Upgrade to public foot-ways in Yapton, Climping and Middleton rejected by county council

Plans to upgrade parts of two public foot-ways to bridle-ways have been rejected by West Sussex County Council.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

The application – which also asked permission to add new lengths of bridle-way in Yapton, Climping and Middleton-on-Sea – was turned down during a meeting of the planning and rights of way committee on Tuesday (October 11).

Applicant Julie Robinson accused officers of doing ‘a hatchet job’ on the application, arguing that there was much evidence to show that the ‘new’ routes had been used as bridle-ways in the past.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Those ‘new’ routes were in three sections – the first running from Cinders Lane, Yapton, across the Charles Square development to an existing right of way; the second running from Grevatts Lane, Ford, to Grevatts Bridge; and the third from Kingsmead Road, Bognor, up to the existing right of way.

The section of foot-way in Middleton-on-SeaThe section of foot-way in Middleton-on-Sea
The section of foot-way in Middleton-on-Sea

Ms Robinson and others cited evidence from as far back as 1564 in support of their argument that the routes had previously been used as bridle-ways.

They said that one such record held in the Arundel Castle Archives referred to a road running through Ford Park which was described as ‘the Queen’s Highway’ and was used by riders and pedestrians.

Read More
Arun has increased its budget for community transport

Officers and members of the committee, though, were not convinced.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad
Foot-way in Yapton will not be upgradedFoot-way in Yapton will not be upgraded
Foot-way in Yapton will not be upgraded

Simon Oakley (Con, Chichester East) said: “A lot of this historic evidence is not up to what we would consider substantive in modern times.”

Solicitor Laura Floodgate told the meeting: “The officer conclusion in relation to the 1564 evidence is that it’s just not definitive enough. It doesn’t show a route on a plan and it is speculative as to what the route might have been in terms of the Queen’s Highway.”

Sean McDonald (Con, Northbrook) wondered why the application could not have been presented in two parts – the upgrade of the foot-way and the ‘claiming’ of the ‘new’ bridle-ways. He pointed out that he would have supported the former, which would have seen three lengths of foot-way upgraded to bridle-way.

The application was refused by 11 votes to one, leaving Ms Robinson with the option of appealing her case to the Planning Inspectorate.