Deadline to register forgotten paths in England has been "scrapped"

[yorkie]

Deadline to register forgotten paths scrapped

Campaigners say historical routes can now be "protected for future generations".

www.bbc.co.uk

A deadline to register forgotten historical paths in England by 2026 is set to be scrapped by the government.
There was a cut-off to apply to record rights of way through private land which existed before 1949 but did not appear on official maps.

The 1 January 2026 deadline to apply to record paths was introduced in the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 by the then Labour government.
After that date, historical routes would no longer have been able to be added to official maps, meaning public rights of way would have been lost.

This is welcome news.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Deadline to register forgotten paths scrapped

Campaigners say historical routes can now be "protected for future generations".

www.bbc.co.uk

This is welcome news.

Even more welcome would be some progress on processing all the claims so that they appear on maps - definitive and then OS. That way those not familiar with an area can see where they can walk rather than having to have 'insider' knowledge.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Even more welcome would be some progress on processing all the claims so that they appear on maps - definitive and then OS. That way those not familiar with an area can see where they can walk rather than having to have 'insider' knowledge.

Agreed. I reported a well established footpath (it appears on maps dating back over 100 years) via the Ramblers campaign, hoping that it would included on the official list of Public Footpaths. Around the same time a planning application was submitted for a housing development on land adjacent to one end of the footpath was submitted. The local council were made aware of presence of the footpath during the planning consultation. They subsequently approved the new building without adequately safeguarding the footpath. In the council’s defence, the approved plans show that the development would not be encroaching on the footpath. Now the houses have gone up and guess what: the route of the footpath has been land-grabbed and is now part of somebody’s garden. The stone wall stile providing access somehow got mysteriously demolished during the building work. I reported the breech of planning permission to the council at least six months ago, including maps and photographs, and have heard absolutely nothing back. I think that this one could be lost forever.

As well as repealing the 2026 cut-off the government plans to introduce a "right to apply" for landowners to divert or extinguish rights of way in certain circumstances.
The Open Spaces Society said it was concerned about the right to apply and would be lobbying against it.

Is the worrying part. Landowners and property developers have a lot influence on the current party in power.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

There are so many instances of paths just 'disappearing'.

But, once a highway always a highway, unless formally closed or diverted!

Locally there was a similar situation. A new house was built filling in a gap, and the path went down one side of the plot of land. The line of the path was not built on so theoretically the path now goes down the side of the house, through the back garden and exits into a field. I raised the matter with the county council, before the house was finished, and they did at least send someone out to offer advice to the builder/purchaser. I don't know if the path is still usable but I always feel uncomfortable using such paths, even though I am in my rights to do so. There is a reasonably convenient alternative which joins up with the path mentioned.

Part of the problem is if you have district councils (who deal with most planning applications) and county councils (who deal with rights of way). I cannot recall one but it must have happened somewhere where the applicant or planner states 'this development will (rather than may) affect a right of way', or where a county council submit an objection to a planning application because it affects a right of way.

Then it depends on the attitude of the council, some are more active than others at protecting and restoring routes. Even before 'austerity' some councils were pretty lack-lustre.

In the parish adjacent to me, there is a parish council but it does not have a rights of way sub-committee so there is no-one on the ground locally chasing things up. There were two paths through the garden of a bungalow, where the county council wouldn't do anything because the owner was ill (unspecified and none of my business). After several years the person died and the purchaser (or seller) of the bungalow wanted the matter resolving. The paths were diverted away from the garden. Simple enough but why couldn't that have been done sooner?

In the same village a large bungalow with spacious garden was built in the 1970's and room could easily have been left for the path. The response I got to that one was that 'the legal department are aware of it', not dealing with it mind you, even 15 years after I submitted the obstruction form. And so on.

There never seems to be any progress on dealing with the list of 'claimed paths' even before the deadline and The Ramblers campaign to log as many as possible. Having looked at The Ramblers website last night there are some not shown which have previously been claimed and remain unresolved to my knowledge. Link to don't lose you way page, requires registration.

 

[Factotum]

Deadline to register forgotten paths scrapped

Campaigners say historical routes can now be "protected for future generations".

www.bbc.co.uk

This is welcome news.

It has not been scrapped. Defra have announced that they are going to scrap it but that will require primary legislation. Given the Government's recent decision not to go ahead with its promise to ban the import of animal fur and foie gras, I wonder what this promise is worth.
Pending repeal of the cut-off date, the existing legislation does allow the date to be moved to any time up to 2031 with the making of only a few statutory instruments.

 

[D365]

@lyndhurst25 Is there any way in which the (future) owner of the house could be made aware of the breach? If nothing else, so that they know the developer didn’t have full planning permission for the garden.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Shouldn't the solicitors acting for a prospective new owner routinely endeavour to ascertain potential issues affecting a property as part of their pre-purchase local searches and due diligence?

 

[SouthernR]

It's very difficult to search for something that's not been recorded.
Another example of the bonfire of regulations, which is supposed to benefit us.
I doubt that councils have the resources to cover such issues. Locally, a footbridge over the M6 was permanently removed 2 years ago. The PRoW map shows the footpath as temporarily closed. An alternative route has been identified, but no Public Path Orders appear to have been raised.

 

[philthetube]

This one needs reporting to the Ramblers, if not done, they may well take an interest.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Locally, a footbridge over the M6 was permanently removed 2 years ago. The PRoW map shows the footpath as temporarily closed. An alternative route has been identified, but no Public Path Orders appear to have been raised.

Was that the one near Forton (Lancaster services), between junctions 32 and 33 on the M6? Nans Nook or similar?

 

[SouthernR]

Was that the one near Forton (Lancaster services), between junctions 32 and 33 on the M6? Nans Nook or similar?

Yes - Grid ref SD 507514

 

[S&CLER]

Our Ramblers group did that a while ago, not knowing that the bridge at Nans Nook had been removed (that showed the leader hadn't done his recce!), but found the alternative along the Wyre Way a very acceptable route back to Scorton.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Presumably the diversionary path a little to the South, under the M6, alongside the River Wyre, will replace the old route over the now demolished footbridge?

 

[SouthernR]

Presumably the diversionary path a little to the South, under the M6, alongside the River Wyre, will replace the old route over the now demolished footbridge?

Yes
See https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads...ublic-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
Also https://www.geograph.org.uk/browser/#!/grid_reference+"SD5051"/page=2/image=6360623

I believe the bridge was demolished as there was insufficient clearance above the hard shoulders.

 

[Ediswan]

I believe the bridge was demolished as there was insufficient clearance above the hard shoulders.

Out of curiosity, presumably the bridge provided sufficient clearance when built, so what changed ?

 

[SouthernR]

Out of curiosity, presumably the bridge provided sufficient clearance when built, so what changed ?

I think the road was originally built with 2 lanes. (The Lancaster bypass was only 2 lanes, but with a wide central reservation to allow an extra lane.)
Perhaps standards have improved. Many of the other bridges have been strengthened or replaced since originally built.
Before this bridge was demolished, the hard shoulder was barriered off.

 

[Ediswan]

I think the road was originally built with 2 lanes. (The Lancaster bypass was only 2 lanes, but with a wide central reservation to allow an extra lane.)
Perhaps standards have improved.

Ah, it is one of those bits of the M6. Changed standards are definitely plausible.

 

[SouthernR]

It appears that the Preston - Lancaster section was built with 3 lanes.
https://web.archive.org/web/2006051...re.gov.uk/environment/historichighways/m6.asp
Sorry if off thread.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I received my copy of 'Walk' from The Ramblers last week. A deadline has been re-instated, 2031 rather than the previous 2026.

 

[HSTEd]

Thus destroying the entire point of registering them in the first place.

Another huge victory for lawyers and NIMBYs everywhere.

The whole point was to develop an authoritative list of rights of way so that everyone would have certainty whether land contained one.

Now the list will never be authoritative.

 

[43066]

Thus destroying the entire point of registering them in the first place.

Another huge victory for lawyers and NIMBYs everywhere.

The whole point was to develop an authoritative list of rights of way so that everyone would have certainty whether land contained one.

Now the list will never be authoritative.

I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick somewhat. The register is authoritative, once the relevant routes are added, but crucially it is also non exhaustive.

What wouldn’t be good would be for it to be incapable of being added to, which is the situation the (now repealed) deadline would have created. Hence the repeal is a victory for ramblers associations etc., not for NIMBYs.

 

[HSTEd]

What wouldn’t be good would be for it to be incapable of being added to, which is the situation the (now repealed) deadline would have created.

That's the whole point of the register!

The idea was that people trying to develop land or what not would have a list of all rights of way. The absence of such rights of way from the list would show that none existed.

Allowing more historical ones to be added at will destroys the entire point of the exercise, since the list provides no such evidence.

Hence the repeal is a victory for ramblers associations etc., not for NIMBYs.

The only people who really benefit from this are NIMBYs who will attempt to ressurect long forgotten rights of way to frustrate development.

It's been thirty years, if a route has not even had an attempt to register it made, its probably not actually used by anyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are those on OS maps automatically included, or might there be some on those which aren't yet?

 

[43066]

That's the whole point of the register!

The idea was that people trying to develop land or what not would have a list of all rights of way. The absence of such rights of way from the list would show that none xisted.

The point of the act and the register is actually to prevent these routes being lost, and to ensure the public retain access to land.

The only people who really benefit from this are NIMBYs who will attempt to ressurect long forgotten rights of way to frustrate development.

It's been thirty years, if route has not even had an attempt to register it made, its probably not actually used by anyone.

It’s right that that risk be borne by developers, rather than risking losing an unknown number of rights of way.

Caveat emptor.

 

[nw1]

That's the whole point of the register!

The idea was that people trying to develop land or what not would have a list of all rights of way. The absence of such rights of way from the list would show that none existed.

Allowing more historical ones to be added at will destroys the entire point of the exercise, since the list provides no such evidence.


The only people who really benefit from this are NIMBYs who will attempt to ressurect long forgotten rights of way to frustrate development.

It's been thirty years, if a route has not even had an attempt to register it made, its probably not actually used by anyone

Some of us enjoy walking in the countryside but get frustrated at the large areas with no footpaths and therefore no access, as, unlike some countries, we do not have widespread freedom to roam in England and Wales.

If it turns out that there actually were historical rights of way over such private land, which could be reopened with some investigation, then such investigation should be made legally available without an arbitrary deadline.

It's not being a "Nimby" to wish to reopen long-forgotten paths. Said paths are not even "IMBY" anyway.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2023 ==

Another huge victory for lawyers and NIMBYs everywhere.

Better than a huge victory for those who which to ensure access to our countryside is kept as restricted as possible.

 

[sprunt]

It's been thirty years, if a route has not even had an attempt to register it made, its probably not actually used by anyone.

People who, say, walk down a footpath every day to get to the station almost certainly have no idea whether it's registered or not, or indeed that there is a register it may or may not be on.