The Commons and Rights of Way Committee of Gloucestershire Council met on Tuesday 2 June 2026 to consider an application to add a public footpath and to discuss revisions to how Definitive Map Modification Order applications are determined. The meeting also included a report on decisions made under delegated powers.

Application to Add a Public Footpath in Hempsted Parish

A significant item on the agenda was the consideration of an application to add a public footpath from Rectory Lane to ZGL64 in Hempsted Parish, City of Gloucester¹. The report pack detailed the evidence considered, including historical maps, landowner statements, and user evidence. The application was supported by user evidence forms, with some individuals claiming use of the route for many years. However, the report highlighted that five out of eight accepted user statements acknowledged the presence of permissive route markers, suggesting that the use was by right rather than as of right, which is a key legal test for the dedication of a public highway. Documentary evidence was also examined, with earlier maps such as the Hempsted Inclosure Map & Award of 1815 and Ordnance Survey maps from the 1870s onwards not identifying the claimed route. The report concluded that the documentary evidence and user evidence were insufficient to establish a reasonable allegation that public rights subsisted. Therefore, the recommendation was that no order be made to add the length of public footpath to the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way.

Review of Delegated Powers for DMMO Applications

The Committee was scheduled to consider a report on revised criteria for deciding whether Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) applications are determined by the Committee or by officers under delegated powers. This followed a recommendation from the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum (GLAF) to make delegated powers the default route for determining DMMOs, unless an application was considered controversial or subject to many objections. The report outlined the current process, the split between committee and delegated powers, and potential implications of the GLAF recommendation. It noted that DMMO determinations are strictly evidence-based and concerned with whether a public right already exists. The report presented two alternative options: maintaining the current arrangements or making delegated powers the default for all determinations without a call-in mechanism. Concerns were raised about public perception of transparency and the definition of controversial or complex cases. Ultimately, the Committee was asked to consider a review of the terms of reference for delegated powers to expedite straightforward cases, allowing the Committee to focus on more complex applications with greater community impact. A suggestion was also made to ensure that any applications involving land owned by a councillor, or where a councillor was the applicant, be determined by the Committee to maintain public transparency.

Delegated Decisions

The Committee was also asked to note a report detailing decisions made by officers under delegated powers. This report covered decisions made between 20 November 2025 and 13 May 2026 concerning Definitive Map Modification Order applications and other Highway Records matters. These included decisions to process orders to create public footpaths and to refuse orders for upgrading restricted byways to byways open to all traffic due to specific legislative exemptions.