CHRISTCHURCH council has been accused of being 'secretive' over a row concerning a town centre footpath.

The matter of the public footpath through the controversial Renaissance development in Christchurch town centre was raised by two members of the public at a meeting of the full council on Tuesday.

And the council also came under fire for saying the timings of dawn and dusk were "too vague".

Asking the leader, Cllr David Flagg, why it had taken five months for the council to reply to an FOI request, one member of the public, asked: "Why is there such secrecy?"

She had been asking for information about the pathway through the development to Druitt Gardens, which was agreed via a legal condition known as a section 106 agreement when planning permission was granted.

Responding to the question, Cllr Flagg apologised for the delay and said: "There is no secrecy regarding this issue. It is just simply the council relying on lawful exemptions.

"Given the live status of this matter, it is right that this advice is exempted.

"Please rest assured knowing there is simply no secrecy, just that the request goes towards issues that may need further legal consideration. Hence the application of the exemption."

A second question on the same matter was put forward by resident, Peter Fenning.

He said: "There is a permissive footpath through the Renaissance development next to Druitt Gardens which has a 106 agreement which states the path should be open during daylight hours.

"It is not. And after two years of poor responses from Christchurch council I made a written complaint which sat with the council for eight months.

"Will the leader please investigate why the council is not upholding the 106 agreement and why the council has spent two and a half years in obfuscation and delay to the access hours."

The leader replied: "Again I can only apologise for the delay in replying to your complaint. This is not the standard expected of the council and I extend my personal apology to you.

"I have been told the section 106 agreement simply is not enforceable. Dawn and dusk are vague terms and there is some degree of doubt over the enforceability of that clause." He said the clause concerning the path was "ineffectual" and was an added benefit "over and above" expectations.

Mr Fenning replied: "I happen to be a chartered geologist and have done a lot of astronomy and I can assure you, you can calculate dusk and dawn to the minute by mathematics and if you look up the US Naval Observatory you will find it there.

"I find it difficult to accept what you said. I would have thought a document signed freely by both would be enforceable."