Agenda and minutes

County Councillor Tony Easson declared a personal interest and did not participate in the meeting as he had been a member of the Planning Committee when the application was approved and the footpath was a matter of contention.

County Councillor Jane Lucas was present for part of the meeting so was unable to vote.

Richard Ray outlined the legal position and tests to be considered by the committee.  This was followed by a PowerPoint presentation from the Countryside Access Manager and the Assistant Rights of Way Officer presented the report for the Committee to consider the request to make and confirm a public path diversion order

under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Footpath 61 (part) , Caldicot also known as Footpath 7(part) Caerwent to enable

development in accordance with approved planning permission.

The Committee was reminded it is subject to a degree of judicial control. The decision and process to reach a decision must be procedurally fair and without bias.

The reasons for the decision can only be regarding the statutory scope for these orders found within Section 257 and 259 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The product of the consultation carried out should be considered and is presented in the report, and the decision should be evidence based.

Under section 257, the authority can make an order to stop up or divert a right of way if it is necessary to do so to enable development to be carried out. An order will be necessary if there is some conflict between a right of way and a planning permission that does not need to be a physical obstruction or potential obstruction as a change of use is enough for the necessity criteria to be fulfilled. The order can be made if the development is not substantially complete. This means a development has reached a point where the intention of the development has been fulfilled, considering the totality of operations that were intended.

Power to make a path order under the Town and Country Planning Act is discretionary, even if the necessity test is met. An authority can still decline to make an order if it would result in significant disadvantages or losses, taking into account the interest of the general public, the potential effect on neighbouring properties, for example, where access is affected and any potential financial loss to the public.

Once an order is made, the decision is subject to a four-week public consultation and is advertised in a local newspaper and this creates a point where, if objections to the order are made and not withdrawn, the Authority is unable to confirm the order.

At that point, the authority must refer the decision to the Welsh Government's Planning Inspectorate, or PEDW, for confirmation. The planning inspector can only confirm the order if the above tests are satisfied in the same way that the Committee considers them.

If a test for making and confirmation of the order is satisfied, the committee can authorise officers to make and confirm the order.

Points raised during the debate:

·        A Member asked why 3 metres is considered acceptable when the guidance suggests 4 metres.  It was responded that 4 metres is the Council’s recommendation but there's no legislation that makes that necessary. The site has 3 metres width  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.