Agenda item

To consider a report from the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services regarding an application for a Definitive Map Modification Order to record public footpaths at Ashe Hill Park Estate, Oakley, Basingstoke.

 The Committee considered a report from the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services (Item 8 in the Minute Book) regarding an application for a Definitive Map Modification Order to record public footpaths at Ashe Hill Park Estate in Basingstoke.

The officer introduced the item and explained that despite there being many issues and concerns from local residents regarding the application, only matters of evidence could be considered in determining the application. A location plan was shown and the background and closures of the paths was explained to Committee. The plan showed the footpaths that had been closed in 2009, but the majority were free of permanent obstruction and had been since the 1960’s. Over 120 people had been written to as part of the consultation process and responses had been received from those who wanted the paths to remain open along with those who wished them to remain closed.

Conflicting evidence had been received regarding the path marked U-V. On the one hand ,the adjacent landowners had indicated that the paths had been blocked on a regular basis, but on the other hand the  user evidence did not bear this out. Therefore, the recommendation in respect of this path was that an Order should be made to record it so that the conflicting evidence could be tested further at public inquiry.

The Committee received four deputations on this item. Chris Burrowes, a local resident told Members how the route U-V was not as wide as had been stated in the report, and had been blocked to prevent ant-social behaviour. Only one person had claimed to use the route regularly yet no one had ever been witnessed using the path. Mr Burrowes felt there were other more suitable paths that could be used as alternatives.
            Dorothy Collard thanked the officer for the detailed report but also spoke in favour of path U-V remaining closed. She told Committee that blocking the path should be enough to deter people from using it, but had they known that a sign was required then they would have put one up. Many of the roads surrounding the paths were quiet culs-de-sac, and therefore it was not too much of an issue that there were no pavements. Ms Collard felt that the only route required was B1-Y-X-T-S, which had been upgraded.
            Beverley Fenn addressed Committee on behalf of her Mother, Ethel Wilcox, who had lived in her property since the 1960’s and sought to legally get path U-V blocked after an incident with dogs that had managed to get from the path into her garden. She and her husband had been advised to block the route for a day a year and had done so for 50 years. Those who tried to use the route soon after closure were told why the route had been blocked and Mrs Wilcox had not expected to have to provide further evidence regarding the closure. Anti social behaviour in the area had drastically decreased since the path had been blocked.

            John Bonner, another local resident, told Committee how he had regularly used the route U-V, and had never known the path to be blocked, but accepted it didn’t mean that it hadn’t happened. Mr Bonner felt that using the road network on foot was dangerous and the paths were important, particularly with young children and vulnerable people getting around and accessing the local shops and school.

During questions of the deputations, the following points were clarified:

• The fence lines were still visible where some had been removed from blocking paths
• Mr Bonner accepted that paths could have been blocked on occasion even if he had not witnessed it himself.
• Beverly Fenn could recollect the paths being blocked and assisting with it whilst growing up in the property.
• Path L-M was currently blocked.

During questions of the officer, the following points were clarified:

• The paths needed to be looked at collectively. It was not open to the County Council to pick and choose which paths were recorded as public because of the prejudicial effect on landowners. If the  recommendation to make an order was not accepted, then the applicant could appeal, in which case the county council might nevertheless be directed to make an order.
• The routes that were blocked could arguably leave landowners open to a civil challenge by other residents of the estate, but this was not a matter in which the County Council could involve itself.

Committee debated the item and were sympathetic to the local residents who had attended to speak at the meeting. An amendment to the recommendation was proposed and seconded, namely that a Definitive Map Modification Order was not made in respect of footpath section U-V. The amendment was debated but defeated on a vote.  Committee agreed that the evidence of witnesses and landowners should be cross examined further at an Inquiry.

RESOLVED:

A)   That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between C-E-G-H-I as a public footpath with a width varying between 1.8 and 2.7 metres.

B)   That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between E-F as a public footpath with a width of 2.4 metres.

C)   That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between H-J-K-L-O as a public footpath with a width varying between 1.1 and 2.2 metres.

D)   That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between L-M as a public footpath with a width of 2.3 metres.

E)   That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between P1-R-R1-U as a public footpath with a width varying between 1.4 and 1.9 metres.

F)   That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between Q-R as a public footpath with a width varying between 1.8 and 2.1 metres.    

G)   That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between N-O-U-V-C1-D1 as a public footpath with a width varying between 2.2 and 2.9 metres.

H)   That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between A1-C1 as a public footpath with a width of 2.3 metres.

I)     That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between Z-B1 as a public footpath with a width varying between 2.1 and 2.4 metres.

J)    That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between T-V as a public footpath with a width varying between 1.7 and 2.1 metres.

K)   That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between S-T-X-Y as a public footpath with a width varying between 2.1 and 2.4 metres.

L)    That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made to record the route shown between W-X as a public footpath with a width varying between 2.4 and 2.6 metres.

M)  That the application to record A-B-C as a public footpath be refused.

N)   That the application to record C-D as a public footpath be refused.

Voting:
Favour: 12 (unanimous)