The Countryside and Rights of Way Panel met on Friday 09 October 2026 to discuss several applications concerning public footpaths and the registration of land as a town or village green. The panel authorised the confirmation of two Definitive Map Modification Orders, noted a report concerning an application for an alleged byway open to all traffic that had been resolved by a Magistrates' Court order, resolved that an order should not be made to add a public footpath due to insufficient evidence, and resolved that a Definitive Map Modification Order should be made to add another public footpath based on the evidence presented. Additionally, an application to register land as a town or village green was rejected for the reasons set out in the Inspector's Report.

Confirmation of Definitive Map Modification Orders

The panel authorised the confirmation of two Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981¹. These orders related to the upgrade of Footpath 11 in Heaton Parish to a Restricted Byway and the addition of a public footpath in Fradswell Parish. Both orders had previously been resolved to be made by the panel, and no objections were received following their publication. The panel voted five in favour of confirming these orders.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - Application for Alleged Byway Open to All Traffic between A53 and Part of Public Footpath 15, Tyrley Parish

The panel noted a report concerning an application for an alleged byway open to all traffic between the A53 and part of Public Footpath 15 in Tyrley Parish. It was reported that a Magistrates' Court had granted an Order under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980² to stop up the route. This Order legally extinguished any public highway rights over the route, meaning there were no longer any public rights capable of being recorded on the Definitive Map. Consequently, the Section 53 application no longer required determination as the matter had been resolved. The panel voted five in favour of noting the contents of the report and agreeing that the Section 53 application no longer required determination.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - Application for the Addition of a Public Footpath across Wheatley Lane Recreation Ground from Monsaldale Close to Newfield Road, Winshill

The panel considered an application for the addition of a public footpath across Wheatley Lane Recreation Ground³ from Monsaldale Close to Newfield Road, Winshill. Officers advised that only two user evidence forms had been submitted in support of the application, which was deemed insufficient to satisfy the evidential requirements for establishing a public right of way. The panel resolved that an order should not be made to add the alleged right of way to the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way for the Borough of East Staffordshire. The vote was five in favour of the officer's recommendation.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - Application for the Addition of a Public Footpath from Wincote Lane to Public Footpath 115 Eccleshall

The panel considered an application for the addition of a public footpath from Wincote Lane to Public Footpath 115 in Eccleshall⁴. After reviewing user and historical evidence, and considering objections from landowners, officers recommended that the evidence was sufficient to show that a public footpath was reasonably alleged to subsist along the route. The panel resolved that a Definitive Map Modification Order should be made to add the alleged public footpath to the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way for the Borough of Stafford, with a width of 1.5 metres. Four members voted in favour, with the local member abstaining due to a declared interest.

Commons Act 2006 - Application to Register Land Known as Glebelands Sports Field, Church Eaton as a Town or Village Green

The panel considered an application to register Glebelands Sports Field, Church Eaton⁵, as a town or village green under Section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006⁶. The application had been investigated by an independent inspector, Mr William Webster, who recommended rejection. The inspector's report highlighted concerns regarding the applicant's submission of 19 identical witness statements and the applicant's failure to attend two scheduled public inquiries. Officers accepted the inspector's findings and recommendations. The panel voted five in favour of rejecting the application, agreeing with the inspector's recommendation. All interested parties were to be notified that the reasons for rejection were those contained in the inspector's report.