Safety versus heritage debated at footpath inquiry

A public inquiry has heard arguments for and against the closure of a footpath next to Cockburn School in Beeston during a two-day hearing which concluded yesterday (11 December 2024).

Helen Heward, the Planning Inspector, conducted the inquiry to decide whether to confirm the Diversion Order made by Leeds City Council last year in respect of Leeds Footpath 207, known locally as the ‘cobbled path’. A number of objections had been lodged, which led to the inquiry.

The diversion order resulted from the expansion of Cockburn School in 2020 to create more secondary school places in South Leeds. A 3G sports pitch has been built along with tennis courts on land that was formally part of South Leeds Golf Club. The planning permission included security fencing which would enclose the sports facility withing the school site, but this would block the public right of way (PROW) and permissive bridleway 207.

The hearing almost stopped before it had started as a sealed copy of the closure notice had not been received by the Planning Inspectorate. Both sides agreed to continue and receipt was confirmed at lunchtime on Tuesday.

The council’s barrister, Shemuel Sheikh, set out the case for closure arguing that the “continuous and secure boundary would significantly improve the security of the school site for students, staff and visitors.”

In evidence, Emma Watson, Chief Operations Officer at Cockburn Multi-academy Trust said the school was following new legal safeguarding requirements and Department for Education guidance. She went on to say that the current arrangements where students were supervised to cross the PROW was not sustainable as it impacted the school’s budget. She added that the PROW posed a security risk which couldn’t be assessed as it posed too many unknowns in terms of the different users who students might encounter. She said the path was used by illegal motorbikes and for other anti-social behaviour.

John Harker from the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society raised a letter written in 2020 by David Gurney, Executive Headteacher at Cockburn MAT, which stated that it would not be necessary to close the footpath. Mr Gurney, who was present, said that the plans had changed several times between writing the letter and the planning application and the closure was now necessary.

Other objectors including Suzanne Grace from Save South Leeds Former Golf Course Community Group and Alan Shaw from the Friends of Middleton Park raised the importance of the path as a heritage asset. Ms Grace said the cobbles had been laid 200 years ago to protect a much older path, and that the route is a parish and ward boundary. They both said that local people valued the path, describing it as like a country lane or ‘hollow way’ leading into the woods.

The proposed new path also proved controversial. Charlotte Hamer, the council’s Definitive Map Manager, explained that the route and construction were compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act with a maximum gradient of 1 in 12. The path, which would still be a permissive bridleway would be 3m wide to allow horses or wheelchairs to pass each other and would be surfaced with ‘Flexipave’ a porous rubber crumb product. The route would also provide greater safety as it was more open with greater surveillance.

However, the objectors argued that the solution was unnecessarily intrusive, creating a wildlife barrier, whilst not leading to accessible routes at either end of the new path. They criticised the choice of materials saying Flexipave has a 15 year lifespan compared to the 200 years of the cobble sets; and the rubber crumb would break down and pollute the nearby nature reserve and semi-ancient woodland. They also claimed the recent tree planting would impede any surveillance benefit.

Ms Grace described the diversion as:

“… less convenient, less practical, less safe, less enjoyable, characterless, unsustainable and harmful to local wildlife. The council has lost its way in justifying this diversion.”

In his closing statement Mr Sheikh argued that the Closure Order should be confirmed saying:

“The potential disadvantages (from the) loss of the existing footpath do not outweigh the benefits to the school and safety of the students, staff and visitors.” And that “the proposed diversion provides a route of a suitable width, surface, gradient and length to service the permitted users of the route.”

The inquiry concluded with a site visit where the two routes were walked and locations that had been referred to in evidence were pointed out to the Inspector.

A written decision is expected in the new year.