Applying for a Definitive Map Modification Order Stump Cross ... - Net

Applying for a Definitive Map Modification Order
Stump Cross Lane is a track to the south-west of Tickhill, from Crooked Lane
Head in a broadly south-westerly direction, passing Blythe Gate Farm and on
to Woolthwaite Farm. About 800 metres of the track crosses land belonging
to the Sandbeck Estate. The track is about 1km from the site of Tickhill
Castle. A further 3km to the south-west is Roche Abbey and the hamlet of
Stone, from where good quality limestone to build the castle and the friary
was quarried. The track is about 5 metres wide, is usually dry and there are
extensive views from it.
The name Stump Cross Lane
indicates that it has been in
existence for at least several
hundred years. Clearly there was
once a cross here, later removed to
leave a stump (since gone). Local
historian Tom Beastall, in his book
Tickhill: Portrait of an English
Country Town, says that the
name Woolthwaite is Anglo-Saxon,
i.e. the period, from 954 until
1086, before the Normans arrived in the area, and the track led directly to
Lindrick, a settlement which existed before Tickhill itself. Additionally,
historian David Hey, in his book The Making of South Yorkshire, says that
Woolthwaite was a medieval settlement recorded in 1148 and lay within
the honour of Tickhill (following the arrival of the Normans) and was the direct
route to Tickhill Castle. He says, further, that the cross is likely to have been
destroyed in the Reformation.
People from Tickill have enjoyed using it for recreational purposes over many
years, walking, running and horse-riding. Some Tickhill residents remember
walking the track in the 1930's, others worked on the Blythe Gate and
Woolthwaite farms. Since the 1970's The Tickhill and District Footpath Group
have walked on the track as part of their programme of walks. The Sheffield
Ramblers used the route at one time. The Maltby Athletics Club used it
regularly for their training runs, as did the Tickhill Running Club.
In 2009 the Tickhill and District Footpath Group published a booklet Walks
Around and About the Parish of Tickhill. One of these walks included Stump
Cross Lane, which at the time was not recorded as a public right of way. A
month or two later the Group received a letter from the solicitors of the
Sandbeck Estate, pointing this out. The Group acknowledged this, withdrew
the walk from the remaining booklets, and re-printed the booklets without this
walk.
The Sandbeck Estate is the home of the Earl of Scarbrough, whose family
have lived on the estate since the 16th Century. The manor was given by
Idonea de Vipont, daughter and heir of John de Busli to the Monks of Roche
Abbey in the 12 th century. After the Dissolution of the Monasteries, Sandbeck

was sold to a London syndicate for
£800. In 1545 the manor was
bought by Robert Saunderson. His
son Nicholas built a house at
Sandbeck. The titles died out with
the death of James Saunderson in
1723 and the estate passed to a Mr
Lumley who was related to the
Saundersons through his mother,
who had married the First Earl of
Scarbrough. He took the surname
Saunderson and became the Third
Earl of Scarbrough in 1739. In
2004 Viscount Richard Lumley
succeeded his father as the 13th
Earl of Scarbrough.
Following the publication, and
subsequent withdrawal, of the booklet Walks Around and About the Parish of
Tickhill, in January 2010 signs appeared at either end of 800 metres of the
track which crosses land owned by Lord Scarborough. It transpired that the
increase in walkers along the track, due to the publication of the booklet,
prompted this action. However, whatever the reason for the signs, I felt that it
was an unnecessary course of action and totally unjustified. Apart from the
history attached to the route, and the fact that local people had been using it,
without problem, for many years, I could see no disadvantage to the
landowner from the public using the track.
The core of the problem was that Stump Cross Lane had never been claimed
as a public right of way. To make a claim I would need to apply or a Definitive
Map Modification Order (DMMO). My first course of action was to download,
from the Ramblers website, a witness statement form. Then I began the
process of finding witnesses and taking statements. The earliest user of
Stump Cross Lane who I interviewed was a lady who walked it in the 1930's
with her parents, a regular Sunday afternoon walk. Another witness worked at
Blythe Gate Farm for four years in the 1960's, reporting that the farmer was
very happy to accept that walkers and horse riders had unimpeded access
along Stump Cross Lane. However, these early witnesses weren't very
important as far as this particular application for a DMMO was concerned.
The important time-span was the 20 years prior to the date that the public
were first challenged, which turned out to be 2006. Finding witnesses was
done by word of mouth, the final question from me to each witness being to
ask if they knew anyone else who had used the track. Witnesses were asked
to state when they had used the track, how regularly, and whether there had
ever been any barriers or whether they had been challenged. I tracked down
about 20 witnesses and the only witness who had ever been challenged was
my neighbour who, in the 1980's, had regularly used Stump Cross Lane for an
early morning run before he went to work as a pharmacist; he had once been
challenged by the police, during the miners' strike, who thought he might be
on his way to do some illegal picketing. So, as far as the quest for a DMMO

was concerned, none of the witnesses I interviewed had ever been
challenged regarding their right to use the route.
After taking 20+ witness statements I obtained two Form of Application for a
Modification Order forms (WCA1 and WCA2) from DMBC's Rights of Way
Department and submitted them, plus the witness statements, to the Rights of
Way Dept. The Rights of Way Dept then re-interviewed some of the
witnesses before deciding to make a DMMO. They then had to inform
interested parties (i.e. the Sandbeck Estate) and advertise the order in the
press, make the order available in the central and local libraries, and give a
deadline for objectors to respond. Inevitably the Sandbeck Estate objected,
which meant that a public inquiry was necessary.
All documentation was sent to The Planning Inspectorate, in Bristol, who
consulted all parties regarding setting a date for the Public Inquiry, and
arranged for an inspector to be appointed. Meanwhile, as Applicant, I
received copies of the Statement of Case from both DMBC and the Sandbeck
Estate. The date for the inquiry was set for 11th December, with a second
day being booked just in case it was necessary.
A Public Inquiry (PI) is a formal
affair. The photo shows the
Inspector sitting at the table at the
end of Tickhill Parish Rooms, with a
witness sitting at a table on the right.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough
Council, on the right, were
represented by a barrister, with
George Diprose, DMBC's
Rights of Way Officer, on his left. A
DMBC clerk assists and maintains the attendance register. The Sandbeck
Estate was represented by a solicitor, with the Estate Manager in the witness
seat in this photo. Members of the public are clearly entitled to be present.
The introduction by the inspector took 30 minutes. She was followed by the
DMBC counsel giving his opening statement. He pointed out that the
Sandbeck Estate had first lodged a deposition, questioning the right of the
public to use the route, in October 2006. Hence the Council would seek to
show sufficiency of use over the period 1986-2006. At issue with regard to
Stump Cross Lane was the fact that it is not a frequently used route. It is
outside Tickhill, and thus not frequented by regular dog-walkers. Counsel
quoted various cases from the past, which indicated that frequency of use to
be expected in the establishment of public rights on a path was related to the
geographical setting. In the case of Stump Cross, lying outside a population
centre the requirement was proportionately lower than if it had been within the
built up area. He also made the point at at no time were barriers ever erected
to deter the public, and that there were no signs erected until January 2010.
DMBC's opening statement was followed by the Sandbeck Estate's opening
statement. The Estate’s counsel sought to show that Stump Cross Lane was

arely used and that staff had
standing orders to challenge
users. He also sought to
establish that it would only take
about 15 minutes to walk along a
track of about 800 metres, and
thus actual use could rarely have
been observed. Various
witnesses were then called for
each side, answering questions
directed to them by counsel. These witnesses were then questioned by the
other side. DMBC called several witnesses, starting with the lady mentioned
above, who had walked the route from the 1930s and, until recently, with the
Tickhill Footpath Group. Another witness said that he had walked the route
about 12 times annually on his way to see the orchids on Maltby Common.
One witness (an international runner) recorded in his written statement
running the route 700 times a year (twice daily) over a 2-year period without
challenge. None of DMBC's witnesses reported being challenged by Estate
staff. The tenant farmers of Woolthwaite Farm, owned by the Sandbeck
Estate, stated that they had regularly challenged walkers. A tenancy
agreement was produced which indicated that the tenant farmer was dutybound
to ensure that no new public rights of way came into being. Discussion
took place on how likely it would have been for staff, going about their work, to
see and then whether they could realistically challenge users of the route.
Two gamekeepers from the Estate said that they had challenged users,
especially people with dogs not on leads and horse-riders using the route to
gallop; one adjacent field is used for game cover.
The inquiry moved into the second day. Further witnesses were questioned
before counsel for each side gave their closing statements. All present then
had a 45 minute lunch break before meeting at Woolthwaite Farm to walk the
route. The Inspector made it clear that people were welcome to point out
landmarks which had been referred to in the Inquiry, but that no further
evidence could be allowed. After walking the route the inspector was asked
when her report would be published; she simply said that she would publish it
as quickly as she could. So, nothing more to be done but await her report.
On 14th January 2013 the inspector's decision arrived. At the top of her 7page
report, detailing what she considered to be the main issues, was
'Summary of Decision: The Order is confirmed'. So, exactly three years from
the date of the signs being erected at each end of the disputed track, DMBC's
Order to alter the Definitive Map and make Stump Cross Lane into a public
right of way was confirmed.
Issues for consideration
1 The process is not a quick one.
2 Following my application, along with about 20 witness statements,
Doncaster MBC checked the evidence and decided to make the Order to

modify the definitive map. Had they not done so, I could have appealed to
the Secretary of State to ask him to direct the Council to make an order.
3 Evidence is crucial. In addition to written witness statements, DMBC
called several witnesses to speak at the inquiry. Evidence from the
programmes of The Sheffield CHA Rambling and Social Club Winter
Programme 1988-89, the Ramblers Sheffield Group Winter walks
programme 1988-89, etc was also presented. All were demonstrating that
these were publicly advertised walks, that permission had not been
sought, and that the walkers had not been challenged on the route. One
man who was asked to be a witness at the inquiry declined for medical
reasons; an arrangement was made for him to make a sworn statement to
a solicitor. Another man who would have been an excellent witness, the
resident of Blythe Gate Farm, died a couple of months prior to the inquiry;
depending on the cost, it might have been a good idea for him (and other
elderly witnesses?) to have made a sworn statement.
4 It is understood that each side meets its own costs.
5 Taking statements from witnesses is a lengthy process. Although the
statement is quite simple, perhaps a 5-10 minute job, you can't not chat
about the issue with the witnesses. In reality, travelling to witnesses (who
might be out, necessitating a return visit), and taking the statement,
probably averaged an hour for each person.
6 It is a fact of life that some people who could give useful witness
statements don't wish to do so. Into this category I had a Tickhill councillor
and a Tickhill shop-owner (where Lord Scarbrough shops). The latter
person is heavily involved with the Tickhill Athletics Club, who regularly
used the route; the evidence of many runners would have been useful.
7 The inspector's decision is final. The only recourse open to the objector it
to appeal to the High Court on a point of law.
David Gadd
23 January 2013