Agenda item

            The Committee considered a report which provided detail in regard to officers beginning the examination of a potential public path creation order from College Heights into the neighbouring Ballynafeigh area.

            The Director, OSSS and Resources and Fleet, explained that under the Article 12 of the Access to the Countryside Order (NI) 1983 all Local Councils may enact compulsory powers for path creation where it appeared to a District Council that there was need for a public path. In 2006 a path through Annadale Grammar School had been brought to the Council’s attention as a potential public right of way. In 2008 investigations had indicated this was not the case. The site had been redeveloped into a residential area with a path for use of its residents but not the public at large. In 2022 the Council began to investigate whether it was feasible to enter into a permissive path agreement or public path creation agreement with the landowner.

            The Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 places a duty on District Councils to ‘assert, protect and keep open and free from obstruction or encroachment any public right of way’. In 2008 the Legal Advice on the nature of the route pointed that being closed overnight meant that no public right of way existed. The site was developed into a residential area with a path retained for the enjoyment of residents in the development. It was locked by a gate and a management company maintained the landscaped areas of this development, including the pathway. In 2022 members of the public approached Elected Members requesting that the path be open to the general public for use. This would include active travel such as walking to and from school, going to the shops and general recreation. The Director explained that the alternative route involved a 30- minute walk to and another to return which parents and guardians were doing 2-3 times daily. At this stage, the Council wrote to the landowner and explained that it would be willing to explore the potential of a public path creation agreement. The landowner did not respond. The Council again approached the landowner about the potential of a permissive path agreement on a pilot basis whereby the path could be opened and closed during set times of the day for a set period. Once again, there had been no response from the landowner.

            The Director explained that a Public Path Creation by Order was a complex matter. The Council needed to be satisfied that there was a need for the path and also be willing to meet certain undertakings regarding maintenance, liability, etc. The Council must also consult with statutory undertakers, including DAERA, to confirm that the path was required and would not adversely impact the landowner’s enjoyment of the land.

            During discussion the Members sought assurances that the Council would consult with local residents and also consider in detail the future usage (active travel) and Council undertakings re maintenance and liabilities.  It was noted that a report would be submitted to a future meeting for the Members consideration prior to any decision being taken.

            The Committee granted permission to officers to examine the potential of a public path creation order.