Agenda item

Report ES11136

The Sub-Committee received the Secretary of State’s decision upholding an appeal against the Sub-Committee’s decision on 1^st September 2010 not to make a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to upgrade Footpath 280 to a bridleway. The Council was now required by the Secretary of State to make the DMMO.

Councillor Richard Scoates, as the ward Councillor, insisted that the Sub-Committee had taken the correct decision in 2010 and should be prepared to object to the order. He considered that the evidence supporting the existence of a bridleway was circumstantial and did not provide a strong case, and he drew attention to a number of sections in the Inspector’s report, including the Inspector’s statement that she had not visited the site (paragraph 4), the delay in making the application (paragraph 19), the issue of logs placed across the path (paragraph 23) and the two witness forms that were not considered (paragraph 26.)  He also stated that he was disappointed that he had not been informed as the Ward Councillor of the Inspector’s decision.

Other Members agreed with Councillor Scoates, and were concerned that opening the gates could increase the risk of trespass on adjoining land given the history of traveller incursions in the area. Members also referred to the costs of making the path up to bridleway standards, and the amount of time spent on the issue already. 

The Sub-Committee was informed that Kent County Council had already agreed to follow the Secretary of State’s direction to make the Order and to take a neutral stance in any subsequent appeal should further objections be made to the confirmation of the Order.

The report recommended that the Council should take a neutral stance at any Public Inquiry into any further objections resulting from the making of the Order, and in any similar cases in the future where the Secretary of State directed the Council to make a DMMO. The Sub-Committee considered that, while the Council should neither take a neutral stance or a pro-active stance of opposition, it should await responses to the DMMO and support any objections that were made. The Sub-Committee accepted that the Council ran the risk of unlawfully fettering its discretion if it were to authorise a particular position in respect of potential appeals on other Public Path Inquiries in the future and unanimously resolved that it would consider each case and the Council’s position on their merits at the appropriate time.

RESOLVED that

(1) The Director of Resources, in consultation with the Director of Environmental Services, be authorised to make a Definitive Map Modification Order under section 53(3)(c)(ii) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to ‘upgrade’ that part of footpath 280 shown on dwg. ESD-10967-1 to bridleway.

(2) Kent County Council be informed of the Council’s decision and invited to send their views to the Chairman.

(3) The Director of Environmental Services be authorised to take further action as necessary on behalf of the Council, subject to consultation with the Chairman and Ward Councillor in the event of objections being lodged by third parties.