2. The Community Meeting on 30 April consisted of our 2025 Annual General Meeting [AGM] followed by a Standard Community Meeting, where the key item was the Dobbin Hill Verge issue with a discussion and decision on whether the Group should maintain or withdraw its Formal Objection to the Closure [or Stopping-Up] Order published by the Dept for Transport.

Dobbin Hill Verge Issue - Report.The Applicant for the Order and owner of 306 Dobbin Hill - Mr Guy Rusling - supported by his uncle acting as his representative, presented their proposals for what would happen to the verge if they did succeed in having the Stopping-Up Order confirmed by the Minister for Transport, and the Council then selling the land to them. In a change from their original proposals [as approved by the Planning Committee in March] they put forward the following proposals:

1. the 9m section of verge adjoining the property's garden would be walled in, using the stones from the existing wall to maintain the same appearance, to become part of the garden. The Applicant argued that this was necessary to maintain the family's privacy, and provide their better enjoyment of the garden. A thin strip - approx 150mm - would be "added" to the footpath outside the wall.

2. the greater part of the verge - extending some 24m westwards - would be left open and unfenced, but with 3 trees planted to improve its visual appeal; but "allowing the public to make use of it. It would however belong to Mr Rusling as part of the property, "as only in this way could it be safeguarded in the long term, and the Council relieved of the burden of maintaining it."

3. a small section of the verge, with bollards and a lamp-post on it, would remain in Council ownership.

Various questions and observations were made by those attending the meeting. Amongst these were the following:

The wall would still restrict the use of the pavement, which is already narrow; especially as pedestrians have been used to walking on the verge to keep away from traffic on that narrow stretch of the roadway, which is often used by vehicles parking at busy times; and to pass other pedestrians.
Question. Why was it necessary for the extra 24m to become part of the Rusling' property? and if appearance was a key consideration, couldn't this happen under Council ownership now that policy had changed?

Mr Rusling confirmed that it was the Council which had suggested adding on the extra 24m, and the tree-planting, as well as the narrow strip alongside their garden [although it wasn't clear who would own that] And Yes the local residents could ask the Council to let them take that section over and plant it up.

Questions. What guarantee was there that once they owned the verge the Ruslings, or any future buyers, could not change their plans and e.g. turn it into a parking-bay or fence it in?

Mr Rusling suggested that the Council could include a Covenant in the sale-document, so the Council could enforce that in the courts; but that the public would have to trust the promises of the owners.

The Council's Highways Dept had suggested that parking was not an issue even when there was an event on in the Church or Church Hall. This was challenged by local residents as unrealistic.

It was pointed out that this was actually a private-public land issue; with the public essentially losing any rights over the verge once it was sold, with no way of objecting to any use of it or preventing anything that made use of the pavement more difficult. The current pavement was already less wide than official guidelines allow.
 

The Chair was then asked to bring the issue to a vote. Mr Rusling did then point out that the proposed changes to their proposals were conditional on the Objection being withdrawn; and that if it was not, the original proposals as approved at the Committee would be implemented; with the 24m being fenced off.

It was proposed that the discussion might still be continued without a vote: but this was refused by the meeting, and a vote was taken on whether to maintain the Objection or to withdraw it.

For maintaining the Objection - 23

For withdrawing the Objection - 0

Abstaining - 2

The Secretary said he would communicate this decision to the Dept for Transport; and that the likely result of the decision was that there would have to be a Public Enquiry to hear evidence and objections, and to make a recommendation to the Minister of Transport. This could take a fair amount of time.