DCC: Folly farm footpath and other applications

The Folly farm footpath in Paganhill - or Folley farm as the sign on the gate says - returned to the Development Control Committee meeting today and was deferred for a month so that a Sites Panel of councillors could visit the site themselves.

Photo: Ebley Mill - not today - it was grey and damp and still too warm for this time of year

Use the search facility on this website to see previous entries re Folly Farm. DCC had three options re this footpath on the table today - the first to not go-ahead with the footpath changes, the second to call for a Public Inquiry and the third to see if each of the 17 official rejections by members of the public could be removed - ie to get those people to withdraw them officially.

This last option would seem impossible; especially as the reasons for objections are serious and clearly not like in some other disputes where people object to changes in Rights of Way as a matter of course. That leaves the other two which both have cost implications and have to take account of many issues like the fact that this footpath change has already had support from some.

To me this mess could have probably been avoided if the process had been different - the Council followed procedures so I'm not criticising them but clearly the procedures themselves are absurd. Certain bodies are consulted like the Ramblers then it goes to DCC - this one went in the summer - at the meeting I specifically asked if consultation had taken place and was assured it had and that no objectionjs had been made - well it had - but only to those certain bodies like the Ramblers - I voted against the changes but the application was passed - understandably as other councillors heard there were no objections.

I then learnt that the public are informed after the vote by notices - this is the first they had heard about what appears to be one of the longest running footpath disputes in the District. Why on earth aren't these people - the local landowners and neighbours involved in the process earlier? Many of them had useful and important points to make.

Anyway we are now where we are and I would love to have this footpath along the brook edge - indeed opening up and improving access to the brook is partly what RBAG is about - but - and this is the biggest 'but' - we can't have this footpath at the expense of the other one being lost - I have mentioned the various concerns before including loss to biodiversity and flooding issues - many of these can maybe able to be got around to some extent but the main issue that cannot is the fact that this new route is longer, follows a potentially muddy brook-side path and goes down a steep slope - it is this slope that I object to most as it will exclude less able walkers - and I know for a fact that the current route is used by people who are less able walkers who like a flat, dry surface to walk along.

There are various other issues that should be taken into account but I was not able to make many of these comments at DCC due to the deferral for a Sites Panel. Some argue that the current owners of the farm bought the property knowing the footpath was there so should learn to live with it - I see that point but I can also see the argument that if an alternative acceptable route can be found then it would be good for all. It does seem a great shame that a solution cannot be found - a couple of the objectors made very good alternative suggestions that warrant attention. I do hope that at some point we will all be able to explore the best way forward together so that all the concerns are taken into account.

Other DCC stuff

Anyhow I'm running out steam - a little more - as for the rest of the DCC meeting I was struggling a little today to get all the points made - there were several extra amendments I was able to make on a number of planning applications like including conditions of Sustainable Urban Drainage.

One application that surprised me most was for 61 sheltered apartments in Bowbridge - the garage there - we need sheltered accomodation urgently in the District but have to say I was shocked by this application and it's disregard for design - one councillor described it as a cruise ship being plonked down near the canal - otherthan the poor design it also ignored the fact that this was an employment site - and if we don't have those we are going to end up with more unsustainable commuting, it was also in a Conservation area, it had no affordable housing element, no renewables, no habitat improvement and no contributions re the canal or it seems proper regard for traffic considerations. I have to wonder how these companies work - is this to some how soften us up so we will welcome their nexy proposals?