Rights of Way & Highway Licensing Panel
Tuesday 4 March 2014 6.30 pm
RIGHTS OF WAY & HIGHWAY LICENSING PANEL
4 MARCH 2014
PRESENT: Councillors John Stretton (Chairman), Maureen Hunt (Vice-Chair), James Evans, Mohammed Ilyas and Gary Muir.
Also Present: Councillor Malcolm Beer, Councillor Adam Smith and Michael Landers (Objector).
Officers: Anthony Hurst, Tanya Leftwich and Catherine Woodward.
PART I
17/13 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Councillors Tom Bursnall and John Penfold.
18/13 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
- None were received.
19/13 MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 5 September 2013 be approved.
20/13 THAMES PATH MISSING LINK
The Chairman explained that this was an ongoing topic for many years but that for the purposes of the current report the Panel up to this point had not discussed this subject with each other or anyone else. The Chairman assured everyone present that the Panel would listen to all points made in relation to this item. The Chairman asked the Principal Rights of Way Officer to outline the report to the Panel.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer, Anthony Hurst, explained to Members that the report was to obtain approval to the making of a Public Path Creation Order or a Public Path Creation Agreement subject to the requisite Cabinet approval of (i) the project to complete the missing link in the Thames Path National Trail; (ii) the funding of £350k necessary to implement the project and (iii) to the continuation of the fund raising programme with potential partner organisations to raise additional grants towards costs.
Members were informed that there had been a historic desire for this project and it was supported by the Council’s Local Access Forum, local Members, the Ramblers, Maidenhead Civic Society, Natural England and the River Thames Alliance. The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained that the project was also identified in the Council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan as a necessary improvement to the network.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer referred Members to the plan in Appendix A on page 9 of the report and explained that the proposed footpath would run across the river frontage of five residential properties and would cover a thirty meter stretch. It was noted properties 1-4 were first floor flats which had a balcony over the river with commercial properties on the ground floor whilst number 5 was a ground floor and first floor residential property. The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed everyone present that due to gaps in the riverside and roadside footpaths currently walkers following the riverside footpath had to cross and re-cross the road and return to the river.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer went on to show the Panel slides to show the current route walkers used, photos of the properties mentioned and the recently flooded area.
Members were referred to page 4 of the report which looked at the financial aspects, page 7 which looked at the consultation feedback and pages 14 onwards which showed emails from property owners.
The Chairman invited the objector, Mr Landers, who had registered to speak and explained to everyone present that he had extended his speaking time to five minutes. Mr Landers addressed the Panel and explained that he believed that generally the public should have the right to walk across land and by the water as they saw fit however in this case the proposed footpath would disturb the privacy of the residents. Mr Landers went onto explain that he had spoken to the head of CID, who had been in position for thirty years, and he had believed this footpath had been designed for burglars. Members were informed that Mr Landers had a daughter who stayed with him regularly and that he did not want her or anyone else staying somewhere burglar friendly. Mr Landers explained that he did not believe the project to be a value for money and went onto state that he had researched how much his property had been valued at on Zoopla and that riverside properties demanded a 56% premium, which the compensation offered to him would simply not cover. Mr Landers informed Members that he could have saved himself paying his mortgage and bought himself a cheaper property. Mr Landers went onto explain that he believed the perception to be that it was a popular area that people used to walk a lot where as he believed spending the funds on teachers, nurses and filling potholes in the Royal Borough to be a bigger priority. Mr Landers explained that the site was still flooded and would not be a tourist attraction. Mr Landers concluded by stating that the site failed the security test, was not a value for money, would not be of interest to the wider population and was currently under water. Mr Landers urged the Panel not to approve the missing link.
The Chairman thanked Mr Landers for keeping to his allocated five minutes and asked the legal officer, Catherine Woodward, to explain the legal implications.
- The Legal Officer referred Members to page 4 of the report, paragraph 5.1 and explained that negotiations would need to be entered into with property owners with regard to securing the land required for the new path. It was noted that the land might be secured either by the Council entering into a public path creation agreement under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 or if the landowners were unwilling to agree to the project the Council might make a public path creation order under section 26 of the 1980 Act. The Legal Officer explained that the negotiations with affected landowners would be undertaken by officers in the Property Services team. The Legal Officer explained that before making the order, the Council needed to be satisfied that it was expedient that the new path should be created having regard to the extent that the new path would add to the the convenience or enjoyment of a substantial section of the public or to the convenience of persons resident in the area and the effect which the creation of the path would have on the rights of persons interested in the land. Members were informed that they could take into account the provision to pay compensation to affected landowners under Section 28 of the Highways Act.
The Chairman thanked the legal officer for her explanation and went onto state that this project had been subject to discussions by the public for many years, that the missing link had been identified in the Council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan and that some funding had already been allocated to the project but that details of potential compensation payments could not be discussed now as they were confidential, hence would be considered in Part II of the meeting.
In the ensuing discussion the following points were made:
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained that an alternative route could be via Ray Mead Road but stated that at present there was no footway in place.
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed Members that in order to create a safe footpath the roadside footway could be widened by taking a slice from the frontage of the properties which would involve the use of a creation agreement or order. It was noted that this option would involve detailed discussions with landowners and a consultation period.
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained that in order to safeguard residents privacy screening could be used, for example fence panels, lowering the level of the path at number 5, the installation of a boardwalk, ramps all of which would require detailed discussions with the landowners affected.
- Members were informed that the Council would not be breaching the Human Rights Act as they would be working with landowners to protect their privacy where possible and that the relevant legislation allowed for interference with rights enshrined in the Act provided that the interference was proportionate.
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed Members that no pedestrian accidents to date had been reported with the route as it currently stood.
- Members were informed that a zebra crossing to slow traffic had been considered previously as an alternative option but this solution had been opposed by local Ward Councillors.
- It was suggested that restrictions be put on the 30 mph speed limit in the area.
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained that landowners may have been given information about the proposed footpath by their solicitors when they had purchased the properties in question along with information raised by land searches.
- Members were informed that the Principal Rights of Way Officer believed property number 4 and the owners of the ground floor offices had mooring rights but that the other properties did not have the rights. It was noted that the proposed footpath would not preclude moorings along the area affected.
- Councillor Beer informed everyone present that he had been a Councillor in the Royal Borough for nineteen years and that for as long as he could remember this subject had been ongoing. It was a subject Councillor Beer stated he would like to see resolved. Councillor Beer stated that the photo the Principal Rights of Way Officer had shown of the area had shown a footpath in front of the dwellings which had cars parked on it and questioned whether a footway should be used for parking.
The public were asked to leave the room whilst the Panel conferred in private (Part II).
The public were invited back into the room to hear the Panels decision.
- The Legal Officer informed the public that the Panel had carefully considered all the issues listed in the report and the comments of Mr Landers. The Panel was satisfied that there was a longstanding need and overwhelming public support for the missing link. The Panel was satisfied that any loss of security and privacy of residents and occupiers may be appropriately mitigated through negotiation or ultimately by a decision of the Lands Chamber.
The Panel have therefore unanimously voted that the recommendations as set out on page two of the report be approved.
- RESOLVED: Unanimously that;
- a. That the Panel requests that Cabinet delegate authority to the Leader, the Lead Members and Directors of Operations and Adult & Community Services to work together and with partner organisations to complete this project.
b. That the Panel requests that Cabinet approves a budget of £350k to be provided in the 2014/15 capital programme for the funding of the project.
c. That subject to Cabinet approval to items (a) and (b) above:
(1) the Panel hereby authorises the making of a Public Path Creation Agreement under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 or the making of a Public Path Creation Order under section 26 of the 1980 Act by the Head of Legal Services and, in respect of an order made under section 26, to confirm the order as an unopposed order in the event that no objections are received in respect thereof or any objections so received are subsequently withdrawn;
(2) The Panel hereby authorises the Development and Property Manager to pay such consequential compensation or equivalent payments as may arise as a consequence of the coming into operation of any agreement or order authorised under sub-section (1) above.
The Chairman asked the Principal Rights of Way Officer to outline the report to the Panel.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained to Members that the report sought the Panel’s approval for the “Milestones Statement 2014/15” attached in Appendix 1 which set out the Council’s objectives, priorities, targets and service standards for public rights of way work in the coming year.
- The Council employed a public rights of way team of two full-time and one part-time Public Rights of Way Officers.
- The approved capital budget for public rights of way general works in 2014/15 remained at £40,000.
- The approved capital budget for public rights of way maintenance responsibility for bridges in 2014/15 had reduced to £20,000, from £50,000 in 2013/14.
- The approved revenue budget for public rights of way work in 2014/15 had remained at £60,000.
- The reported maintenance and enforcement problems on Public Rights of Way in the Royal Borough outstanding at the 31 March 2013 was 198 which had been reduced to 119 as of the end of January 2014.
- Members were informed the following:
The Principal Rights of Way Officer referred Members to the targets for 2014/15 which were listed on page 9 of the agenda.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer informed Members that a lot of his teams time had been spent on repair works in the flooded areas of the Royal Borough but that he hoped the costs of this work would be included in the Government’s flood recovery funding which would be reclaimed where possible.
- Members congratulated the Principal Rights of Way Officer and his team for reducing the figures from 198 problems to 119 and for hitting the majority of their targets for 2013/14.
It was agreed that the wording used for multiuse paths would include “horse riders to avoid using main roads and highways”.
- RESOLVED: Unanimously that;
- (i) The Panel approved the “Milestone Statement and Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan Annual Review 2014/15”.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer explained to Members that the report updated the progress made with regard to Public Rights of Way issues during the six months from August 2013 to February 2014.
It was noted that the number of outstanding reported problems on public rights of way had fallen from 181 to 119. Members congratulated the Principal Rights of Way Officer and his team for reducing these figures.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer went on to explain that this report was an information item only which Members could read at their leisure.
- RESOLVED: Unanimously that;
(i) The Panel noted the Public Rights of Way 6-monthly Progress Report.
- To be confirmed.
- The Panel recorded their thanks to Mrs Bowdery for her contribution over the years.
- It was suggested that a long-term plan of what could and could not be done by the Rights of Way Team be discussed at the next meeting.