Agenda and minutes

(a)    Application to divert part of Public Footpath ZF5, Faversham

(b)    Application to extinguish part of Public Footpath ZF5 and create by Order a new Public Footpath at Faversham

(1)       The Panel Members visited the site of the application prior to the meeting.  They walked the two proposed routes under discussion.  The visit was also attended by representatives from Faversham TC and some 20 local residents.

(2)       Two additional papers had been made available to the Panel and interested parties prior to the meeting. These were Appendix B to the report, which showed the route proposed by the Faversham Residents Association as well as a letter dated 18 July 2012 from the Faversham Residents Association objecting to the Faversham Town Council proposal.

(3)       The Chairman opened the meeting by explaining that the Panel’s only remit was to consider the two routes under discussion.  No other issues would be considered as the Panel wished to ensure that it made its decisions unencumbered by issues that were irrelevant to the matter in hand.

(4)       The PROW Officer introduced the report and its recommendations.  Two applications had been received in respect of Public footpath ZF5 at Faversham. The first of these (set out at Appendix A to the report) had been made by Faversham TC to divert the existing route along a similar route to that which currently existed but with detours to avoid the properties which it ran through.

(5)       The second application (set out at Appendix B) had been made by the Faversham Reach residents Association.  It was in effect a diversion which took the path along the front of Faversham Reach, avoiding the Marina along Faversham Creek.  For legal reasons, it needed to be treated as an Order under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 to extinguish part of Public Footpath ZF5 and a complementary Order under the same Act to create a new public footpath. 

(6)       The PROW Officer then set out the case for the proposed diversion.  She did so by considering the six criteria set out in the Highways Act 1980. The first of these was whether it was expedient to divert the path in the interests of the public.  In her view, it was expedient because the footpath was currently obstructed by a number of residential dwellings, landscaping and a concrete wall.  People using the path through Faversham Reach were forced to make a detour away from the creek.  She reminded the Panel that that the public already had the right to use the footpath through Faversham Reach and that the diversion would not create any new rights.  The lack of access between Crab Island and Faversham Reach meant that the public did not necessarily exercise its right to deviate from the line of the public footpath in order to avoid the houses, and therefore did not walk through Faversham Reach. Diverting the footpath would therefore would not only open up the route by avoiding the obstructions that currently discouraged people from following its route; it would also provide a continuous creek side route for the public (a goal of the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan). 

(7)       The PROW Officer said that the Town Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.