The Development Control and Regulatory Board of Leicestershire County Council met on Thursday, 18 June 2026, and made a decision regarding the diversion of a public footpath. The Board resolved to make an order to divert part of Public Footpath P12 at Butt Lane, Blackfordby.

Diversion of Public Footpath P12 at Butt Lane, Blackfordby

The Board considered an application to divert part of Public Footpath P12 at Butt Lane, Blackfordby, in the Parish of Ashby De La Zouch. The proposed diversion would reroute the footpath from its current path, A-B and C-D-E, to a new route, F-G-B and C-H-I-E, as shown on Plan No. 2575(P).

The application was made by Mr and Mrs Jarvis, who own land at 200 Butt Lane, Blackfordby. The reason for the application was to resolve an anomaly where the path currently used by the public does not align with the Definitive Map¹ of public rights of way. The current legal line of the footpath runs through the Jarvis's garden, and they wish to divert it onto land they own, which is also used by the public. A new housing estate has been developed to the north of their property, and the diversion application was extended to include a section of footpath constructed as part of this development.

The report presented to the Board detailed the legal considerations under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, which governs the diversion of public paths. Key criteria include that the diversion must be expedient in the interests of the landowner or the public, and that the new route must be substantially as convenient as the existing one.

Objections were raised by Mr Ball of 116 Butt Lane, Blackfordby, and his appointed representative, Platt White Partnership. Mr Ball's objections centred on the accuracy of the Definitive Map, the declaration made by the applicants regarding the obstruction of the existing path, and concerns about land ownership. Platt White Partnership argued that the proposed diversion route was inaccurately depicted on the plans and that the angle of the path had been distorted compared to historical maps. They also questioned the accuracy of the base mapping used for the diversion plan.

Officers commented that the Definitive Map is conclusive evidence of a public right of way, and any challenge to its accuracy would require a separate Definitive Map Modification Order. They stated that the legal line of the footpath had been checked and found to be accurate. Regarding the declaration of no obstruction, officers noted that while the applicants had not crossed out this part of the form, the obstruction was known and had been communicated to all consultees. They clarified that a public right of way does not need to be free from obstruction for a diversion application to be processed.

Concerns were also raised about the link to the surfaced path through the new housing development. Officers explained that the diversion application predated the development, but the developer was made aware of the proposed diversion and constructed a path linking to the route being walked by the public.

Regarding land ownership, it was noted that there was a dispute over a strip of land affecting the proposed diversion route. Both Mr Ball and the applicants, Mr and Mrs Jarvis, had been advised to resolve this as a private matter. The applicants had signed an indemnification clause on the application form, agreeing to indemnify the County Council against any compensation claims.

The Board was informed that the applicant had agreed to indemnify the County Council against any compensation claims. As part of the proposed alternative route is already being used by the public and part has been constructed as part of the housing development, no substantial works were required to bring the alternative route up to standard, meaning there were no direct financial implications for the Authority.

The Board resolved to make an Order under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert part of Public Footpath P12 at Butt Lane, Blackfordby. This decision was made despite the objections, as the officers concluded that the statutory criteria for making the Order had been met.