Issue - meetings

To consider the application to upgrade Public Footpath No. 9 Higher Hurdsfield to Bridleway status

The Committee received a report detailing an application made by Mr R Spoors of Roewood Lane, Macclesfield to modify the Definitive Map and Statement by upgrading Public Footpath No.9 Higher Hurdsfield to a Public Bridleway.

Mr Spoors addressed the Committee as the applicant and also on behalf of the British Horse Society and two local residents – Judith Mosscrop and Mike Blamey. He spoke in opposition to the proposed Order and asked the Committee to approve an Order to upgrade Public Footpath No.9 to Public Bridleway along the definitive route and not the alternative route suggested.

The application to upgrade Public Footpath No.9 Higher Hurdsfield to a Public Bridleway was submitted in July 2003 – between points A-B-C-H-I-D-J-E on Plan No.WCA/004.  The application was supported by 11 user evidence forms and a number of historical documents.

Section 53(2)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, requires that the Council keep the Definitive Map and Statement under continuous review and make such modifications to the Map and Statement as appear requisite in consequence of the occurrence of certain events.

There are two events that are relevant to this application section 53(3)(c)(i) and section 53(3)(c)(ii), the first requires modification of the map by addition of a right of way and the second required modification of the map by the upgrading of a right of way: -

“(c)  the discovery by the authority of evidence which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows:

(i)         that a right of way which is not shown in the map and statement subsists or is reasonably alleged to subsist over land in the area to which the map relates…;

(ii)        that a highway shown in the map and statement as a highway of particular description ought to be there shown as a highway of a different description.”

Where evidence in support of an application was user evidence, section 31(1) of the Highway Act 1980 applied:-

“Where a way…..has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of twenty years, the way is deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it.”

This required that the public must have used the way without interruption and as of right; that is without force, secrecy or permission. Section 31(2) states that “20 years is to be calculated retrospectively from the date when the right of the public to use the way is brought into question.”

All evidence must be evaluated and weighed and a conclusion reached whether, on the ‘balance of probabilities’ the alleged rights subsist.  With regards to the addition of a right of way (section 53(3)(c)(i)) the lesser test of ‘reasonably alleged to subsist’ may be used.  Any other issues such as safety, security, suitability, desirability or the effects on property of the environment are not relevant to the decision.

There were a number of dates which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15