Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director of Place

To consider the above petition, bearing 28 signatures, which has been submitted by Councillor Crookes, a Wainbody Ward Councillor, who has been invited to the meeting for the consideration of this item along with the petition organiser.

The Cabinet Member considered a report of the Executive Director of Place that responded to a petition bearing 108 signatures, requesting the retention of the bollard protecting the pathway between Fosseway Road and Anchorway Road. The petition was submitted by Councillor Crookes, a Wainbody Ward Councillor, who attended the meeting and spoke in support of the petition together with the petition organiser, Mr Christopher Law. The resident of No 6a Anchorway Road, Mr Jag Singh, also attended the meeting.

In December 2012, the resident of 6a Fosseway Road was granted planning permission for the creation of a new vehicular entrance into his property off an adjacent pathway linking Fosseway Road with Anchorway Road. The new entrance was subsequently built and came into use.

Whilst the deeds for no. 6a granted private access rights over the pathway, it could not be demonstrated that they specifically granted access by motor vehicle. Therefore, in November 2014, following the receipt of complaints from other residents, the Council installed a bollard on the pathway preventing vehicles from using it to access the property. The resident of no. 6a successfully appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against this decision and a review was undertaken the result of which was to move the bollard a short distance further up the pathway to permit vehicular access to no. 6a, subject to various conditions, and this decision was communicated to residents in June 2015. 

Councillor Crookes and Mr Law requested that the bollard be retained in its current position for the specific reason of protecting children using the pathway to access local schools from any potential danger posed by vehicles which may wish to use the pathway. They indicated that the pathway had been identified under the ‘Safer Route to Schools’ Scheme.

Mr Law referred to an appraisal of this issue by the City Council’s Highways Officers and Rights of Way Officer in November 2011 that stated that Highways Officers object to this application because it involved a vehicle access across the adopted public footpath (RA 406) and would prejudice highway and pedestrian safety. The Highways Officer and the Rights of Way Officer met with the previous owner of No.6a on site on 16th November 2011 and advised him that they could not support his proposal for a vehicle access to the property via the footpath. The principle reason was pedestrian safety and the conflict it would cause between vehicles and pedestrians. The width between the garage wall to No. 7 and the boundary wall to No. 6 (when measured on site) was just 2.9m and this would not be sufficient for a pedestrian to wait in safety if a vehicle were to be travelling along the footpath. The decision was appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and the appeal was upheld as there were no concerns regarding safety. An additional issue would be the on-going maintenance of the footpath as it would not have been constructed to withstand frequent vehicle movements. The situation was confirmed to the current property owner prior to the completion of the purchase of the property.

Mr Law also referred to concerns of use of unauthorised vehicle crossings in and around Fosseway Road and how this could impact on pedestrian safety.

Following the Planning Inspectorate decision the Council’s Highways Officers undertook a review. Assessment of the likely safety risks indicated that, in line with the Planning Inspectorate’s Decision Notice, moving the bollard a short distance further up the pathway to enable the resident of No. 6a to access his property, would not compromise safety as safety risks were considered to be minimal. The resident of no.6a would be required to obtain the written permission of the land owner as a pre-condition, as only the land owner could legally permit access rights by motor vehicle over a footpath. Coventry City Council was not the land owner. A further assessment of the likely long-term maintenance implications and associated costs would also be required with the proposal that the costs of any necessary improvements to the construction of the pathway surface to enable it to bear vehicles, were bourne by the owner of No. 6a Fosseway Road. There was no requirement for an application for a footpath crossing as this was only necessary for classified roads.

There was no certainty to if and when the land owners permission would be granted, therefore as an interim measure bollards or similar features would be placed at the end of the pathway to prevent any vehicular encroachment.

The Council had powers under the Highways Act 1980 to address the use of unauthorised vehicle crossings. 

The Legal Services Officer advised Mr Law of the options available to him if he felt that the Local Authority had made an incorrect decision in this matter: representations could be made through a Judicial Review through the High Court; the Local Authority’s complaints system; or by writing to the Ombudsman.

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member for Public Services:

1) Approves the relocation of the bollard to enable the resident of No. 6a Fosseway Road to use the short section of pathway to access the property from Fosseway Road, subject to, the resident first obtaining private vehicular access rights from the land owner and also to the resident agreeing to fund any necessary improvements to the construction of the pathway surface to enable it to bear vehicles.

2) As an interim measure (pending the resident of No 6a Fosseway Road meeting the conditions identified in recommendation 1) above), approves that bollards or similar features are placed at the end of the pathway adjacent to Fosseway Road to prevent any vehicular encroachment on it.

3) Endorses that appropriate action is taken to address unauthorised vehicular crossings in the adjoining area.