Agenda item

To consider the application to divert Public Footpath No.11, in the parish of Shavington cum Gresty and Public Footpath No 21 (part), in the parish of Wybunbury

The Committee received a report which detailed an application from Ms Miranda Steadman (agent) on behalf of Mactaggart & Mickel, 1 Atlantic Quay, 1 Robertson Street, Glasgow, G2 8JB requesting the Council to make an Order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert Public Footpath No.11 in the parish of Shavington and part of Public Footpath No.21 in the parish of Wynbunbury.

In accordance with Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Borough Council, as the Planning Authority, can make an Order diverting a footpath if it was satisfied that it was necessary to do so to enable development to be carried out in accordance with a planning permission that had been granted. 

Planning permission had been granted to the Applicant on 23 January 2014 – planning permission ref: 12/3114N, for residential development on land south of Newcastle Road at Shavington and Wybunbury.

The current line of Public Footpath No.11 Shavington cum Gresty and part of the current line of Public Footpath 21 Wybunbury would be obstructed by the planned residential development.  A footpath diversion was required to preserve the public right of way between Stock Lane and Newcastle Road.  The land was owned by Graham Ward Farms Ltd, Netherset Hey Farm, Netherset Lane, Madeley, Crewe and written consent had been given to permit the diversion on the land by Graham Ward. 

The new route would have a width of 2 metres throughout and have a hard surface suitable for use by all user types.  Users would be protected from vehicles upon approach to Newcastle Road by a form of path furniture such as a gate or barriers.  Furthermore, a tarmac area at the roadside would provide a safe visible place from which to assess traffic before crossing the road.

The local Councillors had been consulted.

Councillor D Brickhill had registered an objection on a number of concerns including anti social behaviour, provide perfect location for drug sales and drug taking, become foul from dog faeces, the route was longer then the present route, and it emerged onto Newcastle Road 50 metres away from the continuation of the footpath on the other side of the road. 

In response, the Council explained that detailed planning measures would be in place to mitigate against the speculative problems relating to drug use/sales, dog fouling and residential disturbance. Furthermore, a measure of natural surveillance would be present since the majority of houses face onto the proposed path (as shown on Plan No.TCPA/20 overlaid with the developer’s plan) and the path would run through an open landscaped area.  With regard to placing the new route on estate road(s), this would affect a net loss to the network of countryside paths.  The requirement for the public to walk a further 50 metres to connect to the footpath on the other side of the road was not considered to be marginal and would not add significantly to journey times.

Councillor J Clowes had not objected to the proposal but had expressed concerns about its relationship with the various planning applications underway that stemmed from the approved outline plan.  Wybunbury Parish Council registered support for these concerns and objected to the proposed diversion. Discussions with the Parish Council were still ongoing.

It was emphasised that the approved outline plan would not change so the housing development would be developed as shown on the plan and the proposed diversion would be preserved within that plan.

The various planning applications underway that stemmed from the approved outline plan were to resolve issues relating to the detail of the outline plan such as housing type (two or three storey) for example but would not alter the outline plan or the proposed diversion.

An objection had been received from National Grid and discussions were underway to resolve this as if a diversion order was made, existing rights of access for the statutory undertakers to their apparatus and equipment were protected. 

No objections were received from the User Groups, although the Peak and Northern Footpath Society registered a conditional acceptance stating once it was confirmed that access between points C-D-E, as shown on Plan No.TCPA/020 would be non-vehicular.

The Committee considered the objections and comments received and concluded that it was necessary to divert Public Footpath No.11 Shavington cum Gresty and part of Public Footpath No.21 Wybunbury to allow the development to be carried out.  It was considered that the legal tests for the making and confirming of a Diversion Order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 were satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED:  That

1.         An Order be made under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert Public Footpath No.11 Parish of Shavington cum Gresty and part of Public Footpath No.21 Parish of Wybunbury, as illustrated on Plan No.TCPA/020, on the grounds that the Borough Council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to allow development to take place.

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 of objections to the Order being received and not resolved, Cheshire East Borough Council be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or public inquiry.