Hampshire County Council ITEM 12

Regulatory Committee

17 October 2007

Application for a Public Path Diversion Order for part of

Footpath No. 32 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 Diversion of Footpaths and Bridleways may be made under Section 119
of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,
in the following circumstances:-

"Where it appears to a council as respects a footpath or bridleway in their area
(other than one that is a trunk road or a special road) that,

in the interests of the owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by the path or way

or

of the public,

it is expedient that the line of the path or way, or part of that line, should be diverted (whether on to land of the same or of another owner, lessee or occupier), the council may, subject to subsection (2) below, by order made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State, or confirmed as an unopposed order,:

(a) create, as from such date as may be specified in the order, any such new footpath or bridleway as appears to the council requisite for effecting the diversion; and

(b) extinguish, as from such date as may be so specified in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) below, the public right of way over so much of the path or way as appears to the council requisite as aforesaid.

An order under this section is referred to in this Act as a 'public path diversion order'."

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

1. Summary

1.1 Hampshire County Council has received an application to divert part of Footpath No.32 in the Parish of Ringwood, as shown on the attached large scale plan.

1.2 It is proposed that the application for diversion of part of Ringwood Footpath No.32 be approved under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, on the grounds that the diversion is in the interests of the public.

2. Parties to the Application

2.1 The application has been made by Mr M Everington, of Spring Cottage, Hightown Hill, Ringwood, Hampshire BH24 3HG.

2.2 Mr Everington is the freehold owner of all the land covered by that section of the definitive alignment of Ringwood Footpath No.32 covered by this proposal.

2.3 Mr D Hawkes is the freehold owner of the land over which the diverted route will pass (Breach Lane - a private track) and has given his written permission for the diversion to take place.

3. The existing routes and proposed diversions

3.1 Current Alignment

3.1.1 The section of Ringwood Footpath No.32 affected by this proposal commences at Point A (GR 417420 105472), at a metal kissing gate on the western verge of Breach Lane, a private track, and continues south west and then south along the driveway of Spring Cottage to a stile on the southern property boundary, immediately east of the drive, at Point B (417408 105314).

3.1.2 The length of the current route of Ringwood Footpath No.32 between Points A and B is approximately 162 metres.

3.2 Proposed Alignment

3.2.1 The proposed route of this section of Ringwood Footpath No.32 will commence at
Point A (GR 417420 105472) and continues in a generally southerly direction along the gravelled surface of Breach Lane to reach Point B (GR 417408 105314).

3.2.2 The length of the proposed route along Breach Lane between Points A and B will be approximately 165 metres.

3.2.3 The proposed footpath will have a width of 2.0 metres throughout its length.

4. Background to the application

4.1 The new owner of Spring Cottage, Mr Everington, is keen to improve the security and privacy of the residential buildings on the property, which are very close to the current definitive alignment of Ringwood Footpath No.32, and the owner of Breach Lane, Mr Hawkes, has agreed to accommodate the public right of way within the alignment of the existing private lane.

5. The benefits to the public

It is felt that the proposed changes to the alignment of Ringwood Footpath No.32 will benefit the public in the following respects:

5.1 The existing route is restricted by a kissing gate and a stile on the property boundaries. There will be no such requirement for barriers on the new alignment, which is also wider and follows a more easily recognised route.

5.2 It is likely that some walkers on the current alignment will feel that they are invading the privacy of a private residence, whereas no such concerns will be generated by the new route which follows the eastern boundary of the property.

6. Summary of Consultation

The proposal was sent out for formal consultation on 30^th July 2007 to the following representative groups, with the request that any comments should be submitted to the County Council within a period of six weeks:

6.1 Local Member - Councillor Nigel Clarke
Councillor Clarke has commented that the proposed changes appear to be both
"sensible and beneficial".

6.2 New Forest District Council
Hart District Council has confirmed that they support the proposal.

6.3 Ringwood Town Council
Ringwood Town Council has confirmed that they believe the proposal to be "in the public's best interest" and fully support the proposal.

6.4 Rights of Way Area Officer
The Rights of Way Area Officer for West Hampshire is in favour of this proposal.

6.5 HCC - Highways Management
Highways Management has not commented on this proposal.

6.6 HCC - Environment Department
Environment Department has not commented on this proposal.

6.7 Hampshire County Archivist
Tithe maps of 1845 were consulted, and although there is evidence that Breach Lane existed on the ground at that time "it is not coloured in orange as other main roads were" and the apportionment shows it in the ownership of a John Morant Esq. The conclusion is that this route is not, and never has been, a public road.

6.8 The Ramblers' Association
The Ramblers' Association has confirmed that they have no objection to this proposal.

6.9 The Open Spaces Society
The Open Spaces Society has confirmed that they have no objection to this proposal.

6.10 Land Access & Recreation Association (LARA)
LARA has confirmed that they have no objection to this proposal.

6.11 National Farmers Union
The National Farmers Union has not commented on this proposal.

6.12 Cyclists Touring Club
The Cyclists Touring Club has not commented on this proposal.

7. Comments on Consultation Replies

7.1 Of the responses received from the consultation exercise, all are either in favour of the proposal, or have no objection to it.

8. Criteria for Assessment of the Proposal

8.1 The Council, as a Highway Authority, has the power to make a Public Path Diversion Order, if it is considered expedient to do so in a particular case.

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

8.3 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:

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

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

8.3.3 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.

9. Conclusion

Officers are of the opinion that the proposed diversion satisfies the criteria required by section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 and that it is expedient for the Council to make an order in that:

9.1 The proposal for diversion of Ringwood Footpath No.32 is in the interests of the public, as it will provide a clear, well marked route for walkers without any structures or impediments to those with limited mobility.

9.2 The proposed diversion will not be substantially less convenient than the existing route, as the diverted section (165 metres) is not significantly longer than the equivalent section of the current route A-B (162 metres).

9.3 The proposed diversion will not affect the enjoyment of the path as a whole,
and may well increase the public's enjoyment of the route, as it will remove a perceived sense of invasion of privacy by skirting the boundaries of Spring Cottage.

9.4 The Rights of Way Area Officer for West Hampshire has inspected the route and is satisfied that no further works are required to bring the new route up to a standard suitable for use as a public footpath.

9.5 It is unlikely that there will be any increase in the cost of maintaining the route as a footpath at public expense. The responsibility for maintenance as a vehicle track will remain with the landowner.

10. Recommendation

It is recommended that an Order be made for the diversion of section A-B of Footpath No.32 in the Parish of Ringwood from the current definitive alignment to a new route running from Point A on the attached plan, on the eastern boundary of Spring Cottage, via Breach Lane to rejoin the existing alignment at Point B.

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/DIV/ Ringwood Footpath No.32
Rights of Way Office, Mottisfont Court, Winchester