Councillors and committees

Agenda item

FOOTPATH 94 - BYFLEET

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

  • The proposed alternative footpath is only longer if going over the bridge to Old Wisley, otherwise it is a shorter route to get to the village and is a straight path
  • The old route is longer, crosses an access road, has styles in place (making it less accessible) and you cannot see the historic property

 

Andrew Weiss

  • Lives at Manor House cottage and the old footpath 94 crosses the frontage and is in the floodplain and subject to flooding
  • The new path is easier to use, is lower maintenance and more accessible (the old path has 4 styles in place), with investment in the new path, tree planting and landscaping and gives a better view of the 16th Centuary Manor House, providing recreational enjoyment for more people as it is more inclusive

 

Mary Bridgeman

  • Supports the new footpath which received more letters of support than there were objections
  • The old path is boggy, floods and has styles in place so cannot be accessed by disabled people or parents with buggies.  It also ran besides the listed property wall which blocked the view
  • The new path gives a better view of the Manor House and the owner has invested in a new and more practical footpath away from traffic with kissing gates instead of styles.

 

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)

  • Has lived in Byfleet for 36 years.  The Jacobean Manor House is a treasure and footpath 94 provides the best vista of the house.  The footpath was a nice flat grassy track before and has not been maintained that way. 
  • The styles that are in place should not have been installed and should be removed.
  • The footpath does not threaten security at the house and the revised route does not offer anything new.  Ramblers use Footpath 94 regularly.

 

Brian Reader (Chair Footpath Society and Secretary of Ramblers Society)

  • The permanent diversion of Footpath 94 is not in public interest and does not meet the criteria
  • Application should be considered as path was before – open and grassy and not brambly and overgrown as the landowner has failed to maintain it.
  • The styles do not have the right to remain and should be removed as they are illegal obstructions
  • The Ramblers Society ask that the path is reopened, restored and styles removed

 

The Landowners agent then spoke in support of the diversion on behalf of their client.  The following points were made:

  • It was never the intention of the estate to remove the right of way but they wanted to improve the footpath for local people.
  • The styles had been in place for 50 years and were not installed by the current landowner who brought the estate in 2019.
  • Footpath 94 was covered in debris and was clogged up.  The landowner wanted to provide a community facility and the previous path did not allow that.  Kissing gates were installed to deter horse riders and to improve accessibility.  The diverted footpath took an additional 1 min and 30 seconds to traverse.
  • It was not the landowners proposal to make the path a hard surface – this was at the request of Surrey County Council and the landowner could make this a soft finish if SCC allowed and users would prefer this (it is believed that local dog walkers did not want a stone path)  
  • There was no proposal to plant trees and to block the view of the Manor House, but there would be a low metal fence of 1 metre installed.  The gates and path would all be maintained at the estates expense. 
  • The estate wanted to make improvements for the community and the new footpath provided a better view of the historic walls, manor house and gardens

 

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: