Agenda item

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 can be reasonably alleged to support a modification. Two applications have been received for Map Modification Orders (MMO) to add public footpaths on land north of Bluehouse Lane, Oxted to the Surrey County Council DMS.

(Report and 3 annexes attached)

Declaration of Interest: None

Officer attending: Debbie Prismall, Senior Countryside Access Officer

Public Speakers:

Mrs Jackie Wren spoke in support of the application, and made the following points:

•           This was a popular path with a variety of users such as school children, dog walkers, runners and those enjoying the countryside. 

•           70 residents gave evidence that they had used the paths, some of which for 40 years.

•           It provided beautiful walks and enjoyed by many local residents.

Mr Berryman spoke in objection as the land owner and farmer of the field L-N. He made the following points:

•           He bought the land in 2012, and confirmed when purchased with the County Council that there was no right of way across the land. 

•           Shortly after buying the farm, he cleared the land and erected fences all around the field to keep his livestock safe.  Mr Berryman stated that before the land may have looked unused but since 2012 it has been part of his farm.

•           As he does not live on the site he cannot always tell people that the land is private but when he does he is often met with hostility.

•           A young calf was hurt and killed and he suspected that a dog being walked across the land may have frightened the cows and the calf was pushed into the fence.

Ms Katie Lamb (representing Mr Charlie Tory and Oxted Residential Ltd) spoke in objection and made the following points:

•           The report does not give a balanced view. 

•           The fences had been regularly cut and damaged so people were trespassing on the land.

•           The user evidence forms are not credible as many of those were not listed on the electoral roll or prepared to provide evidence in an appeal hearing. 

•           The applicant is part of a political group, OLRG who are against development in Oxted so wish to bring the application forward to stop development in the local area.

•           Mr Tory had been unable to attend due to personal reasons, and officers had declined the request to defer the decision.

The applicant Mr Peter Giles took the opportunity to respond to the objections raised. He made the following points:

•           For the middle field to be cleared by the farmer, machinery would have been required to enter at point L and therefore fencing would not have been erected at this time. 

•           Should a planning permission be given for a development the footpath could be diverted, so to stop any building work would not be a reason for the application.

•           The objectors raise assertions that local residents are lying on their forms and not following the Countryside code. Regarding the land registry details these did not give information of those who were renting property.

The Officer responded to the points raised. She stated that from those who completed the user evidence forms, 10 were interviewed by officers. The county council is bound by legislation not to consider matters of safety or convenience when considering an alleged right of way application. The County Council had deferred this decision from the March meeting as the objector submitted a statement which had to be investigated by officers, and advice from the legal department at Surrey was sought.  As the decision had already been deferred once and all notified of this June date on 1 February, officers considered that those wishing to speak had sufficient notice of the timing of the meeting, and had been advised that a statement could be read out on their behalf if they were unable to attend in person. The Officer reiterated that if Members decided on the evidence to make an order this decision would be the start of the legal process. There would be a further 6 week consultation period for objections to be raised before being submitted to the Secretary of State for a possible public inquiry, where an inspector would determine the case.

Members Discussion: Key Points

•           Members agreed they felt great sympathy for the farmer and his situation.

•           Members noted they were bound by the legislation to consider whether the public had acquired rights over the past 20 years and they did not consider that they had sufficient legal ground to overturn the officer’s recommendations in this regard.

Resolution

The matter was put to the vote with a show of hands.

Members in favour of recommendations (i) and (ii) : 10

Members opposed to recommendations (i) and (ii): 0

Members abstaining: 0

The Local Committee (Tandridge) AGREED that:

(i)         Public Footpath rights are recognised over the routes shown on Drawing no. 3/1/31/H11a as:

a)            Claimed footpath no. 612 between points A – A1 - B – C – D – E – L – M – K – N – F

b)            Claimed footpath no. 613 between points G – H – D and E – I – I1 – J

c)         Claimed footpath no. 614 between points H – C and B – I

and that a MMO under sections 53 and 57 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for Surrey.

(ii)        In the event of the County Council being directed to make a MMO by the Secretary of State following an appeal by the claimant, the County Council as surveying authority will adopt a neutral stance at any Public Inquiry or Hearing, making all the evidence available to help the inspector determine the case.

Reasons for recommendation

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.