DRAFT

6(iv)

BOROUGH OF POOLE

BROADSTONE, MERLEY AND BEARWOOD AREA COMMITTEE

7 FEBRUARY 2007

REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

LONGFLEET DRIVE PUBLIC FOOTPATH DIVERSION AND DEDICATION AS A BRIDLEWAY: WHITE’S LAND

1.Purpose of Report and Policy Content

1.1To consider a part diversion of Longfleet Drive and it’s dedication as a bridleway.

1.2Increasing public satisfaction with footpaths is a key transportation objective.

1.3Providing an off-road public bridleway relates to ‘Striving for Excellence’ priorities “clean, green and safe,” “supporting young people” and “health and well-being.”

1.4The route was shown as a cycle route in the Local Plan and if made into a bridleway could be used by cyclists.

2.Recommendations

2.1 It is recommended that:

i)the diversion order as described and shown in appendix A and B is made

ii)If there are any objections they are dealt with in line with item 7.

iii)A dedication agreement for the new route to become bridleway is drawn up.

  1. Information
  2. The Council has powers to make diversion orders and to enter into creation or dedication agreements with landowners.
  3. Following a modification order application to add Longfleet Drive to the Definitive Map of Rights of Way a public enquiry, held in 1992. The outcome was that Dorset County Council were directed to modify the Defintive Map and Statement to show a public footpath. This was never completed by Dorset County Council. At this time some evidence was submitted for the route to be a public bridleway
  4. A full application was then made for the route of Longfleet Drive to be a public bridleway. The Traffic Sub-Committee on the 22 September 1998 considered the report on the application to add the route as a bridleway and resolved that a bridleway from Magna Road, opposite South Lodge, along Longfleet Drive to the underpass at Canford Heath Road be added to the Definitive Map; and the original route of the footpath approved by the Secretary of State be diverted to coincide with the route of the proposed bridleway.
  5. Legal Tests
  6. The Councillors must only consider if the diversion proposal meets the relevant legal tests: -
  7. Is it expedient to do so in the interests of the owner, lessee and occupier of the land or in the interests of the public?

Yes the application meets the criteria of being in the landowner’s interest and in the public interest.

4.1.2Will the public will derive positive benefit from diversion?

There is public benefit of a enjoyable route and the landowner has agreed to dedicate the route as a public bridleway if the diversion is made.

4.1.3If more than one owner, is the diversion in each of the owners interest?

Yes White’s are the sole owner and it is in their interest.

4.1.4If it ends on a highway is the path diverted only to a point on the same, or a connected highway and which is substantially as convenient to the public?

- Yes both options end on the same or connected highway and are substantially as convenient to the public.

4.1.5Is it expedient having regard to the effect of the diversion on public enjoyment of the path or way as a whole e.g.: -

a)Views to be enjoyed

b)More enjoyable walk

c)New point of termination must only be marginally less convenient

Yes. The path diversion has enjoyable views, is a more enjoyable walk and is not less convenient.

5.Financial Consideration

5.1Works to make the bridleway ‘fit for use’ include drainage of a muddy hollow which is programmed in for December 2006 out of the £20,000 Capital Programme Rights of Way Improvement Budget at an estimated cost of £1,296.

5.2Further works are minimal to include a new signpost and waymarking.

5.3Councillors must base it’s decision on the legal tests of making the order and that evidence has already been considered and decided as sufficient to add the path as a bridleway not on any financial implications.

  1. Pre-Order Consultation

6.1Consultation with relevant statutory consultees and undertakers was undertaken prior to this report. Comments from the Ramblers Association on the path description were considered and the description modified. Comments are summarised in appendix C.

  1. Consideration of Objections

7.1If no objections are received, the order can be confirmed

7.2If objections are received which can be resolved by Officers then the order can be confirmed

7.3If objections are received and not withdrawn the matter will be referred to full Council under current delegations to decide whether to pursue the matter to written representations or public inquiry.

STEVE TITE

Acting Head of Transportation Services

Appendix A – Description of Diversion

Appendix B – Map showing route to be diverted

Officer Contact: Kathy Saunders (01202 262051)

APPENDIX A: Description of Diversion

From the route of Longfleet Drive south of the tip road at NGR SZ 02449 96373 the path heads in a North direction over the tip road and grass verge for 15m to a bridleway gate of 1m 50 width at NGR SZ 02446 96403. It then heads north east for 64m, being 1m50 wide, to 179m from the start of the path to meet a wooden compound at NGR SZ 02489 96485. The path then widens to 2.00m at NGR SZ 02496 96490 for 25m (204m from the start of the path) until coinciding with a fire break heading north north east at 2m30 wide for a distance of 204m to 607m from the start of the path. The path then narrows slightly as it enters woodland to 1m90 from 607 to 634 and then 1m80 from 634m to 667m. There is a bridleway gate of width 1m50 at 667m, NGR SZ 02660 96901. The path is about 1m60 wide from 667m to 700m through woodland. The path is then 2m wide from 700 to 746m in a north then north easterly direction through woodland. The path then narrows to 1m80 from 763 to 813 metres downhill. The path then enters a hollow, from 813 to 841m from the start of the path, at 2m wide and crosses the hollow at 2m wide. Then the path slopes up on gravel from the hollow at 1m80 wide from 841 to 870 metres from the start of the path, the path is then on grass at 2m wide from 870 to 979m from the start of the path. The path then widens in a north easterly direction to a track abutted on the western side by a chain link fence at 2m50 wide from 979 metres to 1078 metres since the start of the path. The path then meets the original route of FP125 at NGR SZ 03028 97121. The total length of the diversion is 1078m..

APPENDIX C: Comments Received

Organisation / Comment / Action/ Response
The Ramblers Association / It is pleasing to see that someone is getting to grips with this issueespecially,as mentioned in your letter the matter has been outstanding since the public inquiry back in 1992.
I do not think there are any problems, assuming assume that you are trying to deal with the two sections that require a diversion before dedicating the non controversial sections. / Revisited the description with GIS and aerial photography, and the plotted GPS points.
The plan and necessary grid references on the description have been amended.
Bournemouth & West Hampshire Water / I can confirm that as far as can be seen we have no apparatus or interests affected by the proposals. / None
British Telecom / BT apparatus should not be affected by the proposals. / None
W.H. White plc / W.H. White plc owners of land in this area through which the middle section path runs has no objections to the diversion route. / None
Open Spaces Society / After considering this matter we state that the Open Spaces Society has no fundamental objection to this proposal as outlined…However, if the diversion is to purely facilitate future residential or commercial development on the site which would take part upon the current route, at the expense of the proposed diversionary route, then we would be mindful to object most conclusively to the proposal. / None
Cyclists Touring Club / CTC totally supports the Ramblers Association’s response to the pre-order consultation. / None
The British Horse Society / We are pleased that our BHS BR claim made to DCC in 1993 and accepted by Poole in 1998 is at last to be put on the Definitive Map. / None

Appendix B: Map showing route to be diverted

1