The Countryside and Rights of Way Panel met to discuss an application to register land as a town or village green, an application to upgrade a public footpath to a byway, and an application to add a public footpath. The panel decided to defer the decision on the village green application for a site visit and further evidence gathering, rejected the application to upgrade a public footpath to a byway, and approved the application to add a public footpath.

Falmouth Avenue Village Green Application

The panel deferred a decision on application NVG35 to register land at Falmouth Avenue in Stafford as a town or village green, to allow for a site visit and further evidence gathering.

Claire Gledhill, a council officer, presented the recommendation to reject the application, which had been made by Mr. Edward Bailey under Section 15.2 of the Commons Act 2006¹. The landowner, Staffordshire County Council, had objected to the application. Mr. William Webster, a barrister, was instructed to investigate the matter. He found that while the activities on the land qualified as lawful pastimes, and a significant number of local inhabitants had used the land, the application failed to meet the legal requirements for registration because:

• The land had been licensed for grazing during some of the qualifying period.
• Staffordshire County Council had erected signage indicating that use of the land was permissive, not as of right .

Councillor Anne Edgler, Borough Councillor for Bassitch Ward, spoke in favour of the application, stating that the land had been used by the public for leisure for 55 years, including activities such as dog walking and sledging. She also mentioned that an application to build on the land had previously been rejected due to concerns about traffic. Councillor Edgler said:

...in that time that land has been used for public use for people walking the dogs in the winter when it's snowing the children use it for sledging and it's just been a use for public to be able to use it as a well facilities for pleasure really...

Councillor Edgler also noted that the signage was not very visible.

In response to questions, Claire Gledhill, a council officer, confirmed that the signage stated that Staffordshire County Council gave consent for recreational use, but that rights under the Commons Registration Act 1965² were not created and could be withdrawn at any time. She clarified that the signage was intended to make it clear that people could not obtain rights over the land through its use. Councillor Edgler stated that the reason for the application was to protect the space and enable the Bassage community group to apply for funding to build amenities such as a BMX track.

Panel members discussed the visibility of the signage and the possibility of a site visit. They also discussed the implications of approving the application against the officer's recommendation. Claire Gledhill, a council officer, advised that if the panel were to reject the recommendation, they would need a reason as to why the application then met the criteria for registration.

Public Footpath 10 Upgrade Application

The panel rejected an application to upgrade public footpath 10 in Onecote to a byway open to all traffic (BOAT).

Laura, a council officer, presented the recommendation to reject the application. She stated that after a thorough review of the evidence, officers concluded that the legal test had not been met and the evidence was insufficient to conclude that a BOAT subsisted along the claimed route.

The evidence considered included:

• The Bradnock Enclosure Award of 1769, which described the route as a private horse and carriage and drift road.
• A 1929 handover map that did not depict the route as publicly maintainable.
• Parish survey cards that initially recorded the route as a carriage road but were later reclassified as a public footpath following a public inquiry.
• Highway data relating to the application route, including a section 36 Highways Act list³ with annotations suggesting an intention to remove maintenance responsibility for the route. Laura, a council officer, stated that landowners along the route had consistently stated that it had not been used as a through road for general traffic. She also noted that under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act)⁴, motorised vehicle rights are extinguished unless specific exceptions apply, which they did not in this case. Councillor Neil Parton said he believed the path was not used for anything other than a walkway, and that upgrading it would increase traffic along the path.

Quarry Bank Road Public Footpath Application

The panel approved an application to add a public footpath between Quarry Bank Road in Keel and Stavely Place in Silverdale.

Stephanie, a council officer, presented the recommendation to accept the application, which had been submitted in August 1998 by Keel Parish Council. The application was based on 14 user evidence forms completed between August 1995 and July 1996.

Stephanie, a council officer, stated that while the user evidence was not particularly compelling, officers believed there was sufficient evidence to meet the test under section 53-3C1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981⁵. The evidence from landowner one was applied to provide the date at which the use was brought into question. Six users were qualified to use the route, with three using it daily and two using it fortnightly.

Six landowners responded to the application. Landowner one and landowner two sold their respective land in 1993 and 1996. Landowner one was unaware that anyone had been using the route and that a gate had been installed by the county council in 1992 which they locked. Landowner two stated that they did not believe that anyone was using the field as a throughway, although they did get the occasional trespasser, and that a gate which was locked in or around 1991 when Keel bypass was completed prevented use. Landowner three stated that when they purchased the field in about 1993 from landowner one, the field was well secured and that it was they who had erected the deterrent notices. Landowner five, who purchased land in 1996 from landowner two, appeared to have been unaware of any public use but was concerned about privacy and antisocial behaviour should the application be successful.

Newcastle Borough Council, also landowners, were concerned that the claimed route passed over the municipal golf course which they managed and that they could not guarantee the safety of those using the footpath if the application was successful.

User seven, who became a landowner in 2004, contacted the council stating that they had not seen anyone using the route and also had concerns regarding antisocial behaviour and littering should the application be successful.

Newcastle Borough Council also stated that there was a section 31-6 Highways Act 1980 landowner statement filed with the county council which included the golf course. Stephanie, a council officer, clarified that while this statement would defeat any future applications, it did not act retrospectively.