Proposed Diversion of Definitive Footpath No 24A Beighton
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
REPORT TO CITY CENTRE & EAST
PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS AREA BOARD
12 JULY 2004
CITY OF SHEFFIELD PUBLIC PATH No. 24a (BEIGHTON) DIVERSION ORDER 2003
1.0 PURPOSE
1.1 To seek authority to submit the City of Sheffield Public Path No.24a (Beighton) Diversion Order 2003 to the Secretary of State for Confirmation.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The City Council made an Order on 15th July 2003, under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, for the diversion of Definitive Footpath No. 24a (Beighton). The reason for the diversion was that it would benefit the landowner whilst being of no detriment the public.
2.2 Following publication of the Order, including the posting of relevant Notices and Maps at the ends of the footpath in question, the City Solicitor received over twenty objections. Many of the objectors suggested that an alternative footpath to the north of the site would be a more beneficial alternative to the existing route than the one shown on the current proposal. An investigation into the alternative was carried out by relevant officers. The alternative was considered to be unacceptable due to its impact on the proposed school site and the increased length of diversion. The reasons for the decision are attached as Annex A to this report. Many objectors also felt that the proposed new alignment of the footpath was substantially less convenient for the public.
3.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 Public Path Diversion Orders of this nature, to which representations or objections are made, need to be submitted to the Secretary of State for Confirmation. Consequently, if any authority promoting such an Order is subsequently satisfied that any representations or objections cannot be met and are unlikely to be withdrawn the Order should, if the authority decides to proceed, be submitted to the Secretary of State for Confirmation.
3.2 There is no requirement under the Act that any Order which is opposed (as in the present case) must be sent to the Secretary of State and in these circumstances, if an authority feels it can no longer support the diversion, a formal resolution by the authority concerned not to proceed is all that is required to bring the procedure to an end. The City Council has taken this action in the past.
4.0 HIGHWAY IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The highway implications of the proposed footpath diversion were fully outlined, and discussed, at the meeting of the Area Board on the 14th July 2003 and the proposal has not altered since that date. At the previous Area Board meeting, Members were clearly of the opinion that, should the land be developed as a school as is currently scheduled, the existing footpath would split the school facilities and that this is not a preferred situation on any school site. Hence, in line with Government guidance and in accordance with the Council’s own policy, it is recommended that the footpath should be diverted.
5.0 CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Extensive consultations have been carried out which led to the objections received. A meeting was subsequently held on 13th November 2003 at Crystal Peaks Library that was attended by Clive Betts MP, many of the objectors and Council officers.
6.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IMPLICATIONS
6.1 No equal opportunities implications arise from the proposals in this report.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 No environmental implications arise from the proposals in this report.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 In considering whether to proceed further with the proposed diversion it is necessary to balance the objections against the reasons for supporting the proposal. As the Area Board has previously approved the diversion and the situation has not altered from when the Order was made, it is proposed that the Order be submitted to the Secretary of State for Confirmation.
9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 Whilst there are financial implications arising from the proposals in this report, the actual effect on the existing Revenue Budget is considered to be negligible.
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 That the Board: -
I. In light of the objections to the City of Sheffield Public Path No. 24a (Beighton) Diversion Order 2003 and being satisfied that the objections cannot be met and are unlikely to be withdrawn, submits the Order to the Secretary of State for Confirmation.
John Bann
Assistant Head of Service – Transport & Highways
Development Services
28 June 2004
