Issue - meetings

Recommendation: That the order be made

Proposal: Application for the diversion of part of Shinfield Footpath 3 under Section 119 Highways Act 1980

Applicant: University of Reading

The Committee considered a report about this Footpath Diversion Order, set out in agenda pages 25 to 32.

Whilst no updates were contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda, the Committee were verbally advised that the route would contain a gate on point C to stop cattle from reaching the road.

John Kaiser queried whether any substantial trees would be lost as a result of the proposals. Andrew Fletcher, case officer, confirmed that two very small trees would be lost, which had been identified as low value within the tree survey.

Chris Bowring queried whether assurances could be given that the University of Reading would take good care of the kissing gate, and queried alongside John Kaiser whether the upkeep of the new A to C route had been accounted for in the budget. Andrew Fletcher stated that the maintenance of the route would be picked up within the standard public rights of way maintenance budget, whilst maintenance would likely not be required for between three and five years, and a growth bid could be placed in year 3. The kissing gate was owned by the University of Reading and under the Highways Act they were responsible for its maintenance.

David Cornish stated that he always had a cautious approach to moving public rights of way, as they were one of the most ancient civil rights. David queried why a gate could not be placed along a fence in the existing A to B position to allow the landowner to access their land, and queried why a 1.8m security style fence was required if the concern was with regards to the ingress of cattle. Andrew Fletcher stated that the landowner was entitled to fence either side of the footpath so long as they did not encroach upon it, however the landowner felt that this was impractical in its current location as it would not allow them to use the land as effectively. With regards to the fencing, the applicant wished to keep the land secure and were entitled to choose such a design of fence.

RESOLVED That the order be made, subject to no further objections being received, or if objections were received that the order be sent to the Secretary of State for confirmation.