Agenda item

The County Council has powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to close public footpaths. This report sets out details of the application to restrict pedestrian access and the reasons for the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

Declarations of Interest:

1.    Cllr Kennedy - member of the Bookham Residents’ Association,

2.    Mrs Curran – designated SCC member of Bookham Residents’ Association

Officer Present: Debbie Prismall, Senior Countryside Access Officer

Speaker in support:

Julia Dickinson made the following points in support of the application.

1.    Surrey County Council had a statutory duty with regard to ensuring the safety of the school pupils.

2.    There was an alternative path, that the public could use.

Speakers objecting to the application made the following points.

Vivien White – on behalf of Effingham Residents Association:

1.    Residents were very concerned as this was the only safe route for pedestrians. If it were closed, some people would  become isolated.

2.    The planning application for the school had been delayed, and as a consequence, the period of closure would have to be extended.

Cllr  Arnold Pinder - on behalf of Effingham Parish Council

1.    The school had underestimated the number of people using the footpath.It was the only safe route for those with buggies etc.

2.    There was no evidence of any serious incidents to justify closing the footpath. Other measures such as erecting hedge borders would be acceptable.

James Nicholls – life-long resident

1.    The proposal was unnecessary, and the police had not received reports of any serious incidents.

2.    Other routes were more dangerous for pedestrians.

Reverend Mandy McVean

1.    Her parishioners regularly used the footpath to access the church and its closure would have an adverse impact on attendance at services and the toddler group.

2.    The safety of pupils was equally important but there were alternative solutions available, even if they were less convenient.

Caroline Irwin - resident

1.    The applicant had previously been unsuccessful in an application to extinguish rights and would prefer a permanent closure.

2.    She knew of no legal precedence to support closure of the path and urged members to refuse the application.

Key points raised in the member discussion:

1. Some members had attended a site visit, which had helped them understand the issues.
2. Members had been surprised by how short the relevant section of path was and thought that is was misleading to think that its closure would cut off access to the school; other footpaths ran adjacent to the school boundaries.
3. Members agreed that safeguarding issues were an important duty for the school, however this closure did not give the security suggested in the application.
4. There were other access points to the school grounds and members would like to have heard from the school as to why other measures, such as additional fencing would not work.
5. The Chairman suggested that the school should engage more with the local community, to find a solution.
6. The officer’s recommendation was supported unanimously by members of the committee.

The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed that:

The request by the Howard of Effingham Partnership Trust to make a legal order to close Public Footpath 75, Leatherhead at certain times of the day is refused.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

The County Council has powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to close public footpaths. In this instance, due to the number of objections that have been received, the lack of a suitable safe alternative route and the inconvenience it would cause to local residents the officer’s opinion is that no such order should be made.