REPORT OF:ENGINEERING ANDSPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER
TO:COLNE AND DISTRICT COMMITTEE
DATE:7 JUNE 2007
PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATHS 59, 60 AND 76, TRAWDEN,AT LOWER DRAUGHT GATES FARM
Purpose of Report
1.The Council has received an application to divert a number of public footpaths at Lower Draught Gates Farm, off Burnley Road, in Trawden. Members are requested to consider the report and decide whether the Council should make a diversion order as illustrated on the map attached to the report.
Issue
2.The issue before the Council is whether the proposed diversion satisfies the legal criteria for a diversion. The power to make a diversion order is discretionary, so members can decide not to make an order even if the criteria are satisfied.
Background
3.Lower Draught Gates Farm was recently purchased by Mr Glenn Dunleavey, who has carried out extensive works to improve the house and grounds.
4.Mr Dunleavey made an application to divert the footpaths following an investigation by the Countryside Access Team into a sign placed on public footpath 60 which was likely to deter use of the footpath. This problem has since been resolved, but whilst investigating the issue it became apparent that one of the buildings at the farm had probably been erected across footpath 76.
The Proposed Diversion
5.The three footpaths – numbers 59, 60 and 76 – currently meet in the farmyard at Lower Draught Gates Farm. The proposal is to relocate the junction of the three footpaths approximately 35 metres away in a northwesterly direction, shown at point A on the map.
6.The result is that footpath 59 will be diverted to run from point A to pointB, footpath 60 will be diverted to run from point A to point C and footpath 76 will be diverted to run from point A to point D.
7.The diversion will require the construction of a small footbridge and stile at point A. The new footpaths will all be unsurfaced and run across open fields. The new footpaths will all be recorded as 2 metres wide.
Results of Informal Consultation
8.Members of the Countryside Access Forum, ward councillors, the parish council and Lancashire County Council have been consulted. There have been no objections.
Legal Considerations
9.The application is for the Council to make a diversion order under section 119 of the 1980 Highways Act. The proposal must satisfy the criteria set out in the Act as detailed in the following paragraphs.
10.The proposal must be expedient in the interests of the owner of the land or of the public. In this case, the owner has applied on the grounds of greater privacy and security following incidents of theft from the farm.
11.The proposed diversion must not be substantially less convenient to the public. The proposal does not lengthen the network of rights of way, nor does it introduce other factors likely to make the footpath substantially less convenient.
12.If the proposed diversion alters the end point of the footpath, then the new end point must be at another point on the same footpath or one connected to it. In this case, there will be a new end point for each footpath at point A. Whilst this point is not currently on a footpath, the effect of the order would result in each of the three footpaths concerned satisfying the criteria.
13.Before confirming an order, the Council must consider the effect on public enjoyment of each footpath as a whole.
14.The Council must also consider the effect of the proposed diversion on land served by the existing right of way. The Council is also required to have regard to the effect which the new footpaths would have on the land over which they are created.
15.The Council is required to have regard to the provisions of any Rights of Way Improvement Plans. The Lancashire County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan has been checked and has no bearing on this application.
Policy Implications
16.None.
Local Agenda 21 Implications
17.None.
Community Safety Implications
18.The proposed diversion will allow the residents of Lower Draught Gates Farm to improve the security at the farm.
Risk Management/Health and Safety Implications
19.None.
Financial Implications
20.The landowner, Mr Glenn Dunleavey, has agreed to pay the costs associated with making and confirming the order.
Conclusions
21.The proposed diversion appears to satisfy all the legal criteria that the Council must have regard to. There have been no objections from the many local groups which have been consulted. There are obvious benefits to the landowner who wishes to enjoy a certain degree of privacy in and around the farm buildings and to make security improvements.
22.In many respects, the proposed diversion is preferable for members of the public who enjoy walking in the countryside. Most prefer well-defined routes across fields rather than trying to negotiate their way on the right path through farm buildings. The proposed diversion of these three footpaths will achieve this.
RECOMMENDATION
(1)That the Democratic and Legal Services Manager be authorised to make a diversion order under section 119 of the 1980 Highways Act to divert public footpaths 59, 60 and 76, Trawden, as shown on the map attached to this report.
(2)That the Democratic and Legal Services Manager be authorised to confirm the order as an unopposed order if there are no objections. If there are objections, that he be authorised to refer the order to the Secretary of State for determination.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
1.Because it is expedient in the interests of the owner of the land that the footpaths be diverted.
2.To allow the order to come into effect if there are no objections, or for the order to be considered by an independent inspector if there are objections.
Engineering and Special Projects
Phoenix Chambers
NELSON
Report Author: Tom PartridgeTel:(01282) 661059
E-mail:
Background Papers:
Ref: TP/MH/T2/14/72
Date: 2 May 2007
1