*Draft*  Area 8 Committee 21 May 2013 19:00 - Paul Sladen
Item 7: Diversion of Footpath No.28 Nottingham Midland Station

(Approximate running time: 3 minutes 15 seconds + questions)

My name is Paul Sladen, I was present at the 2011 Public Inquiry.  I
have four observations to make and support a diversion in principle,
though not that presented.

(1) When this was brought before the committee in 2010, you were
uncomfortable and sought a second report, this detailed the benefits
of the multi-storey car park to be built across the southern part of
the footpath.  This multi-storey was relocated prior to construction.
It does not infer with the definitive route of the footpath and never
has; the alluded conflict was a temporary.

Now, the service area presented as the rationale this time, is
actually the passive-provision for an additional platform.  If/when
those plans go ahead, track would be laid along the access road and
the service area would be cut off completely.  It is therefore also
temporary in the greater scheme of things.

(2) A fifth diversion option has been consistently highlighted,
investigated and developed.  To call it the fifth is inappropriate, it
is the very first option that was presented during the inquiry.  It
has been discussed in all subsequent meetings I have been present at.
It is more direct, shorter, safer and convenient, and has been
developed in more detail than the four options listed here.

The report you have makes no mention of this, and asks you to
authorise a different option--- one that saves the landowner the
expense of either having to restore the footpath to its original
condition, or to build any new dedicated replacement infrastructure
for it.

(3) I support use of Section 119 here as its use is more transparent:
such orders are for the benefit of a landowner.  If this diversion
goes ahead unmodified, it would convert a footpath into a footway
along other infrastructure (one having no dedicated infrastructure of
its own).  This diversion is entirely for the benefit of the
landowner.  With this diversion and the previous 1990s diversion, the
landowner will have removed ~800m^2 of dedicated public footpath area
from the station, gradually displacing it to existing estate paths and
service footways.

(4) Both the LAF and this Committee authorised the stopping up order
in 2010 after being told that it "met the statuory test"---despite
your clear reservations.  The result was an unnecessary public
inquiry, three years of delays, various temporary prohibition orders,
and two short periods of illegal obstruction upon expiry.  Instead the
landowner could have been simply told "to go back, to consult and fix
it".

Simply saying yes today, may not have a financial impact for your own
Area 8 budget, but the last time time it cost money for the council as
a whole.  There was an unnecessary public inquiry because of
objections, and an enormous amount of Mr. Lee and others' time
consumed during the three years.

If you believe this may receive objections, I would ask you to defer it.

Thank you, questions?

...

(Postscript: This came with 74 hours notice; its inclusion on the
agenda at this stage of the consultation was somewhat of a surprise.
I would be happy to explore the larger detail, not included in today's
report, at a future Area 8 committee meeting, if invited to do so).