Agenda item

(Darwin Ward)

Report ESD10125

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 required the Council, as the surveying authority for public rights of way, to keep the Definitive Map and Statement under continuous review.  The Director of Environmental Services’ representative reported that, under the above Act, an application had been received for a Definitive Map Modification Order to upgrade Footpath 279 to bridleway status based on use by horse riders over a number of years.  Following the receipt of the application, a consultant, Sue Rumfitt Associates, had been appointed to carry out investigations into and analysis of the claims.  The consultant’s report containing conclusions and a recommendation, attached to the report of the Director of Environmental Services, was considered by the Sub-Committee.

The application for a Definitive Map Modification Order, submitted on behalf of the Tatsfield Bridleways Association, claimed that the route of Footpath 279, together with other routes shown on Plan 1a which were not at present shown on the Definitive Map and Statement, should be upgraded to/recorded as bridleways.  The consultant had subsequently interviewed the applicant and witnesses who had submitted evidence and had considered all the map evidence available.  The consultant had recommended that in respect of route A-B-C-D on Plan 1b there was a case for making a Definitive Map Modification Order to record the route as a bridleway, but an Order be refused for section V-X and W-X-Y on Plan 1a.  It was noted that a small part of the claimed route (between B-C on Plan 1b) was in Surrey, and should an Order need to be made a formal agreement would have to be entered into to delegate to the London Borough of Bromley the legal authority to make an Order that would modify the Definitive Map for the County Council of Surrey.  The consultant’s fees had been met by Transportation Planning’s consultant’s fees budget from the previous financial year and the advertising costs of £60 would be met from Transportation Planning’s advertising budget of £3300.

In considering the implications of the proposal, in conjunction with the consultant’s conclusions and recommendation, various questions were asked by Members.  The Director of Environmental Services confirmed that the definition of a bridleway differed from a footpath in that users were also permitted to ride or lead a horse and ride bicycles.

Having regard to all the available evidence and to the consultant’s findings, the Sub-Committee was of the opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, there was sufficient evidence in support of the claims to enable the Council to accede to the request to make the requisite Definitive Map Modification Order. 

RESOLVED that

(1)  the Director of Legal, Democratic and Customer Services, in consultation with the Director of Environmental Services, be authorised to make an Order under section 53(3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add a bridleway to the Definitive Map and Statement for the route shown from A-B-C-D on Plan 1b (ESD/10623/1c) and refuse to make an Order for the sections W-X-Y and V-X on Plan 1a (ESD/10693/1/1a), and

(2)  the applicant be advised that the Council takes the view that on the balance of probability, the case in favour of some of the application has not been demonstrated and that the application has been refused in part and the applicant be advised of the right to appeal to the Secretary of State, and

(3)  the Director of Environmental Services seek delegated authority from Surrey County Council to include the section of the claimed route that lies within Surrey in the Order.