Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director, Neighbourhood Services which proposed an enhancement scheme for the area of St. Mary’s Close, Bishop Auckland, a small cul-de-sac which consisted entirely of aged persons bungalows with two adopted footpath alleyways through neighbouring houses and central footpath traversing a grassed area (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Committee were informed that the scheme had been devised to benefit those people living in the area and would produce and amenity communal planted area within the grassed area, thereby enhancing the experience and living conditions for residents as well as providing additional garden areas for a number of properties.  The works would necessitate the closure of certain footpaths.  The first stage planning approval to change the use of public highway to that of a landscaped garden area had been achieved.  The next stage of the process was to consider stopping-up the highways under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act.  Consultations had been carried out with all households in the immediate area and the local members. No negative comments had been received from the resident’s consultation.

The Committee were informed that the Council have discretionary powers to carry out a stopping-up which had been advertised and resulted in one objection being received from the Open Spaces Society.  The development could not proceed with the area being stopped-up.  The Committee were advised of the statutory process that had been undertaken.

Councillors Lethbridge and Lee, both addressed the Committee in support of the scheme and informed the Committee that much had work had been undertaken over a long period of time in partnership with Dale and Valley Homes, the local Area Action Partnership, Police and officers of the council.  There was a clear determination and desire by all concerned to improve and enhance this particular part of the estate and provide some form of tranquillity and pleasantness for the residents in the area.

Ms Jo Bird, representative from the Open Spaces Society, who provided initial objections to the scheme addressed the Committee, highlighting a number of issues, namely that the Open Spaces Society objected to the proposed extinguishment of footpaths on the grounds that the paths may only be extinguished if they are not needed.  Ms Bird commented that the council had not provided any evidence to justify this, regardless of who was using the footpaths.  The fact that the consultation was limited did not take into account people from the wider area who used the footpaths as short cuts. Ms Bird also commented that the closure were being sought to combat antisocial behaviour, a matter which the police should have been encouraged to resolve.  Ms Bird was of the view that closing the footpaths would not solve any problems and would simply move issues on elsewhere if the location was lost.

Ms Bird informed the Committee that she was of the view that Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act was being incorrectly used and that Section 118 should be applied.  Ms Bird had attempted to contact the council’s Legal Services for advice but had struggled to get any form of response, despite numerous attempts.  Ms Bird referred to a similar case where the Local Government Ombudsman had found a local authority guilty of maladministration because of incorrect use of the law and had sought guidance from the Council’s Legal Services Team.  Ms Bird had repeatedly queried the procedure since March 2012 and maintained that many basic questions had remained unanswered.  Ms Bird commented that the plan accompanying the papers differed from the plan circulated at the consultation stage.

In her view, the case had been handled extremely poorly, that the extinguishment should be considered under Section 118 rather than Section 257 and urged the Committee not to make the order outlined.

Councillors Arthur, Naylor and Shiell sought clarification that the correct legal advice had been provided, given the representations Ms Bird had made.

The Legal Advisor informed the Committee that officers were comfortable that the correct procedure was being used. A request was being considered that a public right of way be stopped up, planning permission having been granted for a change of use.  The representations made to the Committee by Ms Bird asserted that a change of use did not constitute development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  However, this was not the case, as Section 55 of that Act includes within the definition of development the making of a material change in use of any land.  The Committee were advised that they needed to be satisfied that it was necessary to stop up the footpath in order to enable the development to proceed in accordance with planning permission.

On that basis the Committee agreed with the representations made by the local members and given the fact that they were satisfied that the legal process had been followed correctly.

Resolved

That the recommendations contained in the report be agreed.