Hampshire County Council ITEM 2

Regulatory Committee

7 January 2004

Proposal to divert Footpath 55 in the Parish of Odiham

Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage

Contact: Richard Jackson, Ext 6891 E-mail: [email protected]

Diversions of footpaths and bridleways may be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as being either: -

"Expedient in the interests of the owner, occupier or lessee of land crossed by the right of way" and/or "Expedient in the interests of the public".

Members must be satisfied that the diverted route will not be substantially less convenient to the public, and must have regard to the effect which a diversion will have on the enjoyment of the path as a whole.

1. Summary

1.1 Hampshire County Council has received an application from Mr and Mrs N Foster, Frayle, Hillside, Odiham, RG29 1HX to divert Footpath 55 in the Parish of Odiham as shown on the attached plan (plan1). The application is made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, on the grounds that it is in the interests of the landowner.

1.2 It is recommended that an Order be made to divert Footpath 55 in Odiham under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980.

2. The existing route

The whole length of Footpath 55 is subject to the diversion proposal. The present route commences (point A on Plan 1 attached) 225 metres from the origin of Footpath 65 in a northerly direction from the C94 (Hillside Road). It continues in a northwesterly direction for a distance of 226 metres along a roughly surfaced driveway passing within 3 metres of a newly erected stable block (Planning Application 01/01611/FUL) before passing over a stile and through a field of rough pasture to its junction with Odiham Footpath 40 (Point E on Plan 1 attached).

3. The proposed new path

3.1 The new path commences at point A on the attached plan (Plan 1), at the origin of the existing route of Footpath 55. It continues for 21 metres in a southwesterly direction to and across the driveway and enters into a field of pasture. It continues for 64 metres in a southwesterly direction following a route currently only fenced on the northern side and then for 62 metres in a northwesterly direction, again currently only fenced on the northern side, to a junction with Odiham Footpath 40 (Point D on Plan 1 attached). The continuation of the footpath to the original point of termination of Footpath 55 would be along Odiham Footpath 40 for a distance of 112 metres in a northwesterly direction to Point E on Plan 1 attached. The proposed new path will have a minimum width of 2 metres. The only structure that will be on the new route would be a kissing gate at the junction with Odiham Footpath 65 (Point A on Plan 1).

3.2 This route differs from that originally proposed by the Applicants, which was not considered by officers to be an acceptable alternative as it increased the length of the path by 110 metres with three significant changes in direction. (Shown on Plan 2 accompanying this report from points A - B - C).

3.3 The proposal was revised, and a report in support of the present proposals was submitted by Mrs Rhoda Barnett, a countryside access consultant employed by the Applicants.

3.4 It is considered that the changes proposed by the Applicants, including the shortening of the length (from an extra 110 metres in the original proposal to 41 metres in the current proposal) and the change in the route of the proposal removing the 90 degree changes in direction, and replacing them with two more obtuse angled changes, are sufficient to warrant the application being reconsidered.

4. The reasons for the application

4.1 The existing path currently passes in close proximity to the residential dwelling of the Applicants who consider that diverting the footpath to the proposed route will increase the security and privacy of their home. It will also facilitate the keeping of horses by moving the public away from the stables where horses are kept and groomed.

4.2 The County Council currently adheres to a policy which states that it will entertain applications for diversions of footpaths and bridleways only where it is in the interests of the public to do so. This policy was adopted on 13 June 2002, after the receipt of the present application, which is unaffected by this policy.

5. Summary of Consultations

5.1 Local Member Cllr Leversha

Supports the diversion

5.2 Odiham Parish Council

No objection to the proposed diversion.

5.3 Hart District Council

Happy to support the application.

5.4 Rights of Way Area Officer, Central

No objection.

5.5 Hampshire Highways North

Does not believe that the proposed changes will have any bearing on the highway and therefore has no comments to make.

5.6 The County Archivist

No response at the time of preparation of this report.

5.7 The County Planning Dept

No objection in principle.

5.8 British Horse Society

No response.

5.9 The Ramblers Association

No objection in principle.

5.10 British Driving Society

No response.

5.11 National Farmers Union

No response.

5.12 Cyclists Touring Club

No response.

5.13 Trail Riders Fellowship

No response.

5.14 LARA

No problems with the diversion.

5.15 All Wheel Drive Club

No response.

5.16 The Open Spaces Society

Opposes the application on the grounds that the new route would be less convenient and enjoyable to the public. It would involve a considerable detour, down and back up a hill, whereas the current route is level, higher with fine views and is direct and easy to follow.

The following representations from non-statutory consultees have also been received.

5.17 The DDA Disabled Ramblers

Commend the diversion order.

5.18 Six letters of support obtained by the applicant

6. Comments on Consultation Replies

6.1.1 Section 119(2) of the Highways Act 1980 requires that such a diversion order should not be made unless the new termination point is substantially as convenient to the public as the existing termination point.

6.1.2 Section 119 (6) of the Highways Act 1980 requires that a diversion order should not be confirmed unless the new path or way will not be substantially less convenient to the public in consequence of the diversion and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to the effect which:

(a) the diversion would have on public enjoyment of the path or way as a whole;

(b) the coming into operation of the order would have as respects other land served by the existing public right of way; and

(c) any new public right of way created by the order would have as respects the land over which the right is so created and any land held with it.

6.1 There is some merit in the objections raised by the Open Spaces Society, which concern two issues, namely a) whether the diversion is substantially less convenient , and b) whether it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to the effect which the diversion would have on public enjoyment of the path as a whole. It is inevitable that the issues of this sort are subjective. The length of the current definitive line is 226 metres while the proposed route is 267 metres, a difference of 41 metres. The slope referred to in the objection was not considered to be significant to any consultees other than the Open Spaces Society. The views from either route are similar and as the proposed route is fenced on the northern side of the path, route finding would not be difficult.

6.3 In later correspondence from the Open Spaces Society it was stated that the proposed diversion would undermine the purpose for which Odiham Footpath 55 exists in the rights of way network. By this it is meant that Footpath 55 would be used by walkers who want to walk north on Footpath 65 or by walkers who use Footpath 65 and then wish to use Footpath 55 to link to Footpath 40 to go northwestwards. The proposed route would mean that walkers would have to make a series of changes in direction to reach their destination.

6.4 Although there are merits in the objections raised by the Open Spaces Society officers are of the opinion that, on balance, the proposed diversion does fulfil the criteria required by section 119 of the Highways Act.

6.4.1 it is in the interest of the applicant, as it would increase security and the privacy of their residential dwelling. It will also facilitate the keeping of horses by moving the public away from the stable and grooming area.

6.4.2 the proposed path is both substantially as convenient (s.119(2)) and not substantially less convenient(s.119(6)) than the existing route. The new route would only be approximately 41 m greater in length than the existing route. The new route will be very well defined and have a minimum width of 2.0 metres. At present there are stiles present on the definitive line. At point A on Plan 1 there would be a kissing gate where the proposed route meets Odiham Footpath 65.

6.4.3 the proposed diversion will not affect the enjoyment of the path as a whole as views, aspect, etc. are not affected by the proposal.

6.4 However, as this decision is finely balanced, before coming to a decision, members may wish to undertake a site visit to view the existing and proposed routes in order to satisfy themselves that, in their view, the order should rightly be made.

Recommendation

That an order be made for the diversion of Footpath 55 in Odiham in accordance with Plan 1 in the interests of the landowner.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of the report. NB the list excludes: (1) published works and (2) documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act:

File: Odiham Footpath 55 Diversion, ref:55/DIV/001

Rights of Way Office, Mottisfont Court, Winchester