[Electoral Division: Castle]
To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure
A report was considered from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure regarding the Highways Act 1980 Section 119 Proposed Diversion of Footpath No 109097, City of Carlisle. The report advised that an application had been received to divert a section of public footpath no 109097 in the City of Carlisle. This could be done under Sections 119 of the Highways Act 1980. Consultations had taken place so as to assist members to reach a decision as to whether or not a diversion order should be made.
The Countryside Access Officer reported that the diversion was in the interest of the landowner. The Committee was shown slides of the area covered by the Order Plan and of the diversion route. The Countryside Access Officer explained how the current route was impractical, showed the current and proposed routes using a photograph of the area and guided members through the proposed diversion using a series of photographs, highlighting the areas where there would be dropped kerbs. He explained how the works would be paid for and that no objections had been received. He considered that the route would not be less convenient to use than the current path and urged members to accept his recommendation, as set out in the report.
In expressing his support for the diversion, a member referred to an application determined at a previous meeting where a footpath had also been encroached upon. He asked whether a condition had been attached to the planning permission when the flood walls were built to resolve the issue of the blocked footpath and realign it. He considered that it should be standard practice for conditions to be attached to planning permission should a development block a footpath. He referred to the building of flood defences in Kendal and anticipated that similar applications may come before the Committee for the same reason.
The Countryside Access Officer explained that frequently, planning permission was granted for developments and did not take into consideration the realignment of footpaths. In this case it was positive that the applicant would be paying for the diversion. He reported that officers worked with District Councils to avoid this situation however, he agreed that the Committee would continue to see this type of application.
Mr McGuckin, the Local Member considered that it was lucky that the diversion was only a short distance from the original line. He advised that no-one used the current route. He highlighted the disjointed way of working with Carlisle City Council on this matter. He moved that the Order be made. Mr McEwan seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was taken. Members confirmed if they were present and connected for the whole of the Agenda item Following a vote cast as follows, in Favour: 17, Against: 0, Abstain: 0, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to the power set out at Part 2G paragraph 2.1(g)(iii) of the Council’s Constitution, an order be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert a section of public footpath no 109097 in the City of Carlisle as shown A-B to a new route A-C-D-E-F-G as shown on the plan at Appendix A and that all necessary action be taken to confirm the order.