To receive a report by Stuart Crook, Highways Asset & Policy Manager.

Stuart Crook, Highways Asset Management and Policy Manager, introduced a report setting out a number of legal orders relating to proposed changes to public rights of way and one definitive map modification order for the Forum to note.

Item 1: Proposed diversion of public footpath D79 at Whissendine Lodge under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980.

A full application had now been received to divert the footpath away from the house and farm. This would represent a significant diversion with width increased to 2.5 metres and a reduction in the number of stiles/gates. The Highways Asset Management and Policy Manager advised that this application in principle was fine but did express general concerns when moving cross field paths to field edges due to the extra maintenance that could come from this with regards to hedge and grass cutting. The footpath would be fenced in which meant it would need to be mown as required as land would no longer be grazed as previously done so. Also, Rutland County Council (RCC) would need to take on the maintenance of a new structure either a culvert or a bridge and that this would need to be taken in to account, and the cost covered if the diversion was approved.

The Highways Asset Management and Policy Manager advised he would be re-visiting the site to access the ground in the winter to check if it got waterlogged and whether the landowner would need to sort the drainage. Forum members were concerned about the extra maintenance regarding the path the proposal would cause RCC. Both the Chair and William Cross felt there was an alternative route that should be looked at.

RESOLVED

That the legal order be NOTED and that William Cross would submit his proposal to Highways Asset Management and Policy Manager for consideration.

Item 2: Proposed diversion of footpath D85.

The Highways Asset Management and Policy Manager informed the Committee that the order was a long-standing application. The original order made in response to the Landowners first application to divert was abandoned because works required to give effect [to the diversion] were not completed and fees were not paid. Years later development of Brocklehurst Park resumed and they had assumed the diversion had gone ahead and obstructed the line of the footpath with landscaping features.RCC raised the issue with the landowner a new diversion order was made, but not confirmed as once again the landowner had failed to undertake the required works (conditions).

RCC could serve notice and have anything obstructing the definitive line removed. Consensus of the Forum was the landowners need to be given final warning.

RESOLVED

The legal order be NOTED and Stuart Crook to take Forum members views forward to Legal Services.

Item 3: Bridleway E135 diversion.

A temporary diversion for a bridleway that the landowner now wishes to make permanent. The bridleway runs through the middle of the quarry with ramps to either side. The ramps need a technical assessment every 2 years and while the quarry is active they’re maintained by the landowner. Once the quarry is finished the council would then have to maintain. The quarry agreed to do an assessment and undertake any remedial work before they ceased operations at the site. There were several issues to consider, the bridleway was close to Pickworth Wood (SSSi) and there are drainage issues affecting sections of the proposed diversion. The members of the forum expressed frustration regarding Planners signing off the Quarry extension before the diversion had been finalised.

RESOLVED

The legal order be NOTED and William Cross would contact Justin Johnson, Service Manager for Development regarding this application and discussion at the next Planning meeting.

Item 4: Proposed Bridleway diversions of E252 at Preston.

The Highways Asset Management and Policy Manager were satisfied with the diversions as they benefited all and the landowners were in agreement.

RESOLVED

The legal order be NOTED.

Item 5: Seaton Mill diversion of footpath E320 under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980.

This application would be in the landowner’s interest only. Due to privacy issues, they would like to move the path away from their driveway. At this point the landowner needed to justify where the public would benefit from this move.

RESOLVED

The legal order be NOTED.

Item 6: Application made to record a bridleway in the definitive map and statement for Rutland at Ranksborough, Langham.

This was a map modification requested by the British Horse Society to record a bridleway on the Definitive Map at Langham, partly over the route of footpath D85. RCC were directed to make the order by the Planning inspectorate (PINS), but then had to refer the order back (t PINS) for consideration due to a significant number of objections. The order has been returned to RCC by PINS twice for technical errors.  This has delayed determination for 3 years which is holding back an application to develop some of the affected land.

RESOLVED

The legal order be NOTED.