Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda and minutes
Modern.gov Content
Agenda and minutes
Venue: City Hall
Link: Watch Live Webcast
No. | Item |
---|---|
Welcome, Introductions and Safety Information Minutes: The Chair welcomed all members to the meeting, introductions were then made, and safety information shared. The Chair advised that the meeting was being webcast.
|
|
Apologies for Absence and Substitutions Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Al-Maghrabi as he had resigned from the PROWG Committee, Councillor Ellie King attended as the replacement member.
|
|
Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest from the Councillors. They are asked to indicate the relevant agenda item, the nature of the interest and in particular whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.
Any declarations of interest made at the meeting which is not on the register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.
Minutes: None declared.
|
|
Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Any member of the public or Councillor may participate in Public Forum. The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda. Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting: -
Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5 pm on 21 November 2024.
Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received two clear working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12:00 Noon 25 November 2024.
Members of the press and public who plan to attend a public meeting at City Hall are advised that you will be required to sign in when you arrive, and you will be issued with a visitor pass which you will need to display at all times.
Minutes: Members considered and noted the public forum statements received for this item. All statements had been published on the Council’s website.
|
|
Claimed Footpaths at Stoke Lodge Fields, Stoke Bishop Additional documents:
Minutes: Members considered a report of the Network Operations Group Manager, Growth & Regeneration, assisted by Robin Carr Associates Public Rights of Way Management & Consultancy Services, to determine an application for an order under S.53 (3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the Definitive Map and Statement by the addition of footpaths from Cheyne Road to Parry’s Lane (route 1), Shirehampton Road to West Dene (route 2), said route 1 to said route 2 (route 3) and a further route from said route 1 to said route 2 (route 4).
The claimed routes presumed to be dedicated were shown as A-B-C-D (route 1), E-F-G-C-H-J (route 2), B-G (route 3) and B-H (route 4) on the plan at appendix 1 to the report.
The Head of Legal Services representative explained that regarding evidence for the existence of a Public Rights of Way, there were two different tests that applied, either a public right of way subsisted on the balance of probability or, whether it could be reasonably alleged that a public right of way subsisted.
The Network Operations Manager provided a précis of the report to assist members with their deliberations and outlined what would not be considered valid grounds for objecting to a public right of way being agreed. This included matters such as matters such as desirability, suitability, need, property values, security, privacy, and even public safety. Whilst it was acknowledged that these were all genuine concerns, they were not matters that could lawfully be taken into consideration in the decision-making process.
Court judgments had established that the burden of proof was different for each test, namely:
1. For it to be concluded that a right of way subsisted it must be on the balance of probability.
2. For it to be concluded that a right of way could be reasonably alleged to have subsisted, it must be reasonable to allege this. This meant that it would be necessary to show that a reasonable person, having considered all the relevant evidence available, could reasonably allege that a right of way subsisted.
The following points arose from the debate: -
1) Having regard to the Inspector’s concluding remarks in the report about tests being met, it was confirmed that the tests had been met in the period 1965-1985. 2) If objections were made to the DMMO being approved, and these could not be resolved, the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State for decision. Similarly, if the application was refused the claimant could also appeal to the Secretary of State for decision. 3) No evidence had been found that attempts had been made to restrict or block the footpaths over the whole period claimed. It was noted that the land had been purchased on two separate parts. one in 1946 and the other in 1947. 4) The reason for the EGM was it was expected to take more time than would normally be allowed in a scheduled quarterly PROWG Committee which wouldn’t allow time for other ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |