Regulatory Committee
Meeting to be held on 12 June 2013
Electoral Division affected:
Chorley West
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Claimed Public Footpath from Spendmore Lane to Station Road, Coppull,
Chorley Borough
Claim No. 804/505
(Annex ‘A’ refers)
Contact for further information: Megan Brindle, 01772 5356014, County Secretary
and Solicitor's Group Megan.Brindle@Lancashire.gov.uk
Executive Summary
A decision on an Appeal made under Section 53 and Schedule 14 of The Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 against the refusal to make a Definitive Map Modification
Order has been received from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs.
Recommendation
1. That the Report be noted.
2. That, in light of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
decision to uphold the Appeal lodged in respect of claim No. 804/505, an Order
be made pursuant to Section 53 (2) (b) and Section 53 (3) (c) (i) of the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the Definitive Map and Statement of Public
Rights of way by adding a Public Footpath from Spendmore Lane to Station
Road Coppull shown A – B – C – D on the attached plan.
3. That should no objections be received the Order be confirmed, but if objections
are received the County Council as Order Making Authority submit the Order to
the Secretary of State for formal determination, but the County Council shall
notify the Secretary of State that it does not actively support the Order and to
adopt a "neutral stance" as regards confirmation of the Order.
Background and advice
Claim No. 804/505 - Claimed addition of Public Footpath from Spendmore Lane to
Station Road, Coppull, Chorley Borough - Appeal Allowed
At their meeting on the 24th October 2012, the Regulatory Committee considered a
report (Appendix A) and resolved that the claim for a public footpath from
Spendmore Lane to Station Road, Coppull, Chorley Borough be not accepted. The
applicant appealed against this refusal to the Secretary of State.
-2-
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs directed an Inspector
to prepare a report into the matter. The report examined the documentary evidence,
user evidence and landowner evidence and contained the following details:"Some of the user evidence forms are vague in terms of the years the appeal route
was used and with regard to the frequency of use, nevertheless at face value the
evidence appears credible with six forms giving clear periods of use all ending in
2009 and beginning in 1950, 1953, 1981, 1984, 1989 and 1993: five of these
claiming use throughout the 20 year period and one for a lesser period. All six
indicate frequent use varying between 40 and over 365 times a year. Of the
remaining forms, three may be interpreted as covering the relevant 20 year period
for consideration with claimed use from a child to an adult, 'as far back as memory
works' and of having known and used the route for 80 years, with one indicating they
had known and used the route for 11 years.
I consider that taken as a whole, and noting the frequency claimed, the user
evidence is sufficient to raise a presumption of dedication...
For the period that the subway formed an access to the railway station and its
platforms I consider a public right of way arising through use under statute, or at
common law, would not have been possible due to an annual closure. However
since the railway station was closed in 1967 and later demolished (some time before
1973) with access to the platforms apparently blocked off, and taking into account
the lack of clear evidence of annual closures subsequently (which the Council
acknowledges at least for the 20 year period 1989 – 2009), it seems to me that an
opportunity for a public right of way to have become established may arise under
statute...
To rebut a presumption of dedication, a landowner must make any contrary
intentions clear to the public during the period in question. Thus it seems to me that
the agreement would only be effective in this regard if it were communicated in some
way to users of the path. There is nothing in the evidence before me that
demonstrates the users, at least during the 20 year period 1989 – 2009 (and
possibly prior to this back to the late 1960s/early 1970s), understood the landowners'
intentions following closure of the Railway Station, or that the landowners' intentions
were communicated to the public in view of the lack of clear evidence of closure one
day a year, or of any other acts demonstrating a lack of intention to dedicate the way
by the landowner...
Overall on the evidence available I consider it is reasonable to conclude that there is
use of the way sufficient to raise a presumption of dedication, and a lack of sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that during the 20 year period 1989 -2009 that the
landowner did not intend to dedicate the way as public. I consider that the
requirements of section 31 of the 1980 Act are satisfied and that test B has been
met.''
The Secretary of State has allowed the appeal and directed the County Council to
make an order under Section 53(2) and Schedule 15 of the Act to modify the
-3definitive map and statement for the area to add a public footpath as proposed in the
application submitted in December 2009.
It is advised that an Order is made as directed by the Secretary of State. If there are
no objections it is suggested that the Authority be content to confirm it. However,
with regards to any Order made following the direction of the Secretary of State
should objections be received, it is suggested that the Local Authority adopts a
neutral stance. This is a usual position to take when the committee originally decided
on the evidence not to make an Order.
Consultations - N/A
Alternative options to be considered - N/A
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
All documents on Claim File
Ref: 804/505
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A
Contact/Directorate/Tel
Megan Brindle
County Secretary and Solicitors
Group, 01772 5356014