Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Councillor M Parsons.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2013 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2013 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Member of the public may speak on a particular application after the Chairman has introduced the report, provided that notice has been given in writing to Democratic Services by 12 noon one clear working day before the meeting.  A total of 6 minutes is allocated for each application, with 3 minutes for objectors and 3 minutes for supporters.  If more than one person wishes to speak as an objector or supporter, the time will be allocated accordingly or those wishing to speak may agree that one of their number shall speak for all.

Also in accordance with Procedure Rule No. 35 a total period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the Committee on any matter relevant to the work of the Committee.  Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers.  Members of the public are not required to give notice of the intention to speak, however as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours notice is encouraged.

Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given.

Three members of the public had registered to speak in relation to Items 7, 8 and 10.  The Chairman advised that he would invite them to speak when these applications were being considered by the Committee.

To consider an application to add a Byway Open to All Traffic to the Definitive Map and Statement

Note: Councillor L Jeuda arrived at the meeting during consideration of this item but did not take part in the discussion or vote on the matter.

The Committee received a report which detailed an investigation into an application to add a Byway Open to all Traffic, known as Red Lane, in the parish of Disley to the Definitive Map and Statement.

Under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Borough Council had a duty, as surveying authority, to keep the Definitive Map and Statement under continuous review.  Section 53(c) allowed for an authority to act on the discovery of evidence that suggested that the Definitive Map needed to be amended.  The authority must investigate and determine that evidence and decide on the outcome whether to make a Definitive Map Modification Order or not.

The application had been registered in November 2002 by Disley Parish Council.  Red Lane formed an access route to a large number of properties and also to St Mary’s Church.  Three public footpaths joined Red Lane and two public footpaths ran from the end of the claimed section of Green Lane.  The application suggested that there had been a route from Lyme Hall to St Mary’s Church and Disley village since at least the 16^th century.  The application also referred to historical documents including Tithe Map, County Maps, Ordnance survey maps, Railway Plans and the Finance Act.  Four user evidence forms were also submitted claiming use of the route on foot, on horse and by vehicle as far as the gates to Lyme Park for a period of 25, 26, 27 and 43 years.  A further evidence form was submitted in 2007 claiming 20 years use on foot and 10 years in a vehicle to access properties. 

An objection to the claim was lodged with the Council when the application was made by a resident of Red Lane referring to the private maintenance of the Lane to which they had contributed over many years.

An investigation into the claim was initially commenced in 2007. Consultation was undertaken with adjacent property holders and all interested parties at that time, which resulted in comments referring to the private maintenance of the lane and the cost of repairs at various times.  There was also concern about visitors to Lyme Park parking their cars along Red Lane and causing obstruction issues.  Others objected as the route for vehicles would be a dead end and serve no purpose except to increase parking problems.  The case officer undertaking the investigation left Cheshire County Council in September 2007 and the file had remained largely dormant until now. 

A detailed investigation of the evidence submitted with the application had been undertaken, together with additional research.  The application had been made based on historical evidence and user evidence from five witnesses and one statutory declaration.  In addition to the submitted evidence, a detailed investigation of the available historical documentation had been undertaken to try and establish the history and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

To consider an application to divert part of Public Footpath No.4 in the parish of Rope

The Committee considered a report which detailed an application from Mr and Mrs Shaw of Puseydale Farm, Shavington(the Applicant), requesting that the Council make an Order under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert part of Public Footpath No.4 in the parish of Rope

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 legal definitive line of Rope Footpath No.4 was currently unavailable.  It had been obstructed by fences for a number of years, before the current owners purchased the property.  Walkers were currently using a route which ran parallel to the definitive line on land adjacent to Mr and Mrs Shaw’s property.   This anomaly was brought to light when the Applicants submitted a planning application for a new dwelling which, if approved, would be built on the definitive line of the public footpath (as indicated on plan no. HA/092).

To enable development to take place, under normal circumstances the footpath could be diverted under the Town and County Planning Act 1990 section 257.  However, this legislation can only be used to divert the section of path directly affected by the development.   Mr and Mrs Shaw wished to divert a longer section of the path than that which was directly affected.  It was therefore proposed to divert the path under the Highways Act 1980 section 119.

The application, under the Highways Act, had been made in the interests of the privacy and security of the applicant.  The proposal would move the footpath away from the applicants’ home and the proposed new dwelling.   Moving the footpath to the field boundary would also be of benefit in terms of farm/land management.  Horses were kept in the paddocks to the north west of Puseydale Farm and moving the footpath to the paddock boundary would enable the landowners to separate walkers from the animals, removing the risk of conflict between members of the public and the horses.  The diverted footpath would be unenclosed.  It would have a width of two metres and a grass/natural earth surface.

The Committee noted that no objections had been received during the informal consultations and considered that the proposed route would not be substantially less convenient than the existing route.  Diverting the footpath would offer improved privacy and security to the Applicant’s property and also benefit land management.  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.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED:  That

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 in the parish of Rope, by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To consider the application for the diversion of part of Public Footpath No.72 in the parish of Rainow and part of Public Footpath No.13 in the parish of Macclesfield Forest

The Committee considered a report which detailed a proposal initiated by the Public Rights of Way Unit recommending that the Council make an Order under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert part of Public Footpath No.72 in the parish of Rainow and part of Public Footpath No.13 in the parish of Macclesfield Forest.

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.

Mr Colin Pickford addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application.

Complaints had been received from members of the public that the definitive line of the footpath was not available on the ground.  An alternative route was in use but this situation was confusing for users of the footpath.  It was believed that due to a drafting error during the Definitive Map process the path available on the ground was not consistent with the route shown on the Definitive Map.   At the point where Public Footpath No.72 Rainow and Public Footpath No.13 Macclesfield Forest met on the parish boundary (point C on Plan No.HA/091), the definitive line was not available on the ground.  There was a very steep embankment and a stream with no means to cross. Further south (point K on Plan No.HA/091) is where it was believed that historically the crossing point had always been as here the path was easier to negotiate and there was currently a stile and stepping stones to cross the stream. 

Three landowners were affected by the proposed diversion. The current definitive line of Public Footpath No.72 Rainow ran on land belong to Mr Charles Pickford of Dane Bent Farm, Rainow.  The proposed diversion would move the footpath onto land belonging to Mr Colin Pickford of Thornsett Farm, Rainow.  Both landowners were in agreement with the proposals.  The current definitive line and the proposed diversion of Public Footpath No.13 Macclesfield Forest ran on land belonging to Mr John Illingworth of Wickenford Farm, Macclesfield Forest.

The proposed diversion of Public Footpath No.73 Rainow would divert the path to cross the parish boundary at Point K, where it was proposed to install an 8 metre bridge to enable users to cross the stream. 

The proposed diversion of Public Footpath No.13 Macclesfield Forest would follow the line that was currently used by walkers and was similar in description to the Parish Walking Survey of the 1950s.    This diversion was partly in the landowner’s interest as the current route appeared to go through a manège area and therefore the diversion was for stock management reasons. 

The Committee noted that no objections had been received during the informal consultations and considered that the proposed route would not be substantially less convenient than the existing route.  Diverting the footpaths would resolve the anomaly and offer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

To consider an application for the diversion of part of Public Footpath No.73 in the parish of Rainow

The Committee considered a report which detailed an application from Mr Colin Pickford of Thornsett Farm, Pedley Hill, Rainow (the Applicant), requesting that the Council make an Order under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert part of Public Footpath No.73 in the parish of Rainow.

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.

Mr Neil Collie, East Cheshire Ramblers, spoke on the application and was concerned that the proposed diversion involved a steep climb for some 30m, which was contrary to the general direction of the existing path which followed the contours and was therefore significantly less convenient than the existing definitive line through the farmyard.

Mr Colin Pickford, Applicant, spoke in support of the application as the diversion would allow for better farm management and improve safety and security around the farm.

The land over which the section of current path to be diverted and the proposed diversion ran belonged to the Applicant.  The current route ran through the farm yard and the diversion was required for farm management reasons.  The diversion would allow the landowner to improve security around the farm and would have a benefit to his privacy. 

The proposed new route would have width of 2 metres, would not be enclosed and would have a grass surface.  Two pedestrian gates would be required instead of the five field gates on the current route, which were used to control livestock around the farm yard. 

The Committee considered the report and the comments received on the application from Rainow Parish Council, Cheshire East Ramblers and Alderley Edge Wilmslow and District Footpath Preservation Society and concluded that the proposed route would not be substantially less convenient than the existing route.  Diverting the footpath would offer improved land and stock management for the applicant and increase safety for path users.  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.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

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.73 be creating a new section of public footpath and extinguishing the current path, as illustrated on Plan No.HA/090, 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 the event of there being no objections within the period specified, the Order be confirmed in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by the said Acts.

3          In the event  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To consider the proposal to create a public bridleway on Cheshire East Council owned public open space in the parish of Wilmslow

The Committee received a report which detailed a proposal to create a new public bridleway under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 in a deed of dedication.

For a number of years Cheshire East Borough Council and local user groups had been working to improve access within the public open space known as The Carrs.  The creation of a multi-user route through the park had been registered by the local user groups during consultation for the Council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

The current path was unsurfaced, uneven and suffered from flooding due to high water table levels.  In addition, bank erosion by the River Bollin was likely to result in sections of the current path being unavailable in future.  The proposed multi-user route would be located away from such areas to protect the investment being made.  The proposed path would create a year-round and accessible path for people visiting the park.  It was planned that the path would be surfaced with a bitumen and chip surface. 

The route would offer an off-road link for pedestrians and cyclists from Wilmslow Town Centre and railway station towards places of interest, such as the National Trust property at Styal, and places of employment such as Stamford Lodge and Manchester Airport.

The proposal had been submitted in a bid to Natural England’s Paths for Communities Fund in order to create a year-round multi-user surface through the public open space.  One of the stipulations of the Paths for Communities funding stream was that the path created was dedicated as a public right of way, thereby securing public access for perpetuity. Funding had also been secured for the project through a Section 106 planning contribution.

The classification of public bridleway meant that the public right of way would be available to pedestrians, horseriders and cyclists.  There was some concern that the use of the route by horse riders would create potential conflict with other users and damage the surface of the route.  The proposed route was a cul-de-sac route connecting with existing public footpaths within the park.  Cyclists would be allowed to use these connecting footpaths on a permissive basis by the Council as the landowner.  However, horseriders would not be permitted to use them. Whilst no physical barrier was proposed to restrict onward access for horseriders, it was anticipated that the attractiveness of the proposed bridleways to this category of user would be minimal.  Should the issue arise in the future, the Council could investigate the use of a traffic regulation order to restrict the access of horseriders along the route.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED:

That a public bridleway over Cheshire East Borough Council owned land be dedicated to the public under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 in the parish of Wilmslow, as shown on Plan No.LGA/006a, and that public notice be given of this public bridleway.

To receive for information details of changes to Rights of Way Law and Procedures under the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013

The Committee received an information report on the changes to Rights of Way Law and Procedures under the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013.

Mr C Meewezen spoke on the changes enabling local authorities to make orders under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Amendments had been made to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to allow competent authorities to make stopping up and diversions orders if they were satisfied that a planning application had been made and if the application was granted it would be necessary to stop up or divert the path in order to enable the development to go ahead.

Additionally any order so made could not be confirmed unless the Secretary of State or the Order Making Authority were satisfied that planning permission had been granted and that it was necessary to stop or divert the path in order to enable the development to go ahead.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.