The Commons and Rights of Way Committee of Gloucestershire Council met on Tuesday 2 June 2026 to consider an application to add a public footpath in Hempsted parish and to discuss revisions to the 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

A significant item on the agenda was the consideration of an application to add a public footpath from Rectory Lane to ZGL64 in Hempsted parish, 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 in a similar alignment to the claimed route, marked by double pecked lines. However, later Ordnance Survey maps from the 1870s onwards, as well as the Hempsted Inclosure Map of 1815 and the Hempsted Tithe Map of 1840, did not identify the claimed route. A 2005 planning application for a Household Waste Recycling Centre noted a permissive footpath along part of the claimed route.

User evidence was gathered from eleven individuals. However, three statements were excluded as they did not accurately depict the claimed route. Of the remaining eight statements, only two claimed use over the full qualifying period of approximately 2004-2024. Crucially, five of these users noted the presence of permissive route markers, suggesting that their use was by right rather than as of right, which is a requirement for presumed dedication under the Highways Act 1980. The report concluded that the documentary evidence was insufficient on its own, and the user evidence, particularly the awareness of permissive markers, did not establish a reasonable allegation that public rights subsisted. Therefore, the recommendation was that no order be made to add the public footpath.

Review of Delegated Powers for Definitive Map Modification Orders

The Committee was scheduled to consider a report on revised criteria for determining Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) applications. This report followed a recommendation from the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum (GLAF) to make delegated powers the default for determining DMMOs, with only controversial or heavily contested cases coming before the Committee.

The report outlined the current process, where DMMO determinations are strictly evidence-based and distinct from planning decisions. Since 2014, delegated powers have been used for specific categories of cases, particularly those based on historical documentary evidence. The report noted that applications primarily based on user evidence have typically been brought before the Committee.

The report presented two alternative options: 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. Concerns were raised regarding governance, risk, and the definition of controversial or complex cases. The report also highlighted that all DMMO applications could be considered controversial by one party or another.

The Committee's previous discussions indicated a preference against making delegated powers the default for all DMMOs. Instead, there was support for reviewing the terms of reference for delegated powers to expedite straightforward cases, such as those failing to meet user evidence thresholds, allowing the Committee to focus on more complex applications with greater community impact. The report also addressed public transparency, noting that while the decision-making process for delegated powers is private, the decisions themselves are accountable and evidence is publicly available.

The report proposed variations to the Terms of Reference for Delegated Powers, including the addition of criteria for applications where the recommendation is to refuse a DMMO claim due to insufficient evidence, or to make a change based on overwhelmingly sufficient evidence. A new paragraph was also proposed to ensure that any application involving land owned by a councillor, or where a councillor is the applicant, would be determined by the Committee to guarantee public transparency. Officers agreed to review these terms of reference and present a report at the next meeting.

Delegated Decisions

The Committee was also scheduled to note a report detailing decisions made under delegated powers by Highway Records officers. This report covered the period from 20 November 2025 to 13 May 2026 and listed formal decisions made in relation to DMMO applications and other Highway Records matters. These included decisions to add public footpaths and to refuse orders for upgrading restricted byways to byways open to all traffic due to specific legal exemptions.