Expediency v. principle

Have just attended part of a public inquiry into the stopping up of a section of old highway in Henley-on-Thames where I live: local democracy at work. The section of highway was originally part of the road above the flood line, running through the very centre of Henley in parallel with the Thames, and its origins have been traced back to Roman times. Some time ago, a change in the route of the highway meant that this section of Bell Street ceased to be part of the main road, which had been relocated to a roughly parallel highway now called Northfield End.

This is an old part of town, with many buildings dating back to the C16 or C17, and there are a number of substantial houses of C18th origins or style. There is a small triangular green with some trees in front of a row of what appears to be a C18 terrace of half a dozen houses. Last century, a Mr Gunn ran a business from Bell Lane, which runs from Bell Street, and he gradually made use of parking along this section Bell Street. He even nibbled away at part of the green to increase the parking area. Eventually, a few years ago, he sold the parking and the green to a developer who had acquired the terraced houses with a view to renovating them and selling them on.

The developer's solicitor obtained verification of title from the District Council, and then sold a couple of parking spaces. It then transpired that Oxford Council had, in fact, and unbeknown to the District Council, initiated an investigation into the actual title ownership of the land concerned, since as far as the DC was aware, this part of Bell Street was still highway.

This is where things started to get sticky, augmented by the Henley Town Council's (HTC)decision to get involved and to oppose formal stopping up of the highway, as this would effectively confirm private ownership of a public space. Within the HTC the issue has become divided along party lines, with the independent Henley Residents Group (HRG), who control the Council, being against the stopping up, the Conservatives being for.

Over the past eight months or so, residents have been invited to make submissions either in support or against the stopping up and eventually the Dept of Transport has set up a public inquiry. For this afternoon only, the inquiry has been held in Henley instead of Wallingford, some 9 or 10 miles away and about forty people turned up.

The main parties are the HTC (represented by three HRG councillors), the applicant for stopping up the highway (the developer), and the chairman, appointed by the Dept of Transport. Plus interested citizens, among whom were Conservative members of HTC.

Those in favour seemed to be better organized and, like the devil, to have all the best tunes. However, three HRG members (one a councillor and former mayor) spoke to some purposes, pointing out the principle involved, namely the virtual handing over to private ownership of a public good. Also, although the piece of land concerned is small, it is one of the many small things which contribute to Henley's character, so it is important not to alienate ownership and thereby threaten the integrity of the townscape. Furthermore, as was also explained, it is historically significant, so alienating it threatens Henley's historical integrity. The one HRG councillor, who is also a district councillor, pointed out that the threatened cost to the public purse of litigation by the developer should the stopping up be prohibited was a largely meaningless threat, since the council had public liability insurance which would cover the cost and she deplored the way in which public property was in danger of being handed over to private ownership, setting a dangerous precedent.

Interestingly, there were opposing views regarding both the effects on safety of stopping and not stopping up. The most useful and sensible contribution to this part of the discussion came from one of the residents, whose voices don't seem to have been much heard among the bodies given responsibility for making decisions about changing both the status and characteristics of the section of road concerned. At least these people had a chance to put their case.

Those who are against the stopping up seemed to resort to utilitarian arguments, while those who support the stopping up seemed to be more motivated by principled ones, although members of both sides were prepared to put forward arguments which I am pretty certain were specious or irrelevant.

The inquiry continues tomorrow, and then the chairman will have to apply the wisdom of Solomon to making a decision. It is unlikely that he will be able to satisfy all stakeholders, and I suspect that ultimately, expediency will trump principle.