To consider proposals to make concurrent public path creation and extinguishment orders to alter part of footpath FWD10, Fownhope.

Ward Affected: Backbury

The Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager presented a report about an application for a Diversion Order under the provisions of Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of part of Footpath FWD10 in the parish of Fownhope. 

He said that Public footpath FWD10 has been closed a number of years because of the collapse of the river bank which rendered it impassable.  The appropriate engineering works would cost approximately £120,000 and even then, further collapse may need additional work. 

The affected section of footpath formed part of a longer riverside walk which was popular with local people and visitors. The Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager had therefore prepared proposals for a diversion of the affected section to enable it to be taken it away from the area of erosion and brought back into use.  He explained that the eroded section was considered to have been extinguished on legal grounds and that the ‘diversion’ would therefore have to be carried out by concurrent creation and extinguishment Orders, rather than by a Diversion Order.  He advised that the landowner did not oppose the proposal in principle.  He had, however, submitted applications to divert part of footpaths FWD4 and FWD7 and wanted these to be dealt with at the same time as FWD10. 

The Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager read out the contents of an e-mail which had been received from the Local Ward Member who said that she fully supported the three proposals within the application.  She also said that the focus appeared to be on the Lea Brink section of the footpath but she considered that the matter has been around for so long that there was justification in dealing with the entire problem at this time.  A letter had also been received from the local parish council in a similar vein.

The Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager informed the Committee that the FWD10 proposals had been prioritised because they were to be in the public interest.  Informal consultation had taken place about the FWD4 & FWD7 proposals and some significant objections had been received. The proposals for footpaths FWD4 and FWD7 were solely in the interests of the landowner, not the public and would be dealt with as a separate matter in due course.  Because of the length of time that it had already taken to get to the current position regarding FWD10, he recommended that it should be dealt with independently of the other applications.

The Committee discussed the proposals and asked questions about them. Consideration was given to whether it was preferable for the three applications to be dealt with together but the advice of the officers was accepted and it was agreed that they should be dealt with separately.  The Committee felt that the landowner should however be encouraged to submit formal applications for the other two footpaths to help to progress matters.

RESOLVED THAT:

(i)                 a Public Path Order be made to create a section of path under Section 26 of the Highways Act 1980, and a further Order be made to extinguish the ends of FWD10 where it has fallen into the river, under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980, as illustrated on drawing number: D249/149-D10(i); and.

(ii)               the landowner be encouraged to submit revised applications for the diversion of part of Footpaths FWD4 & FWD7.