Agenda item

To consider a report from the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services, which presents Members with evidence relating to a claim for public footpaths at Top Field, Springvale, in the parish of Kings Worthy, so that they may determine whether or not to authorise a Definitive Map Modification Order for the application routes, either under the provisions of section 31 of the Highways Act 1981, or through a dedication at common law.

The Committee considered a report from the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services (item 6 in the minute book) regarding an application for a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to record footpaths at, and adjoining to, Top Field, in Kings Worthy.

The officer introduced the item and went through the history of the current application, which was submitted in 2017.  This required an examination of the full evidence from the period 1997-2017, when the first application for public footpaths at this location was received. The history of attempts to record rights to access the land is complex, and two Inquiries had already been held since the 2005 unconfirmed Order had been applied for in 1997. With the most recent application, evidence for seven separate paths had emerged, many of which were clearly visible on supporting aerial photographs that were attached to the report.

There are several owners of the land in question, and a tenant farmer produced evidence of how some of the land has been managed.  A photograph of a fence close to the active London railway line was shown to the Committee, which was regularly maintained by Network Rail and supported a recommendation that the claim for public rights over a part of the dismantled railway line route be refused. User evidence was shown to the Committee, and the effects of common law on part of one of the paths where there had been less than twenty years’ use (thereby not meeting the requirement under section 31 of the Highways Act 1980) was explained, in which the onus is placed on an applicant to show that the landowner acquiesced in public use of the path. It was recommended that this part of the path did meet the requirements of common law.

The officer, Sylvia Seeliger, was thanked on behalf of Councillor Porter, the local Member, for her work on the application.

Members were accepted the findings of the report and there were no questions or debate.

RESOLVED:

It was approved  that Orders be made to record a number of the paths that are the subject of the application on the Definitive Map and Statement and that one path, and part of another, be refused, as follows:

a)    A Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) be made to record the route, shown on the Committee Plan between A-B as a public footpath, with a width of at least 1 metre.

b)    A DMMO be made to record the route, shown on the Committee Plan, between C-D as a public footpath, with a width of at least 1 metre.

c)    A DMMO be made to record the route E-F as a public footpath, with a width of at least 1 metre.

d)    A DMMO be made to record the route L-K as a public footpath, with a width of at least 1.5 metres wide.

e)    A DMMO be made to record the route J-M as a public footpath, with a width of 6 metres.

f)     A DMMO be made to record the route N-M as a public footpath, with a width of at least 1 metre wide.

g)    The application to record G-H as a public footpath was refused.

h)   The application to record I-M as a public footpath was refused.

Voting:

Favour: 12 (unanimous)