Agenda item

On 29 September 2021 Mole Valley Local Committee (MVLC) considered the report at Annex A. The relevant minutes of this meeting are at Annex B. On 10 November 2021, members were asked to reframe their wording so that their position was clarified.

During both meetings there was discussion about the report, the supporting evidence, the recommendation and subsequently the position of the committee was clearly expressed. Following the second meeting a resolution was confirmed that a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) be made to implement changes to the Definitive Statement so that the description matches its depiction on the Definitive Map.

On 30 June 2022, a DMMO was made as directed by the MVLC and advertised for 42 days as required by S. 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981). One objection was received to the Order from Network Rail. Where objections are received and cannot be resolved the Order must be referred to the Secretary of State (SoS) for determination. Both Committee reports noted this requirement. The authority arising from the resolutions in September and November 2021 is limited to making the Order. There is no indication as to what the Council’s position would be upon the receipt of an objection.

In lieu of the defunct MVLC, the Planning and Regulatory Committee (PRC) are now asked to clarify and confirm how it wants to proceed.

Officers:

Dan Williams, Senior Countryside Access Officer Legal Definition

Officer Introduction:

1.    The report was presented to the committee to seek guidance on how to proceed following a decision made by the Mole Valley Local Committee. It was emphasised that this was not an opportunity to revisit or amend the original decision. The issue arose in 2021 after Network Rail submitted evidence pointing to an error on the 1966 definitive map regarding a level crossing. After investigating the matter, the Officer found that the evidence showed that a public footpath was shown over the crossing in error. The Mole Valley local committee did not agree to remove the incorrect line from the map, but instead directed that the definitive statement be amended to align it with the definitive map, as they disagreed with the officer’s findings. Following this, a definitive map modification order (DMMO) was made in June 2022, based on the committee's decision. The order was advertised, and only one objection was received from Network Rail. As the council could not resolve this objection, the matter was referred to the Secretary of State for determination. However, it became clear that the committee had not decided how to proceed if objections to the order were received. Legal advice suggested that the committee now needed to clarify its position on whether it supported or rejected the order. Counsel indicated that the authority granted by the resolutions in 2021 was limited to making the order itself, without providing any guidance on how to handle objections.

2.    The Officer presented Members with three options. The first option was to support the order, which would require the council to present a full case, including expert witnesses and legal representation. The second option was to decide not to support the order, in which case the committee would need to provide reasons for rejecting it, based on the available evidence. The third option was for the committee to take no position, providing all relevant documentation to an independent inspector who would make the final decision. In conclusion, the committee was asked to decide how to proceed with the submission to the Secretary of State. The report did not recommend a specific course of action but instead sought the committee's guidance on the way forward.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    it was noted that the local member, Chris Townsend, had wished to address the committee. However, due to a longstanding family engagement, he was unable to attend the meeting.

2.    A Member expressed their preference for option three, which involves taking a neutral stance. They argued that this option would require the least amount of work and incur no significant expenses. In response, the officer clarified that although the council may not actively support the order, it still has a longstanding duty under the 1981 Act. The council would incur some expenses, including compiling and organising the evidence in a way that the Secretary of State could consider. Furthermore, if a public inquiry were to be arranged, the council would be responsible for providing administrative support and securing a venue. Therefore, while option three may involve less work, it would not eliminate the council's obligations.

3.    The Senior Countryside Access Officer (Legal Definition) provided Members with a further overview of the context as outlined in the published report.

4.    A member stated that, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence in the case, they believed an argument could be made in either direction. Given the lack of expertise on the committee, the Member proposed adopting option three, taking a neutral stance, as the documents could be interpreted in various ways.

5.    The Chairman moved a motion to take a neutral stance at Inquiry (or other forum) which received unanimous support.

Actions / Further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

The Committee agreed to take a neutral stance at Inquiry (or other forum).