Agenda item

The Committee considered a joint report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services and Head of Legal and Democratic Services regarding a proposal to extinguish part of Public Footpath No. 27 Murton Parish by public path order (Highways Act 1980 Section 118) at Hesledon Moor East (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Access and Rights of Way Team Leader informed the Committee than an application had been received from the owner of Hesledon Moor East to extinguish a section of Public Footpath No. 27 on the grounds that it was not needed for public use. A consultation on the proposed extinguishment had resulted in an objection from the Ramblers Association. The public footpath No. 27 Murton Parish ran in a southerly direction from Footpath No. 18, through a yard at Hesledon Moor East, to join Footpath No.26, before heading east and eventually finishing near the A19. The path was linked to a network of public rights of way to the south and east of Murton. Members walked the length of the path proposed for extinguishment during a site visit prior to the meeting.

The Access and Rights of Way Team Leader explained that the proposal would result in a reduction of the network by approximately 220 metres. In terms of the test for confirmation of an unopposed Order, it was considered that the section of path was unlikely to be used by the public, and the extinguishment would not have a negative effect on the landowner, who was the applicant. Public Footpaths Nos.18 and 26 provided an alternative route for pedestrians, avoiding farmyard areas.

The Committee were informed that in terms of an alternative, the only alternative to an extinguishment of the footpath would be a Diversion Order, under the provisions of section 119 of the Highways Act, in the interests of the landowner and on the grounds of privacy and security. However, this option had been considered by the applicant and rejected.

In conclusion the Access and Rights of Way Team Leader explained that it was considered that the statutory tests for making of an extinguishment order and thereafter confirmation as an unopposed order, were met.

Councillor Napier, speaking as one of the local Councillors was speaking in support of the application. Councillor Napier explained that there was clear evidence that the path was not used for public use. The two businesses located at the farm had endured a significant amount of anti-social behaviour, theft and arson attacks. Given that a perfectly adequate alternative route had been identified, Councillor Napier appealed to the Ramblers Association to withdraw their objection.

Councillor J Maitland echoed the concerns expressed by Councillor Napier and had walked the alternative path on many occasions, which was far a more pleasant and enjoyable recreational route which was not overly lengthy.

The Committee then heard from the representative of the Ramblers Association who appreciated that the applicant may find it inconvenient for a public footpath to run through the middle of his farm, however, there were many similar situations where this type of situation arose. The Ramblers Association also felt that anti-social behaviour was not of good enough reason to extinguish a footpath, as there were many other paths across the network that encountered similar issues. The route was also significantly longer as opposed to walking straight through the farm. The Ramblers Association appreciated that the applicant was going to improve the short section of Footpath No. 26, however, the general view remained that there was a clear route through the farm buildings, and it was not a difficult path to take.

The Committee then listened to representations from the applicant who explained that they had sought the extinguishment for a number of reasons. The applicant explained that the footpath would have been closed on health and safety grounds had it been any other business or industry, particularly with the movement associated with livestock, tractors and wagons etc. The businesses on site had seen an increased fire risk in the area and highlighted that there had been four fires over recent times. The applicant told the Committee how they had to park trailers at either end of the footpath to secure property during the evening, not to block the footpath, but to block access to off road vehicles which had also caused issues. The Police had advised the applicant to pursue closure of the footpath given the issues being encountered.

The Access and Rights of Way Team Leader explained to the Committee that there was an obvious motivation for the applicant to pursue the footpath extinguishment, however, the Committee were reminded that it was not a qualifying criterion that could be used to close the path, the relevant legal test being whether the path was needed for public use. The Committee were also informed that the applicant had offered to carry out improvements to public footpath no. 26, should the application be successful. However, this was a voluntary offer and no weight could be afforded to it in the consideration of the application. It was very rare for the County Council to support and indeed, proceed with extinguishment orders. However, in this case it was felt that the objector had not addressed the legal test of whether the footpath was unnecessary for public use and had not offered any evidence to suggest that the path was needed for public use to justify refusal of the application. In this case there was a perfectly adequate alternative route in footpaths 18 and 26, and it was considered that the section of path in question was not needed for public use.

Councillor J Shuttleworth felt that the statutory tests for the making of the extinguishment order had been met, given the information presented by way of the report and following the comments made at the meeting.

Councillor P Sexton explained that in this particular case, he found it very difficult to understand why a footpath user would want to walk through a middle of a working farm which contained plant machinery, livestock and dogs, particularly when there was a more amenable and perfectly adequate alternative route that footpath users could enjoy.

Councillor S Dunn commented that he fully understood why the Ramblers Association wanted to preserve public footpaths and bridleways and supported their aspirations to increase and improve them. Personally, Councillor Dunn felt that it was inappropriate for footpaths to lead through farms not only for the safety of footpath users but also for workers on site. It was also important to note the potential increased crime risk in this case. Councillor Dunn felt that the proposed extinguishment in this case was valid as the current part of the footpath wasn’t particularly needed. There was also no evidence of any meaningful use. As a side issue Councillor Dunn felt that the County Council should implement a Rights of Way Improvement Plan detailing aspirations for improvement which could lead to beneficial and strategic improvements to the public path network.

The Solicitor for Planning and Development acknowledged the point made by Councillor Dunn in relation to the Rights of Way Improvement Plan but explained that it was not within the remit of the Committee for the matters under consideration and suggested that this be dealt with as a separate matter by way of dialogue with relevant officers at a later date.

Moved by Councillor J Shuttleworth, Seconded by Councillor P Sexton and

Resolved

That an Extinguishment and Definitive Map Modification Order be made in respect of Public Footpath No. 27 Murton Parish, under the provisions of section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 and section 53(A)(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and subsequently either confirmed or referred to the Secretary of State for determination.