Top

Top

Agenda Item No. 5

 

The Vale of Glamorgan Council

 

Planning Sub-Committee (Public Rights of Way): 17th March, 2016

 

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning

 

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s257 Proposed Public Path Diversion Order Footpaths Nos.21 and 22 Wenvoe

 

Purpose of the Report

  1. To update the Committee and seek authorisation to amend the application made by Redrow Homes South Wales to divert the above footpaths brought to the Committee on 18th November, 2015.

Recommendations

  1. That the Council, being the relevant highway authority for the affected footpaths proceed with making an order to divert Footpath No.21 Wenvoe and Footpath No.22 Wenvoe, as described in the attached order plan and schedule (Appendix 1).
  2. That the previous resolution of the Planning Sub Committee - Public Rights of Way to make an order in relation of Wenvoe FP 21 and 22 on 18th November 2015 be rescinded.

Reasons for the Recommendations

  1. The footpaths are affected by a residential development; consent references. 2013/00884/OUT, 2014/00452/RES, 2015/00601/RES. It is necessary make an order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with the grant of planning permission.
  2. The approval of plans which supersede those considered on 18th November 2015 now renders the resolution of that date unnecessary.

Background

  1. Planning Sub Committee - Public Rights of Way met on 18th November 2015 and authorised the making of an Order to divert public rights of way Nos.21 and 22 Wenvoe, the Order being necessary to enable a residential development to be carried out in accordance with the grant of planning permission; consent references 2013/00884/OUT, 2014/00452/RES. Order maps and schedules considered at that meeting are at Appendix 2.
  2. An amendment to the layout of the development was subsequently brought to Planning Committee on 11th February 2016 and consent was given for the changes, consent reference 2015/00601/RES. The amended layout, if implemented, would obstruct the alignment of the diversion previously proposed and approved by Planning Sub Committee - Public Rights of Way on 18th November 2015.
  3. A further amendment to the proposed alignment of Footpath 21 is therefore required to ensure the diversion follows the most recent amended site layout. This would entail minor changes to previous proposal, retaining the substantive elements of the proposals though offsetting the route to take account slight changes in the footprint of buildings and road layouts
  4. The latest order plan and schedule as amended are included describing the changes in greater detail at Appendix 1 and in Appendix 3 by reference to the new layout.

Relevant Issues and Options

  1. The issues and options remain unchanged from the application brought to Committee in November and remain valid when reviewing the latest proposal.
  2. Before making an order to stop up or divert a footpath or bridleway under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s257 the Council must be satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with the grant of planning permission. It should not, however, be assumed that an order should be made simply because planning permission has been granted.
  3. The necessity test entails examining the activities authorised by the planning permission (both operational development and changes of use) to see whether they are or are not compatible with the retention of highway rights. An activity which would involve obstruction of a highway (for example the erection of a structure across the line of a highway or introducing a use such as outdoor storage or long term parking) would be incompatible with the highway and enable necessity to be established.
  4. In addition to establishing necessity the Council are also able to decide whether or not it will exercise its discretion to make an order. Having arrived at a conclusion that it was right for the planning permission to be granted however, there must be good reasons for deciding that an order, which would permit implementation of that permission, should not be made or confirmed. In determining this it is suggested the following may be taken into account:
  • The interest of the general public;
  • The particular effect on some members of the public such as occupiers of property adjoining the highway noting this may have more importance than even that of the general public;
  • Any potential financial loss to members of the public;
  1. These factors should be matters which were not taken into consideration at the time of the grant of the original planning permission and it is not open to question the merits of the original planning application. Loss of amenity of the general public does not necessarily have to be subsidiary to any benefit to the developer.

Resource Implications (Financial and Employment)

  1. Reasonable costs of the Public Path Order process (prior to referral to the Planning Inspectorate where required to do so) will be met by applicant.

Sustainability and Climate Change Implications

  1. None.

Legal Implications (to Include Human Rights Implications)

  1. The power to make an order is discretionary though having approved development good reasons should exist for declining to make an order that would enable it to be implemented. No right of appeal exists against the Authority's decision not to make an order.

Crime and Disorder Implications

  1. None.

Equal Opportunities Implications (to include Welsh Language issues)

  1. None.

Corporate/Service Objectives

  1. Determination of applications is pursuant to aims within the Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

Policy Framework and Budget

  1. This report is a matter for decision by the Planning Sub-Committee (Public Rights of Way).

Consultation (including Ward Member Consultation)

  1. Consultations were undertaken in relation to the proposal brought to Committee on the 18th November; further consultations have not been undertaken in relation to the amendment addressed in this report due to the minor nature of the changes

Relevant Scrutiny Committee

  1. Economy and Environment.

Background Papers

None.

Contact Officer

Gwyn Teague, Public Rights of Way Officer, Regeneration

Officers Consulted

Legal Services

Bob Guy - Operational Manager for Regeneration

Responsible Officer:

Marcus Goldsworthy - Head of Regeneration and Planning

 

Share on facebook Like us on Facebook