DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE

Minutes of a Meeting of the Development Control and Regulation Committee held on Wednesday, 4 January 2017 at 10.00 am at Council Chamber - County Offices, Kendal, LA9 4RQ

PRESENT:

Mr A Clark (Chairman)

Mr LN Fisher (Vice-Chair)Mr RK BinghamMrs HF CarrickMr F CassidyMr N CottonMr D FletcherMrs BC GrayMr KR Hamilton

Mr AJ MarkleyMr W McEwanMr FI MorganMr M StephensonMr E WilsonMr H WormstrupMr K HitchenMr A McGuckin

Also in Attendance:-

Svetlana Bainbridge - Commons Registration OfficerPhilippa Christie - SolicitorPhilip Greenup - Senior Manager - Regulatory ServicesDavid Hughes - Senior Monitoring and Enforcement OfficerEdward Page - Planning OfficerStuart Perigo - Interim Manager of Development Control and

Countryside ManagementJayne Petersen - Senior Planning OfficerAndy SimsMr G Lawrence QCMr B HolmesMrs HorneMr P JenkinsonMr C Partington Mrs J Partington Mr J WilsonMrs N CockburnMrs S Hannah

- PROW Mapping Officer- Public Participation for Agenda Item 6 – Hayton Woods- Public Participation for Agenda Item 6 – Hayton Woods- Public Participation for Agenda Item 6 – Hayton Woods- Public Participation for Agenda Item 6 – Hayton Woods- Public Participation for Agenda Item 6 – Hayton Woods- Public Participation for Agenda Item 6 – Hayton Woods- Public Participation for Agenda Item 7 – Soddy Gap- Public Participation for Agenda Item 7 – Soddy Gap- Public Participation for Agenda Item 7 – Soddy Gap

PART 1 – ITEMS CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS

215 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2

Apologies for absence were received from Mr A Toole

216 CHANGES IN MEMBERSHIP

There were no changes in membership on this occasion.

217 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Mr Wormstrup declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 6 as he was an ex colleague of Mr C Partington, a member of the public, speaking under the Public Participation Scheme for Agenda Item 6 – Hayton Woods.

Mr R Bingham declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 11a Application no 1/16/9007 as he owned a property in the vicinity of the proposed development, but it did not overlook it. He would leave the room during consideration of this item

Mr Clark declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 Section 53 Application to add a public bridleway at Soddy Gap in the parishes of Broughton and Broughton Moor: District of Allerdale as he had discussed the issue with the Parish Council. He would leave the room during consideration of this item.

218 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED, that the press and public be not excluded during consideration of any items of business.

219 MINUTES

Subject to the following amendments:

Minute 209 (e), Resolution 1 be amended from 5/16/9003 to read 5/16/9002

Minute 211, last paragraph be amended from 1/16/907 to read 1/16/9007

RESOLVED, that the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

220 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 - SECTION 53 APPLICATION TO ADD A NETWORK OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AT HAYTON WOODS - PARISH OF HAYTON: DISTRICT OF CARLISLE

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways regarding an application to add a network of Public Rights of Way at Hayton Woods – Parish of Hayton: District of Carlisle.

The Countryside Access Officer guided members through the report, providing maps and visual representations of the site and outlining the use of the footpath network in his presentation to the Committee and reporting that in the event the recommendation was supported, the landowner had requested the County Council

3

to delay making an order for 14 days to allow a legal challenge to be made and this was considered to be acceptable.

The following members of the public had attended the meeting in order to offer their views on the modification to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement. Each person had five minutes to present their views to the Committee and advised of the following:

George Laurence QC on behalf of the Landowner, Roxleena Ltd. Objector to the making of the Definitive Map Modification Order

He had attended on behalf of the owner of most of the land affected by the proposed Modification Order and supported the objections made by Roxleena to any claims to be made.

If members were minded to accept the recommendation as set out in the report, there remained the issue of whether the bridleway should be added.

It was advisable, and in the interests of all, that the footpaths not be added to the Definitive Map for the reasons outlined in the County Council’s report and for reasons 2-6 submitted before the meeting by Mr George Lawrence QC.

Members were invited to note the two additional reasons outlined in the landowner’s submission why the County Council were correct not to add the footpaths to the Definitive Map.

Looking at the west of the map at Carlisle, to the west to Greystones, to the East to 4 then 17, then 20 to point 25 and then to point D, originally the County Council proposal was to have a route to point D to point 24 to 23, around westerly to point G. The revised proposal based on Dr Mathers’ evidence was to continue to add in the bridleway from D to 24 to 23 but to eliminate the section 24 to G.

The claim was to add a new bridleway at Greystones to the quarry in Gelt Woods but page 283 of the Agenda showed a map which members would find difficult to identify Greystones, as it was not on the plan. Members would require a map to show further to the west where they would see that Greystones was the beginning of the claimed path.

He advised that he had argued for more time as more evidence was available.

Members were invited to ask questions but none were asked.

Andrew Hunter Boyd Holmes, Objector to the making of the Definitive Map Modification Order

He had submitted further material to officers the day prior to the meeting which members could view.

4

He was speaking on the latest documentary evidence; he had previously addressed the first Mather report; it had been dismissed out of hand and it was now accepted by officers that it was not a Public Right of Way but was a Private Right of Way

Regarding the second Mather report, Donald’s 1774 map wasn’t correct as it showed the wrong route. The path was 416 yards west of Greystone.

Greenwood’s map 1883 identified a turnpike, quarry road, there was no status of the road indicated

Bell’s map of 1892 was incorrect. It was impossible to have a through route.

Bell’s duty was to depict Country roads

Ordnance Survey maps from 1964, 1901 and 1975 were more up to date and showed how Bell’s map was incorrect as a footpath would have had to cross a gorge

Using map evidence, the Greystone route was shown on the first Ordnance Survey map and was described as an occupation road which was private. In 1864 the road was shown as private

The Parish claim was difficult to understand as it was unclear what was being claimed as the map was unsatisfactory.

Some of the footpaths may have been borrowed to extend the bridleway to the current position.

It had been included in the March 2016 report to Committee that user evidence was available but it had not all been included; members had been provided with information from supporters of the application only.

At this point member questions were invited.

Councillor Fisher stated that he had not seen the Ordnance Survey maps referred to by Mr Holmes. Mr Holmes offered to direct officers to the maps. The Interim Manager of Development Control and Countryside Management displayed the 1864 Ordnance Survey Map (1st edition scale 1:2500) to the Committee and shared the book of reference and most recent Ordnance Survey (OS) map.

Mr Holmes talked the Committee through the OS 2nd edition map and Townhead Woods were identified for members. He advised that the quarry road could be observed which was numbered 408. Members then viewed the 1864 OS map with enclosure 419 identified as Watch Hill and Priests Wood. Mr Holmes advised members that if they travelled west to road 284, in the book of Reference, this was described as an occupation road (quarry road) which was a private road.

5

A member requested to view the map showing the gorge. A screenshot of Hayton Woods town was shown and Mr Holmes indicated that underneath Watch Hill there was the quarry road. Travelling due north across the river Gelt and turning right there was the ‘Black Path’. Mr Bell in 1892 had suggested that the quarry road met with the Black Path but that would have been impossible as there was no access.

The Chair put to Mr Holmes that it would have been helpful to allow the County Council access to survey the land as its officers were neutral in the process and it complicated the matter. However Mr Holmes felt that as a resident, it was not his place to have allowed such access as he was not accountable for the landowner.

It was questioned by the Chair whether the Mr Holmes was happy with quoting Foot and Mouth Disease restrictions that had been in place in Cumbria as it had been a tragedy for the county. Mr Holmes agreed that it had been a raw point as Hayton had been a ‘hot spot’ and people had been refused access to the woods for months. He stated that he walked his dog regularly on the footpaths on a route used during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak and the idea that the woods were not closed during that time was risible.

A member acknowledged that Mr Holmes was not speaking on behalf of the landowner but that it had been useful for the Committee to be guided through the documents. It was stated by another member that all footpaths had been closed in Cumbria during the Foot and Mouth outbreak and it was acknowledged by members that this had been adequately evidenced in the report before the Committee. A member referenced the 1893 Bell evidence where it was claimed there was no footpath but noted that scores of people had claimed to use the footpath which would not absolve the idea that it was not actually used as a footpath.

Helen Horne Supporter to the making of the Definitive Map Modification Order

She was the wife of the late Roger Horne, who submitted the original Application to Cumbria County Council in January 2011.

Six years ago, local people, had joined together in an attempt to save something that they all felt passionate about, and still did. Many different tactics and strategies had been used by the wealthy owners of the woodland to intimidate and obstruct the democratic right of the people to be heard.

Roger Horne had submitted the first application, despite the atmosphere of intimidation that was gathering momentum.

Prior to Mr Horne’s formal submission in 2011 there were a number of Parish Council Meetings where the rights of way in the woods had been on the agenda. The issue was discussed at many public meetings at the time.

6

At a Parish Council Meeting on Wednesday 17th November 2010, the Solicitor representing the owner of the woods attended and issued a fairly intimidating statement. Those present were informed that ‘In making an application to the County Council, alleging the creation of new footpaths an individual must sign an official form confirming that he or she has trespassed on the land’. The Solicitor stated that the landowner ‘would prosecute, in the High Court in London, all trespassers who identify themselves and will sue such trespassers in damages to the fullest extent of the law.’ People were scared and a direct result of the meeting was that those who were previously prepared to sign the first application withdrew in fear of prosecution.

Members of the Parish Council appeared to also be intimidated as they declined to release a copy of the statement to accompany the minutes of that public meeting.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, a request was made by the Cumbria Law Centre in Carlisle on 1st September 2011 for a copy of the Solicitor’s speech, following which a copy was finally issued to all present, some 10 months later.

Mr Horne had then volunteered to submit the first application, refusing to stand by and allow blatant bullying and intimidation to stop a lawful Application to proceed.

After his death, a second Application was submitted in 2013; the first Application was withdrawn as it apparently ‘did not conform to the statutory requirements’.

In March 2015 this second Application was withdrawn; it is impossible for any individual to contemplate the financial implications of taking on Goliath.

Council Officers were unable to establish the exact routes of the claimed rights of way as they have continually been refused permission to access the land.

Members were invited to ask questions.

A member asked that since a number of people had claimed to have walked on the footpaths, had anyone been taken to the high court to be prosecuted. Mrs Horne confirmed this had not happened leading the member to state that the threat to prosecute had not been carried out.

Peter Jenkinson, Supporter to the making of the Definitive Map Modification Order

Mr Jenkinson had made a written submission supporting the Application in February 2011. He was willing if necessary to testify under oath as to its veracity, and to give formal evidence to any inquiry which could follow.

7

Mr Jenkinson and his wife had moved to Annan in 1979 from West Cumbria.

They were avid walkers, and had regularly walked in the area of Watch Hill, Priest’s Wood, Long Wood and Tow Top Woods since before 1990; and in particular the area between the legally recorded footpath 117003 and the river Gelt.

Footpaths and tracks were used which were visible on the ground, many of them on the Ordnance Survey map.

They used most of the “Claimed Paths” linking points 18 to 34 and B, D, E and G on the map at Appendix A of the report.

Of the many times they walked in the area, they were never accosted by anyone saying they should not be using a footpath or track, no access gates had been locked and there were no signs visible indicating the area to be private land.

Mr Jenkinson had never encountered Mr Burrows who was noted in the

Landowner’s evidence as guarding the land to prevent trespass

He questioned why, if the land was considered to be private, the gates were left open, unlocked or unchained and why the signpost near point 14 was tolerated with no prohibitive notices erected until September 2010.

The landowner, from pre-1990 until 2010 did not intend to ban the public from the footpaths and had accepted that the public were using the paths. They were therefore de facto rights of way.

Mr Jenkinson strongly supported the Application but raised concerns about the following points:

a) The issue was taking too long to resolve…six years so far. He considered it to be a very straightforward issue between some people claiming rights of way and the landowner opposing them and he thought that there were procedures in place to ensure a timely and fair conclusion, without allowing a landowner to put up a barrage of what had later turned out to be irrelevant solicitors’ letters with the object of delaying a resolution of the issue.

b) As a Layman, he was appalled by the suggestion that a landowner may on the one hand demand a statement of the technical details of disputed paths but on the other deny the authorities the opportunity to make measurements and assessments.

On the basis of the Application not being approved in full, Mr Jenkinson called upon the Council to seek a warrant or judicial order to compel the landowner to allow access for suitable surveys to be made. If this was done and it became technically necessary that a completely new Application be

8

made to seek inclusion of the paths on the definitive map he stated that he would personally be willing and anxious to do that.

Members were invited to ask to ask questions.

A member questioned whether in law there was any power for a landowner to be compelled to accept surveyors onto their land. The Chair advised that this was a point of clarification to be resolved later in the meeting.

Joan Partington, Supporter to the making of the Definitive Map Modification Order

Mrs Partington had resided in Hayton Townhead since 1982, and from that time had walked freely on the numerous paths in Hayton Woods, until the change of ownership in 2010.

Four generations of her family had walked on the paths in the woods and she had used all the paths shown on the map.

The March 2016 report to the Committee had claimed that Mr Fred Burrows used to control access to the land and would never allow trespass; however, she had never been prevented from walking in the woods by Mr Burrows or anyone else.

There were no signs anywhere saying “Private Land” or “Keep Out” and none of the gates were padlocked. It was generally assumed that the then landowner was agreeable to people using the paths.

In 2010 it changed when the land came under new ownership; gates were erected and padlocked with “Keep Out” signs, and barbed wire fences put up denying access to the paths.

There were major structural changes in the woodland with big machinery and noise and the felling of trees. Six pheasant enclosures and four large duck ponds were created. The woods were disturbed and forever changed. There was extensive damage to the SSSI by the River Gelt, leading to the conviction of the land owner. It was the concern of the local people who walked in Hayton Woods that helped to save and protect the SSSI.

Seventy forms of evidence from people who had walked the network of paths over varying amounts of time, some for up to sixty years, had been submitted to Cumbria County Council. A petition with over 220 signatures of people from a much wider area than Hayton was also obtained.

9

She stated that she and others would be willing to give statutory declarations if required.

Any possible suggestion by the landowner for permissive paths was not acceptable as they did not give the long term security of use and could be withdrawn by the landowner at any time.

The DMMO was necessary to ensure that future generations would be able to access and enjoy the very special area in Hayton Parish, as they had done in the past. This would allow people to benefit from the natural and cultural history of the woods without hindrance.

The Report recommended the bridleway be extended to the River Gelt and it was hoped that the Councillors would agree to the recommendation which would reinstate an ancient path. However it appeared that the main reason the Report was not recommending approval of the rest of the network of paths was on purely technical grounds; the map wasn’t accurate enough and could not be verified due to denied access by the landowner.

The Members of the Committee were requested to recognise the strength of the evidence from the people who walked in the woods, unhindered for many years, and to approve the application.

Members were invited to ask questions but were none were asked.

Colin Partington MBE, Supporter to the making of the Definitive Map Modification Order

He was pleased that Council officers were recommending an Order to extend the Bridleway to Point 23, and hoped the Councillors would agree to this.

Regarding the network of paths, the position was clear; many people had walked the woods for many years as described in the seventy submitted Evidence Forms; therefore the County Council had a duty to investigate.

The County Officers had worked hard on the case for six years, and had already concluded in the March 2016 Report to the Committee that lots of people had walked the woods for more than twenty years, essentially uninterrupted.

Council Officers had been prevented from fully carrying out their duty because the Landowner had refused them entry to the land to carry out a

10

survey. Therefore the County Council could not provide exact maps – only imprecise ones. He questioned why the Law did not entitle the Council to carry out a survey so that it could carry out its legal duty and was the advice from Council Officers invalid because they had not carried out their duty, because they couldn’t. If the latest recommendation was agreed, then any Landowner in the future simply had to deny access to the land to stop any Public Footpaths being ordered. He queried whether that was the right message to send out to any landowners on whose land application for paths had been made. He considered it to have made a mockery of the Law.

The Report advised that the Committee was required to ignore any financial implications and therefore ignore the threat of a Judicial Review. It was considered to be an unusual, complex case, the focus of which should be that people had walked the path network over a twenty year period. Walkers were prepared to make statutory declarations to confirm this. It was suggested that the Committee requested that the issue of the network of paths and access to the land be deferred to the Secretary of State to decide.

For the sake of justice and fair play and for the local community who loved walking in the woods, the Committee was implored to agree to make an order for the network of paths to be Public Rights of Way or to send the case directly to the Secretary of State for his decision.

Members were invited to ask questions but none were asked.

The Chairman announced the end of Public Participation for this item.

Councillor A McGuckin stated that he supported the recommendations made in the 30 March 2016 report to the Committee, that all routes indicated on the plan (ref 117000-304-WCA81) be added to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way and in addition, that bridleway 117004 be extended to add route D-24-23 as indicated on the plan (ref 117000-304-WCA81) as recommended in the current report before the Committee.

He welcomed that the Committee had not been encouraged to take into consideration any potential financial implications to the County Council regarding the decision it made. He considered that there had been an abundance of evidence presented in the 30 March 2016 report to the Committee. He commented on the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease issue which had been addressed in the report before the Committee. He considered a failing to be that there was no precision on where the footpaths lay but that if access was denied, then the claim was defeated. He referred to the Court of Appeal ruling on the local SSSI where the landowner had tried to intimidate local people due to their financial ability to progress the case. He considered that there was enough evidence to ascertain the route of the footpaths

11

and that as a public organisation, one of the County Council’s responsibilities was to gather evidence to ascertain the routes’ existence.

Councillor McGuckin MOVED that

1 Members authorise the Corporate Director – Resources and Transformation to make an Order under Section 53(3) (c) (i) & (iii) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the effect of which would be to add the routes as indicated on the plan (ref 117000-304-WCA81) to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way

2 Members authorise the Corporate Director – Resources and Transformation to make an Order to extend Bridleway 117004 under Section 53 (3) (c) (i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the effect of which would be to add the route D-24-23 as indicated on the plan (ref 117000-304-WCA81) to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way.

This was SECONDED by Councillor McEwan.

The following comments were made by members during the debate that followed:

Hayton wasn’t in the National Park but footpaths should be retained for public use; it was an example of inequity where one person held power. As an author, the member referred to a similar case where a landowner barred paths after local people had used them for generations.

Could landowners be compelled to allow access to a surveyor and if not, this was inequitable as the benefits lay with the landowner.

Bell had claimed the path did not exist in 1892, however, that was 100 years ago and people had walked and rode the paths since and there was a wider responsibility to the general public.

The Planning Solicitor clarified to the Committee that in the case before members, there were no legal grounds to enforce the power of entry.

It was important to mark a definitive line on the map to say that the footpath was one metre wide.

There were three points of objection with two clearly dealt with. The third objection was difficult as it was a challenge to mark the exact representation of the footpath on the ground.

The landowner had disadvantaged himself by denying the public to justify their claims, to corroborate the wideness of paths and identify the embankments.

12

He had visited the landowner’s website and noted that the Company’s Mission Statement was to encourage eco tourism

It was clarified that the landowner had owned the property for six years

He presumed that upon purchase, the landowner would have been aware of the circumstances surrounding footpath use on the land.

He presumed that the landowner had purchased the land without seeking the relevant information to clarify the responsibility he had regarding the footpaths

The land had been purchased six years previously and that the landowner should have known of the issue relating to the footpath network and questioned whose responsibility it was to be aware of the issues.

The Committee was advised by the Countryside Access Officer that the landowner could have been advised, during any formal search inquiry of the land, of registered Public Rights of Way only; non registered paths would not have been included. He added that the land could have been purchased without the knowledge of the existing unrecorded footpath network.

With regard to the threatening behaviour raised earlier in the meeting, by the supporters of the Order, a member was led to believe that any trespass related to civil law and not criminal law so prosecution for trespass was not an option for the landowner.

It was questioned whether anyone had received an injunction to stop them accessing the footpaths.

The Planning Solicitor advised that trespass was a civil law matter and that she was not aware of any injunctions preventing the use of the footpath network.

Numerous changes to the Definitive Map and Statement were brought before the Committee, usually where footpaths connected areas of habitation however, some of the footpaths in the network did not connect in that way in the application before member.

A definition of a footpath was requested by the Committee.

It was questioned whether the County Council could purchase land and undertake to do whatever it wished with it.

The Countryside Access Officer provided the definition that a footpath connected one public place to another which was difficult to observe in some parts of the case before members; however, the quarry could possibly be classed as a public place.

13

The chronology of the application was raised; that the claimed Public Rights of Way had not been recorded as such even though they had been used in that manner. Consequently, it was questioned when the notices barring use of footpaths had been erected.

Signs erected in 2010 stopped people lawfully using the land but the application was dated in 2013 so it was questioned whether a retrospective application could be made for adding the Public Rights of Way.

Mr Lawrence QC advised that the signs were erected at the direction of the landowners and access was denied by erecting fences in 2010. The Countryside Access Officer clarified for the Committee that making a claim to add a Public Right of Way could be made as long as the route had been used for over twenty years

The Committee had heard from supporters of the Order but there had not been a summary of those people who had been denied access to the footpaths in the report before members.

It had been noted that some people had claimed that footpaths had not been used during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak as they had been closed and some registered users had stated that they couldn’t use the footpaths in 2010 as they had been fenced off.

In response to the above points, a member highlighted that the Government had implemented a national closure of footpaths during Foot and Mouth Disease preventing the public from using all footpaths in the county.

The vote as Moved by Councillor McGuckin, was put to the Committee with 11 in Favour and 4 Against.

RESOLVED that,

1 Members authorise the Corporate Director – Resources and Transformation to make an Order under Section 53(3) (c) (i) & (iii) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the effect of which would be to add the routes as indicated on the plan (ref 117000-304-WCA81) to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way

2 Members authorise the Corporate Director – Resources and Transformation to make and confirm an Order to extend Bridleway 117004 under Section 53 (3) (c) (i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the effect of which would be to add the route D-24-23 as indicated on the plan (ref 117000-304-WCA81) to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way.

14

After consideration of the item, the Planning Solicitor reminded the Committee that a request had been made from the landowner that the County Council take no action for fourteen days from the date of the meeting so that a legal challenge of the Committee’s decision could be made. After the request was put to the Committee by the Chair, it was

RESOLVED that the County Council take no action for fourteen days, from the date of the meeting.

221 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 - SECTION 53 APPLICATION TO ADD A PUBLIC BRIDLEWAY AT SODDY GAP IN THE PARISHES OF BROUGHTON AND BROUGHTON MOOR: DISTRICT OF ALLERDALE

Following the declaration of interest made earlier in the meeting, Councillor A Clark left the room and the Vice Chair, Councillor Fisher took the Chair.

A report was considered from the Corporate Director - Economy and Highways regarding an application to add a public bridleway at Soddy Gap in the Parishes of Broughton and Broughton Moor in the district of Allerdale.

The Countryside Access Officer outlined the history of the site, and explained there had been signs in situ and routes had been used since 1995. Open Cast mining would have prevented prior use of the footpaths from 1986 to 1995 and there had been one objection from the landowner.

The following members of the public presented their views to the Committee on the Application and made the following points:

Mrs S Hannah

She had been asked by the people living the Parish to speak on their behalf. There was evidence that people had used the footpaths albeit not identical

routes, as mining had taken place simultaneously so routes would have been slightly different.

She presented a side by side map to the Committee . The 1885 map showed route 218014 which took the easterly route, then

north to the railway line. RJB Mining’s intention was to sell the land and claimed that the footpaths had

permissive rights only. In 1987 a sign was erected stating that the Right of Way 208014 was

suspended from Broughton to Broughton Moor. She asked members to follow the line on the map to the corner which

terminated at the pond, however the landowner had stated that the footpath ended in a different location.

The landowner never reinstated the suspended footpaths. The footpath was not a permanent feature and part of the footpath had not

been reinstated.

15

The 1885 map showed the actual route the people of Great Broughton used to walk to Broughton Pit (Bertha Pit). People walked the path from the 1800s which was a similar route to that of the application.

She argued that it may not be the same dirt and exact route walked, but it was similar to that used for the Broughton Pit (Bertha Pit) route.

Mr J Wilson

He was the ex Chair of Broughton Parish Council and had lived at Green Close Farm since 1978.

The footpath was well used by villagers of the surrounding area It was an amenity that meant local people could observe the local flora and

fauna and enjoy walking in the countryside. He had appreciated the site in the 1970s when the area was an opencast

coal mine where mine staff’s children played with local residents’ children. In 1978, residents were told that the site would be in operation for only two

further years, however it lasted another fifteen years. Residents had been affected by dust and noise pollution. Residents were delighted when the open cast mining had ended. UK Coal Mining Ltd had informed residents that the site would be a

recreational amenity for local people and had received a Government Grant to restore the old footpaths.

There had been an agreement between UK Coal and Cumbria County Council and there was a five year after care period, further extended for another five years.

The footpaths had been suspended and never formally adopted as Rights of Way.

In retrospect, the County Council probably should have recorded the footpaths as Rights of Way.

He could not see how the County Council could allow the current owners to ignore the original intentions of the agreed management plan.

Mrs N Cockburn

Members were presented with a screenshot of the map by the Interim Manager of Development Control and Countryside Management .

The area had always been used for recreational purposes. The original intention had been for the land to be used for recreational

purposes as a reward for local people putting up with the mine for many years.

The land was already registered as a Community Asset and this had been granted due to the evidence which had supported the application.

The report presented to the Development Control and Regulation Committee on 29 September 1999 to amend the approved restoration scheme at Broughton Lodge opencast Coal site was displayed to the Committee.

Members’ attention was drawn to Condition 21 in the report regarding the after care strategy and that the intended use was as an amenity.

16

Planning application no 22/4/98, for the restoration plan clearly showed the bridleway had been reassigned.

The restoration plan had been granted permission by the Development Control and Regulation Committee on the 29 September 1999 so she did not understand what the problem was.

As further evidence, she quoted the Woodland Grants Scheme and stated that a grant had been awarded in 2000 which had referred to the Rights of Way. On page 23 of the Grant Application form, it had stated that the permissive paths would link to a bridleway.

To refuse the application would be contrary to the Planning Permission granted in 1999 and the Woodland Grant award.

The whole community had been stunned by the application.

Members were invited to ask questions.

A member stated that the map presented to the Committee from the speaker showing the footpath route to the pit from Broughton to Little Broughton was very similar to that presented to the Committee in the Agenda pack and looked like a thoroughfare to the pit in ancient times.

The Countryside Access Officer stated that the map presented by the Speaker was new evidence and that his research of old documents had not shown ancient paths; however, the speaker was under the impression that the map had been reviewed by the officer. To enable the Countryside Access Officer to review the new evidence, it was MOVED by Councillor McGuckin and SECONDED by Councillor Fisher that the report be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee to enable the map and comments made by supporters of the application to be considered.

A member commented that there was clear photographic evidence which corroborated what the speaker had presented to the Committee. Clarification was provided to the Committee by the Countryside Access Officer that although the claim was for a bridleway, not enough evidence had come to officers’ attention that horses had used the path, for them to recommend it to be recorded as a bridleway. Also, insufficient evidence had come to officers’ attention to show that the footpaths were more than permissive. He clarified that it appeared from 1995 to the present day, permission was granted to use the footpaths, with the erection of signs at the start of the claimed paths.

A Member referred to a similar case in another electoral division whilst another considered that the officer should review the evidence presented to the Committee by the speakers. On being asked to vote on the motion moved by Councillor McGuckin earlier in the meeting, it was, by affirmation of the Committee,

RESOLVED that the report be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee

Councillor A Clark returned to the room and resumed the position of Chair.

17

222 HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 SECTION 118 - APPLICATION TO EXTINGUISH UNRECORDED PUBLIC FOOTPATH, PARISH OF BARROW IN FURNESS: DISTRICT OF BARROW IN FURNESS

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways relating to an application to extinguish an unrecorded public footpath in the parish of Barrow in Furness, in the District of Barrow in Furness.

A member who knew the area well expressed his concern that officers considered that the path was not needed. He considered the path to be extinguished to be safer than the parallel route which would be retained. The parallel route was next to a main arterial and very busy road, and would expose pedestrians to danger. He queried the level of consultation with local users. He urged the Committee to not extinguish the path.

The Countryside Access Officer outlined the use of the route to the Committee and displayed photographs of the route to be extinguished, explained what it was made of, its proximity to the road, and the consultation process. The Interim Manager of Development Control and Countryside Management showed the area on Google Street View in order to inform the Committee.

A number of Members agreed that the path proposed to be extinguished was well used, was safer than the parallel route and did not accept that it would be advantageous to the public to remove it from use.

It was MOVED by Councillor Morgan and SECONDED by Councillor Wilson that the path not be extinguished. By affirmation of the Committee, it was

RESOLVED that the unrecorded footpath in the Parish of Barrow as marked A-B on the plan at Appendix A of the report, not be extinguished.

223 CA13/5 - APPLICATION TO CORRECT MISTAKEN REGISTRATION; CL78 - GRASMERE COMMON.

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways to correct the mistaken registration at CL 78 – Grasmere Common.

RESOLVED that the Common Land Register be corrected for the reasons contained in the report and on the specific ground that the land in question immediately before its provisional registration was not land subject to rights of common, waste land of a manor, a town or village green or land of a description specified in Section 11 of the Inclosure Act 1845.

224 CA10/23 APPLICATION TO CORRECT THE REGISTER - CL24 LAND AT UPTON, CALDBECK

18

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways regarding an application to correct unit CL24 of the Register of Common Land – Land at Upton, Caldbeck.

RESOLVED that the application be accepted and the Common Land Register be corrected for the reasons contained within the report and on the specific ground that Cumbria County Council as Commons Registration Authority made a mistake when producing the second edition of register map under the Commons Registration Act 1965

225 REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

a Application No: 1/16/9007. PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing property and construction of new single storey building, associated car parking to provide Edge of Care Facilities within the local community. LOCATION: Arnwood House, 138, Blackwell Road, Carlisle, CA2 4DL

Following a declaration of interest made earlier in the meeting, Councillor Bingham left the room

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways regarding the demolition of an existing property and construction of a new single storey building, associated car parking to provide edge of care facilities within the local community at Arnwood House, Blackwell, Carlisle.

A member questioned whether the current building had been surveyed for architectural merit. The Planning Officer advised that the building had been surveyed by Property Services and was not repairable.

RESOLVED that Planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report

Councillor Bingham returned to the meeting

b Application for approval of details reserved by planning conditions. Permission No: 2/15/9013. Development: Provision of a 78 space car park and 4 space motorcycle parking area with associated new access, lighting, fencing and landscaping works and related improvements to the footway and Maryport Train Station. Location: Land adjacent to Maryport Fire Station, Mealpot Road, Maryport, CA15 6NQ

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways regarding the provision of a 78 space car park and 4 space motorcycle parking area with associated new access, lighting, fencing and landscaping works and related improvements to the footway and Maryport Train Station at land adjacent to Maryport Fire Station, Mealpot Road, Maryport, CA15 6NQ.

19

It was confirmed by the Planning Officer that the application was for the approval of details reserved by planning conditions and was not a retrospective application.

RESOLVED that the details submitted under Conditions 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 22 of planning permission 2/15/9013 be approved and the pre-commencement element of the conditions be discharged

c Application for approval of details reserved by planning conditions. Permission No: 2/15/9014. Development: Erection of a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) sports facility with associated fencing and lighting, provision of a new access/ footway for pedestrians and maintenance equipment plus related footway improvements to Mealpot Road. Location: Land adjacent to Maryport Social Club, Mealpot Road, Maryport, CA15 6NE

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways regarding an application for approval of details reserved by planning conditions. Permission No: 2/15/9014. Development: Erection of a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) sports facility with associated fencing and lighting, provision of a new access/ footway for pedestrians and maintenance equipment plus related footway improvements to Mealpot Road at land adjacent to Maryport Social Club, Mealpot Road, Maryport, CA15 6NE.

RESOLVED that the details submitted under Conditions 6,7,8,9,10 and 11 of planning permission 2/15/9014 be approved and that the pre-commencement elements of these conditions be discharged

d Application for approval of details reserved by planning conditions. Permission No: 2/15/9014. Development: Erection of a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) sports facility with associated fencing and lighting, provision of a new access/ footway for pedestrians and maintenance equipment plus related footway improvements to Mealpot Road. Location: Land adjacent to Maryport Social Club, Mealpot Road, Maryport, CA15 6NE

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways regarding an application for approval of details reserved by planning conditions. Permission No: 2/15/9014. Development: Erection of a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) sports facility with associated fencing and lighting, provision of a new access/ footway for pedestrians and maintenance equipment plus related footway improvements to Mealpot Road at land adjacent to Maryport Social Club, Mealpot Road, Maryport, CA15 6NE

A member stated that he had been aware of activity on the site for some time and queried whether it was a retrospective application. The Planning Officer confirmed this was the case but that no work had yet commenced on the concourse.

20

It was noted that approval in the report for the conditions did not include Conditions 25 and 26. The Planning Officer explained that there was no requirement for items to be submitted in relation to conditions 25 and 26.

RESOLVED that the details submitted under Conditions 6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,17,22 and 23 of planning permission 2/14/9019 be approved and the pre-commencement element of these conditions be discharged.

e Application No: 6/16/9009. PROPOSAL: Proposed increase in height of bio filter stack by 10m. Stack currently 18m proposed new height 28m. Increase required to prevent odours from grounding close to development site. LOCATION: Shanks Waste Management, Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant, Bouthwood Road, Sowerby Woods Industrial Estate, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, LA14 4RD

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways regarding a proposed increase in height of bio filter stack by 10m. Stack currently 18m proposed new height 28m. Increase required to prevent odours from grounding close to development site at Shanks Waste Management, Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant, Bouthwood Road, Sowerby Woods Industrial Estate, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, LA14 4RD

The Local Member reminded members of the site visit to the location and stated that he was not convinced that raising the stack by ten metres would remove emissions. He commented on the topography of the surrounding area, in particular to the east of the site where the land was higher and there was a hospital, housing estate and golf course. There was a predominantly west wind which would take odours from the higher stack to the higher ground.

The Committee was informed that the applicant had been working with the Environment Agency, which was the organisation that would control the emissions.

Reference was made to the infrared lighting to the top of the stack. The Planning Officer explained that prior to the commencement of the construction of the stack, the applicant would be advised to contact the Civil Aviation Authority regarding the need to provide accredited infrared lighting to the top stack and the need to retain, maintain and illuminate the stack with the accredited lighting throughout the operational life of the stack.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report

226 APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

RESOLVED that the list of applications/consultations determined under delegated powers be noted.

21

227 APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS PROPOSED TO BE DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

Members were updated on Planning Applications 4/16/9015 at Drigg and 1/16/9010 at James Rennie School, Carlisle

RESOLVED that the list of applications/consultations proposed to be determined under delegated powers be noted.

228 APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT FUTURE MEETINGS

The list of applications to be considered at future meetings was noted.

229 REPORTS AND UPDATES ON PLANNING ENFORCEMENT RELATED MATTERS

a Reference No: EN16-6003. Temporary Stop Notice. Former PartyLite Factory, Sandscale Park, Barrow-in-Furness

A report was considered from the Corporate Director – Economy and Highways regarding a temporary Stop Notice at the former PartyLite Factory, Sandscale Park, Barrow-in-Furness.

The Planning Officer reported that the owner had complied with the Stop Notice and a Planning Application may be brought before the Committee for determination at a future meeting.

RESOLVED that the report be noted

230 FUTURE MEETING DATES

RESOLVED, that the list of future meeting dates be noted.

The meeting ended at 1.00 pm