The Countryside and Rights of Way Panel of Staffordshire Council met on Friday 8 May 2026 to consider two applications for the addition of public footpaths. The panel decided to refuse one application and approve another.

Application for an Alleged Public Footpath at Fairoak, Eccleshall

The panel considered an application for the addition of a public footpath between Lodge Lane and Lungard Lane in Eccleshall. The claimed route was presented in two sections, A to B and C to D. Officers recommended that the evidence submitted was insufficient to satisfy the legal tests for the creation of a public footpath.

Melanie, presenting the application, explained that a significant difficulty was the lack of clear and reliable user evidence, with many forms being incomplete, unsigned, or undated. While user evidence indicated that parts of the route had been used by the public over a long period, it did not meet the required level of consistency or precision, particularly regarding the critical period of 1974 to 1994. Furthermore, there were inconsistencies between earlier and later evidence, and some users indicated use with permission rather than as of right. Landowner evidence, particularly for section C to D, suggested physical obstructions such as fences and locked gates that would have prevented access.

The panel discussed the requirement for evidence to be documented and not hearsay. Concerns were raised about the length of time some users claimed to have used the path, but it was clarified that the issue was more about the quality and consistency of the evidence rather than the duration of use.

Ultimately, the recommendation to refuse the application was agreed by a show of hands.

Application for the Addition of a Public Footpath between Public Footpath 50 Rushton Spencer and Dial Lane Link (D1073) (Rushton Parish)

The panel then considered an application for the addition of a public footpath between Public Footpath 50, Rushton Spencer, and the Dial Lane Link (D1073) within Rushton Parish. The claimed route was shown between points B and C on the plan.

Stephanie, presenting the application, stated that officers recommended accepting the application and making an order to add the alleged public footpath to the definitive map and statement. While the documentary evidence was considered weak in isolation, it lent support when assessed alongside consistent user evidence. Officers believed that a core group of eight users had used the route openly and without force or permission from the mid-1930s to around 1970, with use being of sufficient frequency to have come to the notice of landowners. There was no clear evidence of effective landowner action to challenge this use until around 1970.

Detailed objections were received from landowners, elected members, and the National Farmers Union, raising issues such as the proximity of an alternative footpath, lack of recollection of use, the condition of the land, and potential expense and disruption. Officers reminded the panel that their role was to assess the evidence against legal tests, independent of other considerations. Evidence of non-use, the presence of alternative routes, or cost were not relevant to the determination.

The panel discussed the weight given to the Parish Council's objections, which were based on the absence of the path on historic maps. Officers explained that parish council objections were weighted similarly to those of landowners and users, and that the absence on a map did not necessarily mean the right of way did not exist, but rather that public rights had not been proven at that time.

Following questions, the recommendation to accept the application was put to a vote and was successful. The application was therefore approved.

The meeting concluded after these two items, with no further business in Part Two.