 |
| 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.
