chris

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 SECTION 53

APPLICATION FOR DEFINITIVE MAP MODIFICATION ORDER TO DELETE DRAYTON FOOTPATH 24 (part) AND ADD THE ROUTE BETWEEN SU 4861 9547 AND SU 4898 9559 (DRAYTON) AND BETWEEN SU 4898 9559 AND SU 4903 9558 (ABINGDON) AS A PUBLIC FOOTPATH TO THE DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT FOR

PARISHES OF DRAYTON AND ABINGDON

DRAFT DETERMINATION REPORT

REF: 03093

1

CONTENTS

Section Page

A: Purpose of Report … … 3 B: Draft Recommendation … … 3 C: Details of Application … … 3 D: Legal Background … … 4 E: Description of Route … … 4 F: Land Ownership … … 4 G: Site Inspections … … 4 H: Documentary Evidence … … 5 I: Definitive Maps and Statements for the former North and Oxfordshire … … 13 J: User Evidence … … 16 K: Previous Wildlife And Countryside Act 1981 application … 16 L: Consultation … … 17 M: Discussion and Draft Conclusions … … 19 N: Widths … … 22 O: Limitations … … 22

APPENDICES … … 23

2

A PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The Purpose of this report is to determine whether there is merit to an application submitted by Nicholas Moon on behalf of the Oxford Fieldpaths’ Society pursuant to section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to: -

• Vary the particulars relating to Drayton Footpath No 24 by providing that it runs from point A on the plan at Appendix 1, via point C, to point D; and

• Record a public footpath running from point D, via point E to point F (at its junction with Abingdon Footpath No 3).

2. The Council is under a statutory duty to address such applications in accordance with the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 53 and schedule 14. It must make a decision about the existence of public rights based on the evidence before it and must have no regard to other matters such as whether the route is needed or has other potential implications.

B DRAFT RECOMMENDATION

3. All evidence available to the Council has been considered and evaluated and it is considered that: -

I. There is sufficient evidence to support the application in part, and

II. That a Definitive Map Modification Order be made pursuant to the provisions of Section 53(2)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in in consequence of an event specified under s53(3)(c)(i) to add a route as a public footpath, and

III. That the above Order amends the route of Public Footpath No 24 in the parish of Drayton in consequence of events specified under s53(3)(c)(i) and (iii)

C DETAILS OF APPLICATION

4. On 8 July 2013, Nicholas Moon, on behalf of the Oxford Fieldpaths’ Society, submitted an application in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 53(5) to modify the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement by deleting that section of Drayton Footpath No 24 which runs between point A and point B on the plan at Appendix 1, and adding a public footpath, in Drayton Parish from point A, via point C and point D to the boundary with Abingdon Parish; thence via point E to point F (at its junction with Abingdon Footpath No 3).

5. A copy of the application is at Appendix 2a (form) and Appendix 2b (plan).

6. The application was supported by the following documentary evidence: -

(i) The Sutton Courtenay Inclosure Award and Map 1804 (ii) Ordnance Survey 2nd Edition 1:2,500 map published in 1889 (iii) Ordnance Survey 3rd Edition 1:2,500 map published in 1912 (iv) Ordnance Survey Popular Edition One Inch Sheet map 105 published in 1926 (v) Ordnance Survey Oxford District One Inch map published in 1931 (vi) Parish Claim Survey and appended plan early 1950s (vii) Black and white photocopy of extract for Drayton of 1st edition of Berkshire Definitive Map published in 1956, and

3

(viii) Definitive Statement for Drayton, to accompany vii

D LEGAL BACKGROUND

7. The relevant statutory provisions which apply to adding a path to the Definitive Map and Statement are contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 53(3)(c)(i) which requires the Council, as the Surveying Authority, to modify the Definitive Map and Statement following: -

“the discovery by the authority of evidence which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows that a right of way which is not in the map and statement subsists or is reasonably alleged to subsist over land in the area to which the map relates, being a right of way to which this Part applies."

8. The relevant statutory provisions which apply to amending the route of a path on the Definitive Map and Statement are contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 53(3)(c)(iii) which requires the Council to modify the Definitive Map and Statement following: -

“the discovery by the authority of evidence which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows that there is no public right of way over land shown in the map and statement as a highway of any description, or any other particulars contained in the map and statement require modification.

E DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE

9. In accordance with this application, the section of path to be removed from the Definitive Map and Statement is shown by a solid black line (A to B) and the route to be added is shown as a broken black line (A – C – D – E – F) on the plan attached at Appendix 1.

F LAND OWNERSHIP

10. The applicant served formal Notice of the application on the occupants of the following properties: -

I. Stonehill House, Drayton, Abingdon. OX14 4AA. II. Abbey House, Abbey Close, Abingdon. OX14 3JE.

11. A search of the Land Registry has been undertaken. This indicates that the Application Routes pass over two land parcels. The address details of the landowners shown by this Land Registry search are outlined in the table below.

Title Number Proprietors Addresses Stonehill House, Stonehill, Drayton, ON177227 Anthea Eno1 Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 4AA 135 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Milton, ON324020 District Council Abingdon OX14 4SB

G SITE INSPECTIONS

12. Two inspections have been undertaken; the first in 2013 following receipt of the application and a second at a meeting with the owner of Stonehill House in 2019 which is considered later in this report.

1 Ms Eno contacted us using the surname Norman-Taylor (as shown at e.g. paragraph 113 et seq.). 4

13. The first inspection was carried out on 13 December 2013. A note of the inspection, together with the photographs taken, is at Appendix 3.

14. The second inspection was carried out on 21 October 2019. The photographs taken are at Appendix 4.

H DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

15. The Highways Act 1980, section 32 sets out how any court or other tribunal, before determining whether a way has or has not been dedicated as a highway, or the date on which such dedication, if any, took place, shall take into consideration any map, plan or history of the locality or other relevant document which is tendered in evidence, and shall give such weight thereto as the court or tribunal considers justified by the circumstances, including the antiquity of the tendered document, the status of the person by whom and the purpose for which it was compiled, and the custody in which it has been kept and from which it is produced.

16. A list of the documentary evidence submitted in support of the application is referred to above. The council’s own records have also been researched and details of this are set out below.

17. Whilst this application was submitted for a claimed footpath within an area which is in Drayton , that area of the parish was part of Sutton Wick Civil Parish until its abolition on 1st April 19342.

The Sutton Courtenay and Sutton Wick Inclosure Award 1804

18. Inclosure awards are legal documents that recorded the ownership and distribution of land. They may also detail roads and rights of way. These can be extremely important documents and, in many cases, if an inclosure award has created a right of way, and there is evidence that the correct legal procedures were carried out, this can be conclusive legal evidence for the existence of the right of way.

19. Fundamentally, Inclosure was the process by which traditional communal arable farming in open fields was abolished and land was enclosed and put to the use of a single owner.

20. Inclosure awards were drawn up by Inclosure Commissioners, who acted pursuant to the authority of an Act of Parliament. In the 18th century the most common method of authorising an inclosure project was by a local Act of Parliament.

21. In the late 18th century, it was considered desirable to streamline the process of inclosure and make it cheaper and more attractive to prospective landowners which it was hoped would lead to an increase in the gross national output of agricultural produce. The result was the Inclosure Consolidation Act of 1801, the long title of which read: -

“An Act for consolidating in one Act certain provisions usually inserted in Acts of Inclosure; and for facilitating the mode of proving the several facts usually required on the passing of such Acts.”

2 1931 Census of and Wales, Table B, Areas altered between 26th April, 1931 and 30th June, 1934, showing constitution as at the latter date, in terms of constitution as at the former date, together with particulars of acreage and population. M. of H. Order No. 77733. The Berks Review Order, 1934. [Referred to at: https://visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10104658]

5

22. Subsequent to the enactment of the 1801 Act, local Acts authorising inclosure in a particular area could simply incorporate its provisions by reference, together with any other provisions considered to be desirable.

23. In this case, the applicant submitted an extract from the Sutton Courtney and Sutton Wick Inclosure Award 1804, together with a copy of an extract of the Map corresponding to the Award. The Award and its annexed Map were examined via The Berkshire Record Office’s New Landscapes website (at www.berkshirenclosure.org.uk).

24. The Award refers in its preamble to a local Act of Parliament as follows: -

“an act of parliament passed in the forty first year of the reign of his present Majesty King George the Third intituled “An Act for dividing, allotting, laying in severalty, and inclosing the open and common fields, common meadows, common pastures, commonable lands, and waste grounds, within the Parish of Sutton Courtney, and the hamlet of Sutton Wick in the same Parish, in the County of Berks”

25. This Local Act of Parliament received its Royal Assent on 20th June 1801, twelve days before the Public General Inclosure (Consolidation) Act 1801, Section 44 of which would otherwise have applied its powers and provisions to the Local Act. The local Act is at Appendix 5.

26. The relevant section of the Award Map is at Appendix 6. The relevant section of the Award itself at Appendix 7.

27. The cover page of the Award includes the following reference to its enrolment: -

“Inrolled in the court of our Sovereign Lord the King before the King himself at Westminster of Easter Term in the 45th year of the Reign of King George the Third and in the Year of our Lord 1805”.

28. The whole of the above reference is bracketed at the end with the following further reference: -

“Roll 399”

29. Page 3 of the Local Act refers to the appointment of commissioners and the Award text refers to this as follows: -

“It was and is Enacted amongst other things that James King of Hungerford in the County of Berks Gentleman and the aforesaid John Davis and William Bushnell and their Successors to be appointed as hereinafter mentioned should be and they were hereby appointed Commissioners for the purpose of dividing allotting laying in severalty and inclosing the said Open and Common Fields Common Meadows Common pastures Commonable Lands and Waste Grounds in Sutton Courtney and Sutton Wick aforesaid and for putting the said Act in execution subject to the Rules Orders and Directions hereinafter contained …”

30. Page 9 of the Act gives powers to the commissioners to: -

“Set out, appoint, and cause to be made such public and private Roads, Drift ways and other Ways, and also such common Drains, Sewers, Watercourses, Ditches, Banks, Bridges, Gates, Stiles, and other Conveniences, in, over, through, upon, to, or by the respective Lands and Grounds hereby directed to be divided and allotted, and they in their Discretion shall think requisite …; and the public Bridle

6

Roads and Footways, and private Roads or Ways, shall be and remain of such Breadth as the said Commissioners shall order and direct”

31. The Award reflects this from its third page onwards, beginning with the following text: -

“The said commissioners parties hereto in further execution of the said raited act and the powers and authorities therein contained have set out and appointed and do hereby award and confirm the following public and private roads and drift ways and other ways in over through upon to and by the respective lands and grounds by the said act directed to be divided and allotted that is to say …”

32. Descriptions of the awarded routes include a public footpath, the course of which approximates with the eastern half of the Application Route. It is described under the heading “Stonehill path” as follows: -

“One other public footpath of the like breadth of four feet leading from Stonehill Farm into through and over the second allotment to the Earl of Craven in Sutton Wick into the last described footpath at or near the north corner of Wick Moor and herein called the Stonehill Path.”

33. “The last described footpath” refers to the previous path which is named in the margin as “Wick path”, and is described as follows: -

“One other public footpath of the like breadth of four feet leading from the stile on the east side of an old Inclosure called Long Close belonging to Thomas Dewe the younger into through and over the last allotment to the said Thomas Dewe for late Edward Tyrrells Estate the first allotment to the said Thomas Dewe for a moiety of an Estate late wicks’s the allotment to Thomas Dewe the Elder for the other moiety of the said Estate late wicks’s across the Abingdon and Skilton road at Oday Cottages over Little Oday Hill being the second allotment to the Earl of Craven and John Sherwood his lessee the second allotment to the said Earl of Craven in Sutton Wick the first allotment to John Daniel across the east end of the private road no. 17 the allotment to Mary Bradfield the first allotment to Sarah Birch the second allotment to Christ’s Hospital the allotment to Richard Wells the allotment to Harry Harding and the allotment to the vicar of Culham into the Lane by the River Thames leading from Kings Lands to Abingdon and herein called the Wick path.”

34. The plot of Stonehill Farm, as shown on the Inclosure Map, includes the numbers 53 for the north area of the plot, 51 for the south area of the plot and what seems to be 52 for the centre of the plot. These would then seem to match numbers shown on the table of Old Inclosures at the foot of the map. This describes 51 as Clover Close, 52 as Homestead and 53 as Green Close. All of these plots of land are shown as being owned by Earl Craven, who is also referred to on the Inclosure Map as the owner of the allotment of land over which Stonehill Path runs.

35. The Stonehill Path is shown on the Inclosure Map as a pecked line. Its course matches the basic description on the Award, leading from Stonehill Farm in a south-easterly, and then alternately north-easterly, easterly and north-easterly direction until it reaches the Sutton Wick Path. The Sutton Wick Path is recorded as Footpath No 20 in the parish of Drayton and No 3 in the parish of Abingdon.

36. This Inclosure Map is monochromatic and does not include features such as trees and streams but is otherwise of good quality. The long straight part of the Stonehill Path might be said to run similar to what appears to be a track shown on Ordnance Survey maps from 1875 (Appendix 11) onwards. The western end of the Stonehill Path could

7

also equate to a diagonal boundary line – running from north-west to south-east – at the south-eastern edge of the plot of Stonehill House. Given that there is 71 years between these maps there may have been some evolution as to how things appeared on the ground over time.

37. To try to make some sense of this, the Inclosure map has been geo-referenced to modern mapping, Appendix 8, which suggests a slightly more northerly alignment to the route claimed and to the route indicated on OS maps and to that of the application. This may not be 100% reliable as a comparison as it depends upon the accuracy of the Inclosure map but is the best way that we are able to interpret the route of the path in a modern context. Of course, any number of things could have happened on the ground in the ensuing 200 years where routes and tracks may have evolved or changed.

38. Neither the Inclosure Map nor the Award refer to any paths which equate with the western end of the Application Route.

Tithe Maps

39. Traditionally, tithes were one tenth of a farmer’s annual produce which was taken to support the Church. Under the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 this was converted to a money rate, which was simpler to administer. In each parish, Tithe Commissioners were appointed to oversee a survey to assess the productive value of each field and a map and schedule was drawn up to record the results of the survey. Each field was given a reference number on the map which referred to an entry in the schedule.

40. Although not directly concerned with recording highways or rights of way, important inferences can be made from Tithe maps and accompanying apportionments and schedules. For example, roads are frequently excluded from the tithable area because they were considered not to produce a tithable crop. This must be balanced up, however, by a consideration that there was no requirement to show private roads any differently from public ones.

41. The original maps and apportionments, sealed and approved by the commissioners were retained by the Tithe Commissioners kept in the Public Record Office. Two other copies were ordered to be made, one lodged with the parish and one with the Diocese. Experience suggests a high degree of accuracy in the production of these maps which were important for taxation purposes and prepared under a statutory process. In that sense they are valuable evidentially. ‘Roads’ shown thereon often correlate closely with today’s public road network.

42. In this case, the local Inclosure Act and Award both included provisions that an allotment of land should be assigned to the lay impropriator (a layman in possession of the church’s living or its revenues) in lieu of tithes. Within what was, at the time, the ecclesiastical parish of Sutton Courtenay, this only applied to the hamlet of Sutton Wick and not to the remainder of the parish. Page 13 of the Act states: -

“And be it further enacted, That the said Commissioners shall, and they are hereby authorized and required to set out, allot, and award unto and for the said Dean and Canons, and the said Richard Justice their Lessee as aforesaid, in lieu of all Great and Small Tythes Yearly issuing, arising, or renewing out of all and every the said Open and Common Fields, Common Meadows, Common Pastures, and other Commonable Lands, within the Hamlet of Sutton Wick aforesaid, and for and in lieu of all Moduses, and all payments and compositions in lieu of such Tythes (if any) such Plot or Plots or Allotments of the Lands and Grounds by this Act intended to be divided, allotted, and inclosed, as in the Judgment of the said Commissioners (Quantity), Quality, Situation, and Convenience considered) shall

8

be equal in Value to One Fifth Part of all the Arable Land in the said Opwen and Common Fields, and One Ninth Part of such of the said Common Meadows, Common Pastures, and other Commonable Lands last hereinbefore mentioned, as are subject or liable to the payment of Payment of Tythes, which said several Plots or Allotments shall be made to the said Dean and Canons, and the said Richard Justice their Lessee, over and above and exclusive of the Lands to be allotted to them or him in lieu of the Glebe Lands and Rights of Common in Sutton Wick aforesaid ; and the same shall be taken and deducted from and out of the respective Shares of the said Open and Common Fields, Common Meadows, Common Pastures, and other Commonable Lands, belonging to the several Persons whose Commonable or other Lands shall be exonerated from the said Tythes, of from out of the Land to be allotted to them respectively in lieu of their Commonable Lands, and shall be in full Satisfaction and Discharge of and for the said Tythes, issuing, arising, or renewing from and out of the said Open and Common Fields, Common Meadows, Common Pastures, and other Commonable Lands, within the said Hamlet of Sutton Wick.”

43. Page 15 of the Act goes on to conclude that: -

“… the several Allotments to be made in the Hamlet of Sutton Wick, by virtue of this Act, and also the several Messuages, Cottages, Tenements, Mills, Gardens, Orchards, and old Inclosures, in Sutton Wick aforesaid, shall be held and enjoyed freed and discharged of and from all Tythes whatsoever, and all Moduses, Payments, and Compositions in lieu thereof, and the said several Allotments, as well in the Parish of Sutton Courtney as in the Hamlet of Sutton Wick, shall be in lieu, bar and compensation of and for the Rights of the several Parties in, over, and upon the said Open and Common Fields, Common Meadows, Common Pastures, Commonable Lands, and Waste Grounds, before the passing of this Act, or the making of such Allotments (except such Rights as are hereinafter saved and reserved as being not intended to be barred or defeated by this Act).

44. The relevant extract from the Award states: -

“That the Dean and Canons of the Kings free Chapel of Saint George within the Castle of Windsor in the County of Berks were owners of the Rectory Impropriate of Sutton Courtney aforesaid and such were entitled to all the Tithes both great and small arising or renewing from out of all such parts of the said open and common fields common meadows common pastures and other Commonable Lands within the said parish as were subject or liable to the payment of Tythes and were also intitled to several parcels of Glebe Lands in the said Common fields and Commonable Lands and Francis Justice Esquire or his Trustees was or were Lessee or Lessees Tenant or Tenants for a Term of years under the said Dean and Canons of the said Tythes and Glebe and the said Dean and Canons were also owners of all the Great and Small Tythes arising or renewing from out of all such parts of the said open and common fields Common Meadows Common Pastures and other Commonable Lands within the said Hamlet of Sutton Wick as were subject or liable to the payment of Tythes and all the Glebe Lands within the said Hamlet which constituted a part of the said Rectory Impropriate of Sutton Courtney and were held by same Lease of the same Dean and Canons but Richard Justice was beneficially entitled thereto for the residue of the said Lease or Term of years granted by the said Dean and Canons”

45. No Tithe survey or map was required.

9

Finance Act 1910

46. The 1910 Finance Act provided for the levying of a tax upon the incremental value of land. The tax was to be paid when the land changed hands. Every piece of land was recorded and given a holding number. Information regarding ownership and occupation was also recorded.

47. The survey was carried out under statutory authority by District Valuers of the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue, giving little argument about the authenticity or legal validity of the resulting plans and records. Tax relief was given to land containing public rights of way with a deduction made for the amount by which the gross value would be diminished if sold subject to any public rights of way.

48. Public roads, usually those with vehicular rights, were generally not included within the parcels of private land and were therefore untaxed. If a lane or track was excluded from the taxable land holding, it was probably considered as a public road at that time. Other private tracks and footpaths are not shown in this way and are, instead, shown within the respective land parcels.

49. An extract of the Finance Act map for this area is at Appendix 9. This shows the whole of the Application Route lies within the coloured hereditaments numbered 2666 and 2673.

50. The entries in the Valuation Ledger for hereditaments 2666 and 2673 record no deduction in the taxable value of these parcels of land for “Public Rights of Way or User” for those hereditaments.

51. The lack of any deduction for public rights of way over these parcels suggest that these documents are of no assistance in determining the status of the Application Route. In itself, this does not indicate that no public rights of way existed but, clearly, the valuers took account of none for taxation purposes and none were claimed by the landowner at the time.

Ordnance Survey Mapping

52. Ordnance Survey maps are useful in that they will show what was physically in existence at the time of the survey. As such, they can be useful as corroborative documents but, on their own, are not indicative of public rights.

53. The applicant submitted extracts of four OS maps: the Second Edition 1889, the third edition 1912, the One Inch Popular edition (sheet 105) 1926, and the One Inch Oxford District Map 1931. Other OS maps were examined, either online or at the Berkshire Record Office, and reference is made below to those which included useful evidence.

Ordnance Survey Drawing 1811 (Appendix 10)

54. “The Ordnance Surveyors' Drawings in the strict sense embrace a collection of some 350 irregularly shaped drawings made between 1784 and 1837. They were originally prepared for military use with no apparent thought of publication, but … after 1815 they were apparently made exclusively with 1:63,360 publication in mind. … From circa 1799 onwards the standard scale was 1:31,680.”3

3 Oliver, Richard (2005). Ordnance Survey maps: a concise guide for historians. 2nd ed. London: The Charles Close Society, pp.55-56. 10

55. The plan is orientated to the east, with a compass on the centre-right of the map, albeit not included in this scan.

56. The map depicts an enclosed track running from just south of the south-east corner of the plot of Stonehill Farm to the field edge which forms the boundary of Drayton Parish with the neighbouring Abingdon Parish. This field boundary runs east-north-east curving out slightly towards the north.

Ordnance Survey 25 inch County Series Maps

57. These maps each show the area traversed by the Application Route at least slightly differently. All except the Fourth Edition depict a track throughout the area, but each of the earlier three editions are consistent in depicting the far western angle of the track further south than the Application route.

Ordnance Survey First Edition 1875 (Appendix 11)

58. By now, the mapping shows the area in much greater clarity. What would appear to be the application route is depicted as an unenclosed track until it emerges from the south of the Stonehill Farm plot, when it is enclosed on its northern side. Trees shown along the eastern end of the route obscure the route, but closer examination shows its presence as a track under the stamps used by the draftsman to represent those trees. At this point that track is shown enclosed on its south-eastern side. The track then continues eastwards beyond its connection with The Sutton Wick Path.

Ordnance Survey Second Edition 1899 (Appendix 12) and Third Edition 1912 (Appendix 13)

59. These maps depict the route almost identically. On both editions, the track’s western end which runs south to north is enclosed on its eastern side. The section of the track south-east of the Farm is enclosed on the north side, and the eastern end which had been covered by trees on the First Edition is enclosed only on its south-eastern side. (Changes to the guidelines for OS draftsmen meant that trees were depicted more sparingly on County Series maps from 1891 onwards4. This means that substantially the same trees may well have been present throughout the whole period that the maps were published, but simply not depicted in the same way.)

60. The Third Edition was also the base map used for the 1910 Finance Act Valuation Map.

Ordnance Survey One Inch Popular edition (sheet 105) 1926 (Appendix 14) and Ordnance Survey One Inch Oxford District Map 1931 (Appendix 15)

61. The 1926 map depicts part of the route albeit only very faintly and is of little assistance.

62. The 1931 map depicts the existence of a track passing all the way, and to the south of farm, similar to how most of the earlier Ordnance Survey maps have shown it.

Ordnance Survey Fourth Edition 1933 (Appendix 16)

63. This map shows the area around the Application Route with no evidence of it. Only the first south-north section on the western side remains, shown as a track with both sides unenclosed.

4 Oliver, Richard (2005). Ordnance Survey maps: a concise guide for historians. 2nd ed. London: The Charles Close Society, p.111. 11

Parish Submissions

64. As the first stage in the preparation of the first Definitive Maps, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 required parish councils to conduct surveys of the public rights of way in their area. Typically, the submissions include a map of the parish showing all the paths that the parish intended to claim accompanied by forms which describe each path. These documents were sent to the County Council, which then assessed whether the route should be included in the initial Draft Definitive Map.

65. The applicant submitted the following: -

An extract from the Drayton Parish Council submission (Appendix 17)

66. Page 1 carries Drayton Parish Council’s textual description of Footpath No. 24, including a reference to the path being “on the Sutton Wick Parish Award Map of 1805”. It also refers to it as being recorded on a map prepared in accordance with the Rights of Way Act 1932. Few such maps appear to have survived and none found in respect of this case. The 1932 Act allowed, for the first time, that landowners could deposit a map and statement with district or county councils and make periodic declarations to prevent further public rights being acquired, akin to how the Highways Act 1980 section 31(6) operates today as a protection against further claims being made on the land.

67. Page 2 shows a map of the area provided by the parish council, with Footpath 24 indicated on it. The course of the footpath shown equates to the route of the path that has, subsequently, been recorded on the county council’s Definitive Map except that the eastern end appears to be further north and reaching the point seemingly equivalent to Point D on the plan at Appendix 1.

68. Alongside the Council’s records in respect of the parish council’s submission is the document at Appendix 18. This appears to be a sheet with a record of inspections made. This is likely to have been undertaken by the parish council as part of its overall survey. One of the entries states: ‘Footpath from Sutton Wick path to Stonehill House (see Sutton Inc. Award)’ and has the pencilled record ‘ok’.

Drayton Parish Council Rights of Way Survey Map (Appendix 19)

69. The parish council’s submission above would have been accompanied by the attached map. This is a typical parish survey map that was issued to – and received back from – all parish councils at the time (early 1950s) for them to mark on public rights of way within the parish that would then be shown on draft and provisional versions of the Definitive Map, and be subjected to a consultation process before becoming ‘definitive’ on the final map dated 1956.

70. What is clear from this map is that Footpath No 24 is not marked on it. It does include markings with pencil lines which indicate the footpath inasmuch as it would exist within the parish of Drayton. The map shows the routes of Bridleway No 8 and Footpath No 20 within the parish that it was claiming for inclusion. It also made reference – again in pencil – to the alignment within Abingdon of the Sutton Wick Path (No 24).

Additional Drayton Parish Survey information

71. Some light can be shone on the parish council records above by further records held by the County Council.

72. Parish submissions would pass from the parish council to the relevant rural district council before being formally submitted to the County Council. Attached at Appendix

12

20 is a note of observations by Council seemingly noting the omission of Footpath No 24 and making reference to its inclusion in the 1932 maps.

73. This omission would then appear to have been rectified by Drayton Parish Council in the document at Appendix 17, above, including a full description of the route and it being clearly drawn on to the plan that accompanied that record.

Sutton Courtenay Parish Survey Map (Appendix 21)

74. The Sutton Courtenay Parish survey map shows a number of routes outside of the parish included as pencil markings. One of these markings shows an alignment of the Inclosure route of the Stonehill Path and numbered ‘25’. It is unclear why this is marked in this way, but a reasonable presumption might be that this, together with the pencil markings on the Drayton parish survey map at Appendix 19, may have been drawn on by the Rural District Council at the time it was reviewing the maps before their submission to the County Council. This would seem especially so given that features of the handwriting suggest that these appear to be written by the same person.

I DEFINITIVE MAPS AND STATEMENTS FOR THE FORMER NORTH BERKSHIRE AND OXFORDSHIRE

75. The applicant submitted extracts from the various Definitive Maps produced by the two County Councils over the years and these and all other Definitive Map and Statement documents are considered below.

The First North Berkshire Definitive Map, 1956 (Appendix 22)

76. The applicant forwarded a black and white copy of the first Definitive Map. The appendix here is the full colour version held by the County Council. It shows Drayton Footpath 24 marked clearly on the map and annotated ‘24’. This is at the relatively small scale of 1:25000, in line with how most authorities produced early Definitive Maps at the time. It is included on the map as one would expect following its claiming by the parish (and the rural district) council and, after receipt of no objection to its inclusion on any draft or provisional versions of the map which were held on deposit for receipt of any representations or objections to the inclusion (or omission) of any paths from the map from across the county. There is no evidence of any such objection.

77. The alignment of the path also reflects the alignment as claimed and described by the parish council in its submission at Appendix 17, which takes the north-eastern end of the path much more in a line to what would be Point D on the map at Appendix 1.

The North Berkshire Definitive Statement, 1956 (Appendix 23)

78. The Definitive Statement for North Berkshire, accompanying the Definitive Map, describes the route running from ‘Drayton BR No 8, SW of Stonehill House, N & E to Abingdon Borough Boundary’.

Special Review of the Definitive Map and Statement under the Countryside Act 1968

79. The 1968 Act altered the way in which reviews of the Definitive Map and Statement were carried out. Councils were required to consult with parish and district councils about arrangements for the provision of information for a Special Review of the Map and Statement. The area of former North Berkshire was also transferred to Oxfordshire under Local Government Reorganisation in 1974.

13

80. The 1968 Act removed the need for a two stage (draft and provisional) mapping process. A special revised map would bring the map up to date in respect of all legal changes that had taken place since the publication of the original Definitive Map and add any routes that the council felt should be added as public rights of way, including those proposed by parish councils and others through a consultation procedure.

81. In Oxfordshire, in respect of the former county area of North Berkshire, a Special Revised Definitive Map and Statement had been commenced within Berkshire but was completed by Oxfordshire County Council with the whole process spanning a period of 20 years. Whilst the Map and Statement had a relevant date of 1977 it was not finally completed and published until 1995, by which time it had been impacted again by 1981 legislation.

82. Many changes to the map were put forward ahead of the review which included reference to omissions, anomalies, proposals and claimed routes. One of the numerous submissions received included one from Drayton Parish Council that referenced 6 different routes that it felt needed to be addressed as part of the special review process. An extract from a list of substantive objections is at Appendix 24 and includes one in respect of Footpath No 24. It can be seen that the parish council ‘requested’ that the footpath be removed from the Definitive Map on the basis that it serves no purpose and does not link other paths or roads.

83. An ‘action code’ in the final column of Appendix 24 states ‘on map check PC’ (parish council).

84. There is no further evidence relating to this. What there is, is evidence that inquiries were held into many representations and objections to the revised map but not of this particular one. Given that this was a ‘request’ from the parish council and nothing of an evidential basis to support the removal of the path from the Definitive Map other than a common sense one that it serves no purpose, the presumption must be that the representation was not pursued. This is evidenced by the fact that the path remained on future maps.

The First Revised Definitive Map for North Berkshire, 1977 (Appendix 25)

85. This shows Drayton Footpath 24 marked on the map and annotated ‘24’. By now the mapping has been transferred to larger scale.

The North Berkshire Definitive Statement, 1977 (Appendix 26)

86. The Definitive Statement for Berkshire, accompanying the Definitive Map, describes the route in exactly the same manner as the 1956 Statement.

Review of Definitive Maps under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

87. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 further amended the procedure for making changes to the Definitive Map and Statement to one of continuous review. This came into effect in 1983 and, at that time, the Secretary of State for the Environment directed that the Special Review of the Definitive Map and Statement be abandoned for both Oxfordshire and the former North Berkshire areas. This was in common with many other authorities across the country because of the 1968 processes not having been completed by the time of a change in legislation.

88. The consequential effect of the abandonment was that those routes which were included in the 1977 Review Map and Statement and that were not the subject of objection would automatically be included in any new Definitive Map and Statement. Routes added (or

14

removed) at the special review stage that were the subject of objection, would not be included on any new map until such time as those cases were investigated and determined by the Council on an individual basis in accordance with the new – 1981 Act – procedure.

The Definitive Map for Former North Berkshire, 1996 (Appendix 27)

89. This map was produced by Oxfordshire County Council albeit still as a separate document to the rest of Oxfordshire and shows Drayton Footpath No 24 marked on the map and annotated ‘24’. It is on 1:10000 scale mapping and shows a subtle difference to the alignment of the route from the previous maps.

The North Berkshire Definitive Statement, 1996 (Appendix 28)

90. The Definitive Statement for Berkshire, accompanying the Definitive Map, describes the route in exactly the same manner as previous Statements.

The Consolidated Definitive Map for Oxfordshire, 2006 (Appendix 29)

91. This is the current Definitive Map for Oxfordshire and, for the first time, brings it together with the former North Berkshire area. It is now printed within a digital mapping format, showing Footpath No 24 as it did on the previous Definitive Map.

The Definitive Statement for Oxfordshire, 2006 (Appendix 30)

92. The now consolidated Definitive Statement for Oxfordshire describes the route in exactly the same manner as previous statements.

Newspaper articles referring to the “Stonehill footpath”

93. Some local newspaper articles have been traced which refer to the “Stonehill footpath”. These are as follows: -

“Allotments at a fair rent” from The Berks and Oxon Advertiser 21st March 1890 (Appendix 31)

94. This is a report of a “special meeting of [Abingdon Town] Council and of the Urban Sanitary Authority, held on 14th inst.”. Amongst others matters, the meeting discussed several “matters of interest” previously considered by the Finance Committee. These included: -

“The question of whether it would be possible to provide land suitable for letting out as allotments, near the town, at a cheaper rent than 6d per pole and they [the Finance Committee] had resolved to recommend the offer of 21 acres, being a portion of the Sewage farm adjoining the Stonehill path. The land was well situated for the purpose, and could be reached either from the Ody Road, the Stonehill Footpath, or the Drayton Road. It was within a short distance of the town, and a good supply of water could be obtained from the ditch on the west side of the land”

95. The proposal was agreed by the meeting.

15

“Abingdon”, subtitle: “Allotments” from Reading Mercury 5th April 1890 (Appendix 32)

96. This short, columnar article simply stated that: -

“Thirty-four people have applied for allotments at the Sewage Farm”

J USER EVIDENCE

97. No user evidence was submitted by the applicant.

K PREVIOUS WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 APPLICATION

98. In 1990, the Council received – although did not fully address – an application to add a route to the Definitive Map. This application was also submitted on behalf of the Oxford Fieldpaths’ Society. Its intention was to claim the Stonehill Path based on the Inclosure Award, but the application plan did not accurately reflect that.

99. In support of his, later, 2013 application, Mr Moon stated: -

“The basis for the enclosed application is that the Drayton Parish Claim (which for FP24 is said to be based on a Rights of Way Act 1932 declaration) supported by 4 OS maps from the period 1889-1931 demonstrates that the line shown for Drayton FP24 on the current Definitive Map is incorrect and that it should, in fact, lead to an old gate in the north-eastern corner of the field (which still existed when I last walked FP24 but was impassably obstructed)”

100. The route of the path claimed in 1990 is very slightly different to that claimed in 2013, neither of which actually reflect the route of the Inclosure. The intention of the earlier application was to claim the route shown on the Inclosure Award and, indeed, it was the Award that the applicant relied upon as evidence together with 1 user evidence form which was, presumably, based on the route as claimed (as opposed to the actual route of the Inclosure Award.

101. The present application also relies on the Inclosure Award and also seeks to amend the western end of Footpath No 24. Mr Moon includes additional evidence including parish survey statements, OS maps and earlier Definitive Maps and Statements.

102. There is little information in the Council’s records about the 1990 application, but what we do know is the following.

103. The plan submitted by the applicant is at Appendix 33. This is seemingly the applicant’s interpretation of the Inclosure Awarded route and forming a connection with Footpath No 24, Drayton.

104. Appendix 34 is a User Evidence Form completed by 1 individual at the time, in support of the application. By itself, this is of little use in terms of forming a case that a path has been established by virtue of long-term use by the public. It is evidence, nonetheless. This refers to use of the route for a period of 40 years, which would be the period 1950- 1990, It states that the route is the Stonehill Path as shown on the Inclosure Award and that it runs from the parish boundary at SU 4885 9549 (placing it close to Point D on the plan at Appendix 1), ‘at the termination of Drayton Footpath No 24’ to Abingdon Footpath No 3 at SU 4903 9555 (placing it slightly to the south of the Inclosure route).

105. Appendix 35 is an internal memorandum that refers to an ‘understanding’ from the local farmer who managed the fields some time ago (this was dated 1990) that the route was

16

a cul-de-sac for the purposes of tenants gaining access to fields and considered that it did not link to Footpath No 3.

106. Appendix 36 is a letter from the Vale of White Horse District Council stating that it was in support of the application, it being a natural link between Footpath No 24 and Abingdon. This is interesting given that it owned all of the land affected by the route claimed.

107. Appendix 37 is a letter sent by the applicant for the 1990 case to Drayton Parish Council setting out the basis for his application and requesting the parish council to withdraw its objection to the Special Review Map (see Appendix 24).

108. Appendix 38 is the parish council’s response to that letter now formally supporting the application.

109. In 1992 the Council had not yet determined the application and the applicant then applied to the Secretary of State for a direction. The Wildlife and Countryside Act allows for any applicant who has waited more than 12 months for his application to be determined, to appeal for a direction to be made by the Secretary of State. That direction was given, and the Council was required to determine the case (i.e. make a decision whether to accept or reject it) by 1 October 1993. On 1 December 1993, the Council determined to make an Order to add the path to the Definitive Map.

110. A number of other cases were being considered in parallel, which culminated in an Order being made in 1997 to Modify the Definitive Map by adding several paths across several parishes. A copy of the Order is at Appendix 39. This refers to Footpath No 26, Abingdon which is adding the route as applied for in 1990.

111. An objection was raised to this Order in respect of the addition of Footpath No 26. The actual objection is not available, but at Appendix 40 is a letter sent by Charles Hoile, on behalf of a client, presumably an owner or occupier of the land. This letter asserts that no public rights subsist over the route shown in the Order, includes plans where the writer has indicated the various routes on a plan and states the Order route is not the Inclosure route (although not that the Inclosure route was also not a public right of way).

112. Following this, it would seem that Footpath No 26 was removed from the overall consideration of the Order by issuing a Notice of Non-Confirmation in July 1998. This was on the basis that the application route (and, therefore, the Order route), was not the one supported by the Inclosure Award evidence so the matter should be withdrawn, and the Inclosure Award route investigated and considered instead. No further action seems to have taken place to that effect until the 2013 application was then submitted.

L CONSULTATION

113. The owner of Stonehill House, Anthea Norman-Taylor5, was contacted in 2019 when consideration of this application was getting underway. It also became apparent that the property was being marketed at the time and, therefore, even more imperative that the Council should alert the present owner (and any potential purchaser) that this investigation was now in hand.

114. A meeting was held in order to try to set that out and explain the potentially complex circumstances of the case, involving the alignment of Footpath No 24, the Inclosure Award evidence in respect of The Stonehill Path and the potential for a path to terminate at the farm. During the meeting the potential for exploring the creation, by agreement,

5 Ms Norman-Taylor is referred to on Land Registry title documents as Anthea Eno (see paragraph 11). 17

of a single continuous path through the land that would connect Stonehill Lane with Footpath No 3 in Abingdon was considered.

115. The rationale for this is that a path might be moved to the extremes of the land, thereby causing the least intrusion to the property, provide a continuous route for the public and provide some immediate certainty given that the property was being marketed. The investigation, otherwise – if it became contentious – could result in delays of very many months, possibly years.

116. Nevertheless, it became clear that the potential for the creation of a path was not favoured by the owner. Shortly after, representation was being made to the Council on her behalf by Mr Robin Grey. At Appendix 41 is an email from him dated 12 March 2020 raising formal objection to the application and any addition to the Definitive Map. The following points were made: -

That the evidence submitted does not support the existence of a public right of way ever having connected the Sutton Wick path (FP3) with Stonehill Lane. Mr Grey interpreted the 1804 enclosure map and referred to a narrow track running well north of the proposed route, not entering the farm yard nor connecting with the road but clearly terminating at the front gate of the farmer's home.

That [Oxfordshire County Council] had suggested the likelihood that FP24 extended east (on the basis that one parish council had [originally] claimed the route but the other had not) and that the Council had provided no evidence of this.

117. This was not the point made by the Council, but simply a statement of fact that one parish council had claimed a path on its side of the boundary in 1951, and the adjoining one did not. This is set out earlier in the report and is the reason why Footpath No 24 terminates at the parish boundary. We have no information as to why a path was not claimed at that time on the Abingdon side of the boundary, despite frequent references to the Inclosure Award.

It is the belief of Mr Grey and Ms Norman-Taylor that Footpath 24 was registered in error and state to have seen correspondence from the 1990s explaining this was a private right indicated on historic deeds to afford access to an enclosure for agricultural purposes but nothing more. The ruins of some old farm buildings exist near where Footpath 24 terminates, which provides further evidence for this being the case. Jonathan Davies (Stonehill's owner in the 1980s) emailed them last month stating "I wrote to the council asking for it to be de-accessed and much to my surprise they wrote back and said they had acceded to my request."

118. Whilst Mr Grey states to have seen correspondence, he goes on to state that he does not have access to it. In any event, the Council would not and could not have acceded to such a request. A public right of way cannot be stopped up by any other process than the making of some form of legal Order to do so. Nothing has been found on any of the Council’s files to support this contention, or of any communication with Mr Davies.

Mr Grey referred to the near identical 1990 application from the same group using the same evidence as that currently under consideration. He attached a letter sent by the Council dated 30 July 1998 to Stonehill's owner stating: "The County Council has considered the reasoning in your letter and has undertaken further research of the available evidence... It is the decision of the County Council not to submit this part of the Order to the Secretary of State for the Environment".

119. The letter is at Appendix 42, and the question of the previous application is considered elsewhere in this report.

18

Mr Grey and Ms Norman-Taylor are of the belief that this matter is being considered on the basis of previously considered evidence, which had been rejected (by the outcome of the previous application) and that this would amount to maladministration in the form of bias as set out on page 31 of the Government Guidelines 'A guide to Definitive Maps and Changes to Public Rights of Way - 2008 Revision' published by Natural England; and, as set out on page 25 of the same document, if this matter was to go to inquiry they would have a strong argument for seeking to reclaim the costs occurred, as it can be viewed as 'unreasonable' behaviour to process a near identical application by the same party without any new evidence being provided.

120. Whilst it is certainly the case that the Council ought not to be considering the same matter (on which it has made a determination) based on the same evidence, such matters are rarely clear cut and it is not the case here. The 1990 application sought to rely on the Inclosure Award. The evidence submitted with this application also includes OS maps and parish and county council documents. It is also clear that the 1990 matter was not concluded. The resultant Order made in 1997 had this element of it severed, given that that element of it had been objected to, but leaving unanswered the question that the route shown on the Order plan was not the inclosure award route. Hence, that element of the Order was ‘not confirmed’ but also remained as not concluded.

Mr Grey stated that registering a new dead end public right of way to the front gate of Stonehill House's garden would be a clear waste of public money, in breach of public authority members' code of conduct which the Council is bound by, and that by adding a new public right of way to the definitive map is clearly pointless unless it connects two public places together or connects a public place to a place of public interest.

121. These points are not relevant to the question of whether public rights subsist or not.

122. Mr Grey has been invited to provide further evidence that we can consider as part of this investigation.

123. At the time of the 2013 application when notice of that application had been sent to the landowner, Ms Norman-Taylor wrote to the Council and the applicant, Appendix 43, setting out her objection and a number of concerns, although none of these are relevant to the question of whether or not public rights subsist and cannot be considered as part of this investigation.

124. A draft of this report was sent to the applicant, the local county councillor, Drayton Parish Council, Abingdon Town Council, Vale of White Horse District Council and to both landowners. Responses were received as follows: -

125.

M DISCUSSION AND DRAFT CONCLUSIONS

126. The question about public rights on foot across this site is a very long-standing one and one that has never been fully or effectively addressed at any of the Definitive Map stages over the past 70 years. It does need resolution if it is not to continue to fester and continue to cause problems for years to come.

127. Let us first consider the evidence with regard to the recording of Footpath No 24. This route is currently recorded on the Definitive Map which is conclusive evidence of its existence in accordance with The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 56. The

19

path was claimed as part of the original 1949 Act process for inclusion on the first Definitive Map. It seems that the parish council was prompted by the District Council at the time, but it is interesting that it did, as that provided additional affirmation of the route’s existence. The statement from the District Council (Appendix 20) refers to the record of the route on a deposited plan under the 1932 Rights of Way Act. The 1932 Act, for the first time, allowed landowners the opportunity to deposit a plan and declaration with the County or District Council that would show where public rights of way existed, with the effect that they accepted dedication of no others.

128. Not only does this evidence give added credence to the existence of the path but, as a consequence, the parish council then produced a supplementary document in support of the path’s inclusion on the first Definitive Map. This document (Appendix 17) gives a full description of the path and the features that it passes and recognises the existence of a ladder stile at one end of it and a field gate at the parish boundary. It also has its own plan drawn up for that purpose.

129. This provides essential corroboration that Footpath No 24 should be recorded on the first Definitive Map, especially given that it, then, passed through the various legal stages and consultation without objection, as it did with all subsequent Definitive Map reviews.

130. Further to that, it also provides the evidence that Footpath No 24 (on the current Definitive Map) is recorded on a slightly incorrect alignment, and which is the alignment that the applicant in this case is also concerned with.

131. A stated above, Footpath No 24 should be recorded on the Definitive Map in accordance with how it was surveyed and described by the parish council in the early 1950s. That was the basis for its inclusion on the map in the first place in any event. Indeed, the first Definitive Map dated 1956 adequately reflects this given its 1:25,000 scale as, indeed, does the 1977 map, by then at a larger scale. What has happened on the two subsequent Definitive Maps of 1999 and 2006 shows that its depiction has altered slightly, notably at its eastern end.

132. There is no evidential basis for this. No legal event has taken place that would have amended the route, and this is an error in drafting that has crept in over time.

133. It is important to acknowledge and understand what the propensity was for making minor errors and omissions. Unlike today, each time a revised Definitive Map was produced, a different physical set of map sheets was used. Each time, every path across the whole county would be hand drawn on to new Ordnance Survey Map sheets, of which there were many. The map sheets are also likely to have been redrawn each time the Ordnance Survey issued a revised map sheet. The first map was drawn on to 1:25,000 scale mapping, the second on to 1:10560 mapping, the third on to 1:10,000 mapping and the 2006 one is digitised on to the current Ordnance Survey digital maps. Each drafting relied on the draftsperson to accurately draw the path by copying a previous one and each provided a new opportunity for the introduction of errors.

134. What experience has taught us over very many years is that there has been (and still is) a preponderance of drafting errors on Oxfordshire’s Maps. This is nothing unusual and many, if not all, councils across the country will suffer the same problems of human error and the constant, inefficiency of map drafting which, now due to the availability of digital mapping, means that wholesale drawing and re-drawing of paths on to hard copy maps is no longer necessary.

135. Mr Grey and Ms Norman-Taylor have stated they are of the view that Footpath No 24 is recorded on the map in error. They have submitted no evidence or made any formal application to that effect. To succeed with any such application, it would be necessary

20

to show that an error was made in recording the path at the time the path was included on the Map (1956). The evidence above would, in any event, more than suggest that the path’s inclusion on the Map was not made in error. 136. The conclusions we can draw from this is that Footpath No 24 should be recorded and that an Order should be made to rectify the minor error that has crept in over the years so that the path reverts to the position as originally claimed and as originally shown on earlier Definitive Maps.

137. Turning to the Inclosure Award and The Stonehill Path, in principle, the setting out of public highways at Inclosure is strong, if not conclusive, evidence of their existence. Care should be exercised in terms of recognising the powers and responsibilities of the Commissioners derived from the relevant Act and the Award itself. With public roads there needs to be evidence that the road was actually provided and set out in the manner described although that is not always the case with footpaths.

138. Nevertheless, what is evidenced above is that the path was known locally and clearly in use in some form given the reference to it in the newspaper report (Appendix 31) which dates it at 1890, some 90 years after Inclosure and with the provenance of being a report by Abingdon Town Council.

139. What is clear from that report (as well as the one at Appendix 32) was that the planning application – for allotments – was supported by it being accessible from ‘The Stonehill Path’, leaving little doubt that the path existed, was well-known and in public use.

140. Furthermore, the Sutton Wick Path was also set out in the same Inclosure Award and its existence is not in dispute and is recorded on the Definitive Map.

141. One further point of corroboration is contained within Drayton Parish Council’s 1951 submission, Appendix 17, where it refers to Footpath No 24 as being shown on a map prepared under the Rights of Way Act 1932 but goes on to say that it is also on the Sutton Wick Inclosure Award Map; this, of course, being the Stonehill Path and giving evidence that Footpath No 24 formed part of / connected with The Sutton Wick Path. The parish council would, of course, only be claiming that part of the route that existed within its parish.

142. The Inclosure Award evidence cannot be set aside by the Council. As a minimum, it represents a reasonable allegation that the path subsists and, supported by the newspaper article, provides good evidence that the path did exist and was known and used by the public. This evidence must, on that basis, carry a much higher weight than anything to the contrary (of which we have nothing before us).

143. Accordingly, the route of the Stonehill Path should be added to the Definitive Map and Statement and an Order made accordingly.

144. This is in accord with both applications submitted by the Oxford Fieldpaths’ Society, albeit that neither of the plans accompanying those applications had fully captured the correct path alignments. On this basis, are we able to consider that there is a continuous path that links Bridleway No 8 with the Sutton Wick Path (Abingdon Footpath No 3)?

145. A reasonable starting point for this would be to consider the Ordnance Survey mapping, not because they are in any way proof of the existence of public rights but do provide a good indication as to how matters may have evolved over time.

146. The early OS maps at Appendices 10-13 show a continuous route through the site. The section to the immediate south of the farm might easily be considered to be the route of the footpath (Footpath No 24 Drayton) as it physically existed at the time. It would

21

certainly have made no sense that there was another, separate route for the footpath that would have virtually mirrored this route. That track then continues into Abingdon parish and connects to the Sutton Wick footpath. Given that, by the time the first Definitive Map was produced in the early 1950s and Drayton Parish Council had to map it when the track no longer seemingly physically existed, may well excuse why there has been so much confusion and misunderstanding over its precise routing. It also seems that as Drayton Parish Council had access to the 1932 Act map it is reasonable to assume that it had used that as the basis for its own map.

147. Nevertheless, this confusion or lack of clarity will continue to provide opportunity to exploit any non-existence of the path.

148. It might also be argued that the track’s continuation into Abingdon may have been (or eventually evolved as being) the Stonehill Path. Time-wise we can only match the acknowledgement of the path’s existence in 1890 (Appendix 31) with the contemporaneous OS Map (Appendix 12) where any physical route would seem to be the one following the field boundary and providing the closest match to what may have been the Stonehill Path.

149. This provides a strong indication that a single, continuous route existed through the area albeit that the indication is somewhat difficult to back given the lack of firm evidence to support that contention. This would tend to leave open the question that the two paths were connected however much there would be every common-sense reason to support this. However, in following the evidence, we can only alight on the two paths being separate, which leaves an unsatisfactory situation for all concerned and could only be rectified by the use of other legislative powers.

N WIDTHS

149. The width of the amended Footpath No 24 to have a width of 2 metres, being the minimum requirement for the width of a footpath by Oxfordshire County Council.

150. The width of The Stonehill Path to be 1.4 metres (4 feet) as set out by the Inclosure Award.

O LIMITATIONS

151. A field gate at the north-eastern end of Footpath No 24.

……………………………………………………... Date …………………….. Countryside Records Officer On behalf of Countryside Records

I have reviewed this report and confirm that I agree with the legal analysis set out in the determination report and its appendices.

……………………………………………………….. Date …………………….. Solicitor On behalf of Legal Services

22

APPENDICES

1: Plan 2a: Application Form 2b: Applicant’s Plan 3: Site inspection 2013 4: Site inspection 2019 5: Sutton Courtney & Sutton Wick Inclosure Act, 1801 6: Inclosure Map extract 7: Inclosure Award extract 8: Plan showing Inclosure route georeferenced 9: Finance Act map 10: Ordnance Survey Drawing, 1811 11: Ordnance Survey First Edition, 1875 12: Ordnance Survey Second Edition, 1899 13: Ordnance Survey Third Edition, 1912 14: Ordnance Survey One Inch Popular Map, 1926 15: Ordnance Survey One Inch Oxford District Map, 1931 16: Ordnance Survey Fourth Edition, 1933 17: Extract from Drayton Parish Council submission, 1950s 18: Sheet with record of inspections made by Drayton Parish Council, 1950s 19: Drayton Parish Council Rights of Way Survey Map, 1950s 20: Observations by Abingdon Rural District Council 21: Sutton Courtenay Parish Survey Map, 1950s 22: Definitive Map for Berkshire, 1956 23: Definitive Statement for Berkshire, 1956 24: Definitive Map Special Review - List of Substantive Objections 25: The First Revised Definitive Map for North Berkshire, 1977 26: The North Berkshire Definitive Statement, 1977 27: Definitive Map for Berkshire, 1996 28: Definitive Statement for Berkshire, 1996 29: Definitive Map for Berkshire, 2006 30: Definitive Statement for Oxfordshire, 2006 31: Article from The Berks and Oxon Advertiser, 21 Mar 1890 32: Article from The Reading Mercury, 5 Apr 1890 33: 1990 Application Plan 34: User Evidence Form, 29 Oct 1990 35: Internal OCC Memorandum in respect of farmer, 5 Nov 1990 36: Letter from W Gamble, Chief Engineer, VoWH District Council, 7 Dec 1990 37: Letter from Applicant to Drayton Parish Council, 21 Nov 1990 38: Letter from Drayton Parish Council, 7 Dec 1990 39: Definitive Map Modification Order, 1997 40: Charles Hoile Letter, 10 Feb 1998 41: Email from Robin Grey, 12 Mar 2020 42: Letter to Mr Hoile acting for Stonehill Owner, 30 Jul 1998 43: Letter from Ms Norman-Taylor objecting to Application, 15 Jul 2013

23