Changes to the Path Network
The public rights of way network is constantly changing. But
it's important to note that changes can only be effected by the
confirmation of a path order made by an
empowered authority following the correct
legal procedure.
The public has the
opportunity to communicate its views and/or object to Public Path Orders, and we have
produced guidance
which explains how to object to an order
that's not in the public
interest.
If you have any concerns or queries about a change to a right
of way, always contact the relevant
highway authority.
Types of Public Path Order
Orders to enable development to take place
Sections 247 and 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1980 empower local authorities and the Secretary of State (or, in Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government) to make a diversion or stopping up order if they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so to enable development to take place. Learn more
Orders to alter the rights of way network under the Highways Act 1980
The Highways Act 1980 allows authorities to make changes to the rights of way network for a variety of reasons:
- A new right of way may be created where it can be shown that there is a need for it (section 26).
- A right of way may be extinguished where it is not needed for public use (section 118).
- A right of way may be diverted where it can be shown that it is in the interest of the relevant landowner and/or the public to do so, but only where: i) the diverted route would not be substantially less convenient to the public; and ii) the diversion would not alter any point of termination of the path, other than to another point on the same highway, or a connected highway. The effect the diversion would have on public enjoyment of the path as a whole must also be taken into account before a decision is made (section 119).
- A right of way which crosses a railway may be extinguished (section 118A) or diverted (section 119A) where it can be shown that it is expedient to do so in the interests of public safety, but only if it is not possible to make the crossing safe.
- A right of way may be extinguished (section 118B) or diverted (section 119B) for reasons of school security, or, if it falls within a designated high crime area, for reasons of crime prevention.
- A right of way may be diverted in order to protect a Site of Special Scientific Interest (section 119D).
- A right of way may be gated (i.e. closed off) where it can be shown that it is expedient to do so to tackle anti-social behaviour. Gating a right of way does not extinguish the public right, but it makes it an offence to exercise the right (section 129A). The Ramblers' Association is concerned about the misuse of this power.
Other types of order
Sometimes permanent or temporary changes to the rights of way network may be sought to facilitate large scale projects, such as the construction of new roads and airports. In these cases, Public Path Orders are often proposed by the Secretary of State and the standard procedure may not be followed - although there will usually be an opportunity for the public to object.
The exception to this rule is when rights of way over military land are involved. There's no right to object to an order made by the Secretary of State for Defence under the Defence Act 1842 or the Defence Act 1860. Under the 1842 Act an alternative route must be provided, but under the 1860 Act it is merely optional.
Using the magistrates' court
Under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 an authority may apply to a magistrates’ court for an order to extinguish or divert any highway where it can be shown that the highway is not necessary for public use. The term 'highway' includes footpaths and bridleways, so process allows for the circumvention of the standard procedures described above.
Anyone wishing to object to a diversion or extinguishment application to the magistrates has to make their case in court, which can be intimidating and may even be costly. The Ramblers' Association argues that the involvement of the magistrates' court in diverting or extinguishing rights of way is undemocratic and anachronistic, and should be discontinued.