Issue - meetings

To consider the application for the diversion of Public Footpath No.14 in the parish of Sandbach

The Committee received a report which detailed a proposal to request the Council to make an Order under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert part of Public Footpath No.14 in the parish of Sandbach.

In accordance with Section 119(1) of the Highways Act 1980 it was within the Council’s discretion to make an 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.

The current definitive line of the footpath had been diverted in October 1963 under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 as part of “The Stopping up of Highways (County of Chester) (No.10) Order 1963”.  Due to an error in the Order, the eastern end of the diverted footpath did not meet the public highway.  It stopped as it reached a private access track, and there was therefore no legal public access through to Church Lane, Sandbach.

The proposed route had been used as a permissive path for a number of years.  It ran along an existing track south west of the present route to join with Church Lane.  To re-instate the footpath onto the current legal line, two gates or stiles would be required, whilst the proposed diversion required only one kissing gate.

The proposed diversion would be in the interests of the public as it would resolve the issue of the footpath not meeting the public highway, thereby providing public access through to Church Lane.  It was also in the interests of the landowner at Heath Farm as it would move the footpath out of a paddock and allow them greater freedom in utilising the land, as well as increasing privacy and security at the farm by moving the footpath away from their buildings.

The two landowners, Mrs Smith of Heath Farm, Church Lane, Sandbach who owned the land over which the current route ran and Mr Davenport of Top O The Town Farm, Heatley Lane, Broomhall, who owned the land over which the proposed route would run, had both provided written consent and support for the proposal. 

The Committee noted that no objections had been received from the informal consultations and considered that the proposed route would not be substantially less convenient than the existing route.  The diversion would resolve the long standing legal anomaly with the eastern end of the footpath not meeting a public highway.  Diverting the footpath would provide a legal, usable route on the ground for the public thereby clarifying the situation for path users and the landowner at Heath Farm.  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:  That

(1)       An Order be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6