Agenda item

The Committee considered an application to divert sections of Public Footpaths (FP) BA5/35, BA5/46 and BA5/45 at Bath Racecourse in the Parish of Charlcombe.  The intention was to divert the footpaths away from the Racetrack and provide routes which do not cross the Racetrack surface.

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to grant authorisation.

A representative from Charlcombe Parish Council spoke in favour of the application and a local Farm Manager spoke against.

Cllr Veal, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He stated that if footpath 4(c) was created then this would have an adverse effect on walkers, dogs and livestock.  Sheep worrying was an issue in this area and chemicals were sometimes used on crops in the adjoining field which could be hazardous to walkers and their dogs. 

The Team Manager, Planning and Enforcement advised that it was not possible to amend the proposals which had been submitted as this was the scheme that had been consulted on.  The Committee could either agree the application in its entirety or reject it.

The Case Officer confirmed that there was already a right of way in the field and that if possible discussions could take place with the applicant and landowner regarding the provision of fencing in this area.  It was noted that the Cotswold Way already looped around the field.  It was also confirmed that to officers’ knowledge there had been no injuries caused to any members of the public walking across the racecourse. 

Cllr Kew acknowledged the concerns expressed but felt that the proposals were well thought through.  He then moved the officer recommendation to grant authorisation.  This was seconded by Cllr Organ.

Cllr Crossley felt that there was no problem with extinguishing the paths as set out in the report.  He pointed out that if footpath 4(c) were not created then this would meet the need of the adjoining landowner and the racecourse.  He asked whether officers could renegotiate with the racecourse to amend the plans accordingly.  This would then meet the needs of the farmer, the racecourse and walkers.

The Legal Advisor stated that any substantial changes to the scheme could cause an issue in terms of a lack of consultation because the public had been consulted about this particular scheme.

Cllr Kew agreed that if footpath 4(c) was not required then this would remove the concerns.

Cllr Veal agreed with the suggestion but noted that the Committee was required to consider the application before it.

The Case Officer explained that by removing footpath 4(c) the required tests may not be met. 

The motion was put to the vote and there were 3 votes in favour, 5 votes against and 1 abstention.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Cllr Veal then moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  Cllr Appleyard seconded the motion.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 2 abstentions to DEFER consideration of the application pending a site visit.