Print article
Authors
Article:
Michelmores’ Agriculture team has successfully opposed a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) on behalf of a large Staffordshire Estate, bringing a long-running dispute to a satisfactory conclusion.
The Michelmores team was led by Adam Corbin, supported by Will Dyer, Sarah Rhodes and Helen Norman. The Estate was represented throughout by George Laurence KC of New Square Chambers and Matthew Dale-Harris of Landmark Chambers.
Background
Michelmores was instructed in 2018 to assist the Estate in opposing the application to record the alleged public footpath, which was originally lodged in 1997. Initially, Michelmores represented the Estate in judicial review proceedings challenging Staffordshire County Council’s decision to make a DMMO to amend the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS), placing a public right of way through the heart of the rural Estate. [1]
Permission for judicial review was ultimately refused by the High Court, with Mrs Justice Lang deciding that the statutory inquiry procedure under Schedule 15 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provided a suitable alternative remedy. A second reason for the refusal was that the Council had given an undertaking that its Countryside and Rights of Way Panel would review its decision in light of the new evidence and submissions which had emerged during the proceedings.
The Panel reviewed its decision in accordance with this undertaking and nevertheless recommended the confirmation of the order, which was made in April 2023. The Estate objected to that order, and a public inquiry was scheduled for November 2025.
Outcome of the inquiry
At the inquiry, the Council relied on a range of historical evidence, including a stopping up order of the Quarter Sessions in the early nineteenth century, and field book evidence deriving from the Finance Act 1910. The Estate presented expert cartographic evidence setting out some mismatches between the various pieces of evidence relied upon by the Council and the claimed route; and the physical gaps between the evidence relied upon. The Estate also made submissions regarding the effect of a declaration made under s.31(3) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 by the Quarter Sessions in 1965 that there was no public right of way over a substantial part of the alleged route.
In refusing to confirm the order, the Inspector assessed the weight which should be given to each strand of evidence and concluded that the evidence, viewed as a whole, was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a public footpath on the balance of probabilities, as required by section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. A copy of the Inspector’s decision can be viewed here.
The outcome is a significant victory for the Estate in what became an unusually complex and consequential dispute. The matter was of the utmost importance to the Estate, as the creation of the public right of way would have caused substantial disruption to the Estate’s farming operations, as well as affecting the privacy and amenity of the land.
The decision also illustrates the continuing importance of DMMO applications for landowners. In December 2024, the Labour government announced that it would remove the cut-off date for recording historic rights of way under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (previously extended from 1 January 2026 to 2031). While this gives local authorities time to process their backlogs of existing applications, it prolongs the uncertainty for landowners whose long-term management decisions must now account for the possibility that historic rights may yet be claimed.
As a result, we expect disputes concerning DMMOs and historic rights of way to remain a significant feature of the rural property landscape for the foreseeable future.
[1] R (on the application of Monckton and another) v Staffordshire County Council [2022] EWHC 3049 (Admin).