To consider an application under the Highways Act 1980, section 119, to make a public path order to divert parts of bridlepath CO1 and footpaths CO1A and CO4 in the parish of Collington and parts of footpaths ER3 and ER26 in the parish of Edwyn Ralph.

The Rights of Way Manager presented a report about an application for a Footpath  Diversion Order in respect of parts of bridle path CO1 and footpaths CO1A and CO4 in the parish of Collington and parts of footpaths ER3 and ER26 in the parish of Edwyn Ralph.  He said that the original application included changes to ten paths in total and was made for one extinguishment Order under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 and one creation Order under section 26 of the Highways Act 1980.  The proposal was that each of the Orders would include a number of paths, thus reducing the advertising costs incurred. It was intended that the two Orders should be considered concurrently to result in the desired diversion of the paths.  The application was made by Thornbury Group Parish Council with a view to it paying for advertising and the landowners meeting the other costs on a pro-rata basis. The reasons given for making the application were that the proposed reorganisation of the paths would improve the rights of way network in the area, in terms of user safety and convenience and of land management practices. Some landowners also felt that the proposals would benefit them by increasing their privacy and security. 

The Rights of Way Manager outlined the history of the proposals which had first arisen in 1990, the negotiations that had taken place and the changes that had been made to the proposals since then.  The representative acting for the applicants and the landowners had proposed that the diversions should be made under a single Order.  He advised that although it was possible to include a number of paths in any one creation or extinguishment Order, provided that the legal tests were met for each path, the risk of failure was increased because an objection to the proposal for one path may result in the whole Order not being confirmed.  The representative was advised in 1992 that individual diversion Orders for each of the proposals was more likely to result in success.  Following a considerable amount of correspondence about the procedure to be used and the costs involved, a Definitive Map Modification Order application was made in 2004 in respect of one path and separate diversion applications had been made for a number of the other proposals. 2004.  The view of the Rights of Way Manager was that the proposals would not meet the legal tests for a diversion under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 in their current form.  He explained why he had taken this view and said that the Local Ward Member also shared his reservations. He said that if the application was rejected or withdrawn, the landowners would be able to make new applications for diversions in their own right, if they so wished. These would be processed under the current policy and procedures and at current costs.  The Committee decided that in view of the circumstances the best option at this stage would be to refuse the application.

RESOLVED

That a public path diversion order be not made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as illustrated on Drawing no D121/94-1/1A/4 and Drawing no D121/133-26/3 and that the application is rejected.