FIRST STAGE CONSULTATION HAS BEGUN RESPOND TODAY
Oi, Strata, leave 
alone!
Persimmon, take a hike off !!
Whose footpaths, Stancliffe? !
547 new homes from Strata, Persimmon and Stancliffe cross Footpaths 30, 31 and 33. These developer want to remove and change our historic footpaths, they’ve already managed to restrict access to our community paths.
first stage consultation has begun respond today
Consultation regarding footpaths 30 and 31 is now open, the window to respond is short. A copy of the first stage consultation document can be found here: FP30 & 31 Proposed Diversion consultation document (27th July 2026)
What to do right now
-
Step 1
Respond to the consultation and log your first objection now, make your feelings clear to BDC
FIRST STAGE CONSULTATION BY BDCThis website is a campaign against the closer and loss of footpaths in our community, it is not an official channel for the consultation process.
Next steps toolkit
What we're asking for
- Any permanent diversion is genuinely equivalent to the paths it replaces — in distance, character, amenity and accessibility
- All replacement paths are recorded on the Definitive Map as full public rights of way, not permissive paths
- Existing informal paths already crossing the Bolsover North SUE Phase 2 site are recognised formally as footpaths and replaced, not simply built over
- A alternative alignment considered avoids estate roads, in line with Defra Circular 1/09
- The diversion is confirmed as genuinely necessary, not simply a consequence of a housing layout finalised without regard to the existing rights of way
- Pedestrian safety on the new alignments — crossings, sightlines, lighting — is confirmed before the Order is made
- Long-term maintenance, drainage and lighting of the new routes is confirmed and funded
- Old Bolsover Town Council scrutinises the diversion at a full Council or extraordinary meeting — not the Clerk alone
- Elected representatives at every level support residents and object
Why this matters
Roads and open space aren’t a like-for-like swap
Walking through a housing estate on pavements and managed open space is a different experience from open countryside. A lawful diversion has to be no less convenient than the route it replaces — this one reads as a downgrade.
Campaign positionThe paths were known about a decade before they were moved
The developers have known about Footpaths 30, 31 and 33 since outline permission in 2014. A responsible scheme designs around existing rights of way; this one designed the housing first and applied to move the paths after.
Campaign positionPermissive paths can vanish without warning
DCC has confirmed permissive paths are part of the proposed replacements. A landowner can close a permissive path at any time, with no notice and no legal process — the community would have no recourse if that happened.
Campaign positionThe informal paths people already use are simply disappearing
Well-worn informal paths already cross the development site. As it stands they’re being built over entirely, with no recognition and no replacement offered.
Campaign positionFacts checked
Sourced from official orders, notices or emails/letters, the district or county council's own decision notices, and written correspondence.
DCC complaints
Derbyshire County Council confirmed it received 54 emails complaining about Temporary Closure Orders TC4444 (Footpaths 30 and 31) and TC4443 (part of Footpath 33) in Old Bolsover Parish between 1 May 2026 and the date of the request. However, the council stated that none of these could be classed as formal objections — regardless of wording used, including explicit statements of “I object” — because temporary closures aren’t subject to public consultation, so there’s no formal objection process to begin with. The council said all 54 correspondents received a response explaining this, and none subsequently asked to withdraw or disregard their email. No emails supporting the closures were received, which the council said was unsurprising given the lack of a consultation process.
DCC LTR
DCC confirmed temporary closures carry no legal requirement for community consultation or objection — and confirmed nothing stopped them consulting voluntarily. They chose not to.
DCC LTR
DCC confirmed in writing that permissive paths are proposed for most of the diverted route length, running through open space.
25/00069
BDC’s own decision notice states planning permission does not give developers the right to interfere with these paths until a Diversion Order is formally made. No Order has been submitted; the Public Path Order consultation hasn’t opened.
COND. 2
Condition 2 of the decision notice requires footpath surfacing details to be resubmitted and approved before development starts — the legal status of the replacement routes is still undecided.
2014
Strata Homes, Persimmon Homes and Stancliffe Homes have known about these paths since the original outline permission was granted in 2014.
Grab a poster
Print one, put it in your window. Click any poster to download it full-size.
