This report seeks a decision on whether to make a legal order to divert Footpath No. 94 (Byfleet). Thirteen objections have been maintained to an informal consultation.
The officer’s recommendation is that no order be made on the grounds that it is not
expedient to divert the way in the interests of the public
Full report and annexes are attached.
Decision:
The report sought a decision on whether to make a legal order to divert Footpath No. 94 (Byfleet). The officer’s recommendation was that no order be made on the grounds that it was not expedient to divert the way in the interests of the public
The Local Committee (Woking) resolved that:
A diversion order is made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert Public Footpath No. 94 (Byfleet) as shown on Drawing No. 3/1/179/H3A. If objections are made and maintained to the Order, the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.
Reason for decision:
Having listened to the arguments both for and against, members took the view that the diversion was in the public interest as the new route was less flooded and more accessible. The vote for this was unanimous.
Minutes:
Declarations of Interest: None
Officer attending: Catherine Valiant, Countryside Access Officer
Public Speakers: 6 people attended and spoke on this item
The Countryside Access Officer presented the report. The report sought a decision on whether to make a legal order to divert Footpath No. 94 (Byfleet). The officer’s recommendation was that no order be made on the grounds that it was not expedient to divert the way in the interests of the public.
The following three residents spoke in favour of the footpath diversion, and made the following points:
Mike Forbes
Andrew Weiss
Mary Bridgeman
The following two residents spoke against the footpath diversion and in support of the officer recommendation to not proceed, and made the following points:
Richard Lovell (Open Spaces Society)
Brian Reader (Chair Footpath Society and Secretary of Ramblers Society)
The Landowners agent then spoke in support of the diversion on behalf of their client. The following points were made:
The Officer noted this was a difficult case with arguments on both sides which had been fully detailed in the report. The officer confirmed that the styles would be removed on the old path. She invited members to consider whether the permanent diversion of footpath 94 was in the public interest.
Member discussion: Key points
The local ward member stated that they had visited the site and believed that the diversion was in the public interest as the surface had been improved, was less flooded and more accessible, especially to Mill Lane.
Other members stated that the argument was finely balanced but voiced their support due to accessibility.
Resolution:
The matter was put to a vote with a show of hands. The vote showed unanimous support for the diversion.
The Local Committee (Woking) resolved that:
A diversion order is made under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert Public Footpath No. 94 (Byfleet) as shown on Drawing No. 3/1/179/H3A. If objections are made and maintained to the Order, the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.
Reason for decision:
Having listened to the arguments both for and against, members took the view that the diversion was in the public interest as the new route was less flooded and more accessible. The vote for this was unanimous.
Supporting documents: