Agenda and minutes

To appoint a Chairman for the purposes of this meeting.

RESOLVED:  That Councillor Phillip O’Dell be appointed as Chairman for this Licensing Panel Hearing.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Panel;

(b)               all other Members present.

RESOLVED: To note that there were no declarations of interest made.

[Note:  Licensing Panel minutes are:-

(1)               approved following each meeting by the Members serving on that particular occasion and signed as a correct record by the Chairman for that meeting;

(2)               not submitted to the next panel meeting for approval.

Reasons: The Licensing Panel is constituted from a pooled membership. Consequently, a subsequent Panel meeting is likely to comprise a different Chairman and Members who took no part in the previous meeting’s proceedings. The process referred to at (1) above provides appropriate approval scrutiny].

(See Note at conclusion of these minutes).

To receive any questions, petitions or deputations (if any), under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rules 17, 15 and 16 (Part 4B) of the Constitution respectively.

[Note: These items are qualified by the requirements of the licensing legislation and will not be applicable to applications on the current agenda.]

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting.

Report of the Divisional Director Environmental Services.

In attendance:

The Panel considered a report, which set out an application from Mr Fordham to modify the Definitive Map and Statement in respect of alleged public rights of way over land to the rear of The Avenue, Hatch End.  The report recommended that the application be refused.

The Presenting Officer reported that:

·                     following the application from Mr Fordham, Mr Pervez had registered an objection.  Mr Pervez was the owner of the land in question;

·                     officers from the Council had conducted a site visit.  These officers had been unable to walk all of the alleged footpaths.  However there was some evidence of footbridges and some pathways;

·                     questionnaires had been submitted along with the application.  These had been used by the applicant to demonstrate his contention that the footpaths across the land had been in existence since 1970 and that use by the public had been for a minimum of 20 years;

·                     the Objector had submitted that he purchased the land in 1998 and since this period the site had been fenced and gated to prevent access.  The Objector had also claimed that a sign was on the site indicating that it was private land;

·                     the Definitive Map was a conclusive document on public rights of way from a legal perspective;

·                     the Definitive Map had last been reviewed on 31 December 1969.  The Council had a statutory duty to continuously review this;

·                     the application had been assessed under Section 53(3)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.  This section related to where events had occurred since the Definitive Map was last prepared or reviewed and a right of way had come into existence where none had existed before;

·                     under Section 53(3)(b) there were three tests which were required to be satisfied for the application to be successful.  These were as follows:

o                   did the application relate to a way over land that is of a character that use of it by the public could give rise at common law to a presumption of dedication?

o                   if so, had it been enjoyed by the public for a full period of 20 years without interruption?

o                   if so, had that use been as of right?

·                     consideration had been provided to all three tests.  It was officers’ view that the application be rejected as the applicant had failed to demonstrate the public nature of the right.  Whilst access to the land from The Avenue could indicate a public use, the two footbridges were unlikely to because they were over private land.  Additionally to demonstrate a public nature, it was not required to demonstrate that everyone had used the land but on the other hand the use of the land could not be limited to a specific number of people.  Form the evidence provided by the applicant, it appeared that users  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.