Agenda and minutes

In relation to Item 2 - Application to divert Public Footpath SR161 at the Sevenoaks Preparatory School, Seal - Mr Cole declared an interest that he was Deputy Leader of Sevenoaks District Council but was able to approach the determination of the application with an open mind.

1.         The Members of the Panel visited the site of the proposed diversion prior to the meeting. This visit was also attended by Mr Andrew Hodgkin (Bursar, Sevenoaks Preparatory School), Ms Margarethe Batteson (Kent Ramblers), Mr Chris Haslam (Chairman of Seal Parish Council) and Ms Christine Owlett. The Panel Members and interested parties walked the route of the footpath as it currently was and the proposed diversion as shown at Appendix A to familiarise themselves with the route and facts relating to the application.

2.         Mr Chris Wade, Public Rights of Way Officer, introduced the report which set out the application the Council had received from Sevenoaks Preparatory School at Park Lane, Godden Green to divert Public Footpath SR161 at Seal.

3.         Mr Wade explained that the current route of the path ran across a tennis court on the land owned by Sevenoaks Preparatory School and an informal diversion had been provided by the school. He highlighted that this was an issue that the school and the Council would need to overcome even if the decision was not made to divert the path.

4.         Mr Wade explained, as set out in the report, that the first consultation had resulted in the proposal that the new route could be upgraded to bridleway status to provide greater benefit for a larger section of the public. However, the costs this would involve had led to this proposal being abandoned and a reversion to the original proposed diversion at footpath status.

5.         Mr Wade explained that the Council must be satisfied that it is expedient to divert a legally recorded public right of way on the grounds set out within the Highways Act 1980 and confirmed he was satisfied that it was expedient in the interests of the owner of the land to divert the path. Mr Wade set out the considerations that the Council must consider (paragraph 11 b. i-iv of the report) are satisfied before promoting a Public Path Change Order and confirmed that all the criteria in relation to these had been complied with.

6.         Mr Wade referred to paragraphs 13–25 of the report and said that consultations had been carried out as required. He summarised the comments that had been received and the outstanding objections.

7.         Mr Wade explained that two substantive issues had been raised (paragraph 19 of the report) which included that the path had been there long before a purchaser bought the land, and that the path was obstructed and was therefore not in compliance with paragraph 2(4) of the Council’s General Notes on requests for Diversion or Extinguishment of a Public Right of Way.  Mr Wade referred to paragraph 20 of the report and explained that the Council must balance the interests of the owner against those of the public and whilst the owner may have been aware of the existence of the footpath it did not preclude an Order being made by the Council. Mr Wade referred to the Council’s General Notes to accompany a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

There were no urgent items.

That under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

EXEMPT ITEMS

(During these items the meeting is likely NOT to be open to the press and public)

Members resolved under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded for the following business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

1.      The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer introduced the report and explained that the Council had received two applications to amend the Register of Common Land in respect of rights of common at Higham Common. The first application sought to amend the Register to reflect a transfer of ownership of rights of common and the second application had been made under section 12 of the Commons Act 2006 in respect of the sale of those rights of common. The need for two separate applications (under different parts of the legislation) had arisen because the current registered owners of the rights of common were deceased and it was therefore necessary to update the Register (to record the beneficiaries of their estates), before those rights could formally be transferred to the purchaser.

2.      The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer explained that Schedule 3 of the Commons Act 2006 enabled applications to be made to reflect ‘historic events’ that had taken place prior to 1st October 2008 and Section 12 of the Commons Act 2006 enabled the transfer of ownership of any rights of common (after 1st October 2008) to be recorded in the Register of Common Land. Notices of the applications were published on the Council’s website and served on all owners of the rights of common listed in the Register for Higham Common and no objections were received.

3.      In determining an application under Schedule 3, the County Council must be satisfied either that the application has been made by the registered owner or that the person making the application has the capacity to apply. In this case, the applicant had provided evidence of the capacity to apply.

4.      The Council must also consider a fairness test set out in Regulation 42(5) of the 2014 Regulations, which states that: ‘the determining authority may not determine that a register entry should be amended if it considers that, by reason of reliance reasonably placed on the register by a person since 1st October 2011, it would be unfair to do so’. In this case, since this application related simply to an administrative update to the legal record, it was not considered that there were any issues relating to fairness.

5.      In respect of applications under section 12 of the Commons Act 2006, the Council must be satisfied that the person making the application had the capacity to apply. The applicant in this case was the transferee and, as such, the applicant was able to make the application to amend the register under the Commons Act 2006.

6.      The Council must also be satisfied that the current owners of the rights of common consent to the application. In this case, current owners had all confirmed their agreement to the transfer and all signed the formal Deed of Transfer.

7.      Following a question from Mr Cole The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer explained that the ownership of land was separate to the right to graze animals  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.