Proposed decision
Amendment to the statement of priorities for Definitive Map Modification applications
Reason for the decision
The County Council is the Surveying Authority for Kent, responsible for the production of the Definitive Map and Statement and keeping it under continuous review. It is required toinvestigate and determine every duly made Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) application it receives. (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 53 applications (Definitive Map Modification Order applications)
The proposed amendment rebalances priorities by progressing user?based and historic applications on a 1:1 basis, without additional cost or resource, to ensure the approach remains fair and fit for purpose and still meeting the Council’s Legal duties.
Background
There is a growing backlog of DMMO applications, largely due to an increase in those based on historic evidence, resulting in long delays before cases are investigated. These delays disproportionately affect user?based applications, as witness evidence deteriorates over time and routes are often in current use, while historic evidence does not decline.
As of 16 March 2026, 100 applications remain unallocated, i.e., they have not yet been assigned to a KCC officer for investigation and processing.
The rapid increase in historic evidence-based applications has lengthened the time between submission and investigation. Because of the significant shift in the basis on which applications are made we are reviewing the Statement of Priorities to make sure it remains fit for purpose.
Options (other options considered but discarded)
No change– does not address the issue. This option would see all applications prioritised on the basis of receipt unless one of the three
user based applications would continue to decay over time.
A prioritisation matrix. his approach can result in a loss of clarity for applicants as to how their application has been assessed. Those applications assessed as being a low priority may wait decades to be dealt with or see applicants seek a direction from the Secretary of State that the matter is determined within a defined period.
Greater resource. Increased resource alone may not reduce backlogs as the rate at which applications are submitted cannot be controlled and the number received has increased at a greater rate than the resource allocated. Even if there were to be a significant uplift in resource it generally takes 2-3 years from recruitment to a point at which Officers are ready to determine applications of this nature.
How the proposed decision supports the Council’s Strategic Statement
The proposal aligns with a number of elements in the draft strategic statement – Reforming Kent.
- Reforming Kent County Council – Ensure the council focuses on delivering better outcomes that make a difference not just managing processes.
- Putting Kent Residents First – Protect our countryside and give strong support to Kent’s farmers and rural pursuits and communities.
The proposal puts greater emphasis on those applications based on current use by stakeholders/ communities. The area of work generally provides greater certainty as to access rights for landowners and the general public.
Decision type: Key
Decision status: For Determination
Notice of proposed decision first published: 21/04/2026
Decision due: Not before 20th May 2026 by Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services
Reason: To allow 28 day notice period required under Executive Decision regulations
Lead member: Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services
Lead director: Stephanie Holt-Castle
Department: Growth, Environment & Transport
Contact: Graham Rusling, Head of Public Rights of Way & Access Email: graham.rusling@kent.gov.uk Tel: 01622 696995.
Consultees
The proposed decision will be considered at the Growth, Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee, May 5th 2026.
Financial implications: The proposal is cost neutral. It does not seek or require additional resource in order to be implemented.
Legal implications: The County Council is the Surveying Authority for Kent, responsible for the production of the Definitive Map and Statement and keeping it under continuous review. It is required to investigate and determine every duly made DMMO application (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 53 applications (Definitive Map Modification Order applications) The proposal does not change the processes and procedures followed; they must comply with the relevant regulatory requirements, It simply seeks to amend the priority applied by the Service, particularly in respect to those applications based on user evidence.
Equalities implications: Equality implications An EqIA has been completed for this proposed change and formed part of the public consultation. The EqIA indicates a net benefit from the proposed change in that applications based on use tend to be made by older applicants or are supported by evidence from elderly witnesses. It could be argued that the current system of prioritisation discriminates against more elderly applicants and witnesses whose evidence may be diminished as memory fades or in the worst case scenario they pass away before the application is considered. Data Protection implications A data protection impact assessment is not required to implement this change.