Rights of Way & Highway Licensing Panel
Thursday 5 June 2014 6.30 pm
RIGHTS OF WAY & HIGHWAY LICENSING PANEL
5 JUNE 2014
PRESENT: Councillors John Stretton (Chairman), Maureen Hunt (Vice-Chair), Peter Comber (sub for James Evans), Mohammed Ilyas, Gary Muir and John Penfold.
Also Present: Councillors Christine Bateson and Eileen Quick.
- Also Present: D.Bailey (East Berkshire Ramblers), G.W.Barnett (East Berkshire Ramblers), M.Bowdery (East Berkshire Ramblers), C.Farmiloe (Resident), G.Marrs (East Berkshire Ramblers), D.Ramm (Open Space Society) and P.H.S.Smith (East Berkshire Ramblers).
Officers: Anthony Hurst, Tanya Leftwich and Catherine Woodward.
PART I
01/14 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Councillors Tom Bursnall and James Evans.
02/14 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
- None were received.
03/14 MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 4 March 2014 be approved.
04/14 THAMES PATH MISSING LINK
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 Agreement to provide a footway along the road frontage of properties at Bridge View, Ray Mead Road, Maidenhead, whilst retaining the existing resolution made by the Panel on the 4 March 2014 to authorise the making of a Public Path Creation Order for a riverside footpath, in the event that agreement cannot be reached on the roadside route.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer went onto explain the roadside footway would provide an improved alignment for the Thames Path National Trail, as well as improved pedestrian access to Bridge Gardens, by filling a missing link on the roadside footway.
Members were informed that the report followed a recommendation from Cabinet which considered the matter on the 29 May 2014 and resolved that:
- i) Authority be delegated to the Lead Member for Finance in consultation with the Director of Adult and Community Services, Head of Leisure Services and Lead Member for Leisure & Libraries, to agree an appropriate budget for delivery of an agreed proposal.
ii) It be recommended to the Rights of Way and Highway Licensing Panel that a Public Path Agreement in relation to Option 2 be pursued, alongside retaining the existing resolution of the Panel taken on 4 March 2014.
The Principal Rights of Way Officer referred Members to the site plan in Annexe 1, the copy of the Cabinet report in Annexe 2 and the further comments from the Ramblers in Annexe 3. It was noted that all landowners, apart from the landowner who lived at number 3, had responded with their views on the subject.
The Chairman invited the objector, Mrs Bowdery, who had registered to speak for three minutes, to address the Panel. Mrs Bowdery explained that people flocked to Maidenhead to enjoy the reaches of the Thames and thanked the Rights of Way & Highway Licensing Panel for their decision which had been made on the 4 March 2014. Mrs Bowdery questioned the Cabinet decision and explained that over the years she had heard the most amazing reasons why people were unwelcome on foot. The Panel was informed that the Chairman would recollect the many objections submitted for the completion of the path. Mrs Bowdery explained that the Thames Path allowed thousands of people to enjoy the countryside and whilst she understood that the path would at times be flooded and have gaps she believed the loss of residents views not to be a valid enough reason to go with the roadside option. Mrs Bowdery explained that the site had been described as the gateway to Maidenhead and stated that a private car park in Bridge Gardens would destroy the entrance gateway.
The Chairman thanked Mrs Bowdery for keeping to her allocated three minutes.
The Chairman explained 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 there were three other sections of the Thames Path in the Borough that did not follow the river (in Cookham, Datchet and Eton). The Principal Rights of Way Officer went onto explain that he believed there may be over a hundred sections of the path between the source in Gloucestershire and the Thames Barrier in London that did not follow the river.
- Councillor Comber explained that his number one priority was to agree a safe route which he believed to be the road option although the loss of car parking provision did concern him.
- The Panels legal advisor, Catherine Woodward, explained that whilst the Council had no legal obligation to provide car parking it would not be unreasonable to take any loss of parking into account when in negotiations with the land owners in question. Members were informed that the desired location of any alternative car parking provision was not something for the Panel to discuss today.
- The Principal Rights of Way Officer confirmed that the private property owners affected by Path Creation Orders did have a right to claim compensation. Path Creation Orders do not involve purchase of land but they do create public rights over land.
- The Vice-Chair informed everyone present that at the last meeting in March the property owners had said that they would work with the Council to proceed with the roadside option. The Vice-Chair explained that if the Council was to go down the riverside route she could see compensation issues, unknown timelines and unknown quantities of taxpayer’s money that would be needed.
- Councillor Muir explained that the roadside section of the Thames Path in Datchet helped bring footfall in which in turn helped local businesses and he therefore felt the roadside option to be the better option available to the Panel.
- Councillor Quick informed everyone present that if there was an easy option this issue would have been solved over the last sixty years. Councillor Quick went onto explain that the Council needed to find a safe route and whilst Cabinet was not asking the Panel to eliminate option one (the riverside route) but also to consider option 2 (roadside route). Councillor Quick explained that if the riverside route was agreed it could lead to legal issues from the property owners in question.
- Councillor Ilyas agreed that he believed the roadside route to be more amenable to the property owners, the safest option and also the best value for money with regard to taxpayer’s money.
The Vice-Chair proposed that the Panel authorised the Head of Legal Services to make a Public Path Creation Agreement under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 for the roadside route shown on the Plan in Annexe 1 which Councillor Muir seconded.
The Panel congratulated the officers involved in this report.
- RESOLVED: Unanimously that; the Panel authorised the Head of Legal Services to make a Public Path Creation Agreement under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 for the roadside route shown on the Plan at Annexe 1.
- Monday 29 September 2014.
- Monday 15 December 2014.
- Tuesday 3 March 2015.