Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed all members to the meeting, introductions were then made, and safety information shared.

Apologies were received from Councillor Al-Maghrabi, Councillor Ellie King attended as substitute.

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.

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.

Members considered and noted the public forum statements received for this item. All statements had been published on the Council’s website.

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.

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 business. Members therefore resolved to hold an extraordinary meeting specifically to hear Stoke Lodge.

5)      If the application was approved any subsequent blocking or restriction of use of the footpaths would become illegal.

6)      Members decided there was no need to pursue evidence of signage as the rights to use the footpaths had been accrued by 1985.

Members felt that the evidence had met the highest test and that the rights of way had subsisted on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.