The Publishable Officer Decisions committee of Hounslow Council was scheduled to consider an application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement regarding a public footpath at Brentford Dock Estate. The meeting's agenda indicated that the primary focus would be on assessing the evidence presented for the proposed addition of this footpath.

Brentford Dock Definitive Map Modification Order

The main item scheduled for discussion was the application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement to include a public footpath around the perimeter of the Brentford Dock Estate. The report pack detailed the legal framework governing such applications, primarily the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Highways Act 1980.

The application, submitted by a group named 'Brentford Walks', sought to add a pathway shown in green on the application map, which encircles the estate peninsula. It also included smaller routes, marked in blue, intended to link this perimeter path to existing public roads within the estate.

The report outlined the evidence submitted by the applicant, which included statements from numerous witnesses detailing their use of the pathways. It also detailed the extensive evidence provided by the landowner, Brentford Dock Ltd, which argued against the modification. The landowner's position was that there had always been a clear lack of intention to dedicate any public rights of way over the claimed routes, citing signage, barriers, and verbal challenges as evidence.

Council officers were to assess the evidence, considering factors such as the length and frequency of public use, as well as the landowner's actions to restrict access. The assessment was to conclude whether there was sufficient evidence to support the addition of the green route to the Definitive Map and Statement, but not the blue routes.

The report was to recommend that an Order be made under Section 53(2)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to provisionally add the claimed footpath. It was also to recommend that the Order be confirmed by the Council as an unopposed Order if no objections were received, or if objections were received, that they be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

The report also touched upon the financial and legal implications of the application. It noted that if objections were made, the matter could lead to an appeal to the Secretary of State, incurring legal costs for the Council. The report also referenced a formal Direction from the Secretary of State requiring the Council to determine the application by a specific date.

The report included appendices with maps illustrating the claimed routes and photographs of signage and other features relevant to the application.