THE ISSUE

1.1 In the interest of public safety, it is proposed to build a footbridge over the by brook at Bathford parallel to the A363 road bridge, and widen a section of substandard footway north west of this point. Land take is required for both schemes. However, the relevant landowner has not, to date, been prepared to sell land voluntarily and therefore compulsory acquisition of the land may be necessary by means of a compulsory purchase order (CPO). This report seeks authority to proceed with the required preparatory work to acquire the land, if necessary, compulsorily.

RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the Council Executive agree that it is minded to recommend the making of a compulsory purchase order to acquire the land outlined as Land Area 1 on the plan attached at Appendix 2 and authorises Officers to undertake all necessary preparatory work, subject to confirmation of funding from within the Traffic and Safety Capital budget or elsewhere, necessary to meet costs, and to report to the Council Executive as appropriate.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

3.1 At present, there is a single narrow footway across the existing A363 road bridge which is hazardous to cross and puts pedestrians, including school children with large rucksacks, and parents with pushchairs, into unacceptable proximity with heavy traffic. The narrowness of the footway is such that a double buggy or wheelchair could only traverse it with one set of wheels in the carriageway. Bath and North East Somerset as Highway Authority accepts that the current route is below standard and puts pedestrians at risk. The Council's Education Department has classified the route as `hazardous' for school children, and is consequently obliged to provide transport for school pupils travelling from Bathford to St Mark's School, even though the school is within the 3 miles walking distance normally required to justify entitled transport. It should also be noted that for many years, Bathford Parish Council have campaigned for a safer pedestrian route over the By Brook.

3.2 In recent years, a Pelican Crossing has been provided over the A4 Box Road between Batheaston and Bathford. In addition, the footway under a railway bridge between this Pelican and the A363 road bridge has been widened. This has left the footway over the road bridge and (to a lesser extent) the footway between the road and railway bridges as the only substandard link on the pedestrian route between the two villages (site details are outlined at Appendix 3). Due to its status as an ancient monument, widening of the road bridge to accommodate a widened footway is not possible, therefore a parallel footway was identified as the preferred option..

3.3 Limited funding was available to work up a detailed design for the scheme, and this identified a requirement for land on both sides of the brook, to allow construction of approach footways and the bridge abutments, and on the north side, the widening of the footway between the road and railway bridges

3.4 Negotiations to acquire the land by agreement were entered into with the relevant landowners, resulting in agreement to purchase the land to the north west of the bridge site, whereas the owner of the land to the south has indicated that the land will be donated freely.

3.5 Consultation was carried out with the Environment Agency with regard to the brook, and English Heritage with regard to the bridge. The design was then finalised, Planning Approval gained, and Capital funding earmarked for the work. It became apparent in late 2001, however, that the owner of the land to the north west of the bridge site had instructed his Solicitor to stop proceedings in relation to the land sale.

3.6 In December 2001, a meeting took place between the landowner and Bath & North East Somerset Officers representing the Traffic & Safety Team, and Development Control to discuss a way forward. It emerged that the landowner wanted to develop his site adjacent to the proposed footbridge/footway widening in a way that was not acceptable to the Planning Department but would include a widened footway and allow for construction of the footbridge. The landowner was not prepared to sell the land required for the improvement works without the required planning permission for his proposals first being received. It was explained to the landowner that `bargaining' in this way was not an option and that his proposal would need to be re-submitted in a more acceptable form to gain planning permission.

3.7 It was agreed that the landowner would re-submit his proposals by the end of January 2002, and that these would be assessed and a reply sent in a further 4 weeks. It was explained that, should this application not be successful, given the need to improve the pedestrian route and length of time previously spent on negotiations to attempt to purchase by agreement, the Council would consider applying for a Compulsory Purchase Order.

3.8 The landowner duly submitted a revised proposal, however planning permission was refused, and a decision taken to pursue the CPO option in the interests of public safety. The landowner subsequently asked for another meeting with Officers, where he stated he wanted to avoid the CPO procedure and was willing to consider the proposals previously drawn up, subject to possible modifications relating to the type of fencing being proposed along his boundary (for security reasons) and agreement on the value of the land to be purchased. To this end modified details (shown at Appendix 2) have been drawn up and passed to Planning for their comments, Property Services for valuation, and the landowner for an independent valuation.

Document2

This version was printed 20^th September 2002

Appendix 3 - Site Details

1.

Accident Data - no injury accidents in 5 years to 31/5/02

Traffic Flows:

2 Way 12 hour (7am-7pm) weekday average 8760 (730 vehs/hr)

All traffic (counted April/May 2002)

Pedestrian flows (both directions)

0800-0900 9 6

1500-1600 10 4