Order Decision. Inquiry opened on 9 February by Heidi Cruickshank BSc MSc MIPROW

Transcription

1 Order Decision Inquiry opened on 9 February 2010 by Heidi Cruickshank BSc MSc MIPROW an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs The Planning Inspectorate 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk Decision date: 10 March 2010 Order Ref: FPS/Q1770/7/72 referred to as Order `A This Order is made under Section 53(2)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and is known as The Hampshire (Winchester City No. 26)(Parish of Wickham) Definitive Map Modification Order The Order is dated 20 November 2008 and proposes to add a public footpath running from Footpath 16, near the railway footbridge, in a north-easterly direction to the road at Dean Villas and Totsome Cottages, Knowle, in the Parish of Wickham. Full details of the route are set out in the Order Plan and Schedule. There was one objection outstanding at the commencement of the Inquiry. Summary of Decision: The Order is confirmed. Order Ref: FPS/Q1770/7/73 referred to as Order `B This Order is made under Section 53(2)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and is known as The Hampshire (Winchester City No. 27)(Parish of Wickham) Definitive Map Modification Order 2008 The Order is dated 20 November 2008 and proposes to add a public footpath running from the road at Dean Villas, Knowle, in the Parish of Wickham in a generally easterly direction, around a copse at the eastern end, to Footpath 86. Full details of the route are set out in the Order Plan and Schedule. There was one objection outstanding at the commencement of the Inquiry. Summary of Decision: The Order is not confirmed. Procedural Matters 1. I made an unaccompanied site visit on 8 February 2010 and opened a Public Inquiry into the Order on 9 February 2010 at the Wickham Community Centre, Wickham. I undertook an accompanied site visit following the close of the Inquiry on 10 February The Orders arose as a result of an application to Hampshire County Council, the order-making authority ("the OMA"). Although the OMA initially supported both Orders they revised their stance with regard to Order B following Counsel s opinion on the applicability of section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act") to Crown land. As a result they supported Order A but took a neutral stance in relation to the confirmation of Order B and the support for this Order was led by a local resident.

2 Notices 3. The Rights of Way (Hearings and Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2007 specify that notice of an Inquiry must be placed on-site at least 4 weeks prior to the date of the Inquiry, however, due to unusual weather conditions the OMA were unable to meet this requirement. They did place the notice on-site as soon as practicable and the newspaper advertisement was placed as required. I asked whether there was anyone who had been prejudiced by this issue but no points were raised and so I am satisfied that it was appropriate to continue with the Inquiry in these circumstances. Main issues 4. The Orders were made under Section 53(2)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 ( the 1981 Act ) relying on the occurrence of events specified in Section 53(3)(c)(i). This section requires me to consider whether the evidence discovered by the OMA, when considered with all other relevant evidence, is sufficient to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the rights of way described in the Orders subsist and that the Definitive Map and Statement therefore required modification. 5. In relation to the user evidence questions were raised regarding its sufficiency in showing that use was by the public at large as of right or by permission given the connections of users to the land crossed by the routes during its former use as a hospital 1. Further issues arising from this relate to whether a reasonable landowner would have been aware of any use by the wider public. 6. The OMA referred me to the case of R v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford (2003) ( Beresford ) in relation to matters of permission and acquiescence by the landowner and R (on the prosecution of the National Liberal Land Company) v The Inhabitants of the County of Southampton, 1887 ( Southampton ) with regard to definition of the public at large. 7. I also asked the parties to address me with regard to the issue of potentially recording cul-de-sac routes as the roads at Dean Villas and Totsome Cottages 2 had no public rights recorded. 8. In relation to Order A there is a separate route between points A and B, which runs to the north and west of the Order route around the perimeter of the field ( the perimeter route ). The perimeter route was provided by the landowner, who is the statutory objector to the Order, and I will consider the implications of this provision. 9. The Orders arose following an application made after use of the routes was prevented and the matter was initially considered under the statute of the 1980 Act, however, the parties now rely on common law. At common law an implication of dedication of a public right of way may arise if there is evidence from which it can be inferred that a landowner has dedicated a right of way and that the public has accepted the dedication. I must therefore consider whether the evidence of use of way by the public and the actions or inaction of landowners, together with all other relevant evidence, enables an inference of 1 The hospital site is in the process of redevelopment for housing and is known as Knowle Village 2 I shall refer to this as the Knowle Estate 2

3 the dedication of public footpath rights to be drawn. User by the public is no more than evidence and the burden of proving the owner s intentions remains with the claimant. Reasons 10. The Order routes lie in close proximity within the parish of Wickham. Whilst most reliance is placed on the user evidence there is some documentary evidence to consider, generally common to both Orders. To avoid repetition, it is addressed in this section. Documentary evidence Ordnance Survey mapping 11. The Ordnance Survey ( the OS ) was formed in response to a military need for accurate maps in preparation for a possible Napoleonic War. The OS developed a variety of accurate, up-to-date maps. Instructions for surveyors laid down that their task was to show what was on the ground at the time of the inspection. The depiction of a way on an OS map is not, of itself, evidence of a highway but the inclusion of a route on a series of OS maps can be useful in helping to determine the status of a route in conjunction with other evidence. 12. The 1 st edition 1870 OS map at 1:2500 showed Knowle Hospital ( the Hospital ) as County Lunatic Asylum and the land crossed by the claimed routes as wood or coppice, with pecked lines indicating various routes within these areas. The railway line, and the road now known as Mayles Lane which crosses it, were shown. By the time of the 1895 OS map survey the properties known as Park Cottages had been built. The pit in the coppice, around which the line A B C in Order B passes, was identified as Old Chalk Pit ; pecked lines can be seen running north - south to the east of this feature on the line now recorded as Footpath 86 ( FP86 ), which is known locally as Chalky Walk. 13. By 1909 most of the trees were removed, leaving smaller coppices on the field edges. There was a track where a road now links the Knowle Estate to Mayles Lane and a footbridge over the railway line, on the route followed by Footpath 16 ( FP16 ). The 1932 OS map showed that a number of the properties now making up the Knowle Estate had been constructed. Features were indicated on both routes A and B, the Order A route being a double-pecked line feature annotated F.P., indicating Footpath, whilst the unannotated Order B route had a solid line to the south, indicating a hedge or fence. 14. Two maps dating from the 1940s showed the same situation and the map continued to show the Order A route, now marked as Path. The hedge to the south of the Order B route had been removed but a route was still shown, annotated Track. The undated OS map used as a base for the 1983 sales plan continued to show Order A but only showed section A B C of the Order B route, not the section C D across the field. Commercial Mapping 15. Some street maps were submitted which showed routes on the line of Order B. Whilst it was argued that these showed this was a road these maps can be given little weight. They show what was thought to be on the ground at the 3

4 time the survey, and may be based on surveys by others. They cannot be relied on to show that a route was a highway. Aerial Photographs 16. Although aerial photographs can show what was on the ground at the time they were taken difficulties can arise due to the scale, the time of day, which can lead to shadows hiding or distorting the line of a narrow path and oblique photographs may hide features which exist on a map. An aerial photograph cannot be taken as evidence of what rights might exist over a route, only that a route might be discernible on the ground at that date. 17. An oblique photograph dating from the 1980s showed features on the ground in the locations of the Order A route and also the beginning of the Order B route. An aerial photograph from 2000 showed that the field was cultivated but a feature could still be seen on the ground in the location of Order B. Nothing was visible on the Order A route, which would have clipped the edge of the cultivated area. By the time of the 2005 photograph there did not appear to be any indication of either route but worn areas could be seen on the line of the perimeter route. A recent photograph from Google Earth showed crop markings on the line of Order B. Highway Authority records 18. In July 1983 Mrs Lewsley, then a Nurse Tutor at the Hospital, wrote to the Rights of Way Department asking if particular routes were public rights of way, or whether they could have become so through use. The map appeared to show both the claimed routes and Footpath 15 ( FP15 ), which is to the south and runs almost parallel to Order B. The Council replied that the footpath was not recorded and explained that how a claim could be made. 19. Shortly after this Mrs Lewsley, who lived at 1 Totsome Cottages, wrote to Mr Rees, whom I understand was the tenant of the land. She indicated the Order B route and asked whether, although he had ploughed it, he would allow residents to use it. Mr Rees replied that this was not a recognised footpath and he wanted people to keep to the footpaths, as he intended to farm the land. 20. Mrs Lewsley made application to the County Council under Schedule 14 of the 1981 Act in November The local Branch of the Ramblers' Association wrote with reference to a possible claim relating to both Order routes. They said that Order B was frequently used by local residents before it was ploughed out and Order A is a frequently used and well defined path and even has a street light fitting at one end. However, both the tenant farmer and the landowners agents referred to an application for a footpath (singular), as did the response of the County Council to their letters. It does seem that the claim only related to the Order B route as argued by the OMA; they no longer had the application and thought it must have been returned to the applicant. 21. A map associated with this claim period was annotated but as it was not clear who had annotated it, or when, it is difficult to give weight to it. The Rights of Way Review Officer wrote to Mrs Lewsley in February 1993 regarding the claim. Mrs Lewsley responded that she wished to drop the claim relating to a pathway which has now not been used for ten years. The Review Officer had visited the area and noted that the Order B route had been incorporated into 4

5 the field whilst the Order A route appeared to have had work carried out on it; an internal memo referred to a footpath sign and said that it looked as if someone had been trying to improve the path. The response suggested that the work might have been carried out by the owners of the Hospital. 22. From 2002 discussions were ongoing regarding FP15, a used route apparently lying to the south of the field boundary at the time. Records of a Rights of Way Liaison meeting in May 2003 indicated that in negotiating the opening of the definitive route of FP15 the Rights of Way Officer, Liz Giles, had persuaded the landowner to move a footpath that had run diagonally from Dean Villas to a footbridge just to the south of the houses to now run around the perimeter of the field This relates to the development of the perimeter route. Summary 23. The documentary evidence indicates routes physically existing on the ground in relation to both Order routes from at least The Order B route was not shown on OS maps after 1983 although aerial photographs showed it as a feature. There was nothing to show the status of these routes but the documents support the user evidence that there were routes available to them. Other evidence Landownership 24. The affected land belonged to the Hospital as shown on a map of the boundaries, which appeared to be based on an OS map. Therefore, it was Crown land up to 1983, when it was sold off by tender in Lots; both routes cross Lot 3 and the current landowner bought Lot 2 at this time. The affected land was tenanted and was purchased by Marchstone Estates Limited in The current landowner had shares in that company and, with a partner, bought the land from the company in There have apparently been 3 or 4 owners since the sale by the Hospital. It was confirmed that although the Hospital reserved rights over land to the north no rights were reserved over this land. Although the farmland was sold in 1983 the Hospital continued to take patients until it finally closed in The bridge over the railway west of the Order routes was constructed under the South Western (Meon Valley) Railway Act, A small portion of land east of point A, on Order A, remains part of the Network Rail estate; they have not objected to the Order and there is no evidence that they have taken any actions to prevent dedication over their land. 26. To the east a section of land south-west of point B on Order A remained part of the Crown Estate and is now understood to be owned by the Homes and Communities Agency. This organisation has not objected to the Order and it was apparently their predecessor agency, English Partnerships, which erected barriers to prevent use of the Order A route by horses and bicycles whilst continuing to allow pedestrian use. The footpath sign is sited on this land. 27. Following the British Transport Commission v Westmorland County Council, 1957, it was argued that the fact that the land was part of a hospital meant that dedication of a public right of way was incompatible with the land use as it would interfere with the adequate and efficient discharge of statutory duties. 5

6 However, as pointed out by the OMA, the Order routes cross land which was part of the wider farm estate, not the walled hospital area, and no different from other farmed land. In addition, I note that the recorded route of FP15 lies within the same field 3 and was in the same ownership. I see no reason why a public right of way would be incompatible with the use of this land. Termination point 28. It is sometimes argued that a right of way must run from a highway to a highway or to a point of interest. It was common ground between the OMA and the objector that there was no rule of law on this, although the objectors argued in closing that as there was no place of public resort the route was only of use to the residents. In the alternative Mrs Chambers argued that the termination points were joined by the roadway in front of Dean Villas and the two routes used together as part of a circular route. 29. The OMA pointed out that there were other routes in the area terminating on routes with no recorded public status, for example, Footpath 23a which joins Mayles Lane, a private road. The user evidence forms ("UEFs") and associated maps showed people taking a variety of routes to the north and west of the termination points of the routes at the Knowle Estate. I accept that there is no case law that a route cannot be recorded as a cul-de-sac and so am satisfied that there is nothing to prevent confirmation of the Orders on this basis. User evidence 30. Arguments were raised that the use of the routes was only, or mainly, by staff and/or residents of the Hospital and so would not qualify as use by the public. Mrs Chambers referred to three distinct groups: elderly residents who lived and worked at the Hospital and have moved away, whilst still visiting; the children of those former residents; and, new residents with no attachment to the Hospital. The objector argued that the use could not be taken as public before 1983 and possibly up to 1996, as the Hospital was still in use up to that time. It was also argued that beyond that period any use was by a limited class of people and not the public at large as many former tenants bought their properties at Knowle Estate. The OMA suggested that a distinction could, and should, be drawn between use whilst on Hospital business and use outside that, such as for recreation or access to the local shop or school. 31. It was clear from the UEFs, and the analysis undertaken by the OMA and for the objector, that the majority of those supplying user evidence were employed by the Hospital, were tenants of it or fell into both categories. For a number it was the case that their parents had the actual connections but I agree with the objectors that this still needs to be taken into account in considering their evidence. There was also some evidence from people in the wider community who had used the routes. 32. To qualify in showing that a public right of way subsists use must be as of right which means, in the words of Lord Bingham s judgment in R v. City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford, 2003 ( Beresford ) not by force, nor stealth, nor the licence of the owner. If use was by permission, whether express or 3 Hedge boundaries having been removed whilst the land was still in the ownership of the Hospital 6

7 implied, then this would not be sufficient to demonstrate public rights. I do not consider that permission can be inferred simply from the fact of tenancy or employment unless use of the route was needed as a result. In this case there was little evidence of use as part of their employment but many people referred to use of the routes to get to school, shops and bus-stops, particularly from Knowle Estate; I consider that there must have been an element of implied permission in relation to such use. 33. In addition people were using the Order routes for recreation and a question arises as to whether this use could be seen as permissive. The users said that they had not been given permission to use the routes, and there was no evidence that such permission was written into any tenancy agreements or terms of employment. Beresford held that A landowner may so conduct himself as to make clear, even in the absence of any express statement, notice or record, that the inhabitants' use of the land is pursuant to his permission. This may be done, for example, by excluding the inhabitants when the landowner wishes to use the land for his own purposes, or by excluding the inhabitants on occasional days: the landowner in this way asserts his right to exclude, and so makes plain that the inhabitants' use on other occasions occurs because he does not choose on those occasions to exercise his right to exclude and so permits such use. 34. I was satisfied that those giving evidence at the Inquiry did so with honesty and that their evidence tied in with the documentary and physical evidence available to me. This evidence was subject to cross-examination and I consider that it allows me to also place some weight on the evidence only available on paper, with which it agrees. People remembered the light at point A and footpath sign at point B of the Order A route, as well as the clinker used on the Order B route across the field. There was no evidence from these users that they were stopped or turned back until after the land was sold in I have not placed any weight on evidence only submitted by way of the 2007 petition or 2006 round-robin letter as this was simply insufficient in detail. 35. I consider that any permissive use must have ceased once the Hospital land was sold; no private rights of access were reserved to the Hospital, or anyone else, over this land. It was argued that even after the sale of the land the people using it were from too small a group to constitute the public at large and I agree that they were still mainly, although not solely, people with connections to the Hospital. However, taking account of Southampton I consider that this would not prevent them being representative of the public. It was said that the word public must not be taken in its widest sense...for it is common knowledge that in many cases it is only the residents in the neighbourhood who ever use a particular road or bridge. I also agree with the OMA that the level of use is what might be reasonably expected in such a rural area, both pre- and post The objectors argued that user by Mr Gale with school-children was permissive, however, my understanding was that he was asking to use the estate in general and specifically requesting parking; nevertheless I accept that I cannot place weight on the possible use of the routes by these children. In relation to the wider use by Mr Gale I am satisfied that it was as of right, without permission of any landowner and unconnected to the Hospital. 7

8 37. From 1983 those users who were connected to the Hospital no longer had any formal connection to the land crossed by the claimed routes. From 1996 the Hospital was no longer in use. These people continued to use the routes, as they had done previously, simply because they were local and convenient. There continues to be some evidence of use by the wider public and I note that people moving into the area without any previous association simply used the routes as they saw others doing. I consider, on the balance of probabilities, that use post-1983 was use as of right by the public at large, subject to the matters considered below. Order A: The Hampshire (Winchester City No. 26)(Parish of Wickham) Definitive Map Modification Order The common evidence discussed above applies to this Order, in addition to the matters considered below. 39. It is not clear when the Footpath sign at point B was erected but it was certainly before the County Council site visit in 1993, as it was noted then; Mrs Park believed that it had been there since at least 1958 and Mrs Chambers said in the period It appears that it could have been erected by the Hospital, who also apparently put in the light at point A. Such actions could be seen as providing a facility for their employees, tenants, patients and visitors and it was suggested that Holloway v Egham Urban District Council (1908) ( Holloway ) might be relevant as where the original use of a road was private there was a need to look more closely at subsequent user. 40. I consider that Holloway can be differentiated from this case as the road was set out as an occupation road under an Inclosure Act and there was physical interruption to use long before the public rights were asserted; in this case the Hospital might originally have provided the route, although this is unclear, but, taking account of Beresford there was no evidence of any overt action taken to make people aware that use was by permission and when the public rights were called into question action was taken to assert them. 41. There is no statutory minimum level of user required, however, there must be a sufficient level of use for the landowner to have been aware of it, and have had the opportunity to resist it if he chose. In this case the current landowner, who has had an interest in the land since 1992, said that he was aware of the use; his farm manager would be on the land about once a week and he also visited, although on a less regular basis. 42. Mr Moyse said that he initially thought the use was connected with the Hospital and he was aware that a route was shown on the ground on the sale map; he did not want other people to walk there. He agreed in cross-examination that he took no action to make it clear to the users that their use of the route was permissive; there were no statements, notices, deposits under section 31(6) of the 1980 Act or any evidence of overt and contemporaneous acts to show the public that use was by virtue of his revocable permission. In Beresford it was said that a licence to use land could not be implied from mere inaction of a landowner with knowledge of the use to which his land was being put. It is clear enough that merely standing by, with knowledge of the use, and doing 8

9 nothing about it, i.e. toleration or acquiescence, is consistent with the use being "as of right". There was also no evidence of any action by other landowner(s) in the period In addition to the toleration of continued use of the route was the creation of the perimeter route. When this route was put in place, in late 2002 or early 2003, the Order A route was stopped up by the fencing but as it was not recorded as a public right of way there was no formal diversion. I consider that two possibilities arise: either the landowner accepted that the Order A route was a right of way and agreed to move it as a pragmatic measure to enable easier use of his land; or, by laying out the perimeter route he expressly dedicated that route to the public. There was again no indication to anyone that their use of the perimeter route was permissive. 44. I agree with the OMA that it is unlikely that the landowner intended for there to be two public rights of way in such close proximity and, taking account of the evidence that Mr Moyse understood that in agreeing to the perimeter route there would be no need for the Order A route, I consider that it provides evidence that he did accept that the public had a right to use a route for access between points A and B. Given that it was the fencing of the route that led to the application for this Order it would be fair to say that the public did not accept the alternative route and believed that they still had a right to use the Order route. Conclusions 45. A route has physically existed in this location since at least the time of the survey for the 1932 OS map and there was user evidence dating back to the 1930s, with some people referring to use by their relatives from even earlier. The Hospital must have been aware that there was a route on the ground, apparently providing a light at one end and possibly also erecting the footpath sign. There was no evidence that anyone was prevented from using the route until 2003 when the alternative perimeter route was laid out. 46. I am satisfied that the use post-1983 was by the public at large as of right even if the use at an earlier date could have an element of permission. The three or four separate landowners since 1983 have taken no action to prevent public use of the route and I consider that the actions of the current landowner have demonstrated his acceptance of public rights over the Order route, even if he would rather that such rights ran on the perimeter of the field. 47. The landowners of the sections of land at either end of the Order route have taken no action to prevent public use on foot, although action was apparently taken to prevent other users by the owner to the north-east. Neither owner has objected to this Order. 48. Considering the evidence as a whole I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Order route should be recorded as a public footpath. Having regard to these and all other matters raised I conclude that Order A should be confirmed. 9

10 Order B: The Hampshire (Winchester City No. 27)(Parish of Wickham) Definitive Map Modification Order The common evidence discussed above applies to this Order, in addition to the matters considered below. 50. This route was referred to by some as the Black Walk, presumably due to the clinker and ash that had been used to form the surface, and by others as the Boundary Walk. This seemed to be because it initially ran along a field boundary, shown on the earlier OS maps, as well as some people appearing to continue north within the field boundary, rather than joining FP I consider that the application to record this route in 1983 had the effect of calling the public rights into question. It was clear from the correspondence that neither the landowner nor the tenant at that time had any intention to dedicate a public right of way across the field. There was evidence that people continued to use the Order route after 1983, although with less frequency in part due to the fact that it was no longer as easy to use as it was under more active cultivation than previously and the physical track on the ground had been ploughed out. There was some evidence that the current landowner, or his employees, had turned people back from their use of the route. 52. As a result of this I consider that there was no possibility of finding subsequent dedication after 1983 and the question that then arises is whether the route was already a public right of way prior to the use being called into question. 53. There was conflicting evidence with regard to the treatment of this route by the Hospital. On one hand the users said that they had not been stopped and the former farm manager, Mr McVicar, said that he had not prevented any use, never having been told to do so, except with regard to the inappropriate use of the cricket ground. On the other hand Mr Carter, who was employed in the Engineering Department, said that he was told to turn people back and had done so on about a dozen occasions a year, although not on the Order A route; he understood that the public were not allowed to use the Order B route. Mrs McFarlane referred to people being turned back by the farmer and this might refer to the actions of Mr Carter or his boss, who apparently also stopped people. 54. Mrs Chambers argued that the closure by the Hospital of Mayles Lane, without closing off the claimed routes, provided an indication of their intentions with regard to rights over the Hospital as whole. I agree that it indicates that the Hospital administration were aware that they had the capacity to dedicate public rights of way, however, the evidence of Mr Carter indicates that they did take action with regard to this Order route. 55. I agree with the case for the objectors that Leckhampton Quarries Co. Ltd v Ballinger and Cheltenham Rural District Council (1904) refers to the proposition held under Poole v Huskinson, 1843, that a single act of interruption by the owner is of much more weight, upon the question of intention, than many acts of enjoyment. I consider that the interruptions by an employee, apparently under instruction from the landowner, must be taken as indicative of the intention of the landowner and do not support the case that it was the intention of the Hospital to dedicate public rights over this route. 10

11 Conclusions 56. As with Order A this route was indicated from the date of survey for the 1932 OS map and the users said that it was only ploughed out in 1983, when the land was sold. The route seems to have developed for agricultural access and the pedestrian use was incidental to this; there was no footpath sign or any other indication that the landowner intended that the public should use it and there was evidence that people were turned back from using the route by at least two members of Hospital staff. 57. I consider that whilst people may have always used the route, and believed that they had the right to do so, on the balance of probabilities the burden of proof required to show that the relevant landowner did intend to dedicate the route as a public right of way has not been discharged. Having regard to these and all other matters raised I conclude that Order B should not be confirmed. Other matters 58. There were issues around the use of back gates from some of the properties at Knowle Estate into the field and some unhappiness with regard to the condition of the perimeter route and FP15. There was reference to the need for a footpath link for safety reasons; a desire for countryside access, particularly for newer residents and dog walkers taking account of population growth and new properties at Knowle Village; and, wildlife concerns. 59. Whilst I understand that these issues are important to those who live and work in this area they are not matters that I am able to take into account in reaching my decision under the 1981 Act and so I have not considered them. Formal Decisions Order A 60. I confirm the Order. Order B 61. I do not confirm the Order. Heidi Cruickshank Inspector 11

12 APPEARANCES For the Order Making Authority: Mr I Austin Solicitor for Hampshire County Council who called: Ms E Noyce Senior Definitive Map Review Officer, Hampshire County Council In Support of the Order: Mrs S Chambers Lead supporter Mr T Addison Mr I Backhouse Mr D Beale Mrs B Carstens Applicant Mrs T Coombes Mr D Gale Mr R Jennings Mr M McVicar Mr E Shepherd Mrs H Shepherd Mrs J Silsbury Mrs V Townsend Mr D Wright In Objection to the Order: Mr G McGruer Blake Lapthorn on behalf of Mr G Moyse who called: Mr G Moyse Mr B Carter Mr D Plumpton Ian Judd & Partners

13 DOCUMENTS 1 The Order 2 Opening Statement of Hampshire County Council 3 Colour copy Map of Knowle Farm (PoE Exhibit 1) 4 Table & graph of user (PoE Exhibit 3) 5 Extracts relating to cul-de-sacs 6 Closing Submissions of the OMA 7 Correspondence and apologies regarding attendance for the Supporter 8 Summary Proof of Evidence of Dominic Plumpton 9 Pages from Public Rights of Way and Access to Land 10 Representations on behalf of the Objector in Closing