Archived decisions
Item 5
Hampshire County Council
Regulatory Committee
31 March 2004
Proposal to divert and extinguish Bridleways on Yateley Common, Yateley
Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage
Contact: Alex Lewis, ext 6044; [email protected]
Diversions of footpaths and bridleways may be made under s.119 Highways Act 1980 (as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) if it is expedient to do so either in the interests of the owner, occupier or lessee of land crossed by the right of way or in the interests of the public.
If the diversion alters the termination point of the highway, Members must be satisfied that the diverted route is substantially as convenient to the public as the original route.
1. Summary
Members are requested to authorise the making of a diversion order and an extinguishment order to regularise the use of tracks and bridleways over Yateley Common, Yateley.
2. Background
2.1 Hampshire County Council is the owner of 474 hectares land at Yateley, known as Yateley Common. The land was acquired under s.9 Open Spaces Act 1906 for use as a public open space, a previous owner of the land having granted the public a right of access for air and exercise. The site is a registered common, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and forms part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, providing breeding habitat for Dartford Warbler, Woodlark and Nightjar. The habitats consist of woodland, grassland and internationally threatened heathland. The Common is managed by the County Council for recreation and amenity, alongside the conservation of its habitats, species and landscape. The land is shown as registered common land on the provisional map prepared under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
2.2 The Common is criss-crossed by a network of rights of way recorded on the definitive map as bridleways (as well as other tracks that are not public rights of way). For the most part, these bridleways follow tracks that are shown on maps produced at the beginning of the 1900s and many, no doubt, have earlier origins. Not all of these tracks are still in existence. New tracks, on different alignments, have come into being since the first definitive map, which serve similar purposes and are used in practice by walkers and riders, resulting in an extensive network of paths and tracks, not recorded as public rights of way, that are nonetheless enjoyed by walkers and riders.
2.3 At present, the County Council is unable to regulate the use of the Common by horse riders, because the legal line of many of the definitive bridleways is not apparent on the ground. The County Council is reluctant to clear all of the legal routes, where they are currently unuseable, as this would damage the vegetation and habitat for which the area is so valued. In places where the legal line crosses wet woodland, engineering operations would be necessary to create a way that will sustain use as a bridleway and this is considered to be incompatible with the proper management of the Common as an area of high conservation value.
2.4 It is therefore proposed to divert nine bridleways, on that part of the Common which lies to the north of London Road and east of Cricket Hill Lane, so that the legal bridleways run along paths and tracks already established and in use by the public. This is not intended to be a major restructuring of the network, but an exercise to regularise what is already the pattern of use of the Common. In addition, it is proposed to extinguish one bridleway which is not currently in use and which is rendered unnecessary as a result of the diversions proposed. To complete the rationalisation of the network, some work will be necessary to clear the definitive lines of bridleways which are not intended to be diverted.
3. Ownership of the land
Hampshire County Council owns all of the land over which the bridleways run, with the exception of parts of Bridleways 19 and 20, which are in the ownership of Yateley Town Council.
4. The paths affected by the proposed diversions and extinguishment are:
4.1 Bridleway 18
4.1.1 The definitive statement for this path is as follows:
"From No.17 at Cricket Hill to No.19, north of Road A.30
From No.17 southwards along unenclosed gravel track across common land, across Road C.108, along unenclosed gravel track across common land, across Road C.4, then southeastwards along unenclosed gravel track approximately 7 feet wide on northern side of hospital and pond, then southwards to cottages at Brandy Bottom, then south and southeastwards along unenclosed earth track across Yateley Common to No.19, north of Road A.30."
4.1.2 The first 520 metres of this path (starting southwards from Cricket Hill Lane) will remain unchanged. From GR 8222 5929 (to the south of Brandy Bottom) it is intended that the path should follow existing natural gravel and locally dug hoggin tracks for 395 metres, before resuming its existing alignment at GR 8242 5908 (75 metres northwest of its junction with Bridleway 19). The start and finish points of this path remain unchanged.
4.1.3 The following works will be required to put the new route into a suitable condition for use as a bridleway:
Filling small potholes with hoggin.
4.2 Bridleway 19
4.2.1 The current definitive statement reads as follows:
"From Road U.249, south of Yateley Place, to Road A.30.
From Road U.249 southwards along a gravel road 15 feet wide enclosed between hedges and banks, then along unenclosed gravel road approximately 10 feet wide to and along the western boundary of a cemetery, between posts and then along an unenclosed gravel track across Yateley Common to Road A.30."
4.2.2 It is intended that the central 660 metres of this path should be moved a maximum of 35 metres eastwards to follow an existing track that is used for vehicular access between Reading Road and London Road. The start and finish points of this path will remain unchanged.
4.2.3 No works are necessary to put the new route into a suitable condition for use as a bridleway.
4.3 Bridleway 20
4.3.1 The definitive statement for this path is as follows:
"From Road C.4, south of hospital, to Road A.30 at Blackwater Green.
From Road C.4 eastwards along unenclosed gravel track across Yateley Common, passing cottages at Brandy Bottom, north eastwards and eastwards along unenclosed gravel track across common, then along grass track 15 feet wide enclosed between hedges to Cobbetts Lane, then south eastwards along earth track 12 feet wide between hedges, then eastwards along unenclosed track across common land, past Haywards Cottage and across common land to gravel road on south side of cottages and along this to Road A.30." The easternmost part of the path is now an adopted road.
4.3.2 This is the longest bridleway affected by the current proposals (2748 metres) and runs on an east - west alignment across the length of this part of the Common. A revision of the original proposals mean that its junction with Cricket Hill Lane will remain unaltered, but diversions are proposed at Brandy Bottom and from GR 8330 5934 eastwards, putting the bridleway onto an established track which terminates at a car park on London Road, rather than at its present junction with the track known as The Flats.
4.3.3 The current legal line of the path is obstructed at Brandy Bottom by the garden fence of one of the properties there, where there has in the past been an encroachment onto the Common. This encroachment is being dealt with as a separate issue by the Countryside Service. However resolved, the fence now obstructing the path will need to be removed, as will some vegetation currently obstructing the path. Responses to consultation (see paragraphs 6.4.3 and 6.4.10 - 6.4.12 below) have caused consideration to be given to a diversion of the affected part of Bridleway 20 away from the property concerned, but there appears to be no real advantage to the public or to the County Council in doing so, and it is not considered that it is expedient to move this path whilst any issues relating to encroachment remain outstanding.
4.3.4 The following works will be required to put the route into a suitable condition for use as a bridleway:
Raising level of 15 metres of track and drainage through wet woodland east of Cricket Hill Lane. Resolution of encroachment issues at Brandy Bottom. Re-cutting 40 metres of route through garden and woodland area at Brandy Bottom.
4.4 Bridleway 21
4.4.1 The definitive statement for this path is as follows:
"From No.20, at Brandy Bottom, to Road A.30.
From No.20, south east of cottages at Brandy Bottom, south eastwards along unenclosed gravel track across common land to A.30."
4.4.2 The current path lies between London Road and Brandy bottom. It is intended that that part of this path which lies westwards from its junction with Bridleway 19 (on its diverted route) will be aligned on an existing track that lies on an east-west axis between Bridleway 19 and Cricket Hill Lane. The direct line between Bridleway 19 and Brandy Bottom will be lost, but the additional 140 metres that it will be necessary to travel is not considered unacceptable, and the network as a whole is more than compensated by an additional 335 metres of bridleway which provides a direct link to Cricket Hill Lane and the bridleway network to the west of that road.
4.4.3 The following works will be required to put the route into a suitable condition for use as a bridleway:
Cutting though woodland and surfacing with hoggin for 30 metres to link to A30.
4.5 Bridleway 22
4.5.1 The definitive statement for this path is as follows:
"From Road C.150 at Bell Inn to Road A.30.
From Road C.150 southwestwards along gravel road approximately 10 feet wide, across Road A.327, then along unenclosed track across common land, past Hayward's Cottage, and on across common land to Road A.30."
4.5.2 This path currently runs from the B3272 Reading Road to London Road. There is almost no trace of this path on the ground and no use is made of the definitive line. It is intended that the path should be diverted so as to follow an existing track between Reading Road and the realigned route of Bridleway 20. This path will itself no longer make a direct connection with London Road, but access to the north side of London Road can be gained by using the realigned Bridleway 20, which joins London Road 240 metres to the east. There are no bridleway connections south of London Road, the use of which would be adversely affected by this alteration.
4.5.3 No work is necessary to put the new route into a suitable condition for use as a bridleway.
4.6 Bridleway 24
4.6.1 The definitive statement for this path is as follows:
"From No.18 to No.20, at Brandy Bottom.
From No.18 southeastwards along unenclosed earth track on north eastern side of cottages at Brandy Bottom to No.20."
4.6.2 This path runs between Bridleways 18 and 20, alongside the rear boundaries of the properties in Brandy Bottom. It is not currently in use and is considered unnecessary, even more so if the proposed diversion of Bridleway 20 brings a bridleway along the track that runs to the front of those properties.
4.6.3 It is therefore proposed that this path be extinguished.
4.7 Bridleway 25
4.7.1 The definitive statement for this path is as follows:
"From No.20, at the junction with No.21, to No.18.
From No.20, at the junction with No.21, southwards along unenclosed earth track across common land to junction with No.18."
4.7.2 This is a relatively short section of bridleway, on a north-south axis, that links Bridleways 18 and 20. It is proposed to move the entirety of this path a few metres to the east, to follow an existing track between the realigned route of the same two bridleways.
4.7.3 No works are necessary to put the new route into a suitable condition for use as a bridleway.
4.8 Bridleway 30
4.8.1 The definitive statement for this path is as follows:
"From Road A.327, at Darby Green, to Road A.30.
From Road A.327 westwards along unenclosed gravel track across common land, past junction with No.29, then southwestwards along unenclosed track on south eastern side of boundary of Darbygreen House, across No.28, then along earth track approximately 10 feet wide between banks and hedges across No.20, and then south eastwards along unenclosed track across common land to Road A.30."
4.8.2 This is one of the four Bridleways (22, 30, 31 and 32), that presently provide a link between London Road and Reading Road. It is intended that the southern part of this path (from GR 8307 5932, at Strood's Pool) will be diverted so as to follow an existing track eastwards to Bridleway 31. The connection with London Road may then be made by using Bridleway 31. The remainder of the path is unaffected by the proposed diversions.
4.8.3 No work is necessary to put the new route into a suitable condition for use as a bridleway. Remaining parts of the bridleway will require re-cutting and improved drainage.
4.9 Bridleway 31
4.9.1 The definitive statement for this path is as follows:
"From Road A.327, at Frogmore, to Road A.30.
From Road A.327, at Frogmore, southwestwards along unenclosed gravel track across common land, across No.28, then southwards along unenclosed track on eastern side of boundary hedge of pasture, crossing No.20, then along unenclosed track across common land to Road A.30."
4.9.2 The southern half of this path forms a vehicular access to properties on the Common and is a solid track in regular use. However, from GR 8338 5954 north and northeastwards the legal line of the path does not exist on the ground. It is intended to divert the first 117 metres of the bridleway northwards from GR 8338 5954 onto the continuation of vehicular track, to its junction with Bridleway 20. The remainder of Bridleway 31 will be diverted onto an earth path commencing close to its existing junction with Bridleway 20, and following the path northwards and then eastwards to a junction with Bridleway 22, close to Reading Road.
4.9.3 The following works will be required to put the new route into a suitable condition for use as a bridleway:
Cutting back vegetation to suitable width on 250 metre section north of Bridleway 28. Draining and surfacing with hoggin and gravel of 20 metre length of same section.
4.10 Bridleway 32
4.10.1 The definitive statement for this path is as follows:
"From Road A.327, at Frogmore, to Road A.30.
From Road A.327, at Frogmore, southeastwards along unenclosed gravel track across common land crossing Nos.31, 22 and 20, then southwards along unenclosed track across common land to Road A.30."
4.10.2 It is intended that Bridleway 32 should be diverted in its entirety, to follow the track known as The Flats southwards from Reading Road, then following an earth path southwestwards to a junction with the diverted line of Bridleway 20, along which a link can be made with London Road.
4.10.3 The following works will be required to put the new route into a suitable condition for use as a bridleway:
Re-surfacing and filling in potholes with hoggin along The Flats.
5. Diversions Policy
Hampshire County Council's diversions policy, which directs that applications for diversions from members of the public are only accepted if they are clearly in the interests of the public, does not apply to diversion orders made by the County Council on its own initiative and in its capacity as Highway Authority.
6. Consultations
6.1 The following individuals and organisations have been consulted about the proposed diversions, namely Cllr Collett, the local member, Hart District Council, Yateley Town Council, English Nature, Environment Group (Highways), Environment Group (Planning), British Horse Society, Ramblers' Association, Open Spaces Society, British Driving Society, National Farmers Union, Cyclist's Touring Club, Trail Riders Fellowship, All Wheel Drive Club and LARA. Minor amendments have been made to the original proposals to reflect some of the comments made in the replies to this consultation.
6.2 Consultation letters have also been sent to 23 Commoners, whose properties could be identified from the register of common rights. No provision was made in the relevant legislation for the updating of the register to record changes in ownership of the land with rights of common, so it has not been easy to trace all those with commoners rights, particularly where the land in question has been subject to recent development.
6.3 In addition, all residents within the common have been informed by letter of the proposed diversions. Notices and maps outlining the proposals were also posted at 15 locations on the relevant part of Yateley Common, including all official access points, so as to inform regular users of the Common.
6.4 The following responses have been received:
6.4.1 British Horse Society: Agrees that it is desirable to have all routes properly recorded on the map, adequately signed and maintained in a useable condition, which is not the case at present; wants to see a thorough review of the rights of way map and wider access issues in the area and considers that the present proposals are piecemeal; suggests that the routes currently in use should be dedicated and higher rights, if any recorded on the historic, legal routes; wants an investigation into why there are seven bridleways leading from the north of the A30, but no corresponding bridleways to the south; is concerned at the road crossings in the area, which are far from ideal, referring in particular to the junction of Bridleway 20 with Cricket Hill Lane; a number of the existing bridleways which are not to be diverted are impossible to find on the ground; signage needs to be improved. In particular, the diversion of Bridleway 32 along The Flats is unsuitable for horses as it has a pool of standing water, with bricks and rubbish in the bottom and the existing line stops at London Road; the diversion of Bridleways 18, 21, 26 and 30 seem reasonable, subject to the question of whether higher rights exist.
6.4.2 Cyclist's Touring Club: Agrees that some formalisation of the position on the ground is appropriate, in view of the difficulty in locating existing paths. Considers that the condition of the surface of some of the tracks intended to be used makes them difficult to use by cyclists.
6.4.3 Ramblers' Association: Agrees with the proposals in general; suggests that Bridleway 20 could be realigned to avoid the gardens of houses at Brandy Bottom (see 4.3.3 above); sees no reason to retain Bridleway 24 (this has now been accommodated in the current proposals); the proposed diversion of Bridleway 21 contains a loop which is not necessary as there is no path on the ground; some waymarking and clearance will be necessary; invites a look at the network to the south of London Road.
6.4.4 Open Spaces Society: Glad that a start is being made to sort out the existing unsatisfactory situation; there are currently obstructions to the bridleways at Brandy Bottom; Bridleway 28 needs work due to lying water just west of the stream.
6.4.5 LARA: States that the proposals seem eminently sensible.
6.4.6 English Nature: Considers that the proposals are consistent with the conservation of the SSSI and gives assent to the proposals.
6.4.7 Local Member: Strongly supports the objectives of the diversions. It makes sense to get the map to agree with what is on the ground: the alternative would lead to unwelcome damage to the ecology of the Common. By creating a recognised network of bridleways it will give horse riders a network that they know and can enjoy without damaging other, more sensitive parts of the Common. Once use is confined to these routes, damage will be restricted to those routes, making it easier to keep the network in good condition. Has concerns about the junction of Bridleways 20 and 21 with Cricket Hill Lane and wishes attention to be given to lowering the speed limit on this stretch of road. Would like the opinion of a regular horse rider to be sought about the proposed network in this location. Supports the extinguishment of Bridleway 24 and the proposals to move Bridleway 20 away from the middle of the picnic area at the Gravel Pit.
6.4.8 Yateley Town Council: Is supportive of the review and gives its consent to the diversion of Bridleway 19 onto the roadway that runs past Heathlands Cemetery.
6.4.9 Environment Group - Planning: No objection in principle to the proposals.
6.4.10 Mr Michael Cox (resident of Brandy Bottom): Wherever possible, the proposed network should follow existing paths and tracks; fully supports the revised proposal, for the extinguishment of Bridleway 24; the track to the front of the properties at Brandy Bottom is the `main road' and it makes sense to formalise this; reinstating that part of Bridleway 20 which runs between two houses at Brandy Bottom would compromise the integrity of the `wilderness' and should be diverted along an existing track to join the diverted Bridleways 20 and then 25; there is no need for Bridleway 18 to continue south from its junction with the diverted Bridleway 21, users could instead continue eastwards along Bridleway 21 and then southwards along Bridleway 25.
6.4.11 Mr Ian Garner (resident of Brandy Bottom); Does not object to any of the proposed diversions, but does object to the proposed re-opening of the definitive line of Bridleway 20 as he is the owner of the property immediately adjacent to it. The bridleway will pass within inches of his property; it has not been in use for 50 years; it will be an invasion of his family's privacy and affect the way that he lives; his children would not be able to come and go safely; it raises issues of security; it would deprive him of a driveway or access to the front or side of his house; is concerned at the additional wear and tear on the access to the properties at Brandy Bottom; use of a path outside his property by animals would give rise to safety concerns; to create a bridleway access across the front of his property would be inviting the illegal and unlawful practice of off-road motorcycles being driven along there at speed; such an access would also invite fly-tipping in the heart of the Common; requests a diversion of Bridleway 20 to follow a track running southwards from Brandy Bottom to join the diverted routes of Bridleways 21 and 25.
6.4.12 Mr B. Little (resident of Brandy Bottom): Opposes the re-routing (sic) of Bridleway 20 to the side of his property to within inches of his neighbour's house; it will encourage track-bike motorcyclists and it raises questions of privacy and security; the route will become waterlogged during the autumn and winter months; suggests an alternative route using the track that runs south from Brandy Bottom and part of the diverted routes of Bridleways 21 and 25.
6.4.13 Mrs Margaret Beauchamp (local resident): Is concerned at the diversion of Bridleway 31 between GR 8344 5972 and 8305 5970 (where it runs approximately parallel with Bridleway 28) because it would damage the protected heathland habitat; there are other wider tracks on this part of the Common more appropriate than the proposed route.
6.4.14 Mr Ron Pattenden (local resident): Supports the principle behind the diversions and attempts to manage equestrian use, which he considers to be currently pervasive and damaging to the Common. He has grave concerns about the junction of Bridleways 20 and 21 with Cricket Hill Lane and, in particular, opposes the cutting of a swathe of the verge between the two, which he believes to be dangerous to riders, in view of the speed of passing traffic. He proposes a diversion of Bridleway 20, so that it is turned southwards to join the proposed route of Bridleway 21 east of Cricket Hill Lane, which will result in a single road crossing.
6.4.15 Two Commoners have made a substantive response to the proposals and neither have raised any objection.
6.5 The full responses can be inspected, if required, at the rights of way office, 2nd Floor, Mottisfont Court.
7. Comments on the replies to consultation
7.1 Where specific comment is made, there seems to be a general consensus that changing the legal lines of the bridleways crossing this area of common, so that they accord with the tracks used on the ground, is a desirable, even necessary, step.
7.2 There is concern at the lack of definitive rights of way to the south of London Road. Whilst a valid comment to make, it is not felt that that this issue should prevent the proposed diversion of routes that do exist to the north of the road. It is not considered that the alterations to the network at the junctions with London Road are sufficient material to prejudice any future claims for rights of way to the south.
7.3 Mention has been made of higher rights over some of the definitive bridleways, but no evidence has been produced which would suggest that the proposed diversions should not proceed, or should proceed other than under s.119 Highways Act 1980. No evidence has been proffered to suggest that legal rights already exist over the routes proposed as `new' bridleways.
7.4 There is some concern that what are perceived as footpaths will be damaged by horses once they become bridleways, and walkers prejudiced as a result. There are no definitive footpaths across the Common, and the `new' routes have been proposed largely because they are already in use by horse riders. Walkers should notice very little change in the use of these routes. There are many paths and tracks on the Common that will not become bridleways, and walkers should, on the contrary, benefit from the current proposals in that, once the bridleways are well-defined and waymarked, it should become easier to keep riders off the remaining paths and tracks.
7.5 Some of the paths attract specific comment and these are as follows:
7.5.1 Bridleway 18 - The suggestion, made by Mr Cox, that the diversion of this bridleway should commence at its junction with the diverted route of Bridleway 21, rather than further south, is sensible, and has been considered. However, it has been decided not to include this move in the proposals, as these have been compiled on the basis that routes should only be diverted where the legal line is not visible on the ground, and a suitable alternative track is, available. In this case, the definitive line is present on the ground and there is, therefore, no need to divert it.
7.5.2.1 Bridleway 20 - has attracted the most comments, in two respects. First, there is concern that the junction of the western end of this path with Cricket Hill Lane is unsatisfactory. The road at this point is de-restricted and the visibility is poor in one direction, making the crossing hazardous, particularly for equestrians. A crossing of Cricket Hill Lane is, nonetheless, necessary in order to link the rights of way east of this road to the network of paths on the west, and Bridleway 20 is one of only two bridleways to serve this purpose. The proposed diversion of Bridleway 21 would provide an additional crossing point, just a few metres to the south of Bridleway 20, which, unlike Bridleway 20 connects with a track immediately opposite it. In order to address concerns about the safety of this crossing, a swathe of vegetation at the side of the road has been cut, in order to give riders and walkers an option of crossing the road at the end of Bridleway 20 or at the end of the proposed new route of Bridleway 21 or at any point along the 20 metres in between. Although opposition to this arrangement has been expressed, on the grounds that it would encourage riders to ride along the verge of the road, it is not considered that the current proposals do anything to make the existing situation worse. It could equally be argued that it is an improvement, in that i) it provides riders with a choice of crossing points at this location, ii) it enables riders to make a circuit of the bridleways to the east of the road, thereby avoiding the need to cross the road, and iii) it provides a wider refuge for riders waiting to cross the road. The real problem at this point is the volume and speed of traffic using Cricket Hill Lane, rather than the proposed diversions.
7.5.2.2 The second issue concerning Bridleway 20 is that of its route immediately to the east of the properties at Brandy Bottom, particularly at Ely Cottage, where it is currently obstructed by a garden fence and is not useable (there seems to be no objection to the routing of another part of this path along the track to the south of these properties). This part of Bridleway 20 is being kept on its existing definitive line, and so the comments made about the proximity of the path to the houses on either side and its effect on the enjoyment of those properties (particularly Ely Cottage) are not strictly relevant to the diversion which this Committee is being asked to approve. The County Council considers that this path can be re-opened reasonably easily once the issue of encroachment has been resolved and the relevant fence removed. Members may wish to consider the diversion suggested by Mr Garner, Mr Little, Mr Cox and the Ramblers' Association, which will take this part of Bridleway 20 away from Ely Cottage, southwards from Brandy Bottom and along Bridleways 21 and 25. The diversion is not proposed by officers because, although in the interests of the owner of Ely Cottage, it is hard to see why the diversion is the interests of Hampshire County Council (as owners of the land crossed by the path) or in the interests of the public (the diverted route is considerably longer). Members should satisfy themselves that the requirements of s.119 (1) Highways Act can be complied with if the requests for this diversion are to be accommodated.
7.5.3 Bridleway 31 - Two respondents were concerned about the proposed route northwards from Bridleway 28. This diversion is intended to run along an existing, curving path, in lieu of the definitive path which does not exist on the ground but, in theory at least, runs directly through one of the few areas of natural heath found on the Common. Whilst extinguishing the definitive line would, perhaps, be the ideal solution from the ecological perspective, it is not a realistic solution from a highways point of view. It is considered that opening up the present definitive line would be considerably more destructive than recognising use of the existing path and that the proposed diversion offers the best compromise between the two competing interests.
7.5.4 Bridleway 32 - The condition of The Flats was felt to be unsatisfactory to riders. This will be addressed and improved if the proposed diversion of this path is confirmed.
8. Registered Common Land
The subject bridleways were shown as highways on the county's definitive map of public rights of way prior to the registration of Yateley Common under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The definition of `common land' in s 22(1) of that Act excludes any land which forms part of a highway, and thus, technically, the land which comprises the recorded bridleways is not part of the registered common, although it remains common land. Should the diversion orders be confirmed, there will be thin strips of land within the Common that are not registered. This is unlikely to affect the rights of the Commoners or the management of the site, but if it is of concern, there is a procedure whereby the Secretary of State can be asked to give consent to an exchange of land, whereby the `new' bridleway routes will be removed from the registered common and the old routes will become part of it.
9 The issues to be decided
9.1 The diversion order(s)
9.1.1 A diversion order should not be made unless Members are satisfied that it is expedient to make the order in the interests of either the owner(s) or occupier(s) of the land crossed by the bridleways (Hampshire County Council and Yateley Town Council), or the public. The proposed diversions are considered to be in the interests of the landowners because they will clarify the location of the rights of way, confine them, for the most part, to existing tracks, and avoid the necessity of disturbing lengths of valuable habitat on the SSSI to render the definitive lines of the paths useable. In the longer term, it will make it easier to control equestrian use of the Common and to confine it to the definitive bridleways. At present, this is not possible whilst there are so many differences between the legal line of the bridleways and the paths and tracks actually in use.
9.1.2 It is considered expedient to make the order, because the alternative would be to require the definitive routes to be made available for use where they are currently overgrown. This would involve the provision of paths where none currently exist and would have a detrimental effect on the valuable habitat. It is thought likely that use of the existing tracks would continue, resulting in an even more dense network of paths in use by walkers and riders
9.1.3 Whilst there is also some public benefit in having the bridleway network clarified, available to use and properly waymarked it is not intended that this order should be expressed to be made in the interests of the public.
9.1.4 In respect of any bridleways whose start and/or finish points are altered by the proposed diversions (Bridleways 20, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31 and 32) Members must be satisfied that the new route of each is substantially as convenient to the public as the old. The most material changes in terms of distance, are those made to the southern ends of Bridleways 22, 30 and 32 (which lose their direct connections with London Road) and the western end of Bridleway 20 which is diverted southwards to make a new connection with London Road, in substitution for the connections lost. There are no recorded rights of way to the south of London Road which might be adversely affected by the changes, which, taken as a whole, are considered to be as convenient to the public as the existing network.
9.1.5 An order should not be confirmed by this authority (or by the Secretary of State, if opposed) unless it (or she) is satisfied that each `new' route will not be substantially less convenient to the public, and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to the effect which any diversion would have on public enjoyment of the affected path or way as a whole. The order should not be confirmed unless it is also expedient to do so having regard to the effect that any order would have on land served by the existing bridleways and land over which the new rights of way are created. Members may also wish to satisfy themselves that both of these conditions can be fulfilled before making any decision to approve the diversions. Officers consider that the proposed diversions do not have an adverse effect on the enjoyment of any of the bridleways either taken individually or as a network. On the whole, the `new' sections of bridleway will be on tracks with a better surface than exists on the definitive line. The paths are through similar terrain and offering a similar experience to the user. There is no suggestion, from the wide consultation undertaken, that any landowners are claiming to be adversely affected by the proposals.
9.2 The extinguishment order
9.2.1 An order extinguishing Bridleway 24 should only be made if Members are satisfied that the way is not needed for public use and that it is expedient to make a stopping up order. Any temporary obstructions preventing use should be disregarded, and the availability of a suitable alternative route can have an effect on whether or not this bridleway is, in fact, needed.
9.2.2 Officers do not have statistics to prove the extent of use of this bridleway, but an inspection will show that it is not easily discernable on the ground and that it is overgrown with dense vegetation - an indicator of lack of use, rather than deliberate obstruction. Any demand for a bridleway between Brandy Bottom and Bridleway 18 can be met adequately by Bridleway 20, on its existing route or on the route proposed as part of the diversions - immediately to the front of the properties at Brandy Bottom, rather than at the foot of their rear gardens.
9.2.3 Once made, an extinguishment order can be confirmed only if it appears to the County Council (or the Secretary of State, if opposed) that it is expedient to do so, having regard to the extent that the existing path would otherwise be likely to be used by the public and having regard to the effect of the extinguishment on any land served by the path or way. In the case of Bridleway 24, there appears to be no land that requires Bridleway 24 as an access and that would be likely to be affected adversely by the extinguishment of the path.
10. Financial Implications
10.1 There will be some costs associated with the putting into good order and waymarking of the new bridleways and clearance of parts of the existing bridleways. This is less in financial terms and considerably less in ecological terms than opening up the legal routes of the bridleways where these are not apparent on the ground.
10.2 In certain circumstances, compensation is payable (s.28 and s. 121(2) Highways Act 1980) if the value of an interest in land is depreciated, or a person suffers damage as a result of his or her enjoyment of land being disturbed, by the coming into operation of a diversion or extinguishment order. The consultation has not revealed anyone who claims that their interest in land will be prejudiced by the extinguishment of the bridleways. Only owners of land onto which the new sections of bridleways are being located can claim loss as a result of the creation of new lengths of bridleway. Hampshire County Council and Yateley Town Council, the only owners of the land affected have, of course, consented to the proposed diversions. Thus, it is not anticipated that any compensation will be payable.
11. Conclusions
11.1 Officers are of the opinion that orders giving effect to the proposed diversion of Bridleways 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31 and 32 can properly be made, on the ground that such diversions are in the interests of the landowners and that it is expedient to make such an order or orders.
11.2 It is also considered expedient to make an order extinguishing Bridleway 24, on the ground that it is not needed for public use.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That an order, or orders, be made to divert Bridleways 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31 and 32 as shown on the attached plan, in the interests of the landowners.
2. That an order be made to extinguish Bridleway 24 on the ground that it is not needed for public use.
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: Yateley Common Bridleway Diversions
Mottisfont Court, High Street, Winchester