Wishing you a very happy New Year from the Defra Environment blog team.
It’s a time of year when many of us enjoy a brisk winter’s walk with our families.
On Boxing Day, a favourite day for rambling, the government announced that it will repeal the 2031 cut-off date for recording historic rights of way.
England has thousands of miles of unrecorded rights of way which are well used by walkers, cyclists and equestrians, but aren’t officially recorded or protected.
These paths are some of the oldest inscriptions on our landscapes – a tangible record of people’s movements over the centuries, with many paths and roads we use today dating back hundreds or thousands of years. For many walkers, the knowledge that you’re on an ancient path trodden by generations of our ancestors is one of walking’s great pleasures.
However, local authorities have struggled under the burden of recording historic rights of way, which are estimated to stretch over 40,000 miles, by the 2031 cut-off date introduced by the last government. The government’s move to reverse that decision means these paths will no longer be lost to the public.
Local authorities will now have the required time to assess whether paths meet the requirements to be added to the “definitive map”. This is the legal record of public rights of way and was established by the Atlee government when they passed the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 75 years ago this month.
Once a right of way has been established the relevant local authority will then be legally responsible for maintaining them along with the appropriate landowner. This will ensure paths are maintained properly allowing more people to experience the benefits of spending time in the outdoors.
Exposure to green and blue space is associated with improved wellbeing, physical activity and health outcomes.
In 2020, the value of health benefits associated with outdoor recreation within the UK was estimated to be between £6.2 billion and £8.4 billion. An estimated annual saving of £2.1 billion would be achieved through averted health costs if everyone in England had good access to nature.
Repealing the cut-off date for historical rights of way is just one of the ways we’re improving access to nature. There’s lots of exciting work happening to help more families enjoy the benefits of nature.
We are continuing to progress delivery of the King Charles III England Coast Path (now expected to be completed by Spring 2026) and the Coast to Coast National Trail.
We also have the green social prescribing programme, which embeds nature into the delivery of preventative healthcare. And there’s our Access for All programme in Protected Landscapes and the forestry estate, plus our Generation Green programme to connect disadvantaged children to Protected Landscapes.
And, speaking of Protected Landscapes – the rights of way announcement follows earlier action to mark the 75th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, which included announcing strengthened powers for our National Parks and National Landscapes.
17 comments
Comment by Rachel Thompson posted on
Well done brilliant news. The Trails Trust works to create connected safe accessible networks and many path connections are not recorded on the definitive map or are existing paths recorded as footpath but used by equestrians and cyclists. Recording green lanes on definitive maps as restricted byways helps to conserve these very valuable wildlife and engagement green corridors through the landscape but TTT is concerned about the proposal to gate restricted byways as gating across a green lane threatens the boundaries as no need to maintain and makes entering them less commodious for the public and incredibly dangerous for carriage drivers particularly sole drivers as they have to get out of the cart to open a gate. TTT hope s Defra could think about this, thanks
Comment by bethcarnell posted on
Hi Rachel,
Thanks for getting in touch and sharing your thoughts on our recent announcement.
This update will help protect hundreds of rights of way from extinguishment ensuring continued use for many years to come.
I have shared your feedback with the relevant Defra team who have confirmed that we will continue to look to streamline rights of way processes.
Best wishes,
Beth (The Blog team)
Comment by Richard Watson posted on
I look forward to hearing about progress on the new government's commitment to increase access to the countryside by creating nine new national river trails and two new national forests.
Comment by Joanna Roseff posted on
Which is good for tourism and people living nearby, but no good for everyday use.
What is needed is a commitment to protect existing community green spaces from development, particularly allotments and green spaces in towns. No doubt this will include some of the 'grey belt' that Labour are now intent on building on.
And when charitable bodies like the National Trust and Wildlife Trusts acquire land, rather than locking gates and erecting barbed wire across the unrecorded rights of way over it, maybe they should dedicate them instead. That would help reduce the backlog.
Comment by Nigel posted on
How long has this extension been proposed and will the passed ruling be monitored and secured...?
Comment by bethcarnell posted on
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for getting in touch and I'm sorry for my delay in responding.
To confirm, this is not an extension. The Government has announced it is removing the 2031 cut-off date for recording historic rights of way.
I hope this gives some clarity.
Best wishes,
Beth (The Blog Team)
Comment by Joanna Roseff posted on
There will no doubt be calls for the Deregulation Act 2015 provisions in respect of 'streamlining' processing DMMOs to be implemented, to speed up clearing the backlog.
But this should not be done unless the provision to allow byways to be gated is repealed. It is undesirable because of the effect it may have on the environment and biodiversity, safety for road users, and access for the disabled.
Many byways are ancient lanes, but not all of their boundaries are protected hedgerows, ditches and stones walls. The only permitted reason for gating, which is to control the movement of livestock, will inevitably lead to unprotected boundaries being removed, when what should be encouraged is the supplementation of existing boundaries with new lengths of hedgerow, ditches, and drystone walls.
There is a shocking example near Ditcheat in Somerset, where a landowner removed miles of medieval hedgerow, destroying a lane and wildlife corridor, which he was only able to do because he had gated the bridleway that ran through the lane. He did this without asking permission first, and retrospective permission was granted by Somerset County Council, as they were then. This was done before the hedgerow protection regulations came into force and he was careful only to remove hedgerow that wasn't protected by the inclosure award, meaning he pulled out the oldest hedgerows that had probably existed for time immemorial.
The safety issue arises when gates have to be negotiated by the sole drivers of horse-drawn vehicles. They have no option but to leave the horse unattended, and in some circumstances, that will mean leaving them facing a highway authority maintained road.
The disabled issue arises because obviously to open a gate, the driver has to leave the vehicle. It is difficult to see what mitigating action could be taken. Disabled persons use BOATs with MPVs, and RBs with horse-drawn vehicles. In fact, many drivers of HDVs take up carriage driving because they are no longer able to ride astride.
The gating provision was brought in because it was thought that allowing a land manager to gate a lane might reduce objections to the addition of a byway. Whether it would or not has not been researched, and land managers generally want to erect gates across lanes to reduce crime, not control stock. But to justify the gate, they would have to make the lane accessible to the stock on the land on either side of the lane, easily done by removing the boundary of the lane.
So when repealing the 2031 legislation, maybe the Deregulation Act 2015 provisions re gating byways could be repealed as well.
Comment by Rachel Thompson MBE posted on
There are lots of ways that Defra could help reduce the backlog for example negotiating with and rewarding all landowners to dedicate green lanes (as RB), unrecorded paths that are historic or currently used and to create and upgrade aspirational routes that are needed for community networks. What's missing is incentive, reward, facilitation and appropriate advice and guidance!
Comment by Christine Hardman posted on
You refer to the Coast to Coast path in the blog but are you aware that several sections of this path, in West Cumbria, not currently a public right of way, are being proposed as public footpaths despite the fact that they are also ridden by horse riders and cyclists? The designation of the Coast to Coast path, in these areas, as a National Trail, is actually reducing the access opportunities for horse riders and cyclists, not improving it.
Natural England and the local authorities are well aware of this but plough on with footpath creation regardless. Why don't DEFRA, NE and the LA's reverse this policy and create better access opportunities for all users and then perhaps riders in West Cumbria might believe that you are committed and genuine when you say that you want to improve access to nature?
Comment by Jillie Gardiner posted on
It is great that the deadline has been lifted.
What would be helpful would be to revise the definition of active travel. It does not make sense to me that millions are spent on creating a single new route for walkers and cyclists, meanwhile, there are miles of routes waiting on the paperwork exercise to add them them to the definitive map due to Rights of Way teams not having the staff in place to process them.
Designating routes which will appeal for a mixture of commuting or recreational use in rural setting as not being eligable for funding, but funding routes in urban areas which will be used for people visiting town centres for many reasons including commuting to work is not logical use of tax payers money.
Comment by Joanna Roseff posted on
Many green lanes are not registered in the Land Registry even when the adjacent land on either side has a registered owner. This is because of the ancient law that made the lord of the manor the owner of the soil of highways. Even for common ways, which were also used by the public, he would still have been the owner if the land on either side was copyhold. The Church Commissioners are lords of many manors and could easily dedicate these green lanes as Restricted Byways, which would help equestrians and provide links to be used as active travel by them. Active travel by equestrians means riding somewhere rather than using a lorry or trailer to transport their horse. Many of us used to hack everywhere years ago, but now the roads are too dangerous and many of the lanes we used to use have had gates locked across them because they are wrongly recorded as FPs on the Definitive Map, or they aren't recorded at all. Green lanes need protection and there could be all sorts of initiatives to replace existing wire boundaries with hedges, ditches or stone walls, and even to incorporate small areas of copse, all much more wildlife friendly.
Comment by gideon posted on
What a farce.
This system is broken beyond.
There hundreds of home owners suffering at the hands of hard line path warriors. This needs addressing ASAP before someone does something drastic through stress of being witch hunted by the "it's our right" brigade.
Think about somone else for once.
Why do the govts always pander to the masses I beg to wonder? and ignore the minority who suffer? There's a dozen ways it could be sorted, but alas noone has the minerals to just deal with it, and say no to the pressure groups.
There's 140000 miles of rambledom currently, and about 20 of them miles go through private gardens and working yards, where children play and tools and vehicles are left unattended. Are we to assume these pressure groups are so wrapped in self importance, that trampling over home owners and business owners welfare and investment should be more important. What happened to solidarity.
DEFRA. You have a responsibility to the whole of your flock. Not just the ones with the most signatures.
Comment by Jeva posted on
I agree wholeheartedly with Gideon’s comments. Other countries don’t pander to the ‘I want it brigade” nothing lawful should begin with an unlawful act such as trespass. Historic use has no bearing on modern use.
Comment by sam posted on
Hi DEFRA, your presumptions guidance was made public August 2023 giving hope to the homeowners/farmers who suffer intrusive/dangerous footpaths through family gardens and working farm yards.. please could we have the latest on this legislation being implemented? this has been on the back burner 20+ years i believe? everyone supports nature and the countryside for its health and wellbeing for walkers and riders, myself included. But some common sense needs implementing to stop up/divert paths through family gardens and places of work as currently due to the goverment encouraging people into the countryside, some peoples lives are being made a misery with these paths through their property, which werent ever meant for the leisure walkers of today
Comment by Ann posted on
DEFRA.
You have already committed to guidelines concerning PROW which pass through gardens and farms. The deregulation bill has been allowed to gather dust. The system is no longer fit for purpose. Scrapping the cut off date will be a disaster for all concerned. The thousands of modification orders will increase whilst the archaic system for determining them will stay at the same rate. ( 12 a year for most councils )
Please look at your own ‘guidence’ notes.
Date: August 2023
Government guidance on diversion or extinguishment of public rights of way that pass through private dwellings, their curtilages and gardens, farmyards and industrial or
commercial premises.
Extracts from Hansard 23 March 2016
As a Government Minister, Baroness Williams of Trafford made the following statements:“The right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem.
The guidance will give authorities more scope to confirm orders made in the interests of the landowner in circumstances where a right of way may cause hardship because it goes through the garden of a family home, a working farmyard or other commercial premises.
I am happy to reaffirm the commitment made by the previous Government that we will review, within two years of implementation of the reforms package, how effective the right-to-apply provisions and the accompanying guidance have proved to be. The review will send a message to authorities that the Government are determined that the new policy should work and that if guidance does not bring about sufficient changes ,we will consider the introduction of further measures.”
Comment by Roger Duffin posted on
We have 140k miles of paths anyway, many of which are hardly used and local authorities cannot afford to maintain. This cut of was originally 2026 (introduced in 2000) the intention being that landowners should not have claims hanging over them to erupt at any time. It costs nothing to claim a “lost path” but many thousands of pounds for the landowner to resist a claim.
2026 was dropped, reintroduced as 2031 and now dropped again. This is senseless activity, whilst doing nothing to protect landowners who have a path in very sensitive situations. Claims were made as far back as 2014 to address the very real issues (Hansard June 2014) this was to be done with the Deregulation Act and would be effective in 2016. This not a political issue, it was agreed by all parties at the time but nothing has happened on this.
Comment by Paula posted on
When are you going to help people that suffer the invasion of having a PROW through their garden and yards, this includes UCR’s. The whole system is a mess and serves no one. Please can you also sort out the status of UCRs, people need clarity, those that historically don’t have vehicular need protecting from unsustainable use so they are not trashed into oblivion. Councils can’t afford to maintain the ordinary road network let alone minor grassy tracks.