The Countryside and Rights of Way Panel of Staffordshire Council met on Friday 12 June 2026. The panel considered three applications under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. A decision was made to add a public bridleway along Bridle Road in Stafford and a public footpath between Park Lane and Bonehill Canal Bridge in Fazeley Parish. However, an application for a public footpath from Salts Lane to Drayton Brick Bridge in Drayton Bassett was rejected.

Addition of a Public Bridleway along Bridle Road, Stafford

The panel approved the addition of a public bridleway along an unmade section of Bridle Road in Stafford. The application, originally submitted in August 1995, was based on evidence of public use and further historical evidence obtained by the Council. Officers concluded that the legal test had been satisfied, with sufficient evidence to conclude that a public right of way subsists along the claimed route. While user evidence primarily supported a public footpath, historical documents, including an 1832 quarter-cessioned order and an 1846 side map, indicated the existence of higher rights, justifying the classification as a bridleway. Councillor Anne Eagler raised questions about the responsibility for maintenance of a specific section of the road and potential impacts on private vehicle access rights, which officers clarified would be the responsibility of the Highway Authority and outside the scope of the application, respectively. The decision was made by a vote of six in favour, with no abstentions or against votes.

Addition of a Public Footpath between Park Lane and Bonehill Canal Bridge, Fazeley Parish

The panel voted to make an order to add a public footpath between an unadopted section of Park Lane and Bonehill Canal Bridge in Fazeley Parish. The application, submitted in November 2021, was supported by 31 user evidence forms, with 22 users reporting use of the route on foot during the relevant 20-year period. Despite objections from landowners' solicitors, who argued the process was unfair and the evidence insufficient, officers maintained that the statutory test under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 was met. Councillor Farrell, who declared an interest as a resident of Park Lane, agreed with the officers' conclusions but highlighted concerns about the current alignment of the footpath passing through a landowner's garden and swimming pool. Officers explained that the current process focuses on establishing whether rights existed in 2021, and a diversion could be considered if the rights are confirmed. The decision was made by a vote of six in favour, with no abstentions or against votes.

Rejection of Application for a Public Footpath from Salts Lane to Drayton Brick Bridge, Drayton Bassett

The panel rejected an application for the addition of a public footpath from the A4091 (opposite Salts Lane) to Drayton Brick Bridge and access to the canal towpath in Drayton Bassett. The application, based on user evidence from over 100 witnesses, was initially considered strong. However, officers reversed their recommendation to rejection due to evidence of a locked gate on the route from at least 2001, which rendered subsequent user evidence ineffectual. Further evidence from landowners indicated the presence of gates, prohibitive signage, and verbal challenges to use, suggesting the route was a private farm track rather than a public right of way. While some applicant witnesses testified to the absence of a gate during the relevant period (1970-1990), the landowner's evidence, supported by credible witnesses, presented a consistent picture of challenge and control over the route. Councillor Farrell, representing the division, argued that the route had been walked by local residents for many years and that its rejection would leave Drayton Bassett without sufficient footpaths, particularly given issues with other routes. However, officers stated they could only consider the evidence presented, and the strong and consistent landowner challenge meant that even on the lower test of reasonable allegation, a public right of way could not be established. The recommendation to reject the application was unanimous. The panel noted concerns about the impassability of other local footpaths and agreed to pass these details to the relevant colleagues for potential enforcement or access issue review.