The Countryside and Rights of Way Panel met to discuss a request to authorise the making of a definitive map modification order, and an application to upgrade several public footpaths to byways open to all traffic (boats) or restricted byways. The panel voted to delegate authority to make definitive map modification orders to the Director of Finance and Resources. They also voted to approve some of the requested upgrades to public footpaths, and reject others.

Delegation of Authority

The panel voted to support the addition to the scheme of delegation for the Director of Finance and Resources, to make a definitive map modification order. This will occur where the county council has been directed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to make such an order, following an appeal by the applicant against the county council's decision to refuse to make the order. The panel's support means that the proposed addition to the scheme of delegation will then be referred to the Audit and Standards Committee and full council, with the recommendation that it be approved, and that the constitution be updated accordingly.

The county has the power to determine applications made under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, following an investigation. Where the county refuses to make a definitive map modification order, the applicant has a right of appeal against that decision. The appeal will be heard by an inspector of the planning inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, who can either dismiss the appeal, or allow the appeal and direct the county to make the modification order.

A panel member sought clarification on whether the decisions would still come back to the panel. An officer confirmed that the panel would be made aware each time one of those directions was given, so that it was on the agenda.

Upgrade of Public Footpaths

The panel considered an application to upgrade four public footpaths to byways open to all traffic (boats), to upgrade one public footpath to a restricted byway, and to add a boat. The application was initially made in 1993. The routes in question are all within close proximity of each other.

The panel considered two reports relating to the application:

• Report 1 recommended accepting four of the routes.
• Report 2 recommended rejecting two of the routes.

The panel voted to approve the recommendations in Report 1, and reject the recommendations in Report 2.

Report 1

Report 1 concerned the upgrade of:

• Public Footpath 28, Standon to a byway open to all traffic.
• Public Footpath 30, Standon to a byway open to all traffic.
• Public Footpath 22, Swinnerton to a byway open to all traffic.
• Public Footpath 55, Swinnerton to a restricted byway.

David Adkins, an officer in the Public Rights of Way team, explained that the evidence for these four routes was considered to be good, and impossible to ignore.

He explained that the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 effectively extinguished any unrecorded public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles (MPVs). In this matter, the NERC Act is only relevant to the upgrade of Public Footpath 55 Swinnerton, as the application was made in 1993, prior to the imposition of the NERC Act in 2006. As there has never been a formal application for the route and its discoveries post-2006, then officers concede that any mechanically propelled vehicle rights have been extinguished since that time. Although these rights have now ceased to be on Public Footpath 55, officers contend that all other rights would continue to exist across it, meaning that the most appropriate recommendation would be for that of a restricted byway.

Mr Adkins told the panel that the pivotal evidence was the Enclosure Award of 1806, together with the supplementary evidence of the railway plan, tithe map, 1951 survey, ordnance survey plans and a county map by Yates dated 1775. This bundle is referred to as the 1993 evidence. Other evidence received at a later date and referred to as the 2001 evidence, was submitted by an interested party, Mr Martin Ray, and was further supportive of the claim. Further evidence, also submitted in 2001, but from a different party, Mr Mike Rowley, of the Byways and Bridal Waste Trust, is also appended to the report. Lastly, the 2024 evidence submitted by Mr David Rice, successor to the original applicant, includes the Enclosure Award for Standard Manor dated 1813, further copies of the Finance Act of 1910, an old map of Staffordshire from 1817 and an interest in ordinance survey planned from 1968.

Two of the three relevant landowners also returned a response form. The application also benefited from a total of 24 user evidence or witness forms. The statutory consultees also provided evidence or comments, namely the Byways and Bridal Ways Trust, the Ramblers Association, the Pecan Northern Footpath Society, the North Staffordshire Bridal Ways Association and Stafford Borough Council.

Mr Adkins explained that Public Footpath 28 Standon had originally been classified as a RUP (road used as a public path) on the draft definitive map for the rural district of Stone. In 1980 a public inquiry was held to assess objections to its proposed downgrading to a public footpath. The inspector concluded that only the first 200 metres should be classified as a boat and the remainder reclassified as a public bridleway. The Secretary of State accepted the inspector's recommendation in respect of the boat, but rejected making the remainder of the route a public bridleway.

Mr Adkins said that the absence of the enclosure award during the 1918 inquiry renders the 1993 application valid and fair game for fresh consideration. The enclosure award clearly sets out a public carriage road 30 feet wide and references being between Bowers and Newcastle.

He added:

Clearly the more most perfectly straight route of what was once recorded as Public Footpath 18 Eccleshaw and now Boat 27 and Public Footpath 28 Standen was considerably more substantial than the apparent track it joined from Coates Lodge Farmhouse. In addition this latter route does not run in the direction of Newcastle it runs away from it and so the most logical conclusion can only be that the land the alleged route Public Footpath 28 joined through Coates Lodge Farm was in fact the present line of Public Footpath 30 which is also a subject of this claim.

Mr Adkins said that the tithe map for the Township of Coates dated 1845 shows the full extent of Public Footpath 28 and part of Public Footpath 30 clearly visible and unnumbered. The Swinnerton tithe map of 1848 shows the relevant section of Public Footpath 22 and Public Footpath 55 as unnumbered and distinct from the surrounding land. The Finance Act documentation provides near confirmatory evidence of the existence of all four routes. The railway plan of 1832 shows a short section of public footpath 28 as a continuum of what is now boat 27 and records the surveyor of highways as owner or reputed owner. The Ordnance Survey maps show the alleged routes in their entirety immediately obvious and clear. The Rights of Way survey annotates the entire length of the former public footpath 18, now footpath 28, with the acronym CRB, meaning that in 1949 at least the belief was that the route was a carriage or cart road that was mainly used as a bridleway. The 1817 map of Staffordshire shows all four routes which are the subject of this report are visible and all appear to be a somewhat substantial character.

Mr Adkins said that the user evidence was insufficient, with only one or two of the witnesses using motor vehicles on the routes.

He also said that the Byways and Bridalways Trust felt that the entire length of the former public footpath 18 should be added to the list of streets. Stanton Parish Council forwarded a substantial response indicating that they would object to any orders to upgrade the routes to boats.

Mr Adkins concluded that the evidence is sufficient on the balance of probabilities to say that each of the four routes that are the subject of report one subsist.

Jeremy Peart, a local member, addressed the panel to say that he had never felt the need to come in front of the panel specifically to address a public's rights of way decision in his eight years as a divisional member for Eckershall. He thanked Mr Adkins for his work on the report, but said that he was concerned by comments that Mr Adkins had made, such as that he can't say with certainty , and the most logical conclusion on the balance of probabilities . He said that this suggested that there isn't the evidence trail that is required to be able to justify the upgrading of these routes into boats.

Mr Peart said that the evidence lacks discussion about social history, charting historical farming and the advent of the railways amongst other things in that area. He said that there is no one document that clearly shows the recognition that these tracks were used as boats, and that there is a massive danger in relying too much on stitching together all the maps and believing that this is the definitive answer.

He said that the wording of the new enclosure award 1811 says starting first southerly and then easterly over the bent and stand and common to the lane passing through coats lodge , and that it doesn't talk about Coats Lodge at all apart from the lane that goes to it. He also said that private routes are also shown whited out in the same way on the same plans.

Mr Peart said that in the early 1800s when the Standard and Coats Heath Enclosure Award was made, there were four massive landowners with thousands of acres between them. They would not have wanted to have been creating public rights of way, but they would have needed to have been able to navigate their land through internal tracks for themselves and their farm workers. These would have not been public rights of way but instead internal tracks for use by the estate and the workers. He also said that these internal tracks would have needed to have been robust enough to take whatever needed to be hauled around, and that the estate of John Coates was very active in quarrying, so they needed to haul aggregate dug out from the land to where it was needed.

Mr Peart said that it is not like today where you just jump in a car and keep going down a quicker route even if it is longer, and that in those days you walked, so taking an extra mile was physical effort and lots of time. He said that taking a route that was longer and hillier might be okay for a Sunday afternoon stroll on occasion, but wouldn't be suitable for working on a regular basis. He also said that there is a much shorter and flatter route between Bowers and Newcastle via Butthouse Lane and through Hand Church.

Mr Peart said that he was compelled by the evidence provided by, amongst others, the landowner at Coates Lodge Farm, who has farmed the land for generations, and the parish council. He said that these tell a story, a social history story of the area, and provide a different explanation to the historical uses of the tracks. He also said that if these tracks were for public use, there is no compensatory payment or land swap so that they could be brought into use.

Mr Peart said that the final thing that bothers him is the lack of consistent use by a member of the public with a motorised vehicle of any of these tracks over the prescribed period. He said that there is no proof at all that the roads were even built to the prescribed width, and that the officer talks about ignoring the user evidence because it was inconclusive.

Mr Adkins responded that the officers had no option but to discount the user evidence because they needed a minimum of six forms that would have tested proven good vehicle use on all of the routes in question, and they didn't have that. He said that the application was being proven on historical or documentary evidence.

He said that the map that's present in the enclosure award and the enclosure details themselves do carry significant probity for a claim of this type. He said that it can only be bettered by a quarter sessions order, and that the next best thing is an enclosure award. He said that the enclosure award went through a full legal process at the time and sets out and refers to the Bowers and Newcastle Road as a public carriage road 30 feet wide, and that this is the pivotal piece of evidence to the claim.

Mr Adkins said that the objecting parties had repeatedly said that the council has a rubber stamping exercise, but that Report 2 is proof that this is not the case because they reject both of those applications.

Mr Peart said that the whole purpose of the committee is to scrutinise the evidence put in front of them, and that he was very clearly suggesting that they had not seen all the evidence, or that it hasn't been weighed in this report.

Mr Adkins responded that whatever the panel decided, the matter would ultimately be decided by the planning inspectorate.

Report 2

Report 2 concerned the upgrade of:

• Public Footpath 29, Standon to a byway open to all traffic.
• The addition of a byway open to all traffic from the end of Public Footpath 29, Standon at Coates Lodge to the A519.

Mr Adkins said that the recommendation is for these two routes to be rejected. He said that the enclosure evidence is not supportive of the two alleged routes, and that the enclosure evidence sets out a public carriage road which would have been a substantial route on the ground and one which would have been recorded in other contemporary documents.

He said that in relation to the two routes, the line of Public Footpath 29 Standon is not persuasively depicted within the Finance Act evidence. He said that the route of Public Footpath 29 being shown as it is does not infer a higher status route of any description either public or private. In relation to the alleged route from Coates Lodge to the A519, it is shown as separate from the surrounding plots of land, but it is not bordered by an emboldened black line as are the routes in Report 1. There is also a line drawn across the route a short way from its junction with the road suggesting a gate at this point, an indication that the route was private.

Mr Adkins said that the Ordnance Survey map first edition 1815 and 1840 shows the track that leads down to Coates Lodge Farm along the current Public Footpath 29, where it was missing from the tide evidence, and is shown by a faint and broken line. He said that the applicant also posited further OS maps for 1901 and 1925 which show gates at this period across both access tracks or lanes to Coach Lodge Farm.

He said that the plan of the Grand Junction Railway dated 1832 provides supporting evidence for the alleged routes discussed in Report 1, but no evidence at all to support the routes that are discussed in Report 2. The 1817 large-scale map shows all of the routes that are the subject of Report 1, but only one of the two routes which are the subject of Report 2.

Mr Adkins said that the user evidence merely relates to the alleged addition, and that one user stated that there was always a footpath sign at the bottom of the drive to Coach Dodge Farm. He said that the landowner evidence shows that landowner 1 stated that he directed prohibitive signage on one of the routes in question, being the alleged addition of this report. Landowner 1 also stated that he installed a gate in order to prevent public access, and attested that he had stopped or turned back people using the route, but clarified that he had done so only when not on the definitive plan. Landowner 2 stated their directed obstructions or gates along the alleged routes because of the fire risk due to drought, but they do not specify which routes and where exactly these gates or obstructions were rendering the evidence somewhat flaccid.

Mr Adkins concluded that there is little probity throughout the evidence, and that whereas the routes discussed in Report 1 were relatively well supported, those in Report 2 are somewhat problematic.

Councillor Mike Broom said that he was looking at page 757, and that there's an application here where the public right of way was a piece of land owned by one family for over 100 years. He said that he finds that amazing, and that they're now deciding on things like that and they can't find all the documentary evidence.

Mr Adkins said that he had learned a lot with this report and investigation, and that it's been great to deal with the people of Coats. He thanked them for their courtesy throughout the whole process and politeness and working with them constructively. He said that both parties know that this will be eventually passed to the planning inspector for a decision.