Footpath Report - September 2025 - Lancashire Ramblers

This is the footpath report for September 2025. It contains reports on the following paths/issues:

Boundary Ln, Curlew Ln, Burscough

Last time I reported that I had received a copy of a DMMO affecting Burscough 133, 134 & 135, plus Rufford 14 & 15 and adding Rufford 50, which will upgrade some existing FPs to Restricted Byways and minor changes to existing FPs, at Boundary Ln between Curlew Ln and Sandy Ln, Burscough. LCC are now showing on their website that they have received an objection to this DMMO.

Mere Lane, Tarleton

Last time I reported that I had received a DMMO stating that Mere Lane is a FP that is to be known as Rufford FP 49 and Tarleton FP 29, which is not yet shown on MARIO as being a FP. LCC’s website is now showing that an objection has been received to the DMMO.

Lea FP 03 – The Weald

Last time I reported that this a location where some new houses have been built, with Lea FP 03 being shown on MARIO as going through a couple of properties. This is something that should have been sorted out at the planning stage for the new properties, and not something to be considered later. Clearly we cannot argue for the FP to be kept on its present alignment.

LCC are proposing to divert this FP onto estate roads, which is a walkable route. However I replied to LCC that people prefer to walk on paths rather than roads, so a possible alternative would be to divert the path onto green space in the locality, which also passes a pond. I asked LCC for comments. Road walking should only be used as a last resort when diverting a FP. I asked for my reply to be considered as a holding objection.

LCC replied that this could have cost implications for LCC for the route that I was proposing includes a small bridge over a pond, which will cost money to maintain. I replied that I considered the proposed route to be better, and asked for my reply to be considered an objection. I also asked if they knew who was responsible for maintaining the green space near this estate. My thoughts are that this is likely to be Preston City Council, which if correct it will be a different branch of local government. I have not had a reply to this latest email.

This sort of thing should be spotted at the planning stage, ideally by a countryside secretary. I am also aware that this is potentially many hours of work, to pick up the occasional bad plan. In my period of Acting Area Footpath Secretary this is only the second such case – the other case was in Garstang.

Much Hoole FP 30

In May 20 the BHS made an application for Much Hoole FP 30 that goes from Goose Green to Liverpool Rd, to be re-classified as a BW. LCC accepted the application and made an order in Sep 21 for the change of status. An objection was received by LCC.

In June 25 the Planning Inspectorate asked for written statements for this case. Sometimes in local government things take a long time to happen. The number of staff on PROW work has reduced as a result of austerity, which is the likely cause of the delay. The RA has not been involved with this claim.

Much Hoole FP 3 and Haunders Lane

In May 20 the BHS made an application for part of Much Hoole FP 3 that goes from the end of Haunders Lane and for a track without any legal status going via Mill Hill Farm to a spot further SE on Haunders Ln as a BW. LCC accepted the application and made an order in Sep 21 for a restricted byway (RB). An objection was received by LCC.

In Apr 25 I made a report to LCC about the part of Much Hoole FP 3 (on part of the route of the claimed BW) that was difficult to walk because the land had been ploughed to the edge of the field without leaving a headland. I have not received an update about this complaint.

I was expecting this claim for a BW to be handled by the Planning Inspectorate.

In June 25 I noticed that the NW part of the claim is now shown on MARIO as being Much Hoole RB (Restricted Byway) 33. The SE part of the claim going past Mill Hill Farm is now shown as being an adopted highway, with it now being a part of Haunders Lane. Haunders Lane was previously shown as being linear, but is now shown on MARIO as looking like a strange letter ‘Y’. The claim for the BW is now shown as being closed. As to what precisely has happened is not shown on the LCC website. This can be considered a success for the BHS.

Much Hoole FP 3 is now shown as being much shorter going from a spot on Haunders Ln to a spot on Much Hoole RB 33.

Sands Bottom Lane, Scorton

I received an email stating that a claim had been made for a BW at Sands Bottom Lane, Scorton, which goes from Higher Lane to Arkmere Lane. The email was passed to Bryan.

This is a claim by the BHS based entirely on historical evidence, this being mainly 19^th century maps – i.e. no user evidence.

Botany Bay – Chorley FP 26

I have reported previously a proposal to divert this FP because of a development at Botany Bay. I have now received the order to divert this FP.

Looking at MARIO it shows the FP as being open and going through a warehouse ! The developer has done the development without going through the official process to close the FP whilst works are taking place. I will look again in three months time.

Ferret Lane, Eyes Lane, Parbold

Received a letter from LCC stating that they had received an application to record Ferret Lane which becomes Eyes Lane, as a bridleway. It is presently shown as being an unadopted highway. It goes from Culvert Ln, Newborough to Chorley Rd, Parbold. I passed the papers to Geoff and Roger.

Goosnargh FPs 06, 07 and 22

Received an email from LCC stating that they intend to change the alignment of Goosnargh FPs 06, 07 and 22 at Carroway Green, and seeking opinions. We cannot seek to keep the existing alignments for they go through a housing estate, which is something that ought to have been picked up at the planning stage, which is the third such case since I became the Acting Area Footpath Secretary. I have passed the email to Brian.

Little Hoole FP 8

I have received a copy of a DMMO from LCC that reclassifies Little Hoole FP 08 into a restricted byway, which goes from Moss Lane to Wham Lane. This can be considered a success for the BHS (British Horse Society). The BHS made an application for upgrade to a BW in May 20, which was determined by LCC as being a RW in Sep 24, with the order being recently confirmed.

Footpath Forum Call with CO

On the 16^th July a periodic conference call with CO was held, with the following being the main points –

In Aug CO are intending a fund-raising appeal which will mention the work of FP maintenance volunteers.
Mention of the ‘Path Improvement Tracker’ for CO would like details of successes.
Mention of ‘Path Partnership Agreements’ for CO would like details of where a group or area have entered into an agreement with their local authority to do work on FPs, for what is included and excluded. (I am aware from my time as the Area Sec of a situation in the Midlands where a group was allowed to work on gates, FP signage and vegetation clearance, but not on stiles. The reason for this was that a fall involving a gate is unlikely, but that a fall from a faulty stile could be potentially serious.)
An update on the legal work:

Mention of the success at Hayton Woods, Cumbria, where Roxlena (landowner) have decided to go to the Court of Appeal. The RA lawyer is confident that the appeal will be dismissed.

Mention of a case in Durham where the Planning Inspectorate quoted the success at Hayton Woods for the verdict at Hayton Woods in the findings in favour of a FP claim.

Mention of the change made in 2023 about diversion requests in the interest of landowners. Previously diversions were only allowed for agricultural purposes, but in 2023 the scope was widened to include other reasons. CO would like details of successes, failures and frustrations with the way the system is now being used and is working, or not as the case maybe. (I have nothing I wish to submit to CO about this. Any other thoughts ?)

The guest speaker was from Thame Group in Oxfordshire, who are involved with practical FP work. The topics covered I have mentioned in previous notes, so I will not repeat the details.

David Kelly

Acting Area Footpath Secretary 24^th Aug 25