Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this
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 email@example.com 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 September 2022.
Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day 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 on 26 September 2022.
TheCommittee notedthe questions andwritten responses, as set out below,which hadbeen submitted regarding the Stoke Lodge T&VG application.
Question 1 TVG Applications
From Helen Powell WLSL
‘The draft minutes of the PROWG meeting on 20 June 2022 include the following under the heading of Town or Village Green applications:
'The Committee agreed that, following an informal briefing of the Committee by officers, it would be helpful to visit the Stoke Lodge site, if possible, with other interested parties from the school and transport (growth and regeneration) Action: Jeremy Livitt to seek legal advice from Anne Nugent on the operation of the site visit.'
We Love Stoke Lodge and the TVG applicants would of course be concerned if the Committee were to undertake a visit accompanied by representatives of Cotham School and the Council (i.e. the Objectors to the applications) but without representatives from WLSL, including the TVG applicants and, if the public right of way applications are under discussion, the PROW applicant.
The Committee may of course decide to visit the site unaccompanied, but please could you confirm the Committee's views on this matter and that if the Committee undertakes a site visit accompanied by the Objectors, representatives of the relevant Applicants will also be invited?’
From: Alan Preece
‘Though the full comments are not reflected in the minutes, I recall that when Item 11 was discussed and Ann Nugent left the meeting, it was also agreed that the site visit to Stoke Lodge in consideration of the TVG, would also look at the claimed Public Rights of Way.
Q1. Is this correct?
Q2. As the applicant for the PROWs across Stoke Lodge, may I have some assurance that I would be invited as one of “other interested parties” in addition to the school, so that I could point out to the Committee the problems for the public introduced by the fencing?’
Answer to Questions 1 and 2
1.There are no plans for the PROWG Committee to carry out a formal site visit before the Inspector reports to the Committee.
2. As/when a site visit is undertaken, arrangements will be set out in advance. All parties would be able to attend but no representations would be permitted as this would not be a formal meeting of the committee.
Arising from the public forum discussion the following points were clarified:
1) Regarding the PROW issue in Q2(2) it was not standard practice to arrange a site visit for a PROW application. Noted that this was associated with the T&VG Application, although it was an entirely separate legal process. A site visit could be useful if new evidence was brought forward but this might require a fresh application. Legal advice would need to be sought.
2) The Council’s Solicitor advised that regarding the site visit for the TVG it was usual for all interested parties to attend, however the final decision of who should attend rested with the Inspector.
3) The current process was that the Inspector would submit a final report, a site visit by the Inspector could then take place, and then the PROWG Committee would make its decision.