If you are starting your research into lost paths the first thing that you need to look at is what material exists from the first definitive map process.
There are three reasons for this:
- It can give you a real insight into what paths were rejected and why. You may be able to revisit this process
- Looking at the first definitive map shows you what paths were recorded then. If your route was on the first map but is not on the map now then it is highly likely that it has been legitimately diverted or stopped up (although this is not ALWAYS the case)
- If you make an application to add a right of way to the map you will have to show that you have discovered something new. Material from the definitive map process will show you what has been looked at before.- You need to find extra!
FINDING OUT WHAT EXISTS
The material will almost certainly be in one of two places- the county (or unitary authority) records office, or the rights of way team in the highway authority.
- Search the records office catalogue for “rights of way” and “definitive map” and ask the records office staff what else exists. Look at these documents
- Ask the rights of way team what other material they hold that is not in the records office and, if possible, obtain copies.
WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND
to give you an example, in the East Sussex records office records of almost the whole process exist, but in West Sussex hardly anything remains. The East Sussex records show how the process was carried out in councils that took their responsibilities seriously.
You might want to have a look at this document which explains the role of the parish council is producing the definitive map. It was produced by the Open Spaces Society and the British Horse Society
EAST SUSSEX
The material includes:
- The maps originally annotated by the parishes or their representatives to show routes that they believed to be rights of way
- Forms completed by or on behalf of the parishes to accompany these maps, giving details of routes believed to be rights of way.
- The survey of those routes by members of the Ramblers Association or other walking clubs giving reports of what they found when walking the above routes
- Various iterations of the draft and final definitive maps
- Committee minutes of the rights of way subcommittee which dealt with objections to the draft definitive map.
In many cases a considerable amount of correspondence between the county council and the parishes, both generally and about specific routes, survives including the observations made by the county council on the initial surveys. There are also a lot of notes which appear to have been from county council staff, about historical records they had examined.
It is therefore possible to draw conclusions about the thoroughness, or otherwise, of the process. I noted the following:
LACK OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE ON THE GROUND
In quite a number of cases the parish survey was completed by the same person who did the Ramblers Survey. Correspondence suggests that in a few cases the parish council had no idea how to carry out a survey of rights of way and had to be pointed in the direction of a walking group.
While it is likely that a walker would be diligent in finding all the rights of way that they could, it meant that all the work of identifying paths depended on one person. However good their local knowledge it is likely that this led to omissions.
It is also the case that walkers might have very little knowledge of equestrian use, leading to under recording.
Although the county council did some checks (see below), if a route was missed at this stage there was only limited opportunity to pick it up again.
DISINCLINATION TO RECORD
My current experience is that parish councils have strong land owner representation. This would have been even more the case at the time of the survey.
It is, of course, almost impossible to identify cases where paths were “suppressed” but there are some examples recording that this happened.
Lewes council failed to record some routes. However when it was pointed out to them that they had recorded them in an earlier survey, they replied that they preferred the routes to be discretionary.
In Glynde, where only two rights of way were recorded, and where the Glynde estate owns most of the parish, the parish council passed a motion to the effect that there were absolutely no more rights of way in the parish and that in particular there was no right of way whatsoever along Glynde reach (even though landowners upstream in other parishes had admitted such a route).
Where the route was “suppressed” in both the 1932 and the definitive map surveys it was unlikely to be picked up.
DISCOUNTING OF RAMBLERS COMMENTS
Those surveying the paths on foot were encouraged to add routes that they thought had been missed out and it is noticeable that in many cases where the surveyor had not compiled the parish survey there were a number of additions. Walkers reported routes that were obviously used, or which appeared to be rights of way for other reasons.
However these do not seem to have gone anywhere. In very few cases are comments from the county council recorded which ask the parishes to consider these routes. In most cases these routes do not appear on the definitive map.
This appears to have been a flaw in the definitive map process although it will be argued that the Ramblers could have objected when the draft map was published omitting recommended routes.
LACK OF CHECKING AGAINST HISTORICAL RECORDS
As you might expect, there is little evidence of parish councils or walking groups examining historical records.
The county council, however, worked very hard to examine some historical records:
These included:
- Quarter sessions records
- Deposited plans for railways that have been built
- Inclosure records
- Some tithe records
- The 1932 survey of rights of way. This had been carried out by all district councils in the area (The results are now mostly lost)
This resulted in the addition or changing of status of a number of routes, indicating the collective memory of parishes and walkers was not perfect.
However the process was not faultless either. For example in Folkington two quarter sessions orders created 2 bridleways and one footpath, but one bridleway and the footpath ended up unrecorded and one bridleway was recorded as a footpath.
But the county did not look at any of the following
- Inland Revenue records
- Early commercial maps
- early ordnance survey maps
- Deposited plans for railways that were not built or for schemes that were not railways, such as sewers.
- Parish and estate maps
- Sales documents and farm valuations
- Some tithe records.
This means that they did not look at all the information that is now available.
THE SHEER SIZE OF THE TASK
Within about 8 years, East Sussex Council recorded something like 2,000 miles of rights of way. Looking at the records, it is hard not to be impressed by the amount of work put in, both by county council staff and walkers.
But it is clear that in the tight timescale, anything difficult got pushed aside. Perhaps this was in the knowledge that routes could be claimed later.
In the face of any anomaly or objection, the county tended to write to the parish asking them to either provide evidence or to agree to the withdrawal of the route. The parish almost always agreed to the withdrawal, even though they had considered themselves justified in putting the route forward. It is easy to imagine a poorly resourced parish council taking the line of least resistance. As most path researchers know, getting evidence of use is very time consuming, even on the most well used routes.
Something similar can be seen in the way that routes that made it to the draft definitive map were dealt with. The rights of way sub-committee reports reveal long technical analyses of evidence provided by the clerk. Not surprisingly the members always accepted the clerk’s reports!
But it is clear that not every route got the detailed scrutiny that it might objectively deserve. For example, one route in Kingston near Lewes was set out in the Kingston inclosure award. Objectors argued that it could never have been set out because it would have involved cutting through the churchyard wall. This was accepted as a reason for deleting the route. A visit to the churchyard today reveals the route open and in use, and by the side of the churchyard wall. Plainly no visit to the site was made. It is easy to see why, given the volume of work.
WEST SUSSEX
Only the draft and final definitive maps remain.
CONCLUSION
I suggest copying all the material about the definitive map that you can find. It is a bit of work, but you will need it in future.