Buying a House with a Footpath - Advice/Thoughts

gail5863

We recently had our offer accepted on a lovely rural semi detached cottage. It's in a great rural location and would suit us perfectly. When we viewed, there was no mention or sign anywhere of a footpath, but whilst looking at local walks we could take (Definitive map), I noticed there was a footpath /PRoW shown as running right through the middle of the property. I have researched this thoroughly with the Footpaths Officer & Archives, & it appears because it's on the current Definitive Map, it is going to be very difficult to change.  All the historic maps until 1989 show the footpath in a position 20 metres away which would help the situation significantly and it wouldn't be as intrusive. It appears the path might have been mapped incorrectly around 1989 as there's no legal paperwork to support a move to the current route. I'm told that even if this is proved to be a mistake on the current map, it would have to go through the whole legal process and could take 5-10 years to sort out.

Although there is no sign whatsoever of a footpath existing on the property (no stile/fingerpost/exit point), the map shows the footpath is currently routed right through the middle of the front garden, through a garden archway to the side of the cottage, directly past the main door 2-3 feet away - across the patio - in between the house and the garage - just where you'd be sitting on a Sunday afternoon - directly through the centre of the garden and in the most intrusive place it could possibly be. I've read this affects the valuation, and have tried to renegotiate without any success. The Estate Agent just brushes it off saying it's a rarely used footpath and 'it is what it is'. The price is already top of the range for a semi, and we'd agreed a price without knowing about the footpath. Maybe thinking too deeply but potentially sitting outside on a Sunday and 10 ramblers come up behind you, how easy it would be to sell on in a few years. It is in a rural village area, not isolated, about 5 miles from the nearest large town/city, so there are walkers around but other nearby paths for them to use too. Should I be as concerned as I am or perhaps over-reacting as the estate agents seems to suggest. Don't want to be left with something we have to sell cheaply in the future - or can't sell at all ! Any thoughts appreciated, thank you.

user1977

gail5863 said:

Maybe thinking too deeply but potentially sitting outside on a Sunday and 10 ramblers come up behind you

Why would they do that, rather than the more obvious and convenient path (if you're saying that there is one)? I agree it would be nice and tidy to get the official route moved, but it's not as if they're coming through your front door...

Grizebeck

Your overthinking hordes of people coming over

bluelad1927

I don't think this is overthinking at all. The chances of it being not an issue for you are the same as the chances of it being an issue. There may be people who use it regularly just because they have a 'right'. There are lots of people who are very protective over their footpath rights.

As far as renegotiating is concerned  what value do you put on accepting people traipsing through your garden. For me personally there would be no value

hildasmuriel

bluelad1927 said:

 There may be people who use it regularly just because they have a 'right'. There are lots of people who are very protective over their footpath rights.

Maybe I watch too many TV dramas but this would be my concern. Someone gets a bee in their bonnet and uses it regularly, at weird times, just because they can.

bluelad1927

hildasmuriel said:

bluelad1927 said:

 There may be people who use it regularly just because they have a 'right'. There are lots of people who are very protective over their footpath rights.

Maybe I watch too many TV dramas but this would be my concern. Someone gets a bee in their bonnet and uses it regularly, at weird times, just because they can.

I live in an area where there are a lot of public footpaths. There are regularly 'disputes' on the local Facebook pages with either landowners reporting damage/ litter or the public complaint about blocked access.

It's each to their own, just not for me

ThisIsWeird

gail5863 said:

We recently had our offer accepted on a lovely rural semi detached cottage. It's in a great rural location and would suit us perfectly. When we viewed, there was no mention or sign anywhere of a footpath, but whilst looking at local walks we could take (Definitive map), I noticed there was a footpath /PRoW shown as running right through the middle of the property. I have researched this thoroughly with the Footpaths Officer & Archives, & it appears because it's on the current Definitive Map, it is going to be very difficult to change.  All the historic maps until 1989 show the footpath in a position 20 metres away which would help the situation significantly and it wouldn't be as intrusive. It appears the path might have been mapped incorrectly around 1989 as there's no legal paperwork to support a move to the current route. I'm told that even if this is proved to be a mistake on the current map, it would have to go through the whole legal process and could take 5-10 years to sort out.

Although there is no sign whatsoever of a footpath existing on the property (no stile/fingerpost/exit point), the map shows the footpath is currently routed right through the middle of the front garden, through a garden archway to the side of the cottage, directly past the main door 2-3 feet away - across the patio - in between the house and the garage - just where you'd be sitting on a Sunday afternoon - directly through the centre of the garden and in the most intrusive place it could possibly be. I've read this affects the valuation, and have tried to renegotiate without any success. The Estate Agent just brushes it off saying it's a rarely used footpath and 'it is what it is'. The price is already top of the range for a semi, and we'd agreed a price without knowing about the footpath. Maybe thinking too deeply but potentially sitting outside on a Sunday and 10 ramblers come up behind you, how easy it would be to sell on in a few years. It is in a rural village area, not isolated, about 5 miles from the nearest large town/city, so there are walkers around but other nearby paths for them to use too. Should I be as concerned as I am or perhaps over-reacting as the estate agents seems to suggest. Don't want to be left with something we have to sell cheaply in the future - or can't sell at all ! Any thoughts appreciated, thank you.

Hi Gail.

Is this an 'issue'? Well, that depends on whether the route is through your garden!

"I have researched this thoroughly with the Footpaths Officer & Archives, & it appears because it's on the current Definitive Map, it is going to be very difficult to change.  All the historic maps until 1989 show the footpath in a position 20 metres away which would help the situation significantly and it wouldn't be as intrusive. It appears the path might have been mapped incorrectly around 1989 as there's no legal paperwork to support a move to the current route."

The up-to 1989 maps show what, exactly? Are you sure it's the 'same' path? Where do the pre and post '89 paths subsequently join up? I mean, if the pre-'89 shows a public footpath that begins way before 'your' house and ends way beyond it, where - exactly - do the two (pre and post 89) paths deviate? Any chance of posting both maps?

This pre-89, 20-metres-away, path, how obvious is it on the ground? Do folk use that one? You are sure there aren't two paths, both legit?!

Your example of '10 ramblers' - where is this? Surely not at this proposed house, but at your current property?

Ok, on the assumption that no-one, afayk, currently walks along that post-89 path, and there is an alternative 20-metres-away path as shown on the pre-89 map that anyone could just as easily use, then I - personally - would likely be inclined to take the risk, if the rest of the house were worth it. I'd do that on the most likely scenario that the post-89 map is incorrect, and that it would be up to other folk to prove it isn't - which I'm pretty sure they'd fail on. I would ensure that I had superb LegProt on my house insurance (tho' not sure if they'd take it on). I think I'd also need to insist on an indemnity policy to cover the unlikely eventuality of a challenge.

I'd be confident that it couldn't be proved that the post-89 path is correct, simply because it ain't. And no-one could use it without proving it's correct, and they can't do that. The reason I say this because it's surely a statement of the bleedin' obvious?! I mean, if the post-89 map showed a mistaken path that went in your front window, through your downstairs loo and out the back door, would folk be entitled to use it just 'cos a path map told them it existed? Of course not.

Gail, if you are pretty confident that the newer map is simply wrong, and you can - to your own satisfaction - demonstrate on the ground, right now, that no-one traipses across that garden, but do occasionally use the 'other' (pre-89) path, then I'd likely take the risk on this house. I would ensure that there was absolutely nothing on the ground to suggest a path approaching the house boundaries, and put up darned good fences. If the surrounding land is accessible - waste or scrub - I'd plant it with trees!

A 'calculated' risk, which someone would struggle to take action against, especially if the pre-89 route is still accessible. Someone would have to be seriously bloody-minded to try and challenge it.

If the situation is not as I've outlined above based on your description - if folk do occasionally walk across that 'new' path (as the EA intimates), and if the 'old' path simply does not exist (eg it's been built over!) - then I'd completely revise my decision, as such a RoW would be absolutely intolerable to me; it is far too close and intrusive to the most enjoyable parts of your home. And it's completely disingenuous of the EA to imply it ain't a biggie. It is. A huggie.

Section62

gail5863 said:

I have researched this thoroughly with the Footpaths Officer & Archives, & it appears because it's on the current Definitive Map, it is going to be very difficult to change.  All the historic maps until 1989 show the footpath in a position 20 metres away which would help the situation significantly and it wouldn't be as intrusive. It appears the path might have been mapped incorrectly around 1989 as there's no legal paperwork to support a move to the current route. I'm told that even if this is proved to be a mistake on the current map, it would have to go through the whole legal process and could take 5-10 years to sort out.

OS maps have never accurately shown the location of public footpaths, so there's no guarantee a 'path' on any historic mapping represents this public footpath now shown on the definitive map.  (the historic mapping wouldn't necessarily show this path, unless it was a clear physical feature on the ground).

This may explain why there is no paperwork - in other words, the current route is the historic route and therefore no paperwork would have been generated by a re-routeing that never happened.

It was also common for footpaths, when nearing a village or road on which people live, to branch out so there were multiple paths meeting the road.  This could explain why there were two paths within 20m of each other.  The purpose of these paths historically was for people walking to/from their home to some other destination and naturally people took shortcuts (where possible) and thus created additional routes between the main path and their homes.

The council is essentially correct that once on the Definitive Map it is not easy to get a route stopped up.  There are some people who will object to an order simply on principle.  Hence it is more common to provide a 'permissive path' alternative route and hope users take that one instead of the 'official' privacy-invading one.

There is (was?) a legal requirement for Highway Authorities in England and Wales to sign every public footpath where it left a made-up road, so it is surprising this path is shown in the Definitive Map but doesn't have a sign where it leaves the road.  So if you go ahead and buy the property be aware that a sign might appear at some point in the future which might have the effect of encouraging more people to use the path.

gail5863

thisisweird, thank you for comments. On the historic maps there is one footpath shown - 1850 to 1989 - which in every case crosses the lower part of the garden of the house we are trying to buy, then deviates into the neighbours garden and out through their drive. There is no sign anyone ever used that route either (no footpath sign or stile at either end). Since 1989 the map has been changed (most likely error) still running along the bottom part of the bottom of the garden(of the house we are trying to buy, then then - straight up between the passageway between the house and the garage (directly across the patio, next to the main door, & then out directly in front of the house), making it incredibly intrusive. It is this upper intrusive part of the current map that is the problem, I can probably cope with footpath across the middle of the rear lawn. Around 1989 there were students apparently updating the Definitive Maps and there were lots of errors reported at that time, but I'm advised the current map is what counts and 1) the neighbours would be mightily upset if they find out it then crosses their land and 2) it would have to be changed back legally - taking years and years ( apparently). Hope this clarifies. Gail

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

....I'd do that on the most likely scenario that the post-89 map is incorrect, and that it would be up to other folk to prove it isn't - which I'm pretty sure they'd fail on. I would ensure that I had superb LegProt on my house insurance (tho' not sure if they'd take it on). I think I'd also need to insist on an indemnity policy to cover the unlikely eventuality of a challenge.

I'd be confident that it couldn't be proved that the post-89 path is correct, simply because it ain't. And no-one could use it without proving it's correct, and they can't do that. The reason I say this because it's surely a statement of the bleedin' obvious?! I mean, if the post-89 map showed a mistaken path that went in your front window, through your downstairs loo and out the back door, would folk be entitled to use it just 'cos a path map told them it existed? Of course not.

I'd agree with a lot of you say about the overall risks, but for different reasons.

The issue with the bit I've quoted above is that the law works the opposite way round.  The Definitive Map is... definitive.

The onus is on someone who thinks it is wrong to prove it is wrong.  And that proof is generally not easy to obtain.

It is a case where the "bleedin' obvious" doesn't apply.  If the Definitive Map shows a path through someone's house then legally there is a path through their house.  The Highway Authority is legally obliged to assert and protect the rights of the public to use that (any) highway.

In practice though the Highway Authority may take the view that an alternative route around the house is sufficiently convenient that the rights of the public are not unduly affected... in which case it would be up to the rambler or b-minded person to take the HA to court to get a court order requiring the HA to do something about the obstruction of the path. (which in practice is not something likely to happen)

In the OP's case, with a path going through the garden (not through the house) then the Highway Authority might be asked by a member of the public to assert their right to use that highway and the HA should oblige, unless they had very good reason not to.

ThisIsWeird said:

Someone would have to be seriously bloody-minded to try and challenge it.

Surely you know the world is full of b-minded people?

Section62

gail5863 said:

Around 1989 there were students apparently updating the Definitive Maps and there were lots of errors reported at that time, but I'm advised the current map is what counts...

The process most authorities followed was to send a copy of the map they already had to the Parish Council.  The PC had to comment on the accuracy of the paths shown, and identify any that were missing.  The returns were then processed by the highway authority to draw up the definitive map (which may have involved consulting landowners where there was a dispute) which the PC would have been sent a copy of to agree.

The Highway Authority had to have an official 'Rights of Way Officer' who was in overall charge of the accuracy of the Definitive Map.  The may have employed students or other part-timers to help in the process, but it is unlikely this route got onto the definitive map in error (by a student) without people locally (e.g. the Parish Council) being aware of what was being done.