Issue - meetings

To consider the application for the diversion of Public Footpath Nos. 2 and 3 (parts) in the Parish of Millington.

The Committee considered a report which detailed an application from Dr Dylan Prosser (the applicant) of Sandhole Farm, Millington Hall Lane, Millington Nr Altrincham, requesting the Council to make an Order under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert part of Public Footpath Nos. 2 and 3 in the Parish of Millington.

In accordance with Section 119 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 applicant owned the majority of the land over which the current line of Footpath No. 3 ran, a small section at the northernmost end of the route ran on the adjacent landowner’s field.  The land over which both the current and proposed route for Footpath No. 3 was owned by the adjacent landowner.  As part of the proposed route for Footpath No. 3 was in the adjacent landowner’s field, the applicant had agreed to apply to divert part of Public Foothpath Millington No. 2 concurrently with Footpath No. 3 on the adjacent landowner’s behalf. Written consent to the proposal had been provided by the adjacent landowner.

The current line of Footpath No. 3 ran straight across the applicant’s garden and past the outbuildings of Sandhole Farm.  There were three stiles for users to traverse.  The proposed route for Footpath No. 3 would run along the boundary fence of Sandhole Farm and into the adjacent landowner’s field until it rejoined the existing line of Footpath No. 3.  The application had been made in the interest of privacy and security of the application as the proposed route would move the footpath away from the applicant’s home and garden.  The proposed route would also require less path furniture as the three stiles would be replaced with two kissing gates.

The current line of Footpath No. 2 ran straight across the middle of the adjacent landowner’s arable field, which was undesirable in terms of farm management.  The proposed route of Footpath No. 2 ran along the boundary of the field and would take walkers closer to Millington Clough, providing a more attractive route along the edge of the woodland and blue bell corpse.  This would also provide an improved surface as the ground around the perimeter of the field was firmer than the current route where it could become waterlogged and muddy.

The Committee noted that no objections had been received and considered that the proposed footpaths would be more enjoyable than the existing routes.  The new routes were not substantially less convenient that the existing routes and would be of benefit to the landowners in terms of security and privacy and in terms of farm management.  It was therefore considered that the proposed routes would be more satisfactory than the current routes and that the legal tests for making and confirming of a diversion order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29