FPS/J1155/7/108 (interim decision)
11 January 2016
Inspector Susan Doran
Finance Act 1910.

As regards roads ‘coloured out’ on the plans made for the purposes of the Finance Act 1910, PINS ‘Consistency Guidelines’ (5th revision: July 2013, the version currently on the .Gov website) says at 11.7 (our emphasis):

“So if a route in dispute is external to any numbered hereditament, there is a strong possibility that it was considered a public highway, normally but not necessarily vehicular, since footpaths and bridleways were usually dealt with by deductions recorded in the forms and Field Books; however, there may be other reasons to explain its exclusion. It has been noted, for example, that there are some cases of a private road set out in an inclosure award (see section 7) for the use of a number of people but without its ownership being assigned to any individual, being shown excluded from hereditaments;”

Mrs Doran’s exposition takes a materially different view (our emphasis):
“[24] Where a route shown on the OS base map is both uncoloured and unnumbered, and excluded from the hereditaments, there is a strong possibility that it was a public highway, normally but not necessarily vehicular. However, the recording of public rights of way was not the primary purpose of the valuation exercise, and there may be other reasons for the exclusion of a route, for example where a private or accommodation road provided access to a number of landholdings in different ownerships, or where its ownership is not assigned to any individual.”

So, when did the guidance change?