forum in current form.

Neither am I associated with Sandwell MBC’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan although I have given seminars on the corresponding statutory frameworks following their initial introduction to both officers at Sandwell and other councils as well as training on highway law in general to both elected members and officers. [IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

G

FOOTPATH

D H C

E F

B

A

DUDLEY ROAD EAST

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Staffordshire (Rowley Regis) Definitive Map and Statement The Borough Council of Sandwell (Dudley Road East, Brades Hall, Tividale Rowley Regis,West Midlands) Definitive Map Modification Order 2013

Made 3rd December 2013

Highway Submission to the Secretary of State for purposes of confirming the above order as required under paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Regulations 1993.

The effects of the original application for a modification order has been conveyed by a lettering system identifying individual sections of footpath. The order however has its own lettering system and letters identifying sections on the previous order application or plans used for consultation purposes, may not necessarily correspond to what is shown on the order and accompanying order plan. This submission uses the lettering system of the order unless otherwise stated. Each user declaration is numbered and reference to them will be made by number. Appended information supporting the case for confirmation is provided most of whom being capable of direct cross referencing to the text contained within the main body of the submission. The order plan is enclosed as a part of the submission. A copy of the order itself will need to be purchased separately at a price of £1.00 from Sandwell MBC. Procedural information not included in the submission will be submitted to the Secretary of State separately.

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

G

FOOTPATH

D H C

E F

B

A

DUDLEY ROAD EAST

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

Abstract

Grounds of Order The order, when considered with other relevant evidence, is based on the reasonableness of an allegation that connected means of access subsist as public footpaths. This lowers the threshold of admissable evidence used as a ground to proceed. Such kinds of wide ranging events are categorised under section 53(3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and will also cover a presumption of dedication on the expiration of a period of use although this other category of event can utilise a specific provision under section 53 (3)(b).

Process The process endeavours to statutorily record the successful parts of a prior definitive map order application made under section 53(5) of the 1981 Act and conveyed to the local authority by Schedule 14.

Surveying Authority The application was to Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, who are both the Surveying Authority and Highway Authority as well as being a significant and in the past the major landowner.

Wider network of footpaths The application originally sought to record as public a wider network of footpaths connected to highway at just one end but leading to and through areas of amenity. In support are 24 user declarations dated 2006 with supporting historic maps and aerial photos extending over a maximum 78 year period from 1928 to 2006 although the bulk of the declarations covers smaller and later parts of the witnessed use.

Acceptance by the public at large Although parts of the wider application were refused evidence is being used to show acceptance by the public at large of more than one mode of dedication identified in relation to the footpath network (approved at the application stage) in either whole or parts. Evidence showing a presumption of dedication under statute will also be shown.

Smaller network of paths No parts of the refused application were appealed leaving a smaller network to proceed to the order making stage. The successful footpaths, still connected to highway at one end, comprises a primary path leading to and along the upper course of a river valley with a secondary path branching to a canal towpath. More particularly the path leads into open space from the edge of a road then divides into two cul de sacs to end respectively at two separate features. When the application was determined these features were defined termination points within the open area.

Petition A petition of 110 names was also received in 2010 supporting the application and stating the petitioners will appeal any decision to refuse it. Whilst this does not constitute witnessed use it shows those who signed the 24 witness declarations are not an isolated and unrepresentive group within the community. It also suggests the intensity of use of the footpaths is much

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED] greater than one would initially conclude from the number of written declarations received.

Recreational motives underlying free passageway The order deploys the principle that the motive behind enjoyment of a way based on sufficient use is irrelevant in considering whether a presumption of dedication has been raised. This allows passageway for recreational as well as other reasons to be considered for a statutory inference of dedication. Furthermore no provision, be it a rule of court or otherwise, can be found to preclude this principle from being applied to a presumption of dedication at common law shortly after at least one landowner, in the manner associated with 2002 case law, appearing to offer parts up for immediate public use within the witnessed period of use of 78 years.

Common law The case is also made for implied dedication at common law following expiration of a period of use on different parts of the network at different times although it should be emphasised that user declarations cover all the footpaths. Nevertheless a case can be made for the incremental development of the network. It follows actions and decisions traced back to different landowners as well as the predecessor Surveying Authority. The creation of public rights of way, regardless of their mode of dedication, is predicated on the network still being able to demonstrate being the beneficiary of pedestrian traffic originating from the same point of the already established carriageway highway identified in the current order.

Acceptance by the public at large Parts of the network were used by the public during the time of these landowner actions and also afterwards. Such events occurred within the 78 year period of declared use to show acceptance by the public at large both prior to the commencement date of the current mapping legislation and after.

Landowner acquiescence to public use Evidence raising the reasonable possibility of landowner acquiescence to the use of footpaths or taking measures to open them to public use or both is included in the submission. Documented information from landowner interests implying actions to throw open the network particularly on western central parts, provide the possibility of an implied dedication (at a time when the area had no substantial development) made instantly operational without having to wait for a substantial period of use to expire. Evidence that the number of user declarations under represent levels of use along the network is also included.

Planning application for redeveloping the site 16th Dec 1992 Furthermore evidence relating to the Planning Application for the main development now on site (a religous temple) contains documents that these paths already existed in 1992 that corroborates user evidence and the possibility of an implied dedication from an earlier owner in the 1970s, namely Sandwell MBC.

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

In 1992 the western and central parts of the footpath network had been acquired by the Development Corporation who were also the newly created Planning Authority.

Given the decision making was left to very few individuals it seems likely the Black Country Development Corporation were aware of the existence of footpaths, with the planning application referring to them as public paths as opposed to a proposal to create new ones.

An alternative interpretation of the planning documents suggests the public right of way provisions were simply proposals that were not taken further because of a planning agreement being signed 18 months later that sought to licence access when the agreement was brought into force. However this does not preclude any prior dedication and public acceptance and if the licencing of access is not conveyed to users other methods of creating public rights of way will still be valid. Furthermore for purposes of acknowledging existing public rights of way documents accessible to the owner and processed by this same owner as the planning authority, point to the paths being already open and remaining so.

Regardless of these issues the user declarations showed that persons were using the network both prior and after the involvement of the Black Country Development Corporation.

Aerial photos Aerial photos from 2000 to the time access to the riverside parts of the path were closed in 2006 suggest evidence on the ground of a prior intensity of pedestrian use connected to the claimed paths either directly or indirectly. This has resulted in generating additional footpaths in the northern part of the amenity enhanced part of the site or the provision of new footpaths to the south or the enhancement of existing ones.

Aerial photos dated 1994 even show another path from the south, on land now developed, connected to the claimed paths.The witness statements appear to be only a small representation of persons using these paths at the time and add weight to arguments that newly provided routes were very quickly accepted by the public at large. Earlier aerial photos show large parts of the network clearly defined and being capable of supporting pedestrian traffic in 1980 with 1970 aerial photos similarly showing parts of the main footpath at its commencement point with a carriageway highway.

Attempted Licencing Reference is made to one of the current owners eventually seeking to licence access to parts of the footpath network. This was via a planning agreement dated 18 months or so after the relevant planning application was deposited with an urban development corporation being the relevant owner. However the documents within the planning application itself show public rights of way already acknowledged. Alternatively if the documents are constrewed as a proposal to create public footpaths then this suggests evidence of an implied dedication to provide public right of ways which were readily accepted by the public at large as demonstrated by their witness statements for the period.

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

Bringing home licencing restrictions to users The belated attempt to licence pedestrian use through the planning agreement is also referenced in the submission as it never brought home to users of the paths that an assertion of a public right of way was being challenged. Consequently the period covered by the planning agreement can be added to the periods of use for the purposes of an implied dedication over a period of time.

Location The location is not a town centre with an expectation of high levels of pedestrians. It is characterised by being in a relatively unbuilt up area between a canal towpath (the towpath itself being used to permissively access destinations for recreational and other reasons) and a river valley with destinations which are accessed for similar reasons. However the original application for the definitive map order sought two pedestrian links to the canal towpaths but was only successful in respect of one of them.

Target Destination for pedestrians Connecting these two sets of sought after destinations in an area whose immediate vicinity is generally devoid of public rights of way, is the footpath network claimed by members of the public. The relatively recent religious temple development in the area has sought to restrict public use of this network although the structures and impediments to free passageway are not actually buildings and based on past inspections, can be considered temporary.

Pedestrian motivations The submission recognises attempts in the law to distinguish between use of the targeted land for recreational purposes, access to recreational destinations served by the public paths and freepassageway along the paths being for motives regardless of whether they are recreationally based or not. In this case target destinations will include canal undertakings and land now owned by a religious temple both of whom will seek to manage access off the paths in a permissive way.

Past and Current Sandwell MBC interests However this case concerns whether public rights have already been established over parts of the land outside of the canal undertakings and the extent to which any permissive form of access can be retrospectively applied to the footpaths. Practically the whole of the footpath network subject to the order minus the riverside section, was council owned from 1961 to 1988 with a large part being transferred back to Sandwell MBC in 1998.

Sandwell MBC No information has been obtained from the council’s land managers capable of challenging an assertion that a public right of way has been created over its landholdings during the periods of witnessed use.

Temporal profiles Temporal profiles of the footpaths show again a wider, historically unbuilt up area where the canal and river valley are the main features with the margins of reclamation works/tipping and flooding limiting pedestrian movements to parts of the claimed paths and sometimes interfering with parts of it. However

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED] evidence suggests attempts not to encroach on pedestrian movements with large periods of user evidence making up for any shortfalls, following temporary interference, in the required use to raise a presumption of dedication.The possibility of a public right of way developing over a period of time by freepassageway where relevelling is an issue is also addressed.

Shortening the claimed route Component parts of the footpath network have been profiled with respect to time. In so doing physical characteristics have been identified that may have a bearing on actual use. This will enable the claimed footpaths comprised of several sections to be shortened if it transpires that sections further away from the commencement point lack sufficient evidence of dedication to proceed to confirmation.

Interference with freepassageway The submission also demonstrates how temporary interference or interference for reasons other than restricting free passageway should not be seen as rebutting an implied dedication. It emphasises that 78 years of witnessed use provides huge margins of recorded use to secure a full statutorily prescribed 20 year period to raise a presumption of dedication irrespective of implied dedication at common law.

Admissable evidence Some evidence in the submission was not identified in detail at the order making stage but new evidence is still admissible for purposes of a public inquiry as provided for by Schedule 15 paragraph 3 (9) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Objections There were three objections to the Definitive map order one of which has been withdrawn. The remaining two were lodged from entirely different perspectives and includes a submission from the applicant for the definitive map order.

Objection from landowner One objection is from a major land owner who precipitated the claim of a public right of way by closing down large tracts of the network in 2006. Even though the previous development associated with these interests was very substantial it initially physically accommodated the footpaths. The proof of evidence provided on behalf of Sandwell MBC is primarily designed to meet the arguments these particular interests have put forward to prevent public rights of way being statutorily recorded.

Objection from Applicant The other objection is from the original applicant for the order who is seeking to reinstate into the process one of the refused sections of footpath. The applicant however was given formal notice of the determination and advised that he could appeal the decision to the Secretary of State which he at the time declined to do.

Withdrawn Objection National Grid initially opposed the order but then withdrew their objection.

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

Contents

For a summary see Abstract at start of submission

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 Highway Submission

1.1.2 Form of Highway Submission

1.1.3 Procedural Information

1.1.4 Evidence supporting order

1.1.5 Order Plan

1.1.6 Viewing the order

2. Pre Order History

2.1 Gating

2.1.1 Obstructing the footpaths

2.1.2 Effects of 2006 gating

2.1.3 Footpaths unaffected by 2006 gating

2.1.4 Gating on Sandwell MBC land-2006

2.1.5 Canal and River Trust Gate-2010

2.1.6 Other vestigial structures on Sandwell MBC land

2.2 Other Obstructions

2.2.1 Water filled Ditch

2.2.2 Standing Water

2.3 Application to amend the Definitive map of Public Rights of Way

2.3.1 Original application for Definitive map order received 11th Aug 2009

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

2.3.2 Declarations of use and historic plans

2.3.3 Use for informal recreational purposes

2.3.4 Witnesses for Temple Trustees

1. Names of Witnesses

2. Licencing of pedestrian access

3. Planning Application BCS 2141

4. Homes and Communities Agency

5. Other Issues and referral to other parts of the submission

6. Petition

2.3.5 Consultations required to determine application

2.3.6 Exchange of representations

2.3.7 Submission by Temple Trustees’ solicitors opposing the original application

2.3.8 Rebutting the assertions of a Public right of Way

2.3.9 Temple Trustees’ solicitors findings that evidence supporting claim is inconclusive

2.3.10 Evaluation of Evidence

2.3.11 Council Report on Application

2.3.12 Concluding the Application Process

2.3.13 Notice of determination 6th Oct 2011

2.3.14 Refused parts of application

2.3.15 Previous Plans

2.4 Expanding the basis of the action

2.4.1 Further use of delegated authority

2.5. Government Direction

2.5.1 Unknown ownerships

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

3. The Order

3.1 Main elements

3.1.1 Modification Order section 53(2) Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981

3.1.2 Order made 3rd Dec 2013

3.1.3 Definitive Map area

3.1.4 Registration of Public rights of way

3.1.5 Identifying the paths on order plan

3.1.6 Basis of order

3.1.7 Further Details

4. Path Profiling

4.1 Profiling component sections of the footpaths

4.1.1 Use of Ordnance Survey 1884 to 2006

4.1.2 Applying Computer generated overlays

4.2 Incremental assessment of the right to use land as a public right of way

4.2.1 Recreational Use

4.2.2 Cul de Sacs

4.2.3 Rebuttals

4.2.4 Primary and Secondary Paths: Use of lettering

4.2.5 Loss of ground features since closure in 2006

4.3 Section AB: Footpath crossing Sandwell MBC land at time order was made

4.3.1 Location AB (Linear path from main carriageway)

4.3.2 Characteristics and Dimensions AB

4.3.3 Description AB

4.3.4 Private rights of access to AB

4.3.5 Temporal Profile AB

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

4.3.6 Exclusion from Planning Agreement AB

4.3.7 Commentary AB

1. Assessment from Temporal Profile

2. Historic Overlay of Brades Hall Farm

3. Proposed landscaping, playing fields and open space 1974

4. Evidence from other planning applications and an Aerial Photo

5. Absence of turning areas

6. Common law Dedication

7. Issues of historic jurisdiction

8. Ability to record footpaths under current legislation

9. Aerial Photos

4.4 Section BC Extending over Temple Trustee land at time order was made

4.4.1 Location BC (Linear path to Temple site)

4.4.2 Characteristics and Dimensions BC

4.4.3 Description BC

4.4.4 Planning agreement BC

4.4.5 Temporal Profile BC

4.4.6 Commentary BC

1. West Midlands County Council

2. Proposed landscaping, playing fields and open space

3. Retaining private vehicular use and facilitating pedestrian access to towpath.

4. No Turning Area Facility

5. Further Information

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

4.5 Section CD Extending over Temple Trustee land at time order was made

4.5.1 Location CD (Curved path opposite pumping station)

4.5.2 Characteristics and Dimensions CD

4.5.3 Description CD

4.5.4 Private Rights of Access CD

4.5.5 Temporal Profile CD

4.5.6 Commentary CD

1. West Midlands County Council

2. Proposed landscaping, playing fields and open space

3. Residential properties served by the path

4. The Previous major landowner: Sandwell MBC

5. Aerial Photos

6. Further Information

4.6 Section DE Extending over Temple Trustee land at time order was made

4.6.1 Location DE (Path through main part of Temple site)

4.6.2 Characteristics and Dimensions DE

4.6.3 Description DE

4.6.4 Temporal Profile DE

4.6.5 Commentary DE

1. Marsh land

2. Canal Basin

4.7 Section EF Extending over Temple Trustee land/unregistered land at time order was made

4.7.1 Location EF

4.7.2 Characteristics and Dimensions EF

4.7.3 Temporal Profile EF

4.7.4 Commentary EF

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

4.8 Section FG Extending over Temple Trustee land/unregistered land at time order was made

4.8.1 Location FG (Riverside field path to terminus)

4.8.2 Description FG

4.8.3 Characteristics and Dimensions FG

4.8.4 Temporal Profile FG

4.8.5 Commentary FG

4.9 Section HC Extending over Temple Trustee land and leading to Gower Branch canal towpath

4.9.1 Location HC (Field path to canal towpath and terminus)

4.9.2 Characteristics and Dimensions HC

4.9.3 Temporal Profile HC

4.9.4 Commentary HC

1. West Midlands County Council

2. Redevelopment Proposals under planning application DD/1081

3. Lack of Turning area provision under planning application DD/1081

4. Further Information

5. Land Ownerships

5.1 Searches of the Land Registry (Nov 2011)

5.1.1 Owners and ownership plan

5.1.2 Ownership by section of path

5.1.3 Recent transfers of Former Sandwell MBC land

5.1.4 Historic Sandwell MBC ownership

5.2 Other Previous owners

5.2.1 Ownerships in 2006

5.2.2 Black Country Development Corporation

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

5.3 Successor interests To Black Country Development Corporation

5.3.1 Homes and Communities Agency

6. Key features in making the order

6.1 Grounds of order

6.2 Challenging the right of the public to use the paths

6.2.1 Actions affecting public use

6.2.2 Rebuttal Evidence from Temple witnesses

6.2.3 Controlling access without challenging the public right ` 6.3 Anti vehicular barrier

6.3.1 Claimant No.3

6.4 Other material considerations supporting the order

6.4.1 See case for confirmation

7. Opposition to making the order

7.1 Opposed Order

7.2 Extent of current opposition to order

7.2.1 Temple

7.2.2 National Grid

7.2.3 Applicant

7.2.4 Summary

7.3 Objections from the applicant

7.3.1 Original Application for a Definitive Map Order

7.3.2 Claimed alignment not supported by current or past Evidence on the ground

7.4 Objections from Temple Trustees

7.4.1 For items listed 1-17 below the Temple asserts:

1. Lack of evidence

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

2. Successive landowners lacked intention to dedicate

3. No Express dedication

4. No Prescribed use of 20 years

5. Incidents precluding 20 years use

6. Landowners have conveyed to users that usage was not as of right

7. Cul de sacs cannot be considered as highway

8. Information on ownership

9. Right not challenged in 2006

10. Temple Trustees deny public right of way inferred at common law

11. Onus of proof to establish a public right of way at common law with claimants

12. Interests other than of the owner rendering witnessed use inadmissable

13. Public use not witnessed by Temple since they acquired site

14. Changing topography precludes public use

15. Alignment of claimed footpath in council report

16. Private Use

17. Leaflet issued by a third party alleging permissive access

7.5 National Grid Withdrawn Objection

7.5.1 Details

7.6 Submission dated 11th Feb 2014 by Temple Trustees’ solicitors opposing made order concerning additional evidence.

7.6.1 Further evidence to be submitted

1. Levels of public use insufficient to support inference of dedication over 20 years.

2. Punctuation of usage by landowner action

3. Further rebuttal evidence

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

4. Waste management licences.

5. Assertion a cul de sac is not a highway

6. Submission of further evidence

7. Claim that Sandwell MBC is relying one witness

8. Absentee landowners

7.6.2 Comment by Surveying Authority to 11th Feb 2014 Temple submission

8. Case for confirmation

8.1 Cul de sacs

8.2 Other paths in the vicinity

8.3 Reputation

8.4 Sporadic use of footpaths

8.4.1 Evidence from witness statements

8.4.2 Case Law

8.5 Water Features

8.5.1 Challenging the public right

8.5.2 Ordnance Survey

8.5.3 Causeway

8.5.4 Location of causeway

8.6 Encroachment of tipping operation

8.6.1 Temporary encroachment

8.6.2 Substantial period of use of 78 years

8.7 Planning application BCS 2141 16th Dec 1992 for Temple development

8.7.1 Sketch plans

8.7.2 User declarations

8.7.3 Statutory prescription

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

8.7.4 Witness Statements

8.8 Dedication at common law

8.8.1 Planning application BCS 2141 (16th Dec 1992)

8.8.2 Wider implications for footpaths in the area

8.8.3 Reasonable allegation that a Public Path subsists

8.8.4 Acceptance by the public at large

8.8.5 Riverside Walk-FG

8.8.6 Case law (Gullikson case 2002 )

8.9 Attempt to manage public access by Planning Agreement 8th June 1994

8.9.1 Access by licence

8.9.2 Conveying arrangements to licence use of the paths to the public at large

8.9.3 Security Guards and others

8.9.4 Bringing home the licencing arrangements

8.9.5 Village Green

8.10 Evidence

8.10.1 Aerial photos

8.10.2 Prescribed use of 20 years

8.10.3 National Urban Forestry Unit promotional material (2004)

1. Monks Tip Mound

2. Recognition of footpaths

3. Extent of Mound

8.11 Sandwell MBC Land

8.11.1 Response to Definitive map order application and order

9. Request for confirmation

9.1 Submission

9.1.1 Order confirmation sought

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

Appendices

Appendix A: Order plan

Appendix B: Approved Sandwell MBC report on application for a definitive map order

Appendix C: Definitive Map and Statement extract

Appendix D: Witness statements from users, 24 in total

Appendix E: Summary of user declarations in application consultation

Appendix F: Witness for the Temple: Mr Knipe 3 statements

Appendix G: Witness for the Temple: Mr Bains

Appendix H: Witness for the Temple: Mr Kannappan

Appendix I: Witness for the Temple: Dr Rajah

Appendix J: Witness for the Temple: Mr Horton

Appendix K: Planning Application BCS 2141 16th Dec 1992 (Extract)

Appendix L: Temple’s Legal response dated 30th July 2010 with Council Plan

Appendix M: Petition of 110 names supporting claimants

Appendix N: Definitive Map Order Application Consultees (x2)

Appendix O: Rebuttal responses from applicant

Appendix P: Temple’s Legal response dated 11th Feb 2014

Appendix Q: Planning Agreement 8th June 1994

Appendix R: Determination notice on application with plan

Appendix S: Original Definitive Map Order Application plan details

Appendix T: Final amended application plan

Appendix U: Non ownership dispensation

Appendix V: Pre 1966 local authority boundaries (2 plans)

Appendix W:Dyfed case

Appendix X: Emery case

Appendix Y: Hue case

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

Appendix Z: Easements recorded by Land Registry (2011 and 2016 searches)

Appendix A1: 1884/1890 plans

Appendix A2: 1904 plan

Appendix A3: 1916 plan

Appendix A4: 1938 plan

Appendix A5: 1965 plan

Appendix A6: 1970 Aerial photo

Appendix A7: 1976 Ordnance Survey Plan (West)

Appendix A8: 1980 Aerial Photo

Appendix A9: 1985 Aerial Photo

Appendix B1: 1989 Aerial Photo

Appendix B2: 1994 Aerial Photo

Appendix B3: 2000 Aerial Photo

Appendix B4: 2001 Aerial Photo

Appendix B5: 2006 Aerial Photo

Appendix B6: Historic overlay Brades Farm

Appendix B7: Planning Applications DD/1081 & DD/1082 (1974)

Appendix B8: Planning Agreement Plan (1994) and position of paths.

Appendix B9: 2004 Aerial Photo

Appendix C1: Pre order Ownership sketch

Appendix C2: Sandwell MBC ownership plan 2010

Appendix C3: Statutory grounds under Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981

Appendix C4: Planning application BCS2141 site boundary

Appendix C5: Godmanchester case 2007

Appendix C6: National Grid withdrawal of objections

Appendix C7: Applicant’s objection to order

Appendix C8: 1969 Aerial Photo Northern part of site

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

Appendix C9: 1976 Ordnance Survey Plan (East)

Appendix D1: Lewis v Thomas 1950

Appendix D2: Planning Consents BCS 2141 and BCS 2875 decision notices

Appendix D3: Gullikson case 2002

Appendix D4: Reserved Matters application BCS 2875

Appendix D5: 1971 Ordnance Survey Plan

Appendix D6: Press Notice of made order

Appendix D7: Web and site notification at Application stage 2010

Appendix D8:1991 Ordnance Survey

Appendix D9: Transfer from Sandwell MBC to Temple Trustees

Appendix E1: Sunningdale Judgement 1999

Appendix E2: Planning Application DD/1081 Ownership and tipping

Appendix E3: Planning Application DD/1081 site boundary

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]