Public Rights of Way Reform and Definitive Map Modification Orders - Sarah Slade, CLA

  • 162 views
Uploaded on

Presentation on Public Rights of Way Reform and Definitive Map Modification Orders, given by CLA National Access Adviser Sarah Slade MRICS to Nottinghamshire members on Tuesday 26 …

Presentation on Public Rights of Way Reform and Definitive Map Modification Orders, given by CLA National Access Adviser Sarah Slade MRICS to Nottinghamshire members on Tuesday 26 November.
Throughout Nottinghamshire, farmers are receiving notice of Definitive Map Modification Orders which are being lodged with Nottinghamshire County Council.
The event on 26 November updated members on the law, listen to concerns and seek to resolve issues. Sarah briefed members on rights and responsibilities of landowners who have public rights of way crossing their land.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
162
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Public Rights of Way Reform and Definitive Map Modification Orders Sarah Slade MRICS CLA National Access Adviser
  • 2. Rights of Way Reform • Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 • Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) recommendations • Draft Deregulation Bill • Additional measures
  • 3. Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 • Changes to section 31(6) deposits – Prescribed form – Agents – Publicity – Fees • Village greens
  • 4. Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) • • • • Stepping Forward report 32 recommendations Defra consultation 2012 Implementation of “cut-off” and “right to apply”
  • 5. Draft Deregulation Bill • Published July 2013 • Joint Committee report due 16 December 2013 • Rights of way clauses: 12 – 18 and Schedule 6 • Other submissions
  • 6. Rights of Way Clauses (1): • Cut off won’t stop claims of use • Proposes authorities should have an additional year after cut-off for historic claims • Permits “administrative” changes to DM after cut-off • Introduces new test (BET) • “Reasonably alleged” • Amended appeal procedure
  • 7. Rights of Way Clauses (2) • • • • • Power to reject irrelevant objections Right to apply extended to other landowners Cost recovery proposals Power to authorise gates extended Proposes new modification by consent process • Enables digital advertising of orders
  • 8. Additional Measures
  • 9. Additional Measures • Improved quality of user evidence • Houses/farmyards – presumption of diversion/impact on landowner • Extension gating powers to other land • Time limit for user claims • Double jeopardy AIM: Balance and Fairness
  • 10. Rights of Way reform What the proposals mean for CLA members: • After cut-off claims for unrecorded ways not in use should cease • Fairer, quicker and more streamlined system which allows negotiation, mitigation and consideration of current land use • Achieving additional reforms would address imbalances in existing rights of way and claims based on use
  • 11. Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs)
  • 12. Dealing with Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) • • • • • Notification of claim Access to information Disputing a claim Evidence based approach Impact on home, business, environment etc irrelevant • Professional advice/support
  • 13. Dealing with DMMOs • Notification of claim
  • 14. Dealing with DMMOs • Access to information – without redaction
  • 15. Dealing with DMMOs • Disputing a claim – evidence based approach
  • 16. Dealing with DMMOs • Irrelevant factors can include: – Impact on home, business, environment etc – Cost of providing/maintaining path – Lack of use in living memory
  • 17. Dealing with DMMOs • Professional advice/support
  • 18. Impact of DMMO – the need for change “For a period of 5 years the quality of my life and future was uncertain. I experienced a confrontational system exploited by a claimant intent on pursuing the objective of getting as many footpaths established as possible, irrespective of the cost to the landowner or the council, or its recreational value, numbers of potential users or the consequences. “The claimant displayed a total disregard for the burdens he imposed on me – namely anxiety, stress, legal costs, security implications, loss of value and saleability of my property.”
  • 19. Questions? sarah.slade@cla.org.uk