Hampshire County Council ITEM

Regulatory Committee

13 February 2006

Application for a Public Path Extinguishment Order for

Footpath No.44 in the Parish of Ringwood

Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage

Contact: Andrew Jones: Ext 6891 E-mail: [email protected]

Orders for the Extinguishment of Footpaths and Bridleways may be made under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, on the grounds that:-

"the path or way is not needed for public use"

Members must be satisfied that it is expedient to extinguish the right of way, having regard to the extent (if any) to which it appears to them that the path or way would, apart from the order, be likely to be used by the public, and having regard to the effect which the extinguishment of the right of way would have as respects land served by the path or way.

1. Summary

1.1 Hampshire County Council has received an application to extinguish Footpath No.44 in the Parish of Ringwood, as shown on the attached plan.

1.2 It is proposed that the application for extinguishment of Ringwood Footpath No.44 be accepted under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, on the grounds that the footpath is no longer needed for public use.

2. Parties to the Application

2.1 The application has been made by Mr Graham Lavender of White Copse,
16 Honey Lane, Burley, Ringwood, Hants BH24 4EN, as secretary of the Ringwood & District Anglers' Association.

2.2 Ringwood & District Anglers' Association are the freehold owners of approximately half of the land crossed by this footpath.

2.3 The remainder of the path crosses land owned by Mr & Mrs D Adams of Glinhayes, Crow Lane, Ringwood, Hants BH24 3DZ.

2.4 Mr & Mrs Adams have given their consent to the extinguishment of this footpath.

3. The existing route

3.1 Ringwood Footpath No.44 starts on the eastern verge of Crow Lane at
GR 416150 104365 and proceeds in a generally south easterly direction for approximately 400 metres to a T-junction with Ringwood Footpath No.41a at GR 416460 104115.

3.2 The western section crosses livestock pasture and includes a number of stiles, whereas the eastern section follows a narrow strip of land between a fishing lake and a former railway embankment.

4. The reasons for the application

4.1 The applicants assert that Ringwood Footpath No.44 is no longer required for public use, as walkers now have the ability to use the newly created Ringwood Bridleway No.509 (the `Castleman Trail'), that was opened in April 2005 and which runs 10-20 metres to the south of (and parallel to) Footpath No.44.

4.2 Bridleway No.509 provides a wide, all-weather surface for walkers that is unimpeded by stiles or other barriers, and which connects with both Crow Lane and Ringwood Footpath No.41a.
It should be noted, however, that in addition to the cyclists and riders that are permitted by the bridleway status, walkers on Bridleway No.509 are also likely to encounter vehicles manoeuvring in the vicinity of the Anglers' car park, which is accessed from Crow Lane via the western section of this bridleway.

4.3 Ringwood & District Anglers' Association is keen to manage the southern edge of the fishing lake, and in particular to improve the security fencing along this section of the perimeter, but would find it difficult do so whilst Footpath No.44 occupies the current alignment.

4.4 Even prior to the opening of the Castleman Trail, many walkers preferred to use the embankment of the decommissioned railway, and the definitive alignment of Ringwood Footpath No.44 tended to become overgrown through lack of regular use.

5. Summary of Consultation

The proposal was sent out for formal consultation on 17^th October 2005 to the following representative groups:

5.1 Local Member - Cllr Nigel Clarke
Councillor Clarke has no objection to the proposal.

5.2 New Forest District Council
NFDC has no objection to the proposal.

5.3 Ringwood Town Council
Ringwood Town Council has expressed support for the proposal.

5.4 Rights of Way Area Officer - West
The proposal has the support of the Area Rights of Way Officer.

5.5 HCC - Highways Management
Highways Management has no objection to the proposal.

5.6 HCC - Environment Department
The Environment Department has no comment on the proposal.

5.7 Hampshire County Archivist
The Archivist did not find evidence of any higher rights shown on historic maps.

5.8 The Ramblers' Association
The Ramblers' Association opposes the proposal - "The Association feels that wherever possible it is desirable to segregate riders from walkers and in this case there are views across the lake which are not the same from BW 509".

5.9 The Open Spaces Society
The Open Spaces Society is "... totally opposed to the extinguishment of any length of this path". They have commented that in principle "River banks and lake-sides are a great attraction to walkers ... the choice should remain available for walkers to use the lakeside section of path if they wish, even if they are not inclined towards the remainder ...".

5.10 Land Access & Recreation Association (LARA)
LARA has no objection to the proposal.

5.11 British Horse Society
No response to consultation

5.12 National Farmers Union
The National Farmers Union supports this proposal - " ... another example of sensible rationalisation of duplications in the network".

5.13 Cyclists Touring Club
No response to consultation

6. Comments on Consultation Replies

6.1 Comments received from user groups as a result of the consultation exercise have in general been either neutral or favourable - only two objections have been received and these are from groups representing the walking community.

6.2 The Ramblers' Association argue that the opportunity to segregate pedestrians and riders should not be lost simply in the interests of expediency, although they are willing to leave the final decision to Council members.

6.3 The Open Spaces Society argue that the public should not be deprived of views from the eastern section of the footpath along the banks of the fishing lake, which may be better than those that can be obtained from the neighbouring bridleway. They also strongly believe that, where the opportunity exists, walkers should be segregated from other types of user.

6.4 The County contends that it is inefficient to maintain two public rights of way which effectively serve the same purpose and which have similar amenity values.

7. Criteria for Assessment of the Proposal

7.1 There is only one relevant criterion against which the proposal for extinguishment of a public right of way must be considered - is the path or way no longer needed for public use?

7.2 Members must be satisfied that it is expedient to extinguish the right of way, having regard to the extent (if any) to which it appears to them that the path or way would, apart from the order, be likely to be used by the public, and having regard to the effect that the extinguishment of the right of way would have as respects land served by the path or way.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The walkers' representatives have put forward their case for retention of Ringwood Footpath No.44. and there is undoubtedly some merit in their view that, where the opportunity exists, it is desirable to segregate walkers from other types of user and to preserve alternative views and routes in the countryside.

8.2 Members will, however, need to consider whether the continued existence and maintenance of this route is an appropriate use of public funds.

8.3 Notwithstanding arguments to the contrary, Officers are still of the opinion that the proposed diversion satisfies the criteria required by section 118 of the Highways Act and that it is expedient for the Council to make an order in that:

8.3.1 Ringwood Footpath No.44 is no longer needed for public use, as Ringwood Bridleway No.509 provides a parallel route, generally within 10-20 metres of Footpath No.44, that is superior in almost every respect.

8.3.2 The extinguishment of this footpath will not deprive the public of the means of access to points of interest along the length of the path.

9. Recommendation

It is recommended that an Order be made under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 for the extinguishment of Footpath No.44 in the Parish of Ringwood, on the grounds that it is no longer 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 which have 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: ATJ/EXT/Ringwood Footpath No.44
Rights of Way Office, Mottisfont Court, Winchester