- Summary
-
To add a footpath from Belton Lane, Great Gonerby to A607, Belton via Gonerby Grange
- DMMO number
- DMMO 12
- Intended effect of the application
- Claimed footpath
- Grid references for start and end of claimed route
- SK 900 387 to SK 927 395
- Address of property on which claimed route lies
-
45 Belton Lane, Great Gonerby, Grantham, 47 Belton Lane, Great Gonerby, Grantham , Grange, Great Gonerby, Grantham, South Cottage, Gonerby Grange, Great Gonerby, Grantham
- Postcode(s) of address related to claimed route
- NG31 8NA, NG32 2NX
- Principal cities,towns,villages near claimed route
- Grantham
- Parish
- Belton and Manthorpe, Great Gonerby
- District
- South Kesteven
- Applicant's name
- Mr N Mitchell
- Applicant's address
-
Rambler's Association, Lincs and S Humberside Area, 20 Stephens Way, Sleaford
- Date of application
- 01 November 1983
- Council officer
- Senior Definitive Map Officer
- Application number
- DMMO/12/BELTON AND MANTHORPE/GREAT GONERBY
- Council telephone number
- 01522 782070
- Council email
- Countryside_access@lincolnshire.gov.uk
- Date of council's decision
- 12 July 1985
- Outcome and reasons for the decision
-
The County Council decided to make an Order for the claimed route. An Order was made for a bridleway. A further decision was made on 22 May 1990 to make an Order for footpath status because the previous decision was deemed not to be supported by enough evidence. A further Order was made dated 19 June 1991.
- Details of appeal to the Secretary of State
-
Both Orders received objections and will be submitted to the Secretary of State for determination. Objections to the Order were received and the Order has been submitted to the Secretary of State for determination.
A hearing was held at Great Gonerby Social Club on Tuesday 29 November 2016.
- Date modification order made
- 22 November 1985
- Confirmation,non confirmation (with,without mods)
-
The Secretary of State decided on 3 January 2017 not to confirm both Orders. The inspector considered that the documentary evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of public rights. The evidence of use contained many inconsistencies and therefore not able to be given any significant weight and so not sufficient to raise a presumption of dedication of a public footpath.
- Completed
- Yes
- Documents