Issue - meetings

To consider the application for the diversion of Public Footpath No. 4 (part) in the parish of Peover Inferior

The Committee received a report which detailed an application from Mr B Wharfe, Whitehouse Farm, Plumley Moor Road, Knutsford (the applicant) requesting the Order to make an Order under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert part of Public Footpath No.4 in the parish of Peover Inferior.

In accordance with Section 119(1) of the Highways Act 1980 it was within the Council’s discretion to make the Order if it appeared to the Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or of the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path.

Mr SR Wharfe owned the land over which the current path and the proposed diversions ran.  The section of path to be diverted ran across a pasture field on which a free range chicken farm was to be developed.  For effective livestock management, the applicant was requesting that the path be diverted to separate livestock from path users.  The new route would have a recorded width of 2m and would not be enclosed.  Of benefit to the public, the new route would be as enjoyable as it would pass through similar scenic landscape.

Objections had been received from Mr JA Jackson and Mr and Mrs S Wade, who lived at The Smithy and Orchard Lea respectively at Smithy Green, Lower Peover, Knutsford.  Their objections centred on the loss of scenic enjoyment if the footpath was diverted to follow the field edge rather than passing across the field and then through the enclosed section of hawthorn hedge and oak trees.  However, the development of the chicken farm would alter the landscape and subsequent scenic enjoyment.  A hedge would bisect the field so it would no longer be an expanse of open space.  Furthermore, the current path alignment would force users to enter the chicken farm in order to follow the legal line.  Diverting the path around the field edge would benefit users by separating them from the livestock whilst still providing scenic views.

The Committee considered that the new route would not be substantially less convenient than the existing route and that diverting the footpath would be of considerable benefit to the landowner in terms of management of the land which was being developed for free range chicken farming.  It was therefore considered that the proposed route would be a satisfactory alternative to the current one and that the legal tests for the making and confirming of a diversion order were satisfied. 

RESOLVED:

1          An Order be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to divert part of Public Footpath No. 4 Peover Inferior by creating a new section of public footpath and extinguishing the current path, as illustrated on Plan No. HA/047, on the grounds that it is expedient in the interests of the owner of the land crossed by the path.

2          Public Notice of the making of the Order be given and in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8