PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE (PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY)
Minutes of a meeting held on 18th November, 2015.
Present: Councillors Mrs. V.M. Hartrey, H.J.W. James, F.T. Johnson, R.A. Penrose and Mrs. M.R. Wilkinson.
Public Speaker -
Name of Speaker
Reason for Speaking
Mrs. K. Gallimore
Proposed Public Path Diversion Order Footpath Nos. 21 and 22 Wenvoe
Objector to the application
(a) Appointment of Chairman -
RESOLVED - T H A T Councillor F.T. Johnson be appointed Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the ensuing municipal year.
Councillor Johnson took the Chair,
(b) Appointment of Vice-Chairman -
RESOLVED - T H A T Councillor Mrs. M.R. Wilkinson be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the ensuing municipal year.
(c) Minutes -
RESOLVED - T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 24th November, 2014 be approved as a correct record.
(d) Declarations of Interest -
No declarations were received.
(e) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S257 Proposed Public Path Diversion Order Footpaths Nos. 21 and 22 Wenvoe (HRP) -
Committee were requested to consider an application made by Redrow Homes South Wales to divert Footpaths Nos. 21 and 22 Wenvoe.
Late Representations relating to the application had been distributed to the Members of the Sub-Committee by electronic means the previous day and copies were distributed at the meeting.
The Chairman read the contents of an e-mail received from the Head of Legal Services, the contents of which were as follows:
“Having regard to correspondence with Mrs. Gallimore, my advice in summary and comments are as follows:
- Mrs. Gallimore’s 16 November email is to be treated as her late representations and considered by Members of the PROW Committee.
- Given the IT ‘glitch’ Mrs. Gallimore has been advised that she may speak at Committee in line with her application.
- The relevant resolution regarding the extension of the terms of reference to the PROW Committee is the Council meeting dated 29 September 2014 which incidentally was reflected in the Council Constitution agreed by Council in September 2015.
Accordingly, it is within the terms of reference of the PROW Committee to deal with the application before the Committee today.
- The Public Rights of Way Officer will address the Committee regarding the application before the Committee. It is my understanding that it is Redrow’s third proposal which is due to be considered not the second. Although Redrow caveated the third proposal with the removal of objections (in part) they have since decided to proceed.
Should it assist, I am happy for this email to be read out in whole or part at Committee today”.
Footpath No. 21 commenced on the unadopted lane leading to Burdon’s Hill. The Footpath proceeds northwards over a field with good views across the Channel. The Footpath descends to the northern corner of the field and enters a second field, the Footpath turns north-eastwards to run parallel to the northern boundary of the field. The Footpath terminates at its junction with an adopted path which runs behind No. 14 Clos Llanfair.
The effect of the Order would be to divert Footpath No. 21 as it crossed the housing development, the proposed alignment would follow the new road layout to exit directly onto Clos Llanfair, terminating at this point.
Footpath No. 22 commenced on the adopted highway (Port Road) and proceeded north-north-westwards over the housing development to exit onto Clos Llanfair terminating at this point.
The effect of the Order would be to divert Footpath No. 22 to start on the adopted highway (Port Road) approximately 64 meters north of its current position. The path proceeds north-westwards for approximately 130 meters before continuing to follow close to its original alignment. The path would exit directly onto Clos Llanfair terminating at this point.
The Order Plan and Schedule were attached to the report.
Initially the applicant proposed a more substantial diversion of Footpath No. 21, but consultation upon this first proposal raised a number of objections and concerns. The applicant’s second proposal again generated a number of objections. The report before the Sub-Committee related to the applicant’s third proposal, revised in light of a site meeting with local residents.
Prior to 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.
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 the highway would be incompatible with the highway and enable necessity to be established.
In addition to establishing necessity, the Council was also able to decide whether or not it would 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 needed to 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 was suggested to Committee that 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.
These factors should be matters which were not taken into consideration at the time of the grant of the original planning permission and it was not open to question the merits of the original planning application. Loss of amenity of the general public did not necessarily have to be subsidiary to any benefit to the developer.
Having considered the contents of the report, the late representations, the advice of the Head of Legal Services, the comments of the public speaker and the discussions at the meeting, it was
RESOLVED - T H A T the Council, being the relevant highway authority for the affected Footpaths, proceed with the making of an Order to divert Footpath No. 21 Wenvoe and Footpath No. 22 Wenvoe, as described in the Order Plan and Schedule attached to the report (Appendix 1).
Reason for decision
The Footpaths are affected by a residential development, consent references 2013/00884/OUT and 2014/00452/RES. It was necessary to make an Order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with the grant of planning permission.