Meeting documents

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Mr F Cassidy,  Mr J Mallinson and Mr D Wilson.

To note any changes in membership.

It was noted that Mr D Gawne replaced Mr J Mallinson as a member of the Committee for this meeting only.

Mrs H Carrick declared a non pecuniary interest in Agenda Item No 9 – Wildlife and Countryside Act 981 – Section 53 Application to delete a section of public footpath no 358037, as one of the residents was known in a professional capacity to her husband.  She would take no part in the discussion or vote in this item.

Mr P Turner declared a non pecuniary interest in Agenda Item No 9 – Wildlife and Countryside Act 981 – Section 53 Application to delete a section of public footpath no 358037, as one of the applicants was a previous work colleague of his, whom he had not seen for  number of years.

RESOLVED      that, the press and public not be excluded during consideration of any items of business.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting held on 13 April 2022

RESOLVED,     that, the minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2022 be agreed with the following amendment:-

Minute No 72 – 3^rd paragraph add in the word ‘was’ between ‘and’ and ‘for’ so it now read ‘claimed paths, and was for a decision’.

[Electoral Division: Gosforth and Millom Without]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure

The Development Control and Regulation Committee considered a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which informed members that an application had been received from the Open Spaces Society to register as common land 0.76 hectares of land at Wasdale and 0.28 hectares of land at Eskdale. Both parcels abut CL58 Eskdale Common and the committee was asked to decide as to whether the application should be granted and a correction made to the Council’s register of common land.

The Commons Registration Officer took members through the background to this application.

The Applicant claimed that the Application Land was not at any time finally registered as common land or as a town or village green under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The Applicant further claimed that the Application Land was subject to a Deed of Declaration and an Order of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries Imposing Limitations on and Conditions as to the Exercise of Rights of Public Access.  The Applicant requested that the Application Land was added to register unit CL58 Eskdale Common.

The officer then took members through the supporting evidence, the representations received and the response from the applicant to the representations.

The Commons Registration Officer had considered the representations and the Applicant’s reply, and advised the members that the registration authority could only take into account the facts and evidence which related to the legal test set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 2006 Act.   The Officer was of the opinion that this test had been satisfied, and believed that the points made by the representations were outside the scope of the legal test and, therefore, should not be taken into account.

The Officer then explained to members the concerns raised that registration of the Eskdale Parcel as common land would create an obstacle for highway authorities, and why she did not believe this to be a material consideration for the purposes of this application, and that the Committee should resolve that the Application was accepted and the Application Land be added to the register of common land.

Members had a number of questions for clarification, which the Commons Registration Officer answered.

The Chair notified the committee that there had been one request for public participation from Mr Lasper, although he was not in attendance at the meeting.

Mr Lasper’s representation was then read out by the Lead Officer – Development Control.

‘Has Jones understood:

·           that this Application depends on the land being "common land" within paragraph 2(2)(b)(iv);

·           that that Schedule is concerned with the correction of registration failures under the 1965 Act", i.e. the Commons Registration Act of that year;

·           that section 22(1) of that Act expressly excludes highway land from the meaning of "common land" registrable under that Act; and

·           that the bridleway that Jones has found to exist over part of the Eskdale Parcel is a highway?

Why then, does Jones not except from her recommendation of acceptance of the Application the bridleway in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

[Electoral Division: Corby and Hayton]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure

The Countryside Access Officer presented a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Environment which informed members that the County Council had made an order under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 on 26 September 1997 to extinguish a section of public footpath no 115033 at Silver Side in the parish of Farlam.

The Order was made to extinguish a section of public footpath no 115033 at Silver Side in the parish of Farlam on the basis that it was not needed for public use and would be replaced by a newly dedicated nearby public bridleway.

The three affected landowners at the time were prepared to dedicate bridleway rights subject to a section of footpath 115033 being relocated onto a hard track around the edge of the field.  However, negotiations with the three landowners had broken down and there was unlikely to be any formal agreement to dedicate the bridleway rights.

The Countryside Access Officer was therefore recommending the Order be abandoned.

One of the members asked for clarification on whether the footpath was Silver Top, or Silver Side.  The officer confirmed it was Silver Side.

The recommendation was then moved and seconded and put to a vote, which was unanimously carried.

RESOLVED,     that, the County Council abandon the Order made under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 to extinguish public footpath no 115033 in the parish of Farlam, and all those who made representations or objections to the Order be informed.

[Electoral Division: Houghton and Irthington]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure

Mr K Hamilton left the meeting at this point.

Members had before them a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which informed them that in 2002 the County Council made orders under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert public footpath nos 135005, 135006 & 135020 at Dovecote in the parish of Walton, in the interests of the public as part of the Hadrian’s Wall Path National Trail.

However, following the making of the Orders concerns were raised regarding the suitability of the diversionary routes and a more sustainable alternative route for the National Trail was later established.  Approval was now sought to abandon the Orders.

Members asked questions for clarification, which were duly answered, and then the recommendation was moved and seconded and put to a vote.

With 13 for, 0 against and 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED,     that the County Council abandon the orders made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert public footpath nos 135005, 135006 & 135020 at Dovecote in the parish of Walton as copies attached at Appendix B of the report.

[Electoral Division: Penrith North]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure

Mrs H Carrick had declared a non pecuniary interest in this item, as one of the residents was known in a professional capacity to her husband. She did not take part in the debate or vote.

Mr P Turner declared a non pecuniary interest in Agenda Item No 9 – Wildlife and Countryside Act 981 – Section 53 Application to delete a section of public footpath no 358037, as one of the applicants was a previous work colleague of his, whom he had not seen for a number of years.

Members had before them a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which detailed two applications that had been received to remove a section of public footpath from the Definitive Map and Statement. These applications relate to public footpath no 358037 at Milestone House in the parish of Penrith.

Members were asked to consider all the available evidence and for a decision to be made whether to proceed with the next stage of the process by making a legal order to remove the section of public footpath from the Definitive Map and Statement.

Footpath 358037 was presently legally recorded as passing through the gardens of the properties Milestone House and The Hollies.

An objection had been received from the local representative of the Ramblers on the basis that there was clear evidence of the existence of the path but if evidence were produced showing the path should go on a different route between the buildings, then the Ramblers Association may find an order to amend the route acceptable but the evidence so far was not sufficient.

Cumbria Local Access Forum suggested resolving the problem by means of a diversion order pursuant to section 119 of the 1980 Highways Act. This may be possible although a decision was first required on this Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 53 application.

Mr Hamilton returned to the meeting at this point.

The applicant landowners agree the route cannot be a cul-de-sac but believed it originally may have passed to the south of Milestone House.  Although there were physically possible routes south of Milestone House there was insufficient evidence to support the proposal. The Countryside Access Officer asked members to note Milestone Cottages were built around 1937 before the path was claimed.

The officer said it was doubtful that this path 358037 was a cul-de-sac stopping at point B.  It was very unlikely that when the definitive map was drawn up it should have recorded that the path ended at The Hollies. The section A-B was originally recorded and numbered as part of a continuous route from Penrith to approximately 1km east of Milestones where it meets a public vehicular carriageway. Considerable evidence points to the footpath continuing to and over the main road adjacent to Milestone House. All old plans inspected show routes which the path could have taken to link with the A6 main road. The first 1966 Definitive Statement says the path continues from Milestone House in a north-easterly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

[Electoral Division:Kirkby Stephen]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure

Members considered a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure, which detailed a planning application for the installation of Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Panels on the roofs of a number of buildings at Brough Community Primary School in Church Brough. The application proposed installation on three different distinct roof elements.

The applicant wished to decarbonise their electricity supply by providing decentralised renewable energy and realise energy cost-savings that could be utilised to help financially sustain the school and help drive forward improved delivery of the curriculum. 

Planning permission was required because the proposed solar panels would be within 1 metre of the external edge of some of the pitched roof elements.

The Planning Officer took members through the report in detail.

One of the members asked for clarification on which buildings would have the solar panels on, and the Planning Officer responded to say they would be installed on the rear elevation.

The same member asked if the solar panels would be seen from the public footpath, and the officer replied to say they would only be viewable from a very short section of the bridleway that ran alongside the southern boundary of the school.

The member responded to say he was unhappy about the panels being installed on the Victorian structure and felt the County Council should be safeguarding the appearance of the historic Victorian building in its entirety.  He suggested an amendment to the proposals, but this was not carried.

The Planning Officer recommendation was then moved and seconded and put to a vote.

With 15 votes for, 1 against and 0 abstentions it was

RESOLVED,     that Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure

To note that these are applications that have recently been determined by the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure in accordance with the schemes of delegation.

RESOLVED,     that, the list of applications determined under delegated powers be noted.

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure

To note that these applications that have been submitted to the County Council but are not ready/appropriate for presentation to the Committee of for determination under delegated powers and/or have been recently withdrawn or determined as invalid or not requiring planning permission etc.

RESOLVED,     that, the list of applications proposed to be determined under delegated powers be noted.

[Electoral Divisions: Various]

To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure

To note the Committee’s Forward Plan.

The list of applications to be considered at future meetings was discussed.

Members noted that the decision from the Secretary of State on the West Cumbria Mining application was due next month, and that the A595 Grizebeck Improvement Scheme application was likely to be considered in September.  Members requested a site visit be arranged for this application. The Lead Officer – Development Control confirmed that a site visit would be arranged for this application.

RESOLVED that,

(1)      The Forward Plan be noted;

(2)      The site visit scheduled for June be removed from the schedule.

The next meeting will be held on 15 July 2022 at 10.00am at County Offices, Kendal.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on 15 July 2022 at 10.00am in County Offices, Kendal.