The Highways Committee of Durham County Council is scheduled to consider a proposal to divert a section of Public Footpath No 80 in Wolsingham. The committee will also review evidence and hear representations regarding an application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way to add a new public footpath.

Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No 80 Wolsingham

A significant item on the agenda is the proposed diversion of a section of Public Footpath No 80 Wolsingham, located at Middle Fawnlees. The application, made by the landowner Mr te Lintelo under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, seeks to reroute the path away from the immediate vicinity of the buildings at Middle Fawnlees. The grounds for this diversion are stated as improving privacy and security for any future occupiers of the property, which is undergoing renovation for potential holiday let use.

The report pack indicates that the proposed diversion would involve the path starting at a more southerly point on Footpath No. 79, then heading west to rejoin the original line of Footpath No 80. This new route would not include any gates or stiles. Consultation on the proposal has taken place, with Wolsingham Parish Council, the Ramblers Association, and the British Horse Society indicating no objections. However, the Open Spaces Society has raised an objection, citing concerns that the new route would be less direct, less enjoyable, and less convenient than the current path. The Open Spaces Society has further clarified that their objection centres on the change in the path's character, suggesting that the privacy and security concerns could be addressed without altering the path's alignment.

The report outlines the legal framework for such diversions, noting that an order can be made if it is deemed expedient in the interests of the landowner or the public. The council must also be satisfied that the diverted path is substantially as convenient as the existing one and that the diversion will not adversely affect public enjoyment of the path network. The report suggests that the proposed diversion meets these criteria, with minimal loss of convenience for users and potential benefits in reducing conflict between path users and the property's occupants. The report also references the Rights of Way Improvement Plan for County Durham, which supports diversions that reduce conflict and benefit both land managers and path users.

Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No 80 Wolsingham

The committee is also scheduled to consider an application for a Public Path Diversion and Definitive Map Modification Order concerning Public Footpath No 80 Wolsingham. This relates to the same diversion proposal as detailed above. The report pack includes correspondence from various stakeholders, including Wolsingham Parish Council, the British Horse Society, and The Ramblers, who have not raised objections. The Open Spaces Society, however, has maintained its objection, arguing that the proposed route is less direct, less enjoyable, and less convenient than the current definitive route. They also contend that the path's character would change and that privacy concerns could be addressed without altering the path's alignment. The report details the council's response to these objections, outlining the arguments for why the diversion is considered expedient and substantially as convenient for the public.

Alleged Public Footpath from PRoW (FP) 2 The Dene to PRoW (FP) 21 The Red Track, West Rainton Definitive Map Modification Order Application

The committee's agenda also includes a report on an application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way. This application seeks to add a public footpath from FP 2 (The Dene) to FP 21 (The Red Track) in the Parish of West Rainton and Leamside. The application was submitted by West Rainton and Leamside Parish Council and is supported by user evidence forms and witness statements, which reportedly indicate uninterrupted public use for leisure and recreation for over 20 years.

The report pack indicates that objections have been raised by the landowner and their legal representative, who claim the path is permissive. Following consultations, officers have reportedly concluded that the legal tests under the Highways Act 1980 and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 have been met, recommending the making of a Definitive Map Modification Order. The report details evidence presented by the landowner, Mrs Sally Green of Penshaw Nursery, who disputes the claim of uninterrupted use, citing farm records and photographs as evidence of closures. She also highlights the presence of permissive signage and argues that Google Earth images suggest a different route in 2005, indicating a potential break in continuous use. The report also includes statements from the Definitive Map Officer and the Council's Lawyer (Planning and Highways), N. Carter, who clarify the legal tests for establishing public rights of way, including the concept of use as of right and the landowner's acquiescence. The report notes that if the committee agrees with the recommendation, any subsequent objections would lead to a referral to the Secretary of State.