MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY APPEALS COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, NEWPORT, ISLE OF WIGHT ON 12 NOVEMBER 2004 COMMENCING AT 10.00 AM

 

Present :

 

Mr R C Richards (Chairman), Mr M J Cunningham, Mr K Pearson,

 

Also Present :           

 

                        Mr A C Bartlett, Mr P D Joyce

 

 


9.                  DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Interests were declared in the following matters:

 

10.             PROPOSED DIVERSION ORDER - FOOTPATH G12A CHILLERTON BARNS

 

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

                        

The Head of Engineering Services introduced the report which considered an application for a Diversion Order to Footpath G12a Chillerton Barns under the Highways Act 1980 in response to a request from the landowner. Members were informed that the existing footpath was on a boundary of a development site and the landowner had asked for the footpath to be diverted away from the buildings on grounds of the security and privacy of the occupants of Chillerton Barns. Members were reminded that under the Highways Act 1980 s119 an order may be made in the interests of the landowner as long as the public are not substantially inconvenienced. 

 

An objection had been received from the Ramblers Association and the Chairman invited him to speak and outline his objections.

 

The Committee then adjourned into private session in order to take legal advice and to consider their decision. Upon reconvening in public, the Committee announced their decision.

 

For the following reasons :

 

1.                     The diversion was expedient in the interests of the landowner and land occupier as it would improve security and allow greater enjoyment of the land by the occupier.

 

2.                     The diversion was not detrimental to the enjoyment of the path by the public as it created a buffer between the footpath and residential property.

 

3.                     The new route would not create any difficulties for members of the public using the footpath.

 

4.                     The width of 2.5 metres was adequate to ensure that the path was both convenient to use and maintain.

 

It was

 

RESOLVED :

 

(a)                  That a diversion order be made in accordance with the Highways Act 1980 diverting public footpath G12a from the route shown ABCD on the plan to route FED on the plan.

 

(b)                  Such diversion to have a width of 2.5 metres and all recoverable costs to be charged to the applicant.

 

11.          TREE PRESERVATION ORDER TPO/2004/15 - 238 UPTON ROAD, RYDE

 

            The Committee received the report of the Head of Planning Services which required the Committee to determine whether or not to confirm TPO/2004/15 - 238 Upton Road, Ryde which had been made on 7 individual trees. The landowners agent had submitted an objection to the confirmation of the TPO and this had been accompanied by a report from a tree consultant who considered that the only trees worthy of retention were T1 and T4.

                         

Firstly the Countryside Services Manager made one amendment to the report. In light of a second inspection on Tree T3 it was now recommended that this not be included in the TPO as there was severe tree wounding caused by wire bound around the trunk.

 

The report recommended that Trees T1, T4, T5 and T7 be protected and that T2, T3 and T6 be deleted from the order. The objectors Tree Consultant believed that only trees T1 and T4 were worthy of retention. The two trees on which the Countryside Service Manager and Tree consultant disagreed on were Trees T5 and T7. 

 

The Committee sought clarification from both the Countryside Service Manager and the Tree Consultant on their opinions on both trees condition.

 

The Committee then adjourned into private session in order to take legal advice and to consider their decision.  Upon reconvening in public, the Committee announced their decision.

 

For the following reasons :

 

1.               T1, T4 and T7 were of significant amenity to the local areas. They were visible from the road outside the property and were in good condition. This amenity was both present and future.

 

2.               The other tress T2, T3, T5 and T6 were not worthy of protection as they were of insufficient amenity due to their condition and appearance.

 

3.               The Committee balanced the amenity to the public against the inconvenience to the landowner.

It was

 

RESOLVED :

 

THAT  TPO 2004/15 be confirmed with the following modifications :

 

T2, T3, T5, T6 be deleted from the order

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN