When a Footpath Isn’t a Bridleway: Lessons for Landowners from a Definitive Map Modification Order

Public rights of way disputes can be stressful, time-consuming and costly for landowners. A 2013 Planning Inspectorate decision concerning a route at East Chiltington in East Sussex offers helpful guidance for landowners facing an attempt to upgrade an existing public footpath to a bridleway.

In this case, East Sussex County Council made a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) seeking to upgrade a recorded public footpath to bridleway status. The proposed change was supported by equestrian groups who argued that historic evidence and user activity demonstrated that horse riders had long used the route “as of right”. The landowners objected, and the matter proceeded to a public inquiry. Ultimately, the Inspector refused to confirm the Order.

For landowners, it is important to understand that DMMO cases are evidence-based, not policy-based. The Inspector was required to determine whether the legal tests under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 were met. In practical terms, this meant examining whether evidence showed that the footpath “ought to be shown” as a bridleway.

Much of the argument focused on section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. Under this provision, if the public has used a route “as of right” (without force, secrecy or permission) for at least 20 uninterrupted years, a presumption of dedication can arise, unless there is sufficient evidence that the landowner had no intention to dedicate the higher right.

The critical question therefore became: was there 20 years of qualifying bridleway use, and had the landowner done enough to demonstrate a lack of intention to dedicate?

Supporters of the upgrade relied heavily on old Ordnance Survey maps and other historic documents showing the physical existence of a through route dating back to at least the 19th century. However, the Inspector emphasised a point that will reassure many landowners: OS maps show physical features, not legal status.

Although the historic mapping suggested the route may once have accommodated horses or vehicles, this did not establish that public bridleway rights existed. The documentary evidence was found to be consistent with the route being a private occupation road, with or without limited public rights.

Importantly, the route had been recorded as a footpath on the Definitive Map in the 1950s without objection at the time, suggesting it was not then regarded as a bridleway.

Thirty-one user evidence forms were submitted, with riders claiming use from the 1960s onwards. However, the Inspector closely scrutinised the relevant 20-year period.

Use had been brought into question in 1986/87 when equestrian groups formally sought bridleway status and the county council refused. That refusal was reported publicly within local groups. Later, in 2001, the landowner deposited a statement and map under section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980 confirming that only a footpath was acknowledged. Signs stating “Private Road – Public Footpath Only – No Bridle Way” were erected from 2006.

The Inspector concluded that the relevant 20-year period ran from 1966/67 to 1986/87. Crucially, there was insufficient evidence of significant bridleway use in the early part of that period. Most claimed use began after 1980. Without consistent, substantial use across the full 20 years, the statutory presumption could not arise.

Even if use had been sufficient, the landowner (and previously the local authority owner) had consistently indicated no intention to dedicate bridleway rights. The 1986/87 refusal, internal documentation, and later the formal section 31(6) deposit all reinforced that position.

The Inspector also rejected any suggestion of dedication at common law, noting that landowners had consistently resisted upgrading the route.

This case offers several practical takeaways:

Use section 31(6) deposits proactively. Lodging a highways statement and map can be powerful evidence that you do not intend to dedicate additional rights.

Erect clear signage. Signs stating the recorded status of a route can help bring higher use “into question” and stop the clock on any 20-year period.

Respond formally to upgrade requests. Written refusals can later demonstrate lack of intention to dedicate.
Scrutinise user evidence carefully. The 20-year period must be continuous and supported by credible, consistent evidence.
Finally, remember that DMMO decisions are not about desirability or safety. In this case, arguments about reducing road riding risks carried no weight. The decision turned entirely on legal evidence.

For landowners facing similar challenges, this decision underlines an essential principle: consistent, documented resistance to upgrading rights of way can make the difference between retaining control and losing it.