The Commons and Rights of Way Committee met on Tuesday 2 June 2026 to consider an application to add a public footpath in Hempsted parish and to discuss revised criteria for determining Definitive Map Modification Order applications. The meeting also included a review of decisions made under delegated powers.

Application to Add Public Footpath in Hempsted Parish

The committee was scheduled to consider an application for a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to add a public footpath from Rectory Lane to ZGL64 in the Hempsted parish, City of Gloucester. The report pack detailed the evidence considered, including historical maps, landowner statements, and user evidence.

The documentary evidence examined included Ordnance Survey maps from 1811 and 1831, which showed a track aligning with the claimed route, but later Ordnance Survey maps from the 1870s onwards did not identify it. The Hempsted Inclosure Map and Award of 1815, and other estate maps, also did not identify the route. The Hempsted Tithe Map of 1840 showed a section as 'tithe free' and another as enclosed pasture, potentially inferring private usage. A 2005 planning application for a Household Waste Recycling Centre referred to existing permissive footpaths in the area, with one plan annotating part of the claimed route as such. The report concluded that the documentary evidence alone was insufficient to establish the dedication of the claimed route.

User evidence was gathered from 11 individuals, with 8 statements deemed consistent with the claimed route. The analysis focused on the 20-year period prior to March 2024, when the route's status was first challenged. While some users claimed continuous use, a significant point of discussion was the presence of permissive route markers noted by five of the eight users. This indicated that the use was likely by right (with permission) rather than as of right (without permission), which is a requirement for presumed dedication under the Highways Act 1980. The report also considered common law principles of implied dedication, but concluded that the user evidence, particularly the awareness of permissive use, was insufficient to establish an intention to dedicate the route as a public highway.

The report recommended that no order be made to add the length of public footpath to the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way.

Revised Criteria for Determining DMMO Applications

The committee was also scheduled to consider a report on revised criteria for deciding whether Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) applications are determined by the Commons & Rights of Way Committee (CROWC) or by officers under delegated powers. This followed a recommendation from the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum (GLAF) to make delegated powers the default for most DMMO applications, reserving committee determination for more controversial or heavily contested cases.

The report outlined the current process, noting that DMMO decisions must be evidence-based and concerned with whether a public right already exists. It highlighted that while delegated powers had been used for certain cases since 2014, those based predominantly on user evidence typically came to the committee. The report discussed concerns regarding governance and risk, particularly the challenge of defining controversial or significant cases, and the potential for predetermination if decisions were based on emotive reasons.

Two alternative options were presented: maintaining the current arrangements or making delegated powers the default for all determinations without a call-in mechanism, effectively removing the committee from the determination stage. The committee had previously agreed that delegated powers should not become the default for all DMMO applications but supported a review to expedite straightforward cases, allowing the committee to focus on more complex applications. The report also addressed public transparency and the right of appeal or objection following any determination.

The committee was asked to consider varying the Terms of Reference for delegated powers to include applications where the recommendation is to refuse a DMMO claim due to insufficient evidence, or where the evidence is overwhelmingly sufficient. It was also proposed that any application involving land owned by a councillor, or where a councillor had a legal interest, should be determined by the committee to ensure public transparency.

Delegated Decisions

Finally, the committee was scheduled to note a report detailing decisions made under delegated powers by Highway Records officers between November 2025 and May 2026. This report listed specific DMMO applications and other highway record matters that had been determined by officers, including decisions to refuse orders for upgrading restricted byways to Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs) due to a lack of exemption under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and the refusal of a DMMO determination for a footpath in Stonehouse.