The Eastern Area Planning Committee met on 6 November 2025, and agreed to forward the Wiltshire Council Parish of Wilcot and Huish with Oare Path No.32A Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2025 to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (SoSEFRA) with a recommendation that it is confirmed with modification. The modification relates to the width of the footpath.

Wilcot and Huish with Oare Path No.32A Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2025

The committee considered one objection to the Wiltshire Council Parish of Wilcot and Huish with Oare Path No.32A Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2025 made under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA81). The committee agreed to forward the order to SoSEFRA recommending it is confirmed with modification. The modification being:

• Proposed amendment to the order, add additional text to the end of schedule part 1, modification of definitive map, description of public right of way: The width also limited to 3.5 metres from point A at SU 12935 60506 leading east to SU 13010 60536.
• Proposed amendment to part 2 of the schedule, modification of definitive statement: Definitive Statement to read as follows: FOOTPATH From its junction with Path no.32 and 34 at SU 13852 60522 leading generally west along the track to its junction with bridleway no.33 at Cocklebury Farm at SU 12935 60506. Width of 1.4 metres around the north side of the field gate at SU 13321 60553. Width of 3.5 metres from SU 12935 60506 leading east to SU 13010 60536. Otherwise, a width of 4 metres. Approximate length 930 metres.

Craig Harlow, Definitive Map Officer, presented a report that considered one objection to the order. The application to add a bridleway to the definitive map and statement for the area was made by Wilcot and Huish with Oare Parish Council on 4 November 2019. The application relied upon 13 user evidence forms claiming use of the claimed route by the public over a long period.

The officer explained that for public rights to have been acquired under statute law, the use of the route must have been uninterrupted for at least 20 years in a manner that is 'as of right' - without force, secrecy or permission. This would give rise to a 'presumption of dedication'.

The council undertook an initial public consultation on the application from May-June 2025, including user groups, the parish council, directly affected landowners, neighbouring landowners, the council member for the area, and all interested parties, including all individuals who submitted a user evidence form.

The officer said that all of the user evidence and responses were considered in the council's Decision Report. Applying the legal test contained within Section 53(3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and s.31 of the Highways Act 1980 the application formed at least a reasonable allegation that public footpath rights subsisted over the order route, but not public bridleway rights (as per the application). An Order was made to record the route as a public footpath in the definitive map and statement with a width of 4 metres other than around the insitu field gate where the route was limited to 1.4 metres (as per the available evidence at that time).

The order was advertised and attracted one objection from Mr Mark Lovelace of Cocklebury Farm, a directly affected landowner. Mr Lovelace's objection was not to the recording of a public footpath but to the width of the recorded route through Cocklebury Farm. His objection was to modify the order so that it records the footpath at 3.5 metres rather than 4 metres where it passes through the farm.

Mr Lovelace stated in his objection that:

I have received the notification, thank you, and whilst I've always supported the footpath application, as discussed, I will be submitting an objection based solely on the short section through the farm and holiday lets area where we will be requesting a reduction to 3.5m based on supporting evidence.

Mr Lovelace submitted additional photographic evidence, and stated, that the route has been limited at this location for many years to narrower than the 4 metre width recorded at this location.

The officer said that modifications to the order must be evidentially based. The width of the order route was considered in the officer's decision report. The width recorded for an order based on user evidence should be the width enjoyed by the users, in this case, over the period 1999-2019. Officers are guided by the user evidence submitted, in this case the width stated by the 11 users varied from between 1.8 metres up to 20 metres, with no separation of this width recorded by users for the section through Cocklebury Farm. The officer acknowledged it can be difficult for users to estimate the width of a way they enjoyed without measuring the way during that period of use, and that the evidence of width submitted by users was inconsistent and likely incorrect in several instances.

The section through Cocklebury Farm itself was not measured in 2025, prior to the making of the order as evidence of use of the route during 1999-2019 is the relevant evidence.

In conjunction with the user evidence, aerial photographic evidence was viewed by officers, the latest date during the relevant period of those images being 2017. Measurements were taken which were rounded to 4 metres for the section of the order route subject to the objection. A difference of 0.5 metres from aerial photography is beyond the accuracy which can be reasonably achieved.

The officer said that no information from Mr Lovelace was submitted during the initial consultation phase for officers to consider and he acknowledges this in his communication with Wiltshire Council. He also makes it clear he is not in objection to a public footpath being recorded through the land, only the width to be limited.

The officer said that following the submission of the objection from Mr Lovelace and additional considerations officers are content to accept the modification of the order width over this section as put forward by Mr Lovelace, where there is no other evidence to dispute this modification of 50cm.

Cllr Philip Whitehead moved to accept the officer's recommendation, and Cllr Stewart Wheeler seconded the motion. The committee voted to forward the order to SoSEFRA with the recommendation that it is confirmed with modification.