Decision details

A report was presented on an application for the addition to the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way, of a restricted byway along the route known as Aldcliffe Hall Drive, from Aldcliffe Road to Aldcliffe Hall Lane, Aldcliffe with Stodday, as shown between points A-B-C-D on the Committee plan attached to the agenda papers.

The application was on the basis of a considerable amount of user evidence.

It was reported that a number of residents living adjacent to the route referred to a right to erect a fence across the route in deeds from the 1950s, but, at the time of writing the report, no deeds had been made available to the county council, as part of the investigation, so no inference could be drawn.  Since that time, a copy of the deed and plan dated 18 January 1956 has been received, which related to land shown between points D-C and short of point B on the Committee plan, and referred to the road fronting the properties as being private, granting private rights of access to the two properties, and a right to erect a barrier where the bollards were subsequently installed.  However, the Committee noted that having private rights of access does not preclude public rights being dedicated.

Lancaster City Council had responded to consultations and confirmed that they did not have any interest in the area in question.

The Committee noted that reference had been made in the report to a bridleway which had been in reliance of the case of Whitworth v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.  This case had suggested that subsequent use of an accepted but unrecorded bridleway, where use of the bridleway would have been permitted by virtue of section 30 of the Countryside Act 1968, could not give rise to anything other than a bridleway.  The use on pedal cycle would have had to have shown earlier acceptance of the route as bridleway, for the cycle use to be supporting use as bridleway, rather than restricted byway.

However, it was reported that a recent Planning Inspectorate decision had been considered which had very similar circumstances to this application, in that there had been no pre-existence of bridleway rights.  The balance of pedal cycle users was the opposite of that in the Whitworth case.  It was noted that, in this case, use by cyclists outweighed use by horse riders; no horse riders had claimed to use this route.  Therefore, there was no basis from which a less burdensome bridleway could be inferred; the evidence of use by cyclists supported the establishment of a restricted byway over the claimed route.

It was therefore proposed that the recommendation be revised as follows, to refer to the making of an Order in respect of a restricted byway, as opposed to a bridleway:

Resolved:

(i)  That the application for a restricted byway along the route known as Aldcliffe Hall Drive, in accordance with File No. 804-592, be accepted.

(ii)  That an Order be made pursuant to Section 53 (2)(b) and Section 53 (3)(b) and Section 53 (3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to add to the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way a restricted byway as shown on the Committee Plan between points A-B-C-D.

(iii)  That being satisfied that the higher test for confirmation can be met, the Order be promoted to confirmation.