The Commons and Rights of Way Committee of Gloucestershire Council met on Tuesday 2 June 2026. The meeting's agenda included consideration of an application to add a public footpath in Hempsted parish, and a report on revised criteria for determining Definitive Map Modification Order applications.

Application to Add Public Footpath in Hempsted Parish

The committee was scheduled to consider an application for a modification order to add a public footpath from Rectory Lane to ZGL64 in Hempsted parish, City of Gloucester. The report pack detailed the evidence considered for this application, including historical maps, landowner statements, and user evidence.

The report highlighted that the application was supported by user evidence from eight individuals, with some claiming use dating back to 1963. However, the report also noted that five of these users acknowledged seeing permissive route markers, suggesting their use was by right rather than as of right, which is a key legal test for establishing a public right of way. Documentary evidence was also reviewed, with older maps such as the Ordnance Survey 1811 and 1831 maps showing a track, but higher-status records like the Hempsted Inclosure Map & Award 1815 and Ordnance Survey maps from the late 19th and early 20th centuries did not identify the claimed route.

The report concluded that the documentary evidence was insufficient on its own to establish dedication, and the user evidence, particularly the awareness of permissive route markers, was not considered sufficient to establish a reasonable allegation that rights subsist either by presumed statutory dedication or inferred dedication at common law. Therefore, the recommendation was that no order be made to add the length of public footpath.

Review of Delegated Powers for Definitive Map Modification Order 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 committee 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, with only controversial or heavily contested cases coming before the committee.

The report outlined the current process, where delegated powers are routinely used for certain categories of cases, particularly those based on historical documentary evidence or where the law limits the outcome. However, cases predominantly based on user evidence typically come to the committee. The report discussed concerns regarding governance and risk, particularly around defining what constitutes a controversial or significant case.

Two 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 report also addressed public transparency, noting that while decision-making meetings under delegated powers are private, the evidence gathered and the final decision are publicly available.

The committee was to consider whether to vary the terms of reference for delegated powers to include applications where the recommendation is to refuse a DMMO claim on the grounds that the evidence falls short of satisfying the tests for dedication, or where the evidence is overwhelmingly sufficient. Additionally, it was proposed that any application involving land owned by a councillor, or where a councillor is the applicant, should be determined by the committee to ensure public transparency.

Delegated Decisions

The committee was also scheduled to note a report on decisions made under delegated powers by Highway Records officers. This report detailed formal decisions made on Definitive Map Modification Order applications and other Highway Records matters between November 2025 and May 2026. These included decisions to refuse orders for upgrading restricted byways to byways open to all traffic due to specific legislative exemptions, and decisions to refuse or process orders for adding public footpaths.