Public rights of way and definitive maps

Public rights of way (PROW) are highways that allow the public a legal right of passage. They have the same status and protection in law as highways and remain in existence until legally closed, diverted or extinguished. It is a criminal offence to obstruct a PROW. See Practice Note: Public rights of way.

Early identification of PROW can help to avoid potential delays to development or difficulties in selling properties. Local authorities are under a legal duty to keep all PROW open and maintained in a safe condition for public use.

Types of PROW

The common types of PROW are:

  1. footpath—for use on foot and mobility vehicles (eg pushchairs and wheelchairs) only

  2. bridleway—for use on foot, horse and cycle

  3. byway open to all traffic (BOAT)—for use on foot, horse, cycle, motorised and non-motorised vehicles

  4. restricted byway—for use on foot, horse, cycle and for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles

The Definitive Map

The Definitive Map is a map prepared by a local authority which is a legal record of PROW in a specified area. If a PROW is shown

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Planning News

High Court gives guidance on the new duty to ‘seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty’ of AONB for planning authorities (CPRE Kent v SSHCLG)

Planning analysis: Section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRWA 2000) came into effect on 26 December 2023 following amendments to that Act made by section 245 of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023). The provision requires relevant authorities to ‘seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty’ of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’) when exercising functions affecting such land. This case concerned a challenge to the November 2024 decision of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘the Secretary of State’) to grant planning permission for the construction of 165 dwellings and associated works in the High Weald AONB. The grounds of challenge were that the Secretary of State had breached the CRWA 2000, s 85(A1) duty (Ground 1) or alternatively, had given inadequate reasons for concluding that the duty had been complied with (Ground 2). The main issue for the High Court was whether the words ‘seek to further’ contained in the amended section 85(A1) duty had altered the substance of the duty so as to require a decision-maker to refuse planning permission for development if it is found that the proposal would cause harm to an AONB by failing to conserve or enhance its natural beauty. In dismissing the claim and upholding the Secretary of State’s decision, the judge provided guidance on the requirements of the CRWA 2000, s 85(A1) duty in the context of planning decisions affecting AONBs. Written by Max Millington, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

View Planning by content type :

Popular documents