Agenda item

To consider the applications to divert parts of Public Footpath No.16 in the parish of Brereton and divert part of Public Footpath No.9 in the parish of Sandbach and for the extinguishment of part of Public Footpath No.9 in the parish of Sandbach

The Committee considered a report which detailed an application from Mrs J Davenport of The Old Vicarage, Chelford Lane, Over Peover, Nr Knutsford requesting the Council make an Order to divert part of Public Footpath No.16 in the parish of Brereton (B-C-D on Plan No. HA/098) and on condition that this diversion was successful, to make an Order to extinguish Public Footpath No.9 (part) in the parish of Sandbach (D-E-F) under sections 119 and 118 respectively of the Highways Act 1980.

The report also detailed an application received from Mr Malcolm Sloane (agent) of Sloane Mead on behalf of Archibald Bathgate Group Ltd, Arclid Quarry, Congleton Road, Sandbach requesting the Council make an Order to divert part of Public Footpath No.9 in the parish of Sandbach (G-H-I-F).  Further the landowner had given permission to allow the Public Rights of Way Team to request the Council to include in the Order a diversion of part of Public Footpath No.16 in the parish of Brereton (A-B).  The two diversions would be dependant on each other so that the part of Public Footpath No.16 Brereton would only be diverted if the diversion of part of Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach was approved.

In accordance with Section 119(1) of the Highways Act 1980 it was within the Council’s discretion to make an Order to divert a public footpath if it appeared to the Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path.

In accordance with Section 118(1) of the Highways Act 1980 it was within the Council’s discretion to make an Order to extinguish a public footpath if it appeared to the Council that it was expedient to do so on the grounds that it was not needed for public use.

Mr C Meewezen, spoke on behalf of Congleton Ramblers, stating that they supported the proposed Public Footpath No.16 Brereton diversions and the extinguishment suggested by Mrs Davenport in relation to Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach.  However they objected to the diversion to Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach proposed by Mr Malcolm Sloane on behalf of Archibald Bathgate Group Ltd as the proposed new route would be less convenient and a less enjoyable route and therefore failed the legal test.

Cheshire East Council had proposed the diversion of part of Public Footpath No.16 Brereton (A-B) as this part of the path was obstructed by ponds and in places by dense hedge growth.  Historically it would appear that this part of Public Footpath No.16 Brereton may have been inaccurately recorded on the definitive map as the ponds were of some antiquity since it was unlikely that the path and ponds coexisted.  Removing the obstructions or legally moving the line of the Footpath by a Definitive Map Modification Order to a usable line would prove costly to the Council and would take much longer to effect.  The proposed diversion would run in a similar alignment but along the south of the hedge boundary.  The land belonged in part to Safeguard Limited and in part to Archibald Bathgate Ltd. Permission to divert the footpath had been given by Safeguard Limited via their agents, Strutt and Parker.  Permission had been given by Archibald Bathgate Ltd on condition of the success of the diversion of part of Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach. 

Mrs Davenport had proposed to divert part of Public Footpath No.16 Brereton from point B to point D.  The path ran through fields into the grounds of Arclid Hall Stud Farm. The new route would run across a pasture field (points D-F) to the south of the property grounds and would afford improved security and privacy to the property buildings and enable better management of land and livestock.  This diversion would also resolve path obstructions along parts B- C and also resolve existing alignment issues.

This proposed diversion would create a situation where two public footpaths cross the same field in close proximity to pass between points D-F as part of Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach  already crossed the field between points D-E-F. It was considered that two path sections providing similar routes were unnecessary.  Therefore since Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach was not as direct as the proposed diversion route of Public Footpath No.16 Brereton, it was proposed that this be extinguished on the basis that this was no longer needed for public use, on condition that Mrs Davenport’s proposed diversion of Public Footpath No.16 Brereton was successful.

Mr Sloane on behalf of Archibald Bathgate Ltd had proposed a diversion of part of Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach (G-F) to improve the security and privacy of sand quarry working and excavation areas by taking users further away from these areas.  The proposed diversion would start at point G and would immediately leave the green track via a kissing gate into a field to the north.  It would then follow the eastern field boundary in a northerly direction to exit through a gap into a section field (point J).  It would then follow a short section in an easterly direction before again at point K running in a northerly direction until it joined the proposed diversion route for Public Footpath No.16 Brereton at point L.

It has been agreed with Mr Sloane that the Council’s proposed diversion of Public Footpath No.16 Brereton would be dependent on the success of Mr Sloane’s proposal to divert the section of Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach, as the Council’s diversion would place a longer stretch of public footpath on land owned by Archibald Bathgate Group Ltd.

In relation to Public Footpath No.16 Brereton, the Committee noted that no objections had been received during the informal consultation period.  The Committee considered that the proposed routes for Public Footpath No.16 Brereton would be a significant improvement to the existing route and the diversion of the two sections to realign the path would be of considerable benefit to both the public and the landowner.  It was considered that the proposed routes would be satisfactory alternatives to the current ones and that the legal tests for the making and confirming of the relevant diversions orders were satisfied.

The Committee concluded that with the diversion of Public Footpath No.16 Brereton into the same field as the section of Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach, this section of Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach (D-F) would no longer be needed for public use and considered that the legal tests for the making and confirming of an extinguishment order were satisfied.

The Committee noted the objection by Congleton Ramblers to the diversion route for Public Footpath No.9 Sandbach proposed by Mr Sloane on behalf of Archibald Bathgate Ltd and noted that the proposed route would follow field boundaries making navigation easier for path users and that there would be less and more easily accessible path furniture.  Looking at the path length in total from Congleton Road to Newcastle Road the proposed diversion would increase by just 147m which was not considered as significant.  The Committee concluded that the proposed diversion would be an improvement on the existing route and would benefit the landowner in terms of enhancing privacy and security to their sand quarrying operations.  It was 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 the diversion order were satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

1             Two Orders 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.16 parish of Brereton (as proposed by Mrs Davenport)

·         Part of Public Footpath No.16 parish of Brereton and part of Public Footpath No.9 parish of Sandbach (as proposed by Cheshire East Council and Mr M Sloane on behalf of Archibald Bathgate Ltd respectively)

Diversions to be made by creating new sections of public footpath and extinguishing the current path sections, as illustrated on Plan No.HA/098, on the grounds that it is expedient in the interests of the owners of the land crossed by the paths.

Subject to an Order being made to divert part of Public Footpath No.16 in the parish of Brereton (proposed by Mrs Davenport) that a subsequent Order be made under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 to extinguish Public Footpath Path No.9 (part) in the parish of Sandbach (also proposed by Mrs Davenport), as illustrated on Plan No. HA/098, on the grounds that it will be no longer be needed for public use.

2             Public Notice of the making of the Orders be given and in the event of there being no objections within the period specified, the Orders be confirmed in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by the said Acts.

3          In the event of objections to the Orders being received, Cheshire East Borough Council be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or public inquiry.