Issue - meetings

To obtain permission to permit an Order to protect the currently obstructed path from James Road to Sheringham Road as a Public Footpath.

The Senior Rights of Way Officer presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Mr Atherton and Mr Haywood, Objectors, were invited to express their views as to why to the order should not be made.

Mr White and Mrs O’Brien, Supporters, were invited to express their views as to why to the order should not be made.

Cllr Johnson, Ward Councillor expressed his views and indicated that on this occasion he was not supportive of the proposal.

Officers responded Members’ comments and questions, details included:

• The access in question was now overgrown and had been for some time and was impassable at certain times of the year.
• Consistent usage of an access route over a period of 20 years gave rise to it becoming a public right of way. On this occasion, the 20-year period was cut off at 2017, when the owner/occupier of a neighbouring property blocked off the access.
• If the Order was made as advertised, the pathway would have a use because it would connect two roads that were otherwise disconnected which would benefit local residents that were otherwise having to walk around to access local facilities. It was unlikely that the public at large would use the pathway.
• It was inevitable that the prospect of anti-social behaviour occurring as a result of the order being made could raise some concerns, but legal framework that was in place did not allow rights of way officers to consider such implications.
• It was possible for land to be a public right of way regardless of its ownership.
• The rights of way team had visited the site in question twice and despite, restricted access at the time of both visits, had felt satisfied that he was able to determine the lay of the land.
• Ordinance Survey Maps often referred to access routes as “FP”, however, this had no legal standing.
• When determining matters of this nature, it was not possible to consider crime in terms of the evidential test. There was the possibility of utilising a public spaces protection order to block the path usage (if confirmed) at a later date, although this was a lengthy process.
• If the order was made, it would be the Council’s responsibility to ensure that the right of way was passable and was kept that way, which would be an ongoing cost.

Mr Atherton summed up his views and reiterated that he had not done anything unlawful when blocking access, as the strip of land concerned belonged to him and the access route was not regularly used.

Mrs O’Brien summed up her views and reiterated that despite other claims, the access route was commonly used, was passable and no steeper than the road.

RECOMMENDED that:

Permission is granted to create an order to record the unprotected footpath as a Public Right of Way.

Voting: For – 5         Against - 2