Agenda item

This report seeks a decision on whether to make a legal order to divert Public Footpath No. 415, Dormansland. Two objections have been received.

The officer’s recommendation is that an order should be made.

(Report and 4 annexes attached).

The Local Committee (Tandridge) resolved, by 9 votes against, 0 votes in favour and 1 abstention,  to REFUSE that:

A Diversion Order is made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, to divert Public Footpath No. 415, Dormansland onto the line shown A – D – E – F on Drg. No. 3/1/129/H13.

Reasons for decision:

The committee were not satisfied that the criteria for making a diversion order had been met; with particular concern about the route itself, the ecological implications, ease of navigating the proposed route and potential for vandalism.

Officer attending: Debbie Prismall, Senior Countryside Access Officer, Legal Definition

As the Chairman was aware that some members of the committee needed to leave early he amended the order of the agenda, so this item was taken after items 3 and 10.

Public Speakers:

Mr Eric Richardson, representative of Swites Wood Ltd, had registered to speak in objection to the application. Mr Richardson made the following points:

·         The current path goes nowhere.

·         It is little used and obsolete.

·         The county council’s ecologist objects to the proposed diversion, and yet the officer recommendation seeks to override this objection.

Mrs Maureen Young, Chairman of Dormansland Parish Council, had registered to speak in objection to the application. Mrs Young made the following points:

·         Concern for the disturbance to wildlife

·         Worried that the proposal will increase anti-social behaviour

·         Concerned that deer will not be able to jump both fences and may be injured/killed.

Mr Tony Pearson, Local Footpath Secretary, had registered to speak in favour of the application, on behalf of the Ramblers, and arrived during the member discussion. Mr Pearson made the following points:

·         The Ramblers were consulted on this proposal in 2015 and indicated their support.

·         However since then the Ramblers only support the proposal with reluctance. The Ramblers fully support taking walkers off the roads, however they consider there could be a better solution than the one being proposed.

Member discussion – key points:

·         The local ward member, Mrs Lesley Steeds, asked for the application to be refused. She was not satisfied the proposal met the criteria for a diversion, and was concerned about the ecological impacts of the proposed footpath. She stated they would disadvantage those walking with dogs, and that the overhanging branches, and high stile, made it difficult to negotiate. She was concerned the proposed diversion could lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour from vandals, or motorbikes.

·         The divisional member, Mr Michael Sydney, agreed with Mrs Steeds. He commented it was a seemingly expensive request, and he would expect the High Weald AONB Joint Advisory Committee would agree with him.

·         Members commented that the footpath seems very little used, and were surprised there was no information on this within the report. 

·         Concerns were expressed about the steep drop at the entrance, and the presence of culverts and overhanging trees. The exit of the current footpath onto the busy road make this path appear seldom used.

·         Members asked the officer to confirm that if the application is refused, the current footpath remains. The Countryside Access Officer confirmed this.

The Countryside Access Officer referred members to the written statement made by the Ramblers, as set out in the report.

The Senior Countryside Access Officer explained that other options have been explored, but this proposal takes walkers off a busy road where there have been past incidences of accidents. The stile would be replaced with a kissing gate to improve access. The land could be stepped to ease the steep bank. There are no counters recording the use of paths.

The committee voted on the proposal:

Votes for the recommendation in the report: 0

Votes against the recommendation in the report: 9

Abstentions: 1

Resolution:

The Local Committee (Tandridge) resolved, by 9 votes against, 0 votes in favour and 1 abstention,  to REFUSE that:

A Diversion Order is made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, to divert Public Footpath No. 415, Dormansland onto the line shown A – D – E – F on Drg. No. 3/1/129/H13.

Reasons for decision:

The committee were not satisfied that the criteria for making a diversion order had been met; with particular concern about the ecological implications, ease of navigating the proposed route and potential for vandalism.