Meeting documents

The Regulatory Access Committee is asked to agree that:

5.1 Advice from the Council's Planning and Environmental Law Team has indicated that by virtue of Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 and Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, a local authority may arrange for the discharge of any of their functions...by any other local authority. There are restrictions on the exercise of this power but they are not relevant in this situation.

5.2 A formal agreement is required between the two authorities to enable such a transfer of functions.

5.3 With regards to the proposed diversion itself, BCC intends to make an order under section 119 Highways Act 1980. In essence, there are four identifiable tests set out in s119 that the proposal must meet if the order is to be confirmed. The tests are:

a. That it is expedient to divert the path in the interests either of the public or of the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path.

b. That the diversion order does not alter any point of termination of the path, other than to another point on the same path, or another highway connected with it, and which is substantially as convenient to the public.

c. That the path will not be substantially less convenient to the public as a consequence of the diversion.

d. That it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to the effect it will have on public enjoyment of the path as a whole, on other land served by the existing path and on land affected by any proposed new path, taking into account the provision for compensation.

5.4. Should BCC be authorised to make the proposed diversion order, it will be for it to satisfy itself that these tests can be met.

6.1 BCC approached Bath & North East Somerset Council in 2007 seeking agreement for the diversion of Public Footpath BA26/15, Parish of Whitchurch. This footpath continues as Public Footpath 226 within Bristol. To resolve long-standing problems on Path 226, BCC has negotiated an agreement with the landowner for the diversion of the path. The agreement necessitates the diversion of the path's continuation in B&NES, BA26/15.

6.2 The initial proposal sought to divert the whole path from B-C-H-E to B-C-D1 as shown on the plan at Appendix 1. However, this would have resulted in the termination of the path on East Dundry Lane being located in the middle of a double bend. Many of the public using the path are also likely to be heading for Public Footpath BA26/16 which starts some 60m south of point E and forms part of the Three Peaks Walk promoted route. The proposed diversion would also thus increase the length of road walking required. As the road is narrow, without pavements and with poor visibility, the B&NES PROW Team expressed concerns about the proposal and asked BCC to look at this section again. Consequently, BCC have reached an agreement with the landowner that the diversion of the path will follow B-C-D-E. The new path will have a recorded width of 1.8m

6.3 BCC has carried out an informal consultation including with the Publow & Whitchurch Ward Member, Whitchurch Parish Council, B&NES Ramblers Association, B&NES British Horse Society and B&NES Open Spaces Society representatives. No objections were received to the proposal.

6.4 The OSS representative made some comments about the type of structures he wished to see in field boundaries but these all relate to locations within Bristol. The only structure on the path within B&NES is an existing kissing gate at point E, which is unaffected by the order. Should the proposal be successful then the new route within B&NES will become publicly maintainable. However, it is not expected that this will impose any additional burden on the authority.

6.5 As indicated in 6.2 above the B&NES PROW Team has carried out a preliminary assessment of the proposal. They are of the view that the legal tests set out in 5.3 above are satisfied but note that this is ultimately a matter for BCC to consider before any order is made.

6.6 Should Committee grant the authority to BCC to make the order as requested the accompanying agreement will be required to indemnify B&NES from any costs or liabilities arsing from the process including those incurred in the determination of the order by the Secretary of State in the event of objections being lodged.

8 EQUALITIES

8.1 An equalities impact assessment for this report has not been carried out. The Corporate Equalities Group has agreed that the EIA process for Public Rights of Way functions will be completed during July 2008.

9 CONSULTATION

9.1 Informal consultation has taken place with the ward member, parish council and local stakeholder groups. No objections have been raised to the proposal.

10 ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN REACHING THE DECISION

10.1 Human Rights; Other Legal Considerations

11 ADVICE SOUGHT

11.1 The Council's Monitoring Officer (Council Solicitor) and Section 151 Officer (Strategic Director - Support Services) have had the opportunity to input to this report and have cleared it for publication.