Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence received.

There were no items of urgent business received.

There were no declarations of interest received.

There were no public questions received.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13^th March 2025 are attached for approval.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 13^th March 2025 be approved as a correct record.

Consideration was given to a report which asked the Committee to determine an application submitted under Schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, requesting that a Modification Order be made for the upgrade to Bridleway status of part of Footpath 156 Saddleworth, at Quarry Lane, Delph, which is shown marked A-B on the plan 764/A4/249/1 attached to the report.

The application for a Modification Order was submitted by the West Pennine Bridleways Association. The evidence in support of the application consisted of 20 user evidence forms and maps claiming more than 20 years use on horseback of the Application Route. The user evidence must be considered against the statutory provisions in section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 concerning dedication of a highway through 20 years’ usage as of right.

Options considered:

Option 1: To approve the application and upgrade the Application Route on the Definitive Map and Statement as a Bridleway.

Option 2: Not to approve the application.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The application for a Modification Order in respect of the upgrade of the section of Footpath 156, Saddleworth at Quarry Lane, Delph, as detailed in Schedule 1 be approved and the Director of Environment be authorised to undertake the necessary procedures to make the Order and to confirm the Order in the event that no objections are made to it.

2.    The Applicant and the owner/occupier of the land subject to the application be notified of the Council’s decision as required by Schedule 14 of the 1981 Act.

Consideration was given to a report which asked the Committee to determine an application submitted under Schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, requesting that a Modification Order be made in respect of a stepped route running from the side of 31 Laurel Avenue, Chadderton to the Rochdale Canal towpath (the Application Route), which was shown on the plan 764/A4/252/1 attached to the report.

The application for a Modification Order was submitted by the Chairman of the Firwood and District Residents Association, following the erection of gates by the current landowner in November 2024. The evidence in support of the application consisted of 43 user evidence forms and maps claiming more than 20 years use of the Application Route. The user evidence was considered against the statutory provisions in section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 concerning dedication of a highway through 20 years’ usage as of right.

Options considered:

Option 1: To approve the application and add the Application Route to the Definitive Map and Statement as a footpath.

Option 2: Not to approve the application.

RESOLVED that as per option 2, the application not be approved.

NOTE: A Ward Member addressed the Panel on the application.

Consideration was given to a report which asked the Committee to consider a number of objections received to the proposed extension of the existing ‘Prohibition of Waiting’ restrictions on Gloucester Street North and Radnor Street, Werneth which had been approved under delegated powers on 19 June 2024. The proposal was subsequently advertised and four objections, five letters of support and one alternative suggestion letter were received.

The basis of the objections was that the proposal would exacerbate the existing parking pressures, noting the nearby car park was frequently occupied by non-residential vehicles, including trailer vans, which already limited parking availability for residents. The proposals would impact numerous households who parked their vehicles along the Gloucester Street North / Radnor Street bend. Objectors proposed implementing restrictions on one side of the street only. They suggested alternative solutions which included time-restricted controls for waste collection and better management of the existing car park.

It was reported that whilst Officers still believed the original recommendation (Option 1) would meet the scheme objective, the relaxed proposal (Option 2) would still meet the scheme objective and provided a compromise which acknowledged the concern of the objector with limited mobility.

Options considered:

Option 1: Install Prohibition of Waiting restriction as advertised.

Option 2: Install a reduced Prohibition of Waiting restriction.

Option 3: Do nothing

RESOLVED that the Deputy Chief Executive be recommended to approve option 1 and the Prohibition of Waiting restriction as installed as advertised.