In accordance with Public Speaking Appendix, members of the public may speak on a particular application after the Chair has introduced the report, provided that notice has been given in writing to Democratic Services three 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 the Committee Procedural Rules and Public Speaking Appendix a total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the Committee on any matter relevant to the work of the body in question. Individual members of the public may speak for up to 2 minutes but the Chair 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 wishing to speak are required to provide notice of this at least three clear working days’ in advance of the meeting and should include the question with that notice.
Minutes:
Mr David Nixon, Moston Parish Councillor and the applicant in respect of agenda item 5 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 – Part III, Section 53. Application No. CO/8/39: Application to add a Public Bridleway between Dragons Lane and Plant Lane, Moston, addressed the Committee.
Mr Nixon complimented the Officers on their work carried out on the investigation into the application and understood the recommendation to add a Restricted Byway based on the balance of probabilities. Mr Nixon informed the Committee that there were concerns raised by the residents of Moston and provided details of the use of the track over the last 80 years which included, the grazing of cattle, walkers and horse riders, but also included anti-social behaviour and drug use. This had resulted in the Parish Council erecting stainless steel posts at either end of the track to prevent vehicular access, but to still allow space for walkers, cyclists and horse riders to access the track. Following the erection of the posts the anti-social behaviour had ceased and in the last 20 years it had never been questioned nor any request made for access by horse and carriage. Following the sale of part of an adjourning field in 2011 development concerns were raised about the nature of the track which was not shown on the Definitive Map. As a result, the application was submitted for a bridleway in 2014. Walkers and horse riders continued to use the track and in 2020 during the lockdown many families started using the track as an exercise route. Quad bikers also started to use the track which discouraged walkers from using it and it started to be used as an outdoor toilet. Environmental Health were unable to help as the track was not on the Definitive Map and horse riding and walking usage had never recovered since then. A bridleway, as applied for, would provide the perfect solution, but the recommendation brought to Committee raises concerns as the post which would allow walkers and hose riders, but protected the track from use by vehicles over the last 20 years, was consider not to be wide enough for a restricted byway. Therefore, if the recommendation were to be approved there would be a cost-effective solution where by one post be removed and the keys held by the Public Rights of Way team or the Parish Council.
Mrs Andrea Bossen, the applicant in respect of agenda item 6 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 – Part III, Section 53. Application No. CO/8/54: Application for the Deletion of Public Footpath No. 66, Congleton, addressed the Committee.
Mrs Bossen felt that not all the evidence had been included in the agenda pack, several statements within the report were incorrect and the level of attention to detail in considering the detail and facts was fatally flawed and superficial. Mrs Bossen felt that the report misinformed the reader regarding the submission date of the application, which should have read 2020, not 2022. There were superficial errors and a lack of accuracy contained within statements, assertions, conclusions, and omissions which had been made throughout the document. The report also incorrectly identified the route crossed through two different land ownerships but according to Land Registry it passed through three ownerships. Mrs Bossen felt that inaccuracies of this type illustrated and verified that the facts had not been accurately or properly identified or reported to Committee members as the information had not appeared to have been checked. The external consultant had stated in the report that they had walked the whole route of Footpath No. 66, which was incorrect as they had only walked the part of the route to be deleted. Mrs Bossen felt that the report made assertions about the Definitive Map process, which had the relevant date as 1 November 1953 for Congleton, and that all the statutory advertising processes had been followed. Mrs Bossen did not believe this was correct and despite research carried out there was no evidence of notices relating to provisional or definitive stages from 1950 to 1953 as per the appendix contained within the report. Mrs Bossen felt that this was misleading and that if evidence of those notices could not be presented to the Committee it could be asserted that Cheshire County Council had acted ultra vires by failing to comply with the statutory advertising process. Mrs Bossen stated that 1971 was the definitive date for Congleton as per the Gazette which was some 20 years later than the date stated in the report. Mrs Bossen felt that the recommendations within the report were misdirection, the report should be dismissed as flawed, and revisited at a later date.
Mr Nixon and Mrs Bossen were thanked for attending and addressing the Committee.