Agenda item

An application has been received for a Map Modification Order (MMO) to add public footpaths on land to the east of Rectory Lane, Woodmansterne. This reports seeks agreement of the Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for Surrey.

Declarations of Interest: None

Officers attending: Catherine Valiant, Countryside Access Officer

Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

1.    The Chairman drew members’ attention to the change of recommendation (3.3) included in the supplementary agenda papers.

2.    The Countryside Access Officer explained that the recommendation had been amended to take into account London Borough of Croydon councils’ query regarding delegation of authority to Surrey County Council.

3.    The officer summarised the subject of the application underlining the amount of quality evidence submitted showing use of paths 1, 2 and 3 over the last 20 years. There was deemed to be insufficient evidence to include the other claimed paths in this application.

4.    From the evidence submitted the officer had concluded that the landowner had not taken sufficient steps to negate the use of the paths 1,2 and 3.

5.    Two speakers had three minutes each to present their case against the application.

James Dillon of Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of Philip Drake and Pat Morris (landowners) – speaking as objector

6.    Mr Dillon reiterated on behalf of his clients that they were prepared to dedicate paths 1 and 2. However they believed there was insufficient evidence relating to path 3 and they would appeal the decision in the event the recommendation was agreed by the local committee.

7.    In particular Mr Dillon challenged the evidence cited at paragraphs 5.6, 5.8 and 5.9.

8.    With reference to the latter he claimed his clients had erected signs in the past, but that these had been removed by third parties.

9.    Mr Dillon stated his clients’ belief that the information at paragraph 6.11 was inaccurate.

10. With reference to paragraphs 6.61 and 6.62 the landowner believed the actions of his tenant Mr Colebrook was evidence of his intentions to prohibit access to the public.

Peter Morgan – (adjacent landowner) – speaking as objector

11. Mr Morgan agreed in part with the recommendations.

12. He proposed that the paths should be designated as ‘bridleways’ as he had seen cyclists using them.

13. He supported the inclusion in this application of a path across the car park of the Midday Sun Public House as well as another diagonal route between Manor Way and Farm Gate.

14. In support of the dedication of paths 1,2 and 3 he stated he that was on the land on a daily basis and no one had approached him to advise he should not be there. He had also never seen any posts to indicate that signage had been erected.

Mrs Christine O’Brien – applicant

15. The applicant was given six minutes to present her case.

16. She was the seventh generation of her family who had lived in the area for 200 years. Her grandfather had been a Highways Superintendent for the urban council in the 1950s.

17. No one had ever been prevented from walking the paths or advised they were trespassing.

18. Over the years there had been occasion to be in contact the Drake family. In the 1980s with regard to permission to extract flint from the field and in 2000s when Mr Drake cleared the ground after departing travellers had left refuse. On none of these occasions did Mr Drake indicate that there were no public rights of way.

19. More recently there had been no reason to contact the family and use of the paths has continued.

20. The tenant farmer had not prevented anyone going into the field although one barbed wire fence was erected this year. Before then she had seen no proof to suggest the landowner intended to prevent use by members of the public.

Member discussion – key points

21. The officer clarified that although the landowner had offered to dedicate paths 1 and 2 there was no provision to accept it as a way of resolving the issue as it did not cover the whole application.

22. With regard to the proposed path across the pub car park suggested by Mr Morgan she explained that there were only 11 users who had submitted evidence and as the location was not remote, a higher number of users would have been expected. A separate application for this path could be submitted in the future.

23. The revised recommendation had been re-drafted to allow Surrey County Council to proceed with the matter even though the  London Borough of Croydon council had not yet made a final decision on the issue of delegating authority on the decision.

24. Members briefly discussed enforcement and the maintenance of the path surface. The Countryside Access Officer confirmed that the landowner had a duty to ensure that the path was signed and that a suitable surface was maintained.

25. The Chairman asked members to consider the revised recommendations as a whole and indicate by a show of hands whether they were ‘for’ or ‘against’.

26. 14 members indicated they were ‘for’ the recommendations. 0 against and 0 abstentions.

The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) resolved to agree that:

(i) Public Footpath rights are recognised over the route A-B-C on Drawing No. 3/1/36/H46 (Annexe B) and that an MMO under sections 53 and 57 of the Wildlife

and Countryside Act 1981 be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for Surrey. The route will be known as Public Footpath No. 643 (Banstead).

(ii) Public Footpath rights are recognised over the route C-D-E on Drawing No 3/1/36/H46 (Annexe B) and that an MMO under sections 53 and 57 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for the London Borough of Croydon. This Order will either be

            i) made by Surrey County Council and sealed by the London Borough of Croydon or

            ii) made and sealed by London Borough of Croydon.

The route will be known as Public Footpath No.966 (Croydon).

(iii) Public Footpath Rights are recognised over the route C-F-B on Drawing No.3/1/36/H46 (Annexe B) and that an MMO under sections 53 and 57 of the Wildlife

and Countryside Act 1981 be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for Surrey. The route will be known as Public Footpath No. 644 (Banstead).

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

(i)         The County Council has a duty under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA1981) to modify the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) if it discovers evidence which on balance supports a modification.

(ii)        In this instance the evidence submitted in support of the application is considered sufficient to establish that public footpath rights are reasonably

alleged to subsist over the claimed routes, having been acquired by virtue of use by the public on foot both under statutory deemed dedication (under s.31(6) of the Highways Act 1980) and common law. Evidence suggests that landowners have not sufficiently challenged users or taken sufficient actions to demonstrate their lack on intention to dedicate during the relevant period.