by Olivia » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:25 pm
Hi, Yes, It's been difficult to understand things.
The 'Notice of Order' starts 14th March 2017, we need statement of case, and proof of evidence by 09May 2017.
The main reason its going forward is due to proof of use, but the council are neutral due to conflicting evidence, and a neighbour making a statement that the previous owner where the DMMO is proposed for - shouted at people to get off his land, but sadly he has not summited a statement himself. My parents own the land but the order has been written as if the land is owned by the neighbours, which is incorrect, but ownership has been unclear in the past; but I found a wayleave agreement proving the land was ours.
I don't know if we should complain about the order being wrong or how to change it? Will it cost money? - the definitive map statement for the area on the order says the path is owned by the neighbour (which has a PROW registered on the 1910 financial map), but it our land (which doesn't have a PROW listed on the 1910 financial map).
The council advised the neighbours (who they thought owned the land at the time) to block the route. It was taken down two days later because the neighbour was trying to sell his house, he since moved and my dad blocked the route. The DMMO order was confirmed 09th Jan 2015.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 On 29 April 2013, we received an application to modify the definitive
map. The application sought to add a public footpath along a route
indicated at Appendix 1.
2.2 The Director for Places approved adding this footpath to the definitive
map on 21 October 2014. This was on the basis of having received
sufficient witness evidence. Historical mapping indicated the existence
of a physical route. This though was not conclusive as to status. (see
Appendix 2).
2.3 When the modification order was advertised, the council received 29
objections. An additional eleven signatories gave their support to a
group objection. It was submitted that use of the route had been
challenged. This was by the current and previous owners of
-----------------. Attempts were made to contact the previous
owner. However, this proved unsuccessful.
2.4 Subsequently five witnesses failed to respond to confirm their support.
A sixth witness indicated that he would not be interested in pursuing
the matter if there was an overall lack of support.
2.5 This left five supporting witnesses. Only one remaining supporter
claims to have used the route for the requisite 20 year period. The
applicant has used it for three years. Use of the route by the other
three witnesses only covers the preceding 11 years. All of their period
of use falls within the years when the current and previous owners of
-------------------- are said to have disputed access along the route.
PLANNING COMMITTEE
1. OBJECT AND KEY POINTS IN THIS REPORT
1.1 To consider whether we should support the confirmation of an order
when we refer it to the Secretary of State. The order seeks to add a
footpath to the definitive map. We can, however, opt to take a neutral
stance.
2.6 We wrote to the applicant for two reasons: (1) to address these
discrepancies and (2) to provide any counter evidence. The letter
stated what could happen if we did not hear back. This was that we
could take a neutral stance at confirmation. The applicant has not
responded. A copy of these letters and confirmation of delivery can be
seen at Appendix 3.
3. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
3.1 There are two options available for consideration by the Planning
Committee:
3.1.1 To forward the modification order to the Secretary of State
supporting its confirmation (Option 1).
3.1.2 To forward the modification to the Secretary of State adopting a
neutral position regarding confirmation due to the lack of
supporting evidence (Option 2).
4. ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS
4.1 We can support confirmation of the order. In so doing, we are saying
that we are confident that the supporting witness evidence outweighs
the objections submitted. Also, that we remain confident that a
presumption to dedicate existed.
4.2 By adopting a neutral position we neither support nor oppose
confirmation. We can take this position if the evidence does not support
the presumption to dedicate. The applicant would then present the
case without our assistance.
4.3 In this case, officers recommend that we follow Option 2.
I've attached the councils reasons for a neutral stance.
We don't know if we can get the order changed to include the land in question as my parents land in the order or whether it would prove beneficial?
Any help will be gladly received.
Thanks,
Olivia
- Attachments
-

- neutral stance council.gif (225.69 KiB) Viewed 697 times