My name is Paul Sladen, I was present at the public inquiry in 2010.
I am supportive of the tram and hub developments overall.  I was
surprised by the sudden inclusion of this Footpath No. 28 report as an
agenda item, and seek to note for the benefit of the councillors
present that the report is incomplete though omission in critical
parts.

Myself and others have been pushing for a diversion of the southern
section of Footpath No.28, in preference to stopping-up, for three
years now.  Such a proposation was been initially resisted, but
gradually accepted as being necessary.

The surprise comes from the sudden esculation, in the middle of the
consultation process, straight to this committee for authorisation.
Up until 74 hours ago I was anticipating an email invitation to the
next, and likely final consultation meeting. One which would review
and decide on the exact details for the scheme of diversion that would
be promoted.

Instead of that invitation, the consultees and objectors, or at least
a subset, were notified three days ago of its placement upon the
agenda for tonight.

In just these few minutes, and with 74 hours warning, it would be
unfair of me to discredit a report that have has likely taken its
authors longer than this to prepare.  Owing to this committee's
due-diligance from 2010, the report this time is more substantial.
While it is thicker, as noted, it remains incomplete through omission.
Additionally, amongst the map appendencies are distortion, inaccurate
scales, and inaccurate representations or the options. I would wish
for this committee to be aware of these areas of the report in their
discernment of the content.

Not mentioned amongst the report's four described options, yet
consistently discussed is a safer, more direct and convenient option.
One without the circuitous routeing, blind-corners, and away from
the service traffic.

To call this design a fifth variation would be misleading aswell.  It
was the very first proposed by the objectors before and during the
inquiry, and has been discussed at every meeting I have been to since.

Yet, the report we have in front of us omits any mention of this
discussion, work, option or the preferences for it.

Instead the report asks to steer this committee into authorising a
different variant, one that effectively absolves the landowner of the
financial implications in either restoring the footpath on the
definitive route;  or having to construct new dedicated
infrastructure for that footpath in recompense.

It reuses a temporary ramp and footway provision at the side of an
estate service road.  Likewise, with the platform widening work, we
have been told, the development will occur regardlessly.

Councillors will note that the report contains a section on legal
advice; one which I would not wish to professionally discredit at such
short notice.

It is though very similiar to the optimistic legal advice about
statutory tests being met, that was presented to this committee three
years ago.  Such advice, when followed, resulted in a quite
unnecessary public inquiry, several temporary prohibition orders, two
periods of unlawful obstruction of the highway, and the deprivation
from public use for pretty much all this time.

I would concur with the report that there is not a financial impact for
this committee's budget.  However, the related 2010 authorisation did
cost the council as a whole, namely the expenditure in resources of
pursuing an public inquiry which was ultimately lost.  In hindsight,
had the LAF and/or this committee stood by their reservations, and not
authorised the 2010 request, the council would have been financially
better off and the landowner would have been forced to integrate a
workable solution earlier.


If yourselves, as councillors wish to authorise this juncture as-is,
you have the option of noting that you have been made aware of the
discrepancies.  You may wish to describe any discomfort you have
with being put in that situation after the experiences of 2010-2011
over the same footpath.

Alternatively, given this knowledge, you may wish to defer the
decision until your next meeting.  This would match the precedent of
your due-diligence in 2010, when the related stopping-up order was
presented for authorisation, and you requested more information in
order to have a fuller overview.  Your initial discomfort over the
merits of the stopping up order authorisation request were ultimately
bourne out: culminating in a large number of objections, the
non-confirmation by the public inquiry, and the substantial wait
since.


To recap: all of the consultees and prior objectors have been pushing
for a safe and suitable diversion, and have been proactive in that
endeavour.  What is presented, allegedly, as the preferred option
from a subset, does not match my recollection of the reality of those
many consultation meetings.

None of us here can predict what will happen if this order is allowed
to be advertised in its present state, though we can collectively
learn with experience of what may happen, from the last occasion.

If it helps this committee, there are eleven prior objectors/consultees.