Agenda Item No.
PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE (PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY)
Minutes of a meeting held on 2nd April, 2014.
Present: Councillor F.T. Johnson (Chairman); Councillor E. Williams (Vice-Chairman); Councillors H.C. Hamilton, Mrs. V.M. Hartrey and H.J.W. James.
Also present: Councillor P.J. Clarke.
(a) Minutes –
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 26th February, 2014 be approved as a correct record, subject to the wording of the resolution for Minute (e) being supplemented by the following:
"Due to some of the papers relevant to that agenda item not being despatched to Members three clear working days prior to the Committee meeting on 26th February 2014, it was deemed that the agenda item was not duly considered by Members and therefore the resolution was of nil effect."
(b) Declarations of Interest –
No declarations were received.
(c) Definitive Map Modification Order (No. DMO/53/379) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 53(3) (c)(i) Romilly Park Road to FP72f, Barry (DDS) –
The Sub-Committee received a further update on the progress of the above Order and were requested to confirm authority for its re-making.
On 16th July, 2012, a report dealing with a claim that a route running from the "southern end of Footpath 72, Barry" to "Romilly Park Road, Barry" should be recorded as a public footpath was presented to the Public Rights of Way Sub-Committee.
The Sub-Committee considered the contents, including an appended investigation report, and resolved to make an Order in favour of recording the path. The Order was made on 2nd October, 2012.
Objections to the Order were received from Mr. P. Walden and Mrs. K. Gallimore; within the objections reference was drawn, amongst other things, to the year being omitted from the date of the sealing text.
Statutory Instrument 1993 No. 12, Rights of way, The Wildlife and Countryside Act (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993, Schedule 4, Paragraph 1 provided that "A modification or reclassification order shall be made in duplicate with the seal of the surveying authority ("the authority") and the date of making inserted after the order before the schedule".
Consideration was given to the extent to which the omission of the year from the date of the sealing text was material and to seek modification of the Order upon referral to the Planning Inspectorate so as to include the full date. This was considered particularly in light of the fact that the order taken as a whole was unambiguous as to the year, having included it in its title.
It was considered that though modification of the Order may fall within an inspector’s power there nevertheless existed a risk that modification could be declined at a late stage, exposing the Authority to additional costs being incurred. Alternatively seeking return of the Order to allow it to be remade in correct form would provide a clearer basis from which objections could be considered on the basis of substantive matters raised.
The Order was referred to the Planning Inspectorate in which it was accepted by the Council that the date as stated was defective and without seeking modification. The Planning Inspectorate issued its decision to return the Order on 30th January 2014.
Following return of the Order, the application was reconsidered by the Public Rights of Way Sub-Committee on 26th February 2014.
It was now considered that all papers relevant to the making of the decision had not been forwarded to Members within the required period prior to the meeting of the Sub-Committee on 26th February, and on that basis, the report had been brought back to the Sub-Committee for further consideration.
The Sub-Committee were advised that the evidence submitted in relation to the application and the investigations of the Council had not altered since the Sub-Committee had considered it last on 16th July 2012.
In commenting on the additional information placed before the Sub-Committee, the Public Rights of Way Officer advised that the contents did not amount to material change on the proposals and further advised that there was little of relevance to what had been included in the original investigative report.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 s56(3) required that Orders be made within six months of the relevant date. A further resolution reaffirming to make an Order would therefore provide for an appropriate new relevant date which would be the date of this meeting.
The Members of the Sub-Committee, having deliberated on the application and supporting evidence together with the contents of the detailed report of the Public Rights of Way Officer and the documentary evidence entitled "Late Representation 2", unanimously
(1) T H A T there being no material change in the circumstances since the decision of the Sub-Committee of 16th July 2012, it remained the case that the footpath subsists or is reasonably alleged to subsist as at the date of this meeting.
(2) T H A T the Vale of Glamorgan Council, being the relevant highway authority for the affected footpath, make an Order to record the application route A-B-C as a public footpath and authorise the Head of Legal Services to make and seal the Order.
Reasons for decisions
(1) As set out in the investigation report previously presented on 16th July 2012 and updated by the report.
(2) To authorise the making of the Order.
(d) Application For Definitive Map Modification Order Wildlife And Countryside Act 1981 Section 53(3)(c)(i) Peterston Super Ely Community Hall (DDS) –
The Sub-Committee considered a report which related to a claim that a route running from the "North East corner of Peterston Super Ely playing field" to "the rear of Peterston-Super-Ely Church and Community Hall" should be recorded as a public footpath on the Definitive Map and Statement with a width of 2m.
The report set out the relevant evidence and legal tests, including the weight that could be given to that evidence in order to inform a determination on whether or not to make a Definitive map Modification Order.
The effect sought by the application, if successful, was to add the footpath A-B as shown in the Appendix to the report.
The Members of the Sub-Committee, having deliberated on the application and supporting evidence together with the contents of the detailed investigation report of the Public Rights of Way Officer,
RESOLVED – T H A T the Vale of Glamorgan Council decline to make a Definitive Map Modification Order to record the application route A-B as a public footpath.
Reason for decision
The requirements of Section 53(3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are not met.
(e) Highways Act 1980 Section 119 Proposed Public Path Diversion Order Footpath No. 5 Bonvilston (DDS) –
The Sub-Committee considered an application to divert part of the above path. The application was made by Mr. and Mrs. Summerhayes, Stone Court, Bonvilston, Cardiff.
Public Footpath 5 commenced on the north side of the A48 to the west of St. Mary’s Church, Bonvilston and proceeded along a private driveway to Stone Court. The path entered the garden of Stone Court and passed close to the house. The path continued north westwards through a stable yard then across fields before terminating at the junction of several footpaths. The path provided a valuable link into an extensive network of paths which lay to the north of the village.
The path through Stone Court had been obstructed for many years with members of the public following an informal path around the boundary of Stone Court. The informal path had been cleared and maintained periodically by the Vale Council and partner organisations, including Valeways, and appeared in Valeways promoted route literature.
The northern section of the path was not owned by the applicant. The applicant had provided a declaration that she had spoken to the owners and that they were in agreement with the proposal. The owners were consulted as part of the pre-order consultation process but had not responded. The applicants had also indemnified the Council against the cost of compensation should such an application be received.
The effect of the diversion of Footpath 5 would be to move the footpath from the alignment A-B-C (bold line) to A-D-E-F-G-C (dashed line) as shown on the Order map.
The existing definitive alignment passed in front of Mr. and Mrs. Summerhayes home. The diversion would move the path to the edge of their property, parallel but outside of their garden wall. The proposal would also realign the northern section of the path, moving the path to the edge of the field which would allow the path to be fenced off from the main body of the field at a later date; this section was owned by a different landowner.
The application cites the reason for the diversion as: "the owner would benefit from privacy and security".
The path diversion retained connections to the same highways and the proposed alternative route was no less convenient to the public.
The Members of the Sub-Committee, having deliberated on the application and supporting evidence,
RESOLVED – T H A T the Council, being the relevant highway authority for the affected footpath, proceed with the making of an Order to divert part of Footpath No. 5 Bonvilston, as described in the Order plan and schedule attached at Appendix A to the report subject to the following conditions:
- The making safe of the wall to the south of the footpath between points D-E to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority
- Subject to the implementation and completion of Planning Permission 2013/01230/FUL to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority
- The Schedule to the Order being amended to require a 2m clear width to be taken from the eastern edge of the hedge between F-H on the plan attached to the schedule.
Reason for decision
The diversion of the path is expedient in the interests of the landowners and meets the relevant legal tests.
(f) Highways Act 1980 Section 119 Proposed Public Path Diversion Order Footpaths Nos. 1 And 3 Gileston (DDS) –
The Sub-Committee considered an application to divert part of the above path. The application was made by the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
Footpath No. 1 commenced at Gileston Village on the adopted highway which led to the coast. The path headed westwards along a farm track through Gileston Farmyard; connecting to the rights of way network, the path continued across fields to meet the coast at Summerhouse Bay. The path was promoted as part of the All Wales Coast Path.
Footpath No. 3 commenced on the adopted highway to the north of Gileston Village; heading south westwards, the path crossed an arable field, then entering a second field for a short stretch before joining Footpath No. 1 on the access track to Gileston Farmyard. The proposed change would follow the route used by walkers for many years, keeping closer to the field margin.
The effect of the diversion of Footpath No. 1 would be to move the footpath from the alignment A-B (bold line) to A-C-D-E-B (dashed line) as shown on the Order map. The effect of the diversion of Footpath No. 3 (shown in error as Footpath No. 1 but corrected verbally) would be to move the footpath from the alignment F-G (bold line) to H-I-J-K-L-M (dashed line) as shown on the Order map.
The current and proposed alignment of both paths crossed land which was not registered with the Land Registry. The land was owned by Mr. Thomas, Gileston Farm who had no objection to the proposal.
Footpath No. 1 passed through the yard of Gileston Farm and the diversion would move the path to the south of the yard, along the field margin to the adjacent fields. Footpath No. 3 crossed an agricultural field, and the diversion would move the path to the field margin.
The path diversions would retain connection to the same highways. The proposed alternative routes were no less convenient to the public.
The Members of the Sub-Committee, having deliberated on the application and supporting evidence together with details of objections received,
RESOLVED – T H A T the Council, being the relevant Highway Authority for the affected footpaths, proceed with making an Order to divert parts of Footpaths Nos. 1 and 3 Gileston, as described on the Order plan and schedule attached at Appendix A to the report.
Reason for decision
Diversion of the paths is expedient in the interests of the landowners.