|Souldrop Village Green|
(Click the image to enlarge it)
Wednesday, 5 July 2017
Following complaints (mine and one village resident’s) and requests to have the green restored to its pre-developed condition, Bedford Borough Council required the parish council to submit a retrospective planning application which was subsequently abandoned. A new, amended application has been submitted although it still retains the original application date – see Application 16/03052/S73A HERE. (I have found that the Council's website is unreliable so the link may not work.)
My view is that the application should be refused not least because it seems to me that the Borough Council does not have the power to authorise planning permission on a registered village green.
I make my case HERE.
Village and town greens are wonderful assets which should be treasured not spoilt. Souldrop Village Green should be restored to its former pre-developed condition.
Wednesday, 12 April 2017
|Looking towards Keysoe|
As the highway authority, Bedford Borough Council has various legal powers which enable it to carry out its statutory public rights of way duties including: “To assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.” (Highways Act 1980, Section 130(1). The same various powers can be used at the Council's discretion for other, non-statutory rights of way purposes – things that it can do but doesn’t have to, like diverting paths for instance.
Our Council says it does not have sufficient resources to do everything it is required to, so complaints regarding its failure to fulfil its duties are not always followed up and resolved.
My argument is that if the Council doesn’t have enough resources then it must first carry out all its statutory duties before spending time and money (if any remain) to do the things it can but doesn’t have to. Simple right?
But our council officers (for it is they, not our elected members who decide) choose to do otherwise.
Last year, Bedford Borough Council made twelve public path orders to change the public rights of way network in the parishes of Thurleigh and Ravensden because the landowner wants the paths, some of which he has obstructed, laid out differently. However, the orders were flawed so they will have to be abandoned and the Council has said that they will make new orders. Let me call these: Jobs-to-Do - Nos. 1 & 2.
The Council also made public path orders in the interests of the landowner at the parishes of Stonely (Cambs), Pertenhall & Little Staughton. The orders were flawed as well so will have to be abandoned and the Council has said they too will be re-made: Jobs-to-Do – Nos. 3 & 4. Consultations have been carried out for separate public path orders at Bletsoe; Colmworth; Staploe; Wilden; Willington; Wilstead; and Wyboston: Jobs-to-Do - Nos. 5 to 11.
There is a small backlog of applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs). DMMO applications can be made by any member of the public where they consider there is evidence that a path should be added to or deleted from the Definitive Map and Statement. The Council is supposed to deal with applications within 12 months of receipt but hasn’t. And an opposed DMMO made in 2006 awaits action. More Jobs-to-Do. And more besides. I think you get the picture.
It would seem sensible to me, necessary even, to get to get rid of or get to work on the list of jobs outstanding. But no - our Council chooses instead to add another three jobs to its list. Last month consultees were “notified” that an order will be made to divert a footpath in the interests of a landowner at Wilden, another order will be made to divert a footpath in the interests of a landowner at Dean & Shelton (both to field edges where they will be fenced in), and an order will be made to extinguish a harmless bridleway at Oakley, at a cost to the public purse.
It seems wrong to me that Bedford Borough Council chooses to use its powers to change the public rights of way network as a result of applications from landowners (a discretionary function and at some cost to the public purse) rather than focussing on its statutory duties? And it doesn’t make sense to me that having decided to make path orders that the process is then put on hold whilst they propose making more.
The only reason for making a public path diversion order is that it would be in the interests of the public, or of the owner (or lessee or occupier) of the land crossed by the path, or both. Bedford Borough Council should sort out its priorities to attend to its statutory duties, and in the meantime impose a moratorium on the processing of applications for public path orders made in the interests of landowners.
Monday, 30 January 2017
|Souldrop Village Green (VG42)|
(Click image to enlarge it)
Meanwhile, Knotting and Souldrop Parish Council in Bedford Borough has spoilt one of their village greens by developing part of it as a car park. An area where children once played, and where families and friends relaxed, during village hog roasts for example, is now reserved for cars. Presumably, anyone can park there which may present separate problems in the future as well as land ownership issues.
Souldrop Village Green (VG42) was registered as a village green under the terms of the Commons Registration Act 1965. At the time of registration there was no evidence presented to show who owned the land so the then Bedfordshire County Council was directed to register the land as belonging to the parish council. The idea being that the parish council should look after the Green for the purpose it was intended, namely, exercise and recreation. Not car parking.
Here’s what The Planning Inspectorate has to say about village greens in their Common Land Guidance Sheet 2b – Works on Town & Village Green:
“Town and village greens (T&VG) are protected by section 12 of the Inclosure Act 1857 and section 29 of the Commons Act 1876. Section 12 makes it a criminal offence to do anything which injures a green or interrupts its use as a place for exercise and recreation. Section 29 also makes it an offence to permanently encroach upon or inclose a green, or to build upon or disturb the soil of a green otherwise than with a view to its better enjoyment.”
Knotting & Souldrop Parish Council doesn’t seem to be bothered about acts of parliament, or about requests for information. The Borough Council wasn’t too bothered either but eventually required the parish council to submit a planning application for retrospective permission (the work to spoil the green was carried out in March 2015). It’s taken a year of pestering but the planning application has now been submitted. In my opinion, the application has been drafted sloppily and as a result is inaccurate and misleading but neither council is concerned about that either.
The apparent lack of interest in the preservation of the Green doesn't bode well. Nevertheless, I will object to the planning application because I believe that village greens are hugely important and that the right to use them should be jealously guarded. It's a great shame that the parish council doesn't feel the same way.
See Planning Application 16/03052/S73A HERE [Update 4th March: I find out by chance that the web link is ineffective because the online details have been removed from the Council's website. I'm informed that the application "has been put on hold due to an additional fee request to the applicant."]
|Souldrop Village Green (Before)|
(Click to enlarge the image)
|Souldrop Village Green (Recently)|
Up to 3 cars have been seen to park here.
(Click to enlarge the image)
Friday, 6 January 2017
|Wilstead FP8 - Looking south east from the area of Point E on the Council's plan|
(Click image to enlarge it)
A short section (approximately 230 metres) of Wilstead Footpath No. 8 cannot be used by the public because it is unlawfully obstructed where a stable and a shed have been built upon it, and where fences and gates have been erected to create paddocks at The Stables Equestrian Centre, Wilstead.
|Council's Proposal Plan with Council Officer's annotations|
(Click image to enlarge it)
Bedford Borough Council, as the Highway Authority, has a legal duty to protect the public right of way but has failed to do so.
What should have happened? The landowner or tenant should have sought planning permission for change of land use (from agricultural to equestrian use) and for permission to erect a stable and shed, hand in hand with an application to divert the footpath to enable the development (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 257). But they did not. The Borough Council, as the planning authority, should have taken enforcement action but they did not.
What can the Council do? It could have the obstructions removed (Highways Act 1980, Section 143: the power to require the removal of a structure or other obstruction from a right of way). Or it could require the landowner to apply for a public path order to divert the footpath (Highways Act 1980, Section 119).
The Council has estimated that it will cost up to £3000 to process a public path diversion order which it can recover from the applicant. That sum does not take into account the Council’s costs for a public inquiry which would ensue should anyone object to an order (which I will). Those costs would fall to the tax payer.
What is the Council going to do? It is going to ignore the planning permission issues and says it will make a public path diversion order at the expense of the public purse.
Why is the council dishing out favours? I think it is outrageous that the public should be expected to pay for this diversion – a diversion which is only deemed necessary because the landowner has developed land without planning permission and has unlawfully obstructed the public right of way, and because Bedford Borough Council has failed to carry out its legal duty. I don’t know what the circumstances were that led to the planning application failure but accept that we are where we are and that it would be harsh to have the stable, shed and fences removed. It seems reasonable to me that as a first step (because there is no guarantee of success when making a public path order) that the landowner should be required to apply and pay for a public path diversion order.
Decisions about making public path orders are not taken by Borough Councillors – it is left to council officers. Therefore, I have asked the Mayor of Bedford Borough to intervene arguing that using limited public funds to pay for this proposal is wrong, and at this time is especially hard to understand.
Recently, the Mayor wrote to residents about the need for savings and consulted on options to cut services and or increase the Council Tax because of Government cuts to Council funding. Bin collections throughout the Borough were changed to fortnightly rounds rather than weekly to save money. The talk now is of council tax increases and reduced services. This is not the time to be providing free services unnecessarily. And there should never be a time for rewarding landowners who obstruct public rights of way.
The Mayor considers “that it is reasonable for the Council to fund the cost of making this diversion.”
Given the facts that I’ve outlined here, I fail to see how anyone can think it reasonable that the public should pay.