Agenda item

Resolved:

That that the application which seeks to upgrade footpath WN 23/11 to a bridleway from the A303, Queen Camel to Sparkford Hill, Sparkford between F and F1 as shown on Appendix 1 be REFUSED. 

It was furtherAGREED that: 

                              i.an Order be made, the effect of which would be to amend the Definitive Map and Statement to upgrade footpaths WN 27/4 and WN 23/15 from G to F2 as shown on Appendix 1 to bridleways.  

                            ii.if there were no objections to such an order, or if all objections were withdrawn, it be confirmed (subject to the order meeting the legal tests for confirmation). 

                          iii.if objections were maintained to such an order, it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.  

(Voting: 5 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

The Rights of Way Officer introduced the report which was an application by the South Somerset Bridleway Association who claimed a bridleway was missing from points F to G on the map at Appendix 1 in the parishes of Sparkford and Queen Camel.  Her presentation covered: the details of the application; description of the route; relevant legislation; a summary of the evidence; consultation responses and other submissions.

The Rights of Way Officer concluded that on the balance of probability, route G to F1 to F2 should be recorded as a bridleway and route F to F1 was correctly recorded as a footpath.

The Committee were then addressed by a local resident who said the application was not based on reason and that the footpath status had been examined many times before with no objection made during the Highway Agency examination of the nearby by-pass.  They had not found it to be anything other than a footpath. She felt that common sense indicated a private common way serving the nearby kilns as there were many private routes taking stone from the quarry to the kiln.  She concluded that there was no evidence of a public right of way, bridleway or public thoroughfare and the application should be rejected.

At this point, the Chair apologised for not allowing the circulation of a late submitted letter by the local resident as the Council’s Constitution stated the circulation of documentation would only be permitted if submitted two working days prior to the meeting.

The Committee were then addressed by one of the Division Members.  His comments included:

·       The criteria which officers had worked to had been set by the Scrutiny Committee and it had failed to address the Halsburys Book of law and it had failed to look at the settlement and mortgage law which applied.

·       Settled land was clear that the owner was not the tenant for life, and in both the 1920 and the 1929 sales document, this was settled land.

·       Land could not be dedicated as a footpath while there was a mortgage in place.

·       At point G on the map, there had been a lime kiln and the area that was shown as quarry was on the tithe map as belonging to the Reverend Bennett. This meant it was church land.

·       Conveyancing law was poor and often resulted in claims to the solicitor.

·       Cannot understand why we cannot see all the routes from the lime kiln.

The Rights of Way Officer responded to the local resident’s comments regarding private access ways serving the nearby kilns and also the Division Member’s comments regarding land held in strict settlement and historical land sales documents. 

At the request of a Committee Member the Chair clarified the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Mike Caswell said the application had been presented to the Committee on 3 occasions and he had considered the information and therefore proposed that the officer’s recommendations be confirmed and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Wale.

In response to questions from Members, the Rights of Way Officer advised that one document submitted showed evidence of mortgages on land but it only covered a small period of time and on specific areas of land.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Officer’s recommendation, having being proposed and seconded was confirmed by 5 votes in favour, 0 against, and 2 abstentions.

Resolved:

That that the application which seeks to upgrade footpath WN 23/11 to a bridleway from the A303, Queen Camel to Sparkford Hill, Sparkford between F and F1 as shown on Appendix 1 be REFUSED. 

It was furtherAGREED that: 

      I.         an Order be made, the effect of which would be to amend the Definitive Map and Statement to upgrade footpaths WN 27/4 and WN 23/15 from G to F2 as shown on Appendix 1 to bridleways

   II.         if there were no objections to such an order, or if all objections were withdrawn, it be confirmed (subject to the order meeting the legal tests for confirmation).

   III.         if objections were maintained to such an order, it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Voting: 5 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)