Human Resources and Miscellaneous Appeals Sub Minutes

14. MINUTES

RESOLVED :

THAT the minutes from the meeting held on the 1 September 2006 be confirmed.

15. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Council’s Countryside Access Officer declared that during the preparation of the report to the Committee he had already met with all the applicants present and had known the Ramblers Association representative for a number of years.

Cllr Whittaker declared that he had known the Council’s Child Protection Co‑Ordinator personally for a number of years.

Cllr McRobert declared an interest in her capacity as the Councillor for Bembridge South.

16. REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGENERATION

The Chairman welcomed all those present and introduced members of the Committee. He outlined the procedure that the meeting would follow.

The report of the Strategic Director of Economic Development and Regeneration, with regard to an application to divert Public Footpath BB15 which passed through the Kingswood Centre (formerly Bembridge School), Hillway Road, Bembridge, was presented to the Committee by the Council’s Countryside Access Manager. It was explained to the Committee that the reason for the application was that it was in the interests of the owner and lessee of the land to improve the security of the premises (Kingswood Centre) and the safety of the students. The Committee was informed that the application was supported by Bembridge Parish Council, the local Councillor, the Council’s Child Protection Co-Ordinator, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Police, but was opposed by the Ramblers Association. It was stated that though the site was within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Council’s AONB Unit had not objected to the proposed diversion.

The Committee was informed that Public Footpath BB15 linked Hillway Road, Bembridge to the Coastal Path and that the final stretch of BB15 ran through the premises of the Kingswood Centre. Members noted that at present the Kingswood Centre was unable to prevent public access via Public Footpath BB15 to its premises and that the site had a high population of children of a wide age range on the site at all times together with boarders from Ryde School.

The application’s proposed new route A-B-C was explained to the Committee. The proposed diversion would alter the existing route of Public Footpath BB15, A-D, by diverting it around the western side of the Kingswood Centre’s premises and through an area of woodland. It was stated that should the diversion order be made, the new route would have to be improved, including the installation of some steps and handrails where changes in level occurred, to the satisfaction of the Head of Engineering Services.

The legal issues surrounding the application were outlined to the Committee. It was stated that legally under the terms of Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 the Council could make a footpath diversion order if it appeared to the Committee that it was expedient to do so in the interests of the owner and lessee of the land crossed by the path. Members were informed that the latter issue was the primary focus on which any decision should be based. It was stated that the Committee must also take into account the public’s enjoyment of the path and the affect that the diversion would have on the land it would pass over. Members were informed that they must be satisfied that the proposed diversion would not significantly inconvenience the public. It was stated that the existing route was relatively flat whereas the proposed route involved several changes in level and was slightly longer (55 metres). The Countryside Access Manager informed the Committee that the key issue was whether the proposed diversion would be significantly less convenient for the public than the existing route. Members were advised that it would be reasonable to assume that users of Footpath BB15 would be travelling from Hillway Road to the Coastal Path or vice versa, and that the Coastal Path was itself a route with many changes in level. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that users of Public Footpath BB15 would be prepared for such changes in level.

The Countryside Access Manager advised the Committee that the footpath diversion order was in the interests of the owner and lessee of the land and that the proposed route was not significantly less convenient than the existing route. It was recommended that the diversion order be made under S119 of the Highways Act 1980 diverting part of Public Footpath BB15 at Kingswood Centre, Bembridge, as shown on Plan 1 of the report.

The Committee questioned the Countryside Access Manager regarding the proposed route of the diversion and any implications the diversion would have under the Disability Discrimination Act.

The representative from Ryde School, which were the freeholders of the site, informed the Committee that Ryde School continued to use one of the buildings on the site to accommodate approximately 40 boarders and that it was their welfare which was of particular concern to Ryde School.

The applicants stated that the Kingswood Activity Centre catered for approximately 70,000 plus child nights per annum, which equated to approximately 20,000 visiting children per annum staying in the Centre’s accommodation and who would undertake both indoor and outdoor educational activities and programmes around the Centre’s premises and the Isle of Wight. It was stated that the area where Public Footpath BB15 ran through the Centre caused it to dissect the campus through the middle, with approximately 60% of the Centre’s premises on one side of the footpath and 40% on the other side. This had the effect of a lot of movement of children and staff in the vicinity of Public Footpath BB15. It was explained to the Committee that on numerous occasions Kingswood had experienced people who had come onto the site without due reason other than they were walkers/ramblers that had been looking for the Coastal Path. Members were informed that the Kingwood Centre had made the effort to increase security of the site through signage, CCTV and identity badges for the Centre’s staff and visiting teachers but that these measures were not 100% foolproof due to the huge amount of people on the site at any given time. It was stated that should the footpath diversion order be made, Kingswood was prepared to make any necessary adjustments to ensure the security and safety of the site, including the access to and from the Whitecliff Bay Holiday Park.

The applicants stated that the situation with the footpath crossing through the middle of the Kingswood Centre could not be tolerated and the need for action was recognised by the Police, the Council’s Child Protection Co-Ordinator and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. It was expressed that it was not only in the interests of the owner and lessee of the land, but also in the public interest, to reduce the risk of criminal activity on the site, which the added security that the diversion of Public Footpath BB15 would enable.

The Committee questioned the applicants with regard to any past experience that Kingswood had of trespassers on the site and as to the current state of the land which would be used for the proposed diversion.

The Child Protection Co-Ordinator informed the Committee that as well as representing the Council’s Children’s Services Directorate he was also representing the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, which supported the application. He stated that his principle concern was the confusion that the footpath caused walkers as they entered the Kingswood Centre and tried to find the start of the next stage of Public Footpath BB15. This ‘innocent confusion’ he stated could well be taken advantage of by those who wished to cause children harm.

The Committee asked a question related to staff badges and general security arrangements at the Centre.

The local Councillor for Bembridge South expressed concern for the welfare of the children whom would be accommodated on the site, and supported the application.

The Ramblers Association presented their objections to the Committee. It was stated that the proposed alternative route would be less secure than the existing route, passing extremely close to the Centre’s buildings and dormitories whilst being obscured from view. In contrast, the existing route was more visible and had potential for considerable improvement in fencing and signage to prevent access to the site and walkers straying from the footpath. It was also expressed that the proposed route would detract from the public’s enjoyment of the route as a whole, consisting of an uninteresting area, which was generally damp, dark and overshadowed. However, in contrast, the existing route was open and airy with wide views across fields with historic buildings of interest. Finally, the Ramblers Association believed that the overall security of the site appeared to be of a low consideration and asked Members not to make the footpath diversion order.

The Committee’s Legal Advisor provided a summary of the proceedings and read the Committee’s decision to those present.

The Committee was satisfied that the diversion was in the interests of the owner, lessee of the land. The site was used for the education of children, many of whom stayed on the site overnight. The level of security, inherent in the footpath’s current route, presented significant concern for child protection that could be alleviated by the proposed diversion. The Committee noted that the Police and Council’s Child Protection Co-Ordinator strongly supported the diversion and that the AONB unit had not objected.

The Committee noted that the proposed diversion was slightly longer than the existing route and had a more pronounced gradient, but formed the view that members of the public would not be significantly inconvenienced by the diversion as the footpath network in the surrounding area had changes of gradient of a similar sort.

RESOLVED :

THAT, an order be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 diverting part of Public Footpath BB15 at Kingswood Centre, Bembridge, so that the existing route A-D, shall be diverted along the path A-B-C, as outlined on Plan 1 attached to the report.

The new footpath was to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Isle of Wight Council’s Head of Engineering Services and the applicant was to pay for all such works together with the Council’s administrative and advertising costs in connection with the making of the diversion order.

CHAIRMAN