warrington borough council professor steven broomhead ... · from nicky lane, 33 mercer street,...

Warrington Borough Council To: Members of the Traffic Committee

Councillors: Chair – B Brinksman Deputy Chair – S Parish B Axcell, L Hoyle, T McCarthy, S Roberts, G Settle

17 December 2013

Traffic Committee – Agenda Tuesday, 7 January 2014 at 6.30pm

Council Chamber, Town Hall, Sankey Street, Warrington Agenda prepared by Julie Pickles, Democratic and Member Services Officer – Telephone: (01925) 443212, Fax: (01925) 656278, E-mail: [email protected]

A G E N D A Part 1 Items during the consideration of which the meeting is expected to be open to members of the public (including the press) subject to any statutory right of exclusion. Item Page Nº 1. Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence

2. Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest (where the matter is not a ∗‘sensitive’ interest) which they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when the item is reached.

∗ A ‘sensitive interest’ is described in the Localism Act 2011 as a member or co-opted member of an authority having an interest, and the nature of the interest being such that the member or co-opted member, and the authority’s monitoring officer, consider that disclosure of the details of the interest could lead to the member or co-opted member, or a person connected with the member or co-opted member, being subject to violence or intimidation.

Professor Steven Broomhead Chief Executive

Town Hall Sankey Street

Warrington WA1 1UH

mailto:[email protected]

3. Minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2013 as a correct record.

1

4.

The Borough of Warrington (Traffic Management) (Civil Enforcement) (Amendment No. 59) Consolidation Order 2012 – Mercer Street, Burtonwood – Consideration of Objection Report of the Executive Director of Economic Regeneration, Growth and Environment.

3

5.

Village Green Application, New Church Field, Land adjacent to Doeford Close, Culcheth, Warrington Report of the Executive Director of Economic Regeneration, Growth and Environment.

12

Part 2 Items of a "confidential or other special nature" during which it is likely that the meeting will not be open to the public and press as there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972.

NIL

If you would like this information provided in another language or format, including large print, Braille, audio or British Sign Language, please call 01925 443322 or ask at the reception desk

in Contact Warrington, Horsemarket Street, Warrington.

Agenda Item 3

3

TRAFFIC COMMITTEE

29 October 2013

Present: Councillor B Brinksman (Chairman) Councillors B Axcell, L Hoyle, B Maher (substituted for Cllr McCarthy), S Parish, S Roberts and G Settle

T 10 Apologies Apologies for absence were received from Councillor B Maher. T 11 Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest Cllr Settle declared that he was a Path Warden, although not for the application on the agenda, and also the Chair of Warrington Nature Conservation Forum. T 12 Minutes Resolved,

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Chair.

T 13 The Borough of Warrington (Traffic Management) (Civil

Enforcement) (Amendment No 61) Consdolidation Order 2012 – Boston Boulevard Chapelford

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director of Environment and Regeneration. The purpose of the report was to consider three applications to record footpaths in the Definitive Rights of Way Map and Statement. The applications are based on statutory presumed dedication of a right of way by long uninterrupted, unchallenged use of the ways by the public or dedication in common law, evidenced by unchallenged, uninterrupted public use for less than the statutory period. There were three claimed footpaths as described below:

• Application 1 (Map1) – runs from the point on Culcheth and Glazebury footpath no.115 immediately north east of the Culceth Hall Farm Barns development, east south easterly then north north westerly to Culcheth and Glazebury footpath no.122 at the northern end of Wellfield Wood

• Application 2 (Map2) – runs from the point on Culcehth and

Glazebury footpath no 115 where it leaves the access drive to Culcheth Hall Farm Barns in an easterly then north north easterly

Agenda Item 3

4

then westerly direction to Culcheth and Glazebury footpath no.126 near the south western corner of Hitchfield Wood.

• Application 3 (Map 3) – runs from a point near the northern end of

Wellfield Wood south south westerly then southerly through the Wood then easterly to the rear of Culcheth Hall Drive, properties to a point to the rear of no.12 Culcheth Hall Farm Barns.

(See Maps appended to original agenda – 29th October, Item 4)

Representations were heard both in support and against the applications. The committee members considered in depth all the information available to them in the report and that provided verbally by the representatives at the committee. A proposal was put to the committee to reject the officer recommendation but this proposal was not carried. Decision,

To support the officer recommendation that the applications to modify the Definitive Rights of Way Map and Statement by adding footpaths as shown on drawing number ER/JT/DMMO/Cu1/2013, ER/JT/DMMS/Cu2/2013 appended, be approved and that the Head of Legal Services be authorized to make the necessary legal Orders under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Signed ………….………………….

Dated………………………………

Agenda Item 4 WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE (7th January 2014) Report of the: Executive Director of Economic Regeneration, Growth and

Environment Directorate Report Author: Mark Tune Contact Details: Email Address:

[email protected] Telephone: 01925 442634

Ward Members:

Cllr J Joyce and Cllr T O’Neill

1. SUMMARY PAPER – REPORT ON The Borough of Warrington (Traffic Management) (Civil Enforcement) (Amendment No. 59) Consolidation Order 2012 – Mercer Street, Burtonwood – Consideration of objection

2.

Purpose of the Report: To consider an objection and the appropriateness of introducing a restriction on waiting in Mercer Street, Burtonwood.

3. Recommendations: It is recommended that the Committee approve the making of the order as originally advertised.

4. 5.

Reason for the Recommendation To ensure the safe movement of all road users on the highway concerned. Confidential or Exempt: N/A

6. Financial Considerations: Subject If introduced the Order will be funded from the 2013/2014 revenue allocation for Permanent Traffic Regulation Orders.

7. Risk Assessment: Low

8. 9.

Equality Impact Assessment: No Consultation: Ward members and all other interested parties have been consulted as part of the statutory order making process.

Agenda Item 4

10. Background Papers: ER/TMS/SH/TRO469/B - The Borough of Warrington (Traffic Management) (Civil Enforcement) (Amendment No. 59) Consolidation Order 2012 – Mercer Street, Burtonwood – Proposed restriction of Waiting. Report of the Executive Director of Environment and Regeneration Services to the meeting of Warrington Borough Traffic Committee on 8th January 2012 Contacts for Background Papers:

Name E-mail Telephone Sean Halewood [email protected] 01925 442634

(See next page to continue report).


Agenda Item 4

Meeting of the Traffic Committee Date: 7th January 2014 Report of : Executive Director of Economic Regeneration, Growth and Environment Directorate Author: Mark Tune Contact Details: [email protected] Ward Members: John Joyce and Terry O’Neill TITLE OF REPORT: The Borough of Warrington (Traffic Management) (Civil Enforcement) (Amendment No. 59) Consolidation Order 2012 – Mercer Street, Burtonwood – Consideration of objection 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 To update the committee on discussions with the local ward councillors and the

Co-op on delivery practices to the store. 1.2 To reconsider the objection to the proposal to introduce a restriction on waiting in

Mercer Street, Burtonwood, deferred for a decision by the committee at its meeting on the 8th January 2012.

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 2.1 The Council has previously been approached by the logistics company

responsible for delivering stock to the CO-OP store located on Mercer Street, in order to highlight the difficulties its drivers currently experience in obtaining access to the store due to the manner in which motorists park their vehicles along Mercer Street.

2.2 The council consulted on the proposal to restrict obstructive parking which

restricts access for delivery vehicles to the store. Drawing No. ER/TMS/SH/TRO469/B details the location of the proposed parking measures and is attached as Annex A to this report. One objection to the proposals was received and is attached as Annex B to this report.

2.3 The Traffic Committee meeting on 8th January 2012 considered the objection to

the proposal, It took the decision to defer the resolution to allow further discussions to take place with the Co-op to establish whether there is an opportunity to change their delivery practices.

3.0 LEGAL POSITION SECTION 122 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984

Agenda Item 4 3.1 When exercising their function of making road traffic orders under the Road

Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Council are under a duty imposed by Section 122 of the Act to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. The Council must, so far as is practicable , have regard to a number of matters set out in Section 122 (2) which are as follows:-

(a) The desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to

premises.

(b) The effect on the amenities of any locality affected, including the importance of regulating and restricting the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles so as to preserve or to improve the amenities of the areas through which the roads run.

(c) The National Air Quality strategy prepared under Section 80 of the

Environment Act 1995.

(d) The importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or wishing to use such vehicles.

(e) Any other matters thought by the Local Authority to be relevant.

3.2 Before making any particular road traffic order, the Council must consider all

objections duly made during the statutory consultation period and must carry out a balancing exercise where representation in support of the proposed order has also been received. The Council must decide how much weight to attach to the representations, having regard for the individual circumstances of the case. The Council must, however, at all times bear in mind the statutory duty to which they are subject by virtue of Section122.

3.3 The Committee is advised that as there are no properties from which objections have been received that will be denied vehicular access via at least one public highway, then it has the power to determine the objections and instruct the officers to proceed appropriately.

4.0 OBJECTION 4.1 One objection was received to the proposed introduction of waiting restrictions

from Nicky Lane, 33 Mercer Street, Burtonwood, Warrington. The reasons for the objection and a response to each point were detailed in the report to the meeting of the Traffic Committee on the 8th January 2012.

4.2 The Chair of the Traffic Committee, local ward members and council officers, met

with representatives of the Co-op on 10th June 2013. The Co-op have agreed to adjust delivery times to avoid conflict with local activity at busier times of the day;

Agenda Item 4 Councillors have suggested that an appropriate delivery regime would be:

• Earliest delivery time: Monday to Saturday - 7.30am, Sunday - 8.30am • Latest delivery time: 5.30pm (7 days) • No deliveries: Monday to Friday between 8.00am & 9.30am and between

2.30pm and 4.00pm, due to school opening and closing times; Sunday between 10.00am & 12.30pm due to Church service times.

It must be stressed that any agreements made with the Co-op are not enforceable and are based on good will.

4.3 The Co-op have agreed to adhere to the majority of the proposed times where

possible although they have expressed concerns about being able to meet very restrictive windows due to the route the delivery vehicle will take and the journey times are susceptible to other events of the highway network. The Co-op have also stated that they do not believe the Monday to Friday afternoon restriction to delivery is necessary as the children are collected from the nearby nursery both at midday and 3.00pm, therefore reducing the level of congestion at school closing times.

4.4 The Co-op have suggested they would be willing to adhere to a compromise arrangement of:

• Earliest delivery 07.30am Mon-Sat / 12.00 Sun (pm delivery only Sun) • Latest delivery 5.30pm (7 days) • No deliveries 08.30am-09.30am Mon-Fri due to nursery school • No deliveries prior to 12.00 noon Sundays due to church.

4.5 The Co-op logistics have also been requested to investigate the potential of

reducing the size of vehicle used to service the store however, it has been stressed that due to the size of the deliveries received, this will potentially lead to an increase in the frequency of the deliveries to the store which again will be affected by restrictive delivery windows.

4.6 Co-op have advised that the proposed delivery regime can be implemented within

a four week timescale however, it was also stated that “these changes to delivery times will still require the introduction of the proposed yellow lines in order to maintain vehicle access to the store.”

5.0 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 The cost associated with implementing the proposal estimated at £500, will be

funded from the 2013 / 2014 revenue budget allocation for Permanent Traffic Regulation Orders.

6.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 6.1 Low.

Agenda Item 4 7.0 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.1 None. 8.0 RECOMMENDATION 8.1 Having considered the content of this report, it is recommended that Members approve the making the Order as originally advertised. 9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 ER/TMS/SH/ TRO469/A, ER/TMS/SH/TRO469/B & Delegated Approval to

advertise the introduction of waiting restrictions Mercer Street. 9.2 Report of the Executive Director of Environment and Regeneration Services to

the meeting of Warrington Borough Traffic Committee on 8th January 2012.

Annex A

Agenda Item 4

Annex B

Agenda Item 4

Agenda Item 5 (Village Green Application)

1

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE DATE OF COMMITTEE 7TH JANUARY 2014 Report of the: Executive Director of Environment and Regeneration

Report Author: Jason Lewis

John Holmes

Contact Details: Email Address: [email protected] [email protected]

Telephone: 01925 44 2812 01925 44 2086

Ward Members:

Cllr S Bland Cllr L Hoyle JP Cllr C Vobe

TITLE OF REPORT Village Green Application, New Church Field, land adjacent to Doeford Close, Culcheth, Warrington 1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1.1 To consider an application for the registration as a town or village green of land at

New Church Field, being land adjacent to Doeford Close, Culcheth, Warrington. Mr David Manley QC has been instructed by Warrington Borough Council to act as an Inspector in that regard and has held a hearing to consider various technical questions raised by the land owners. That hearing was held on 5 November 2013 and his findings inform an assessment of this application.

2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The application to register this land as a village green was made on 20 March 2013

by a Mr Geoffrey Neil Hardern JP of 115 Doeford Close, Culcheth. The application form identifies both the land which is claimed as a village green (the plan attached as Appendix 1 to this report), and the land which the village green serves (the plan attached as Appendix 2 of this report).

3. APPLICATION DETAILS 3.1 The application form is attached as Appendix 3 to this report. That application form

was submitted with a statutory declaration (confirming that the matters laid out in the form are correct), which is also within Appendix 3, and also 101 questionnaires confirming use of the land by local residents for varying periods of time. Those questionnaires are available for members to view on request. The fundamental



2

basis of the application was that the application land had been used, as of right, by a significant number of people, for a period in excess of 20 years.

The site is owned by Redrow Homes who wish to utilise it for residential development. If the village green application is successful then it will not be possible for residential development to take place. Once the application was received it was advertised within the local press and on the site and a consultation exercise was undertaken. The result of this is the local authority received more information from local residents, together with some additional evidence questionnaires and a detailed technical objection from Redrow Homes.

3.2 Members are advised that no statutory public inquiry system exists with respect to village greens, as it does with respect to planning applications. However, guidance from central government indicates that, where an application is opposed, one of the options open to a Local Authority is to hold a public inquiry, and appoint a neutral person to act as an inspector (usually a barrister with experience in this field of law). In this particular case issues were raised by Redrow Homes to the effect that this application was fundamentally flawed, and should not be permitted to continue to a full inquiry since there was no reasonable prospect of it being granted. The Inspector therefore took the decision to hold a preliminary hearing, on 5 November 2013, to consider these technical issues. He gave directions to the parties concerning preparation of bundles and the filing of skeleton arguments (this documentation is also available to councillors should they wish to see it).

3.3 The purpose of this report is to advise of the conclusions of the Inspector’s

deliberations as a result of that preliminary hearing. 3.4 Both the application and preliminary hearing of 5 November 2013, were properly

advertised in the press, and by site notices. Local councillors and the Parish Council were notified of both the application and preliminary hearing, with all of those who provided feedback during the consultation phase also notified of the hearing. No point has been raised by either party that the application was not properly handled or advertised by the local authority.

4. ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY REDROW HOMES, WHICH WERE THE

SUBJECT OF THE HEARING ON 5 NOVEMBER 2013 AND WHICH ARE DEALT BY THE INSPECTOR IN HIS REPORT

4.1 A full copy of the Inspector’s findings is attached to this report as Appendix 4. This

obviously is the key document and we would particularly draw member’s attention to it.

4.2 The first technical issue, which has been focussed on by Redrow Homes is

whether this application is a “locality” based application, or whether it is a “neighbourhood within a locality” based application. These are known respectively as limb A and limb B cases (this emanates from the wording of the legislation namely Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006).


3

4.3 In straightforward terms what that means is that the applicant must show either that

a significant number of people from a “locality” have used the village green for a period of 20 years (the limb A test), or alternatively that a significant number of people who live in a “neighbourhood” that is within a “locality” have used the village green for a period of 20 years (the limb B test). In both cases as well as showing that the use must be for 20 years the applicant also needs to show the following:-

• That the use was for recreational purposes • That the use was as of right • That the use was openly exercised (that is to say not by stealth or force)

4.4 The issue of what constitutes either a “locality” or a “neighbourhood” is discussed at length in Counsel’s report, as are the arguments made by both parties. One of the arguments advocated by Redrow is that they are not sure, from the wording of the application, or from any other documentation, whether they are dealing with a locality based application or a neighbourhood within a locality based application. One of the reasons for holding the preliminary hearing was thus to clarify this very point. Through the course of the proceedings it became clear that Mr Hardern’s case is that this application is a neighbourhood within a locality situation (that is to say a limb B case). The locality relied upon being the Culcheth Electoral Ward, and the neighbourhood the area defined on the map supplied with the application (Appendix 2 to this report). Redrow’s response is that the locality in question does not comply with the rules established by case law, because although it is a legally defined area there has been no correlation between the suggested village green on the one hand and the locality on the other (this is an issue discussed within Counsel’s report). Furthermore the neighbourhood identified by Mr Hardern does not, they suggest, qualify as a neighbourhood. Their case is that it is effectively a random line drawn on a map by Mr Hardern, encompassing the area where most of the supporters of the application live (that is to say people who are in favour of and claim use of the land in question. It is suggested by Redrow that this is not in accordance with the definitions laid down by case law. Mr Hardern disputes both these issues and argues that the land falls within the area of the electoral ward and that the area defined on the map at appendix 2 is in fact a neighbourhood as defined within the case law.

4.4 The second issue that was considered at the hearing on 5 November 2013 was

whether there was any prospect of there being evidence of substantial use of the piece of land by people who have lived in the neighbourhood for the entire 20 year period. It is important to note that the rules in this regard are very strict, an applicant has to show a full 20 year period of use, not a period simply of approximately 20 years. This is acknowledged by Mr Harden. The first question was when the period of 20 years started. In his application Mr Hardern claims that use of the land had ceased in June 2012 and that meant that the 20 year period ran from June 1992 through to June 2012. At the preliminary hearing an argument was raised by Mr Hardern that the use of the land had not ceased until November 2012 (when a high fence was erected around the land by Redrow Homes) and therefore the 20 year period should begin in November 1992. This is an argument that the Inspector urges the Committee to reject. In any event he is not prepared to advise that we should allow the application to be amended in that regard.


4

4.5 The second question is whether or not Mr Hardern is able to produce evidence of a

substantial use of the land by residents of the neighbourhood within the first 6 months of the 20 year period (that is to say the six month period beginning in June 1992). Redrow Homes argue firstly that there are only 9 witness statements which contain evidence of usage during that initial period, and that these statements emanate from the residents of a few households spread unevenly through the area claimed as a neighbourhood. Mr Hardern’s response is that although there are only a few witness statements those witnesses may well be able to give evidence that they saw others, who have lived within the neighbourhood, use this land in that first six month period. Redrow also argue that the vast majority of the area, which Mr Hardern claims as being the neighbourhood, served by the proposed village green, was not actually built during the first 6 months of the period of use and therefore did not exist when it is claimed that it was in fact benefitting from the use of the proposed green. Mr Hardern does not dispute this but points to the fact that the neighbourhood has grown and we should look at what existed 20 years ago when making our assessment. Again these issues are discussed fully in Counsel’s report.

5. CONCLUSION 5.1 Clearly members can ascertain Counsel’s recommendations for themselves. They

are contained within Counsel’s report at Appendix 4 under the heading “Analysis” which begins on Page 15 of the report. In essence Counsel concludes the following:-

1) That the Culcheth Electoral Ward has not had any credible

relationship with the claimed land (other than that the land falls within the area of the ward). Counsel’s reading of the case law is that the applicant needs to demonstrate a particular connection, or relationship, between the area that is claimed as a location and the land in question (Paragraph 19 of Counsel’s report).

2) That there is no basis for concluding that the area edged red, and

claimed by Mr Hardern to be a neighbourhood, falls within the definition of “neighbourhood”, as laid down by case law and as discussed by the Counsel (Paragraph 20 of his report).

3) That even if the above two flaws in the application did not exist that

the evidence of use within the early part of the 20 year period is extremely “thin” and that there is very little chance of success given this lack of evidence. (Paragraph 21 of Counsel’s report).

4) Counsel is aware of the fact that only a small part of the Redrow

development had been constructed within the first 6 months of the 20 year period (ie: from June 1992), not only that but the part that had not been built contained the vast majority of people from which evidence of use has been obtained. This fact, in Counsel’s view, is fatal to Mr Hardern’s claim (see Paragraph 20 of Counsel’s report).


5

5.2 The conclusion of this report, therefore, is that the application made by Mr Hardern should be rejected by Warrington Borough Council. Although no full inquiry has been held, Counsel points out (quite correctly) that there is no right, or statutory entitlement, to an inquiry. Further to that an inquiry should only be held where it would aid the local authority in reaching a decision concerning the application. In other words an inquiry should only be held in situations where there is conflicting evidence which needs to be investigated through the medium of an inquiry. Given the fundamental flaws within this application Counsel’s view is that an inquiry would not assist the local authority in resolving this application.

5.3 It was argued by Mr Hardern, before the inquiry, that the fact that the application

had been issued by the Borough Council was evidence that it was not flawed and was soundly based. This is not the case. This issue is dealt with by Counsel in Paragraph 5 of his report (Page 6). The role of the local authority is simply to make sure that the application form has been filled out, that the identity of the applicant is clear and that the applicant has identified both the land claimed to be a village green and the land which it serves. We must also ensure that the application is supported by a statutory declaration and that some evidence is lodged in support. It is not for the local authority to assess the merits of the claim at the time that it is actually issued but only to do so once we have received all of the information during the consultation period.

6. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT 6.1 Not applicable 7. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Not applicable 8. RISK ASSESSMENT 8.1 Low. 9. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY/EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9.1 There are no implications for equality or diversity issues. 10. CONSULTATION 10.1 Ward members and all other interested parties have been consulted in the decision

making process and in the run up to the inquiry. 11. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION 11.1 The reasons for the recommendation are contained in the Conclusion Section of

this report and in Counsel’s report which is attached Appendix 4 14. BACKGROUND PAPERS


6

Appendix 1 Plan Appendix 2 The land which the village green serves Appendix 3 Application Form together with documentation referred within it Appendix 4 Counsel’s Report Contacts for Background Papers:

Name E-mail Telephone Jason Lewis [email protected] 2812 John Holmes [email protected] 2086


7

APPENDIX ONE


8

APPENDIX TWO


9

APPENDIX THREE


10

APPENDIX FOUR

warrington borough council professor steven broomhead ... · from nicky lane, 33 mercer street,...

Documents