|
Copy of Reply from Suffolk Council
Copy of Reply from Suffolk Council Resource Management dated 190803
Re Beaconsfield Road Kessingland.
Thank you for your letter of the 15th August with enclosed evidence forms.
I accept that A-B is part of Beaconsfield Road and is not called Chipperfield Road. I have amended the Committee Report accordingly.
As indicated in my letter of 11 August I do not accept that FP15 runs parallel to but to the north of Beaconsfield Road. I and my colleagues have checked the definitive map several times most carefully, and we believe that FP15 and Beaconsfield Road are coincident between the points B and C. I accept that there may well be an additional pedestrian way on the other side of the hedge, but that does not alter the fact that FP15 is recorded along Beaconsfield Road.
You refer to one person whose evidence form relates to the years 1940-43. I note that this person is not claiming use by vehicles, and is therefore immaterial to the question of whether public vehicular right exist. You may like to note that the question of whether use by bicycles can give rise to full vehicular rights is as yet untested in the Courts. However, we have recently received advice from the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol to the effect that they do not believe it can give rise to such rights. Accordingly the limited evidence of bicycle use, which is evidenced in the forms, can again make no difference to the question of vehicular rights.
I note that part of your letter refers to the desirability of solving the problems in the area. While I understand your concern, I can only repeat that this is not a matter which I can include in my Committee report, which deals only with the evidence. You have referred to Section 31 of the Highways act 1980. I would draw your attention to the words ? other than a way of such character that use of it by the public could not give rise at common law to any presumption of dedication?. I submit that one interpretation of that phrase would be a way which could legally be used by the public. That is the case of Beaconsfield Road, which is recorded as FP15, and over which use in a motor vehicle must be a criminal offence, unless the user has lawful authority. I would refer you to Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988: -
?Subject to the provisions of the section, if without lawful authority a person drives
a mechanically propelled vehicle: -
[a] onto or on any common land, moorland, or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
[b] on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway,
he is guilty of an offence.
I have noted your comment that some residents have been using the route since the 1920?s and 1930?s when fishing was a thriving industry in Kessingland. I acknowledge that that remark is consistent with information have previously received about net drying sheds being I the area. However I do not think that this information, which is essentially anecdotal, is sufficient to show presumed dedication.
I have analysed the user forms you submitted very quickly, bearing in mind the deadline for my Committees report. I note that the vehicular use goes back to 1964 at the earliest. Beaconsfield road was recorded as FP15 at that stage and it therefore follows that any use since that date has been unlawful as previously explained. I therefore do not believe that your recent letter and evidence forms will make any difference to the eventual outcome of the report.
I am copying this letter to Mrs Beevor and Councillor Andrews .
Yours sincerely
Jane Stevenson.
|
|