ROW at Ennerdale Lakeshore, Bleach Green and How Hall

Lake District National Park Authority Agenda Item: 8 

Rights of Way Committee: 29 November 2011 Page 1 

MODIFICATION OF DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT - RIGHTS OF WAY AT 

ENNERDALE LAKESHORE, BLEACH GREEN AND HOW HALL, ENNERDALE & 

KINNISIDE PARISH 

1 Summary 

1.1 This report assesses the evidence relating to the status of the rights of way on the 

northern and eastern shores of Ennerdale Water. 

Recommendation that: a 

b 

c 

d 

we make modification orders for the following; 

DEFG – modify from public footpath to public bridleway 

BGHI – modify from public footpath to restricted byway 

ONMIP – modify from public footpath to restricted byway 

PJQKL – modify from public footpath to public bridleway. 

we make no modification order for section ABCD. 

we make no modification order for the sections around 

Mireside and Beckfoot. 

we confirm the orders if unopposed, or forward them to 

the Secretary of State for determination if objections are 

sustained. 

2 Background 

2.1 We have received an application to modify a number of public footpaths to public 

bridleways at the northern and eastern end of Ennerdale Water. During the 

consultation and research it became clear that some portions of the claimed routes 

were possibly old vehicular roads. 

3 Policy Context 

3.1 The key aim for access and rights of way within the Lake District National Park 

Partnership’s Plan is to enhance the quality and diversity of the visitor's experience 

through improvements to accommodation, attractions, public realm and visitor 

facilities. The Authority is performing a statutory function under powers delegated 

to it by Cumbria County Council. The case should be determined in accordance 

with legal requirement and the evidence presented to the Committee - the 

Authority’s policies are of no relevance to any decision. 

4 Options 

4.1 a: make the recommended modification orders; 

b: make one or more different modification orders; 

c: make no modification orders. 

5 Proposals 

5.1 I recommend 4.1a. The evidence, set out in Annex 2 of this report, indicates that 

the usage of all the routes (except those at Mireside & Beckfoot) is sufficient to 

show that bridleway rights have been established. The historical and documentary 

evidence implies that the two routes to the now demolished Anglers’ Inn have had 

carriage rights – the mechanically propelled aspects of which were extinguished in 

2006. Case law and legislation shows that all purpose highways cannot be 

recorded on the definitive map and statement, and this applies to the tarmac road 

section.


Rights of Way Committee: 29 November 2011 Page 2 

6 Best value implications 

6.1 Work Programme and relevance to this case: this case will resolve potential 

conflict and uncertainty. 

a) The challenge for us is to determine this matter objectively and in a timely 

fashion; 

b) Processing modification orders is not a competitive procedure. Cumbria 

County Council can also process orders, but have delegated the duty to us; 

c) We have consulted user bodies, the Local Access Forum, and other 

interested parties as part of the process – their responses, where relevant, 

have been discussed within the evidence report at Annex 2; 

d) We have compared our casework completion rates with other authorities, 

and this case will help us reach our targets this year. 

7 Finance Considerations 

7.1 Cost factors must not play any part in the decision-making process for 

modifications. But for completeness, the costs involved in modification orders vary 

greatly between each case. Simple orders could cost as little as £1000 in staff time 

and postage (plus two advertisements at about £200 each). Complicated orders 

such as this one can take many years to process, and can consume large amounts 

of staff time – the value of which it is difficult to calculate. Any costs will be met 

from existing budgets. 

8 Risk 

8.1 Provided we comply with the legal process, there are few risks associated with the 

recommendation. 

9 Legal Considerations 

9.1 The orders will be made under the provisions of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 

1981, section 53(3)(c)(ii). 

9.2 The purpose of modification orders is to record existing rights accurately. Court 

cases have shown that there are no human rights implications. 

10 Human Resources 

10.1 There are no exceptional staffing implications; the work is part of our day-to-day 

duties. 

11 Diversity and Sustainability Implications 

11.1 These are not relevant issues. The matter can only be considered on the evidence. 

Background Papers: 1422.407.02 (case file), relevant legal and case guidance. 

Authors: 

Nick Thorne, Countryside Access Adviser. 

Date Written: 24 October 2011 

Version 

FINAL


Rights of Way Committee: 29 November 2011 Annex 1 

Annex 1 - Definitive Map Modification Orders - guidance on decision making 

Modifications require us to look back to discover what has happened in the past, establish 

the facts and apply the relevant legal tests to decide whether or not a right of way exists. 

Whether this provides new opportunities for users or creates difficulties for landowners (or 

ourselves) is irrelevant and must not be taken into account. 

This differs from public path orders, which involve creating, closing or diverting paths. With 

these, the Authority exercises a discretion to make changes to the rights of way network to 

improve it for the future, or to reduce problems wherever possible or to create new 

opportunities for path users. 

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, part 3, section 53, concerns the making of 

amendments (modifications) to the definitive map on the basis of evidence alone. The 

evidence must be considered in isolation to all other factors such as local history, 

desirability or otherwise, personalities involved, Authority policy, etc. 

The evidence put forward in the report should be sufficient to enable Members to reach a 

decision. 

Modification orders may amend the definitive map, provided that the evidence discovered is 

cogent and shows that, on the balance of probabilities, a change should be made. The 

possible changes are: 

(1) add to the map rights of way not presently shown, 

(2) remove rights of way already on the map, 

(3) upgrade or downgrade rights of way already shown on the map or 

(4) change some details of a recorded right of way. 

The modification process is legally complicated and a significant number of cases have 

reached the High Court and beyond. The reports prepared for committee by the rights of 

way staff outline the law relating to each case and endeavour to draw your attention to the 

significant points. We will, of course, be present at the meetings to assist with clarifying any 

matters connected with these items. 

The Authority is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and must reach a decision based 

on the evidence presented, weighing such evidence using the test of the ‘balance of 

probabilities’. Although officers have considered the evidence, and made a 

recommendation to members based on their appraisal, members must themselves 

consider the evidence and reach their own conclusions. 

Members are not required to resolve conflicts in the evidence and there may well be 

evidence on both sides of the issue. You must weigh up the evidence and, if on balance, it 

is reasonable to conclude that the evidence shows that change should be made, you should 

authorise the making of a modification order. 

If a modification order is made the public has a right to object to that order. The matter 

would then be determined by the Secretary of State. Conversely, if the resolution is not to 

make an order, the applicant also has a right to appeal.


Rights of Way Committee: 29 November 2011 Annex 2 Page 1 

ANNEX 2 - MODIFICATION OF DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT - RIGHTS OF WAY 

AT ENNERDALE LAKESHORE, BLEACH GREEN, HOW HALL & 

BECKFOOT/MIRESIDE, ENNERDALE & KINNISIDE PARISH 

Contents of Report 

Section Evidence 

Pages 

1 Background and brief history of the area ..................... 2 

2 Investigation ................................................................ 3 

3 Legal Guidance ........................................................... 4-5 

4 Definitions of various rights of way .............................. 6 

5 Date of challenge ........................................................ 6 

6 User Evidence ............................................................. 7-8 

7 Landowner Evidence ................................................... 8-9 

8 Documentary evidence ................................................ 10 

9 Highway Authority Records – Definitive Map ............... 10-12 

10 Highway Authority Records – George Bell .................. 12 

11 Ennerdale Tithe Map ................................................... 12 

12 Ennerdale Enclosure ................................................... 13 

13 Ennerdale Railway Plans ............................................ 14 

14 Whitehaven Corporation Act ........................................ 15 

15 Newspaper Cutting 1882, and Council Minutes 1904 .. 16 

16 Proposed Stopping-up 1967 ........................................ 16 

17 Ordnance Survey – large scale maps .......................... 17-18 

18 Finance Act 1910 ........................................................ 18 

19 Commercial maps and Guide books ............................ 18-22 

20 Sawdust Lonning and on to Anglers’ Inn ..................... 23-25 

21 How Hall to Anglers’ Inn .............................................. 26-28 

22 Bleach Green .............................................................. 28 

23 Analysis of evidence .................................................... 29-32 

24 Conclusion .................................................................. 32 

25 Widths and furniture .................................................... 33 

List of documents and location .................................... 34



1 Background and brief history of the area 

1.1 The paths to the western lakeshore of Ennerdale at Bleach Green, to the now 

demolished Anglers’ Inn site, and round the lake to Bowness Knott are all recorded 

in the definitive map and statement as public footpaths. 

1.2 Some time in 2008 marker pen was used to write on a number of gates on some of 

thee footpaths. This was to the effect of ‘Footpath Only – No Bikes – No Horses’. 

This was done by the chair of the parish council rather than the landowner. 

1.3 This prompted a number of local residents to contact us to say that they had used 

these routes for many years with horses. In June 2009 they submitted a formal 

modification order application to record these routes on the definitive map as 

public bridleways. 

1.4 The history of the area around the lake is lengthy and complex, partly due to its 

use as a water supply. A map (p2) with various locations is provided for context. 

1.5 The main farms of the Ennerdale Water and valley are on the northern side, 

consisting of Broadmoor, How Hall, Howside, Routen Farm, Whins, Croftfoot, 

Beckfoot, Mireside and Bowness. High and Low Gillerthwaite are much further up 

the valley. The land west of How Hall to the fell seems mainly to have been 

enclosed relatively early, so the Enclosure Act of the late nineteenth century only 

really centred on the area around Broadmoor at the eastern end of the lake. 

1.6 From the documentation, it would seem as though the main route out of the valley 

to Ennerdale Bridge was historically from Gillerthwaite, along the lakeshore to the 

south of Mireside, round the lake to Sawdust Lonning, then eastwards to the 

village – much of it on the now claimed route. In 1838 the private road west of 

How Hall was built (the road to How Hall existed before – the house has been 

there since the sixteenth century). At that time the property on the lakeshore was 

known as the ‘Boat House’. This became the Anglers’ Hotel, then the Anglers’ Inn, 

and was demolished in 1961 during proposals to raise the level of the lake. 

1.7 The road at How Hall was used for timber extraction from the valley for many 

years, even as late as the 1940s. 

1.8 The ‘county road’ to Bowness was not seemingly the best route up the valley. The 

mid period maps seem to show an increased status with the route being from 

Whins to Beckfoot and Mireside, then Bowness and onwards. There are no 

records as to when the current road was sealed with tarmac, probably some time 

after the war, maybe the 1950s – but it is likely that only then did it become the 

main route. 

1.9 How Hall, the Anglers’ site, and Ennerdale Water were owned by the Dickinson 

family from 1832 until about 1950. How Hall and the surrounding land was then 

sold to the National Trust, whilst the Anglers’ (along with the lake) was sold to 

Whitehaven Corporation (and then transferred to South Cumberland Water Board, 

North West Water and finally United Utilities). 

1.10 At Bleach Green, the waterworks (old bleach works where locally grown flax (linen) 

was bleached in the river) were away from the lake, around point C. They were 

rebuilt further west in the 1980s, and the waterworks site was converted into the 

current car park. 

1.11 Bowness Cottage was empty in the 1930s, but has since been renovated.



2 Investigation 

2.1 There is considerable documentary evidence, most of it in the Dickinson family 

archive deposits and relating the How Hall to Anglers’ Inn route, and Sawdust 

Lonning. And there is probably some we have not seen. All that we have been 

able to research has been analysed. The discussions over status mainly revolves 

around the evidence of usage / non-usage and recent history of the path provided 

by users, residents and locals. 

2.2 As the claimed bridleways at Bleach Green and Sawdust Lonning start on what is 

legally recorded as a public footpath, we also looked at a section that was not part 

of the original application. 

2.2 The italicised and bracketed numbers (p1-331) refer to the pages in the separately 

bound document bundle. Many of the documents are photographs from the record 

offices and do not reproduce very well – or are scanned versions of large maps, 

which are much reduced for the document bundle. Where this is so - the original 

photographs and scans are all available electronically and are on CD for reference 

and closer inspection. The documents referred to in sections 19.1-19.3 and 20.8- 

20.14 are the reverse in that the photocopies in the bundle are better than the 

scanned version on the CD. 

2.3 When points A to O are mentioned in the report, reference should be made to the 

attached map, also at page 1 in the bundle. Each section seems to have a slightly 

different history and usage, so I have shown the seven different sections on the 

map at page 1. Ownership is shown on the map at page 3. 

2.4 The sections are: 

1. Road to Broadmoor & Bleach Green 

2. Bleach Green 

3. Sawdust Lonning 

4. Sawdust Lonning to Anglers Inn (along the lakeshore) 

5. How Hall to Anglers Inn (old access track) 

6. Anglers Inn to Bowness Knott (long section along lakeshore) 

7. Tracks around Mireside and Beckfoot 

2.5 The current definitive map is at page 28 of the document bundle.



3 Legal Guidance on Section 53(3) – Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 

3.1 Because the rights of way to be modified as to their status, the sections of the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act used is 53 (3)(c)(ii). 

3.1.1 The test to be applied to a route claimed under this section is: “Does the 

evidence show that on the balance of probabilities the status of a way shown 

on the definitive map and statement should be a different status?” This 

requires clear evidence in favour of the allegation, and no conclusive evidence to 

the contrary. 

3.1.2 The law states that the definitive map and statement are conclusive evidence of 

what they show but that showing a right of way on the map and statement does 

not preclude the existence of other rights. For example, the fact that a footpath is 

shown on the map is conclusive evidence that rights on foot exist, but it is not 

conclusive that higher rights (bridleway or byway) do not exist. 

3.1.3 Unless there is specific evidence that shows that procedures were not followed we 

must assume that the proper procedures were followed at the time the map and 

statement were first drawn up. 

3.1.4 The evidence triggering the investigation must be new evidence; ‘new’ being 

defined as evidence which has not previously been considered in the context of 

the way and the definitive map. However, once new evidence has been 

discovered – however insignificant, all the available evidence must be considered. 

In this case all the user evidence and much of the documentary evidence are new. 

3.1.5 It is important to note that the dual test used when looking at additions to the 

definitive map where no right was previously shown (the ‘reasonable to allege’ 

test) does not apply when we are looking at amending the status of an already 

recorded right. The test applicable here is the normal civil burden of proof: that is – 

on the balance of probabilities. 

3.2 Statutory inference of dedication: Highways Act 1980 section 31 

3.2.1 This provides that a right of way, of a particular status, exists when the public have 

used it for a continuous period of 20 years or more before the usage was 

questioned, and that this use was open, without permission and without force. If a 

right is already recorded, then this usage must relate to higher usage – that is: if 

the way is a footpath, then all foot usage is discounted and only bridle (or higher) 

usage will count towards dedication of a bridleway. 

3.2.2 There is a proviso which provides that deemed dedication does not apply where 

there is sufficient evidence showing that the landowner(s) had no intention to 

dedicate a public right of way of a particular status. If the landowner has taken 

sufficient steps to show that they had no intention to dedicate a public right of way, 

such as erecting signs or giving appropriate notice to the highway authority, we 

cannot conclude that a public right of way exists. 

3.2.3 What constitutes sufficient evidence is a matter to be determined in each case. A 

mere assertion of a previous lack of intention to dedicate is not usually considered 

to be sufficient evidence of a lack of intention, though recent case law indicates 

that there is no requirement for the lack of intention to be demonstrated throughout 

the entire relevant period of claimed usage.



3.2.4 There must be sufficient evidence to show the intention – the act must be 

something contemporaneous (occurring within the same period of time or era) and 

of substance and must be something more than de minimis (de minimis means too 

small or too temporary to affect the long-term effect). In the absence of some 

contemporaneous action, a landowner would find it difficult to provide sufficient 

evidence that this lack of intention did actually exist 

3.2.5 Documentary evidence is also very important and can back up user evidence. 

When weighing up the evidence we must pay attention to the source of the 

document and the purpose for which it was produced. 

3.2.6 There is a legal maxim; ‘once a highway, always a highway’. If there is historical, 

documentary (or user) evidence that shows that a way once had public rights of a 

particular status over it, the highway to that status still exists, unless there is 

evidence of legal stopping up of the rights. Simple disuse of a right of way does 

not mean that the right no long exists, just that the right is not being exercised. 

3.3 Inference of dedication at common law 

3.3.1 In some instances, the statutory inference, and statutory tests cannot be applied. 

Such instances include: 

If evidence of use for the full 20-year period is not shown; 

there is evidence of an intention not to dedicate within the 20 year period; 

if the date of challenge is unknown; or 

if the date of challenge cannot logically be applied. 

3.3.2 In these circumstances it is necessary to apply the common law tests to see 

whether a right of way exists. 

3.3.3 For a way to be successfully claimed under common law, the evidence must infer 

that the landowner’s conduct was such that s/he intended to dedicate the right of 

way of the claimed status. Effectively, in this instance, this means that the usage 

by horse-riders and cyclists was great enough that the landowner should have 

known it was taking place, yet did nothing to stop that usage. 

3.3.4 Under section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 (above), 20 years usage must be 

proved. At common law, there is no specified period. Each case will be different, 

but, the more intensive and blatant the use and the more compelling the evidence 

of knowledge and acquiescence of the landowner, the shorter the period that is 

necessary to infer a dedication of a right of way. 

3.3.5 Under common law, there must be someone capable of dedicating a right of way. 

If there is no owner in actual possession of the land, then the common law test will 

generally fail. 

3.4 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 

3.4.1 This Act extinguished all unrecorded rights for motor vehicles except where certain 

exceptions apply. The Act effectively means that most routes with historical 

vehicle rights will now be recorded as restricted byways rather than byways open 

to all traffic as would have been the case prior to the Act. 

3.4.2 The Act also states that usage by bicycles leads to restricted byway status. A 

recent decision in the Court of Appeal clarified this. Only usage post 2006 is 

relevant for restricted byways, and cycle usage between 1968 and 2006 is counted 

towards the route being a bridleway.



4 Definitions of various rights of way 

4.1 Section 66(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) defines the 

following rights of way: 

Public Footpath 

Public Bridleway 

Restricted Byway 

Byway Open to All 

Traffic 

Highway over which the public have a right of way on foot 

only. 

Highway over which the public have a right on foot and on 

horseback, possibly with an additional right to drive 

animals. (Cycle usage is also allowed by virtue of the 

Countryside Act 1968). 

Highway over which the public have restricted byway 

rights, with or without the right to drive animals of any 

description. “Restricted byway rights” include a right of way 

on foot, on horseback or leading a horse and a right of way 

for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles (so 

it includes a right of way for pedal cycles and horse drawn 

vehicles). 

Highway over which the public have a right of way for 

vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, but which is used by 

the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and 

bridleways are so used. 

5 Date of challenge 

5.1 In order to determine whether the 20-year test has been passed, we need to know 

when the usage by the public was effectively challenged, thereby bringing their 

usage of the route into question. 

5.2 The gate near point D was locked some time in the 1990s, although it appears that 

it has not always been locked since. There are two signs on the gates here telling 

cyclists that they have no right of way, and that it is a footpath only. One sign has 

‘North West Water, a United Utilities Company’ on it – which would imply that it 

was put up between 1995 and 1997 1 . The side rails have ‘Footpath only – no 

bikes please’, written on in marker pen – this appeared in 2008. 

5.3 The rails above the stile alongside the gate just east of point B has ‘Ahead 

footpath only – no bikes – no horses’, written on in marker pen – this appeared in 

2008. The top rail of the wicket gate further to the east on the same section has 

‘Footpath only – no bikes – no horses’, written on in marker pen – this also 

appeared in 2008. 

5.4 I therefore consider that the date of challenge for section 2 (DEFG) is circa 1996 

and for section 3 (BG), 2008. There has been no identifiable challenge to the 

other sections, so the date of challenge is the modification order application – June 

2009. 

1 North West Water was a water supply company serving north-west England. It was originally the North West Water 

Authority, one of ten regional authorities created by the Water Act 1973. In 1989 it became North West Water plc, 

and was privatised. In 1995 it merged with Norweb (the former North Western Electricity Board) to form United 

Utilities. In 1997, NWW was ‘removed’ as a subsidiary company of UU.



6 User Evidence 

6.1 A summary of witness evidence and dates used is included as a separate user 

evidence document bundle. This case is complicated by the differing patterns of 

usage, and the differing types of usage on different sections of the paths in 

question. 

6.2 In total 19 people have provided evidence of their own personal usage of one or 

more of these routes. Their usage encompasses the 20 years to the dates of 

challenge (or application), in whole or part. 

6.3 In addition to this, a few people have given information as to their understanding of 

the reputation of the routes, and their knowledge of the routes from well before the 

20 year period. One other (M Bibby) has given corroborative evidence although 

his own usage has only been on foot. 

Section 1: points ABCD (Tarmac road) 

6.4 With regard to the road section [1] most people have not given explicit evidence of 

their use. However, given that to reach sections 2 and 3 there are limited access 

routes, the road must have been used extensively. Indeed, there is considerable 

anecdotal evidence (not submitted) of vehicular use of the whole of section 1 

(there are car parks by point D and between B and C). 

Section 2: points DEFG (Bleach Green) 

6.5 Used by at least 13 of the witnesses on horseback or bike. Varying degrees of 

usage, over differing years. The field gate near point D appears to have been 

locked for some years now (exact date unknown), which seems to have led to 

many of the users ‘migrating’ to either Sawdust Lonning or the How Hall route. 

However, even if the first time the gate was locked was as long ago as 1990, there 

would still be eight or so witnesses relating to that period. 

6.6 The original definitive line between points F - G was along the lakeshore. 

However, those witnesses who have specifically addressed the point have stated 

that they used the wider earth route through the middle of the field, and that this 

was the case as long ago as the mid 1970s. This was formalised as a public 

footpath in 2005. 

Section 3: points B-G (Sawdust Lonning) 

6.7 Used by 14 of the witnesses, mainly on horseback but also with a bicycle (as well 

as on foot). Varying degrees of usage, over differing years. Increased usage 

since relatively recent improvements and the locking of the gate at Bleach Green. 

Section 4: points GHI (Sawdust Lonning to Anglers’) 

6.8 Used by almost all of the witnesses – on horseback and quite a few mention usage 

on a bicycle. Varying degrees of usage, over differing years. 

Section 5: points ONMIP (How Hall to Anglers’) 

6.9 Used by almost all of the witnesses – on horseback and quite a few mention usage 

on a bicycle. Varying degrees of usage, over differing years. Three mention 

personal usage of this route in vehicles, and others mention others’ vehicular 

usage.



Section 6: PJGKL (Anglers’ to Bowness Knott) 

6.10 Used by 15 of the witnesses, and as with the other sections the degree of usage 

varies. There was some initial confusion over the exact route at K-L with some 

maps showing something slightly different. After clarification it became clear that 

the historical usage was along the track between K-L – which was once cobbly but 

has deteriorated. Especially at the western end people have deviated slightly to 

one side of the track because of this deterioration. 

Section 7: tracks round Mireside and Beckfoot 

6.11 Only used by three witnesses and not over frequently. Reference made to these 

tracks by others as being public cart tracks. 

Summary 

6.12 The user evidence supplied would indicate that there has been regular usage of all 

the routes. This usage is predominantly on foot, but the horse usage has been 

relatively frequent and regular. It would seem from the evidence that at times it 

has been heavier (such as in the summer months and when the trekking centre 

was more active). The evidence of cycle usage has been less frequent – but is 

still relevant and has been mentioned by others anecdotally. 

6.13 The horse usage appears to be backed up with corroborative evidence from others 

who have witnessed usage. 

6.14 Between F-G the track used has been the one through the middle of the field – not 

the one along the edge of the lakeshore. The usage of the this route was first 

challenged when the gate at D was locked sometime in the 1990s. 

6.15 The route between K-L was originally in the sunken lonning, but has recently 

migrated slightly. 

6.16 There is small, but significant, direct evidence of vehicular use of the route past 

How Hall to the Anglers’ Inn site. 

6.17 There is very limited direct evidence of usage of the tracks around Mireside and 

Beckfoot. 

7 Landowner Evidence (p35-46) 

7.1 Not a great deal has been provided by the landowners or their tenants. The 

relevant information that we have received is below: 

7.2 Eva Rapley 

Lived at Mireside for 36 years until 1965. 

Road past Mireside was used by everyone – horseriders, postman, and 

sometimes people from Gillerthwaite came that way on to Beckfoot and up to 

[?- undecipherable] on to top road past Whins to Croasdale – or as a short cut 

to Howside up a narrow lane. 

There was a lane off lakeside up to Mireside we called Mary Lonning – gate 

there now – never used to be.



7.3 Ike Wren 

When Birketts and Wrens lived at Gillerthwaite they brought their children by 

pony and trap, past Bowness Cottage to lake, past Anglers to How Hall to 

Ennerdale school (ie: sections 6 & 5). 

Road from How Hall to Anglers was well used – a popular hotel. Always 

classed as a road with a gate at the How Hall end. 

Sawdust Lonning just a walkway – sometimes came that way from school. 

Spent childhood living at Gillerthwaite – went to school until c1939 followed 

road to Bowness Knott, then down the track past Bowness Cottage [L-K], past 

the green track known as Mireside Lonning and along lakeside [K-I] – 

maintained by Forestry Commission. 

Left road at I and went up to M, continues past How Hall to the main 

Ennerdale Road [route described is sections 6 and 5]. 

M-J was at start at least, a cart track. 

Most, if not all, these tracks were made by and for the use of farmers and 

people getting to work. 

7.4 GD Vickers, Mireside Farm 

7.4.1 Mr Vickers is the tenant of most of the route between points Q and K, and has 

lived at Mireside Farm since 1965. Much of the information he has given is about 

maintenance and development, which is all useful for giving a good background 

understanding of what has happened in the area. Some information is specific as 

to usage. The most relevant information for the current purpose is: 

How Hall to Anglers Inn [s5] – given the number of vehicles seen parked, this 

is well used especially at weekends and bank holidays. A convenient point for 

launching canoes and as a starting point by many walkers; 

Anglers Inn to Bowness Knott, [s6] – occasionally cyclists use the path, rarely 

a horse and/or evidence of a horse seen using the route; 

Tracks around Mireside and Beckfoot [s7] – occasional walkers on these 

route, usually lost having missed the lakeshore path at point Q. East of 

Mireside the route is occasionally used by cyclists, but never horse riders. 

JIHGB [6,4,3] regularly used by son-in-law on foot or on a bicycle (on land 

owned by others). 

7.5 United Utilities, National Trust, Forestry Commission 

7.5.1 The three landowners have formed ‘Wild Ennerdale’ and have answered as one 

body. Their response is mainly focussed on the desirability and suitability of the 

routes being bridleways rather than actual evidence of use or non-use. They have 

not answered any of the detailed questions posed in our letters, but have assisted 

us in our research by providing some useful documentary evidence and aerial 

photographs when requested. 

7.5.2 United Utilities have said that the road bridge on section 1 was rebuilt by South 

Cumberland Water Board, and is owned and maintained by them [UU]. They have 

no knowledge of any approaches made to Cumbria County Council with views 

regarding dedication or adoption.



8 Documentary Evidence 

8.1 There is extensive documentation regarding Ennerdale Water, mainly in the public 

records office in Whitehaven. Some of this directly relates to the questions of 

rights of way around the lake, whereas some is through inference – but it is 

necessary to look at it all. The main problem with interpreting the evidence is that 

many of the documents refer to overlapping sections of the varied routes we are 

looking at. I have therefore tried to summarise the evidence that relates to the 

whole or a variety of sections first. Then I have addressed the evidence relating to 

the specific routes at Sawdust Lonning [3 and 4] and How Hall Farm [5]. 

9 Highway Authority Records - Definitive Map (p4-28) 

9.1 When the first definitive maps and statements were drawn up in the 1950s, 

Ennerdale and Kinniside Parish was in Cumberland. Since 1974 (local 

government reorganisation) it has been part of Cumbria. The Parish Council 

submitted a plan in 1951 (p4-9), with schedules (now unfortunately not available – 

although the later typed versions produced by the County Council still exist (p10-12)). 

From these plans, Cumberland County Council then produced a draft map (p13-16). 

Comments were made by the Friends of the Lake District (FoLD) in November 

1952 (p17-20) (and again in May 1953 (p21)), but it is uncertain whether these were 

before or after the Cumberland draft maps, as although the annotations are on the 

submission plan, the comments refer to red and green colours which were on the 

draft map. However, the formal record (p22) states that ‘No objections were 

received as to what was shown on the draft map’ – so if the comments were about 

the draft plans, they were made before publication. After advertising, the 

provisional plans were produced (p23-25) – which became the definitive maps. 

Section 1: points ABCD (Road) 

9.2 Section AB was claimed as a path by the parish council (as part of Sawdust 

Lonning and the lakeside path – schedule 7 (p5,6,10)). BCD was not claimed by 

anyone at the time. Although the status claimed is not shown on this section, path 

7 as a whole was annotated as BR (bridle road (p7)) – see paragraph 9.11 below. 

9.3 FoLD (p19) said that the public road, as according to the Enclosure Award, 

extended from Far Broadmoor to the plantations (A to boundary just west of G), 

but Cumberland County Council did not alter the maps to reflect this. 

Section 2: points DEFG (Bleach Green) 

9.3 This was not claimed by the parish council, but was added after representation by 

FoLD (p6, 19, 22). FoLD described it as a footpath from the point where 007 strikes 

the lake shore, running southward to the outlet of the lake and across the bridge. 

The route through the lakeshore field was drawn as a straightish line (p6) – which 

represents neither the lakeshore route referred to in user evidence or the inland 

route, subject to this application. It was all included on the draft map (p14), but the 

section DE was then whited out with liquid paper, and consequently was not 

shown on the provisional map (p23). There is nothing to say why this was done. 

9.4 The lakeshore section was included as part of the longer path 59024 which ran 

along the southern shore. The provisional map showed the route even straighter 

than the earlier plans (p23). 

9.5 DE was then (re)claimed as a footpath at the special review of 1976 and added to 

the definitive map as 407044 (p26-27).



Section 3: points B-G (Sawdust Lonning) & Section 4: points GHI (on to Anglers’) 

9.6 Claimed as part of path 7 by the parish council (p6 & 10), with field gates at the same 

points as they exist today (but fewer). Although the status claimed is not shown on 

this section, path 7 as a whole was annotated as BR (bridle road (p7)) – see 

paragraph 9.11 below. Added to the draft map (p14) as part of footpath 590007 

(see below). 

9.7 FoLD (p19) described Sawdust Lonning, and then the entire route around to 

Bowness Knott [sections 3,4,6] as an ‘accommodation road, which runs to the lake 

and then east along it to the old ‘Bowness’ farm building, and thence to join the 

dale road [point L]. This lakeside road, between the west and east limits just 

mentioned and numbered 59007 on the County Council’s map is a self-contained 

unit (owned in sections and maintained by the lakeside owners)……is subject to a 

public right on foot only, and is rightly shown as red – so far as concerns its colour. 

But the red begins at the wrong place at the west end, and wrongly merges into 

the dale road at the east end *Here it should run S of Bowness Cottage”. 

9.8 This makes it clear that Cumberland County Council showed the whole of path 7 

as a public footpath on the draft map (p14-16) before any representations were made 

by FoLD. There is nothing in the files to explain why the County Council did not 

show the path as a bridleway which was the status claimed by the parish council. 

Section 5: points ONMIP (How Hall to Anglers’) – description in this section stops at point I. 

9.9 Claimed by the parish council as a public bridleway (BR), numbered 10 (p7) - with a 

field gate at How Hall. There is an additional annotation in a different pen at How 

Hall saying ‘FP’, but it is unclear, because of where the arrowhead is, whether this 

relates to path 10, or an additional path through the yard (which seems unlikely). 

9.10 Shown on the draft map by Cumberland County Council as public footpath 59010 

(p15) (the stile at How Hall relates to FP 59039). FoLD made a comment about the 

alignment at How Hall and the field gate – but no comments were made as to the 

status. There is nothing to show why the BR status shown by the parish council 

was not replicated. 

Section 6: PJGKL (Anglers’ to Bowness Knott) 

9.11 Claimed as part of path 7 (from BGH) by the parish council (p15-16), clearly 

annotated as a bridleway (BR) in two places – with field gates and cart bridges. 

Just north of point K, the claim was along a track to the north of Bowness Cottage. 

9.12 FoLD pointed out that the correct route was to the south of Bowness Cottage (p8 & 

19). The originally claimed route was drawn on the draft map but was also whited 

out (p14). The southern route was shown on the draft map and subsequently the 

provisional map (p25). 

9.13 It was shown on the draft map by Cumberland County Council as the major part of 

footpath 59007. There is nothing to show why the BR status shown by the parish 

council was not replicated. 

Section 7: tracks round Mireside and Beckfoot 

9.14 Not claimed at all. And were referred to by HH Symonds (Friends of the Lake 

District), who was usually very knowledgeable about rights, as being a ‘private 

road’.



Summary 

9.15 Section 2 [DEFG] has only ever (until now) been claimed as a footpath. All the 

other sections [3,4,5,6] were claimed by the parish council as bridleways – but for 

some reason were only shown by the county council as footpaths. This was 

agreed by the Friends of the Lake District – and no objection at this time was 

raised by the parish council (although see later discussions). 

9.16 No route appears on old highways records such as Cumbria County Council’s List 

of Streets or 1929 handover maps. They are currently recorded as footpaths (p28). 

10 Highway Authority Records – George Bell (p29) 

10.1 George Bell was Cumberland’s County Surveyor and Bridge Master between 1879 

and 1911. He was a professionally trained surveyor, having run the family 

business before working for Highway Boards and then Cumberland County 

Council. His road map of Cumberland was drawn up in 1892 and shows main and 

district roads throughout the county, together with the county bridge locations. The 

document is generally held to be reliable as the majority of marked routes have 

modern accepted public rights, mainly vehicular. 

10.2 Bell’s map (p29) clearly marks a route to the lake, which looking at the location 

would appear to be Sawdust Lonning. The other route to the lake seems to be the 

modern road to Bowness. This clearly infers that Sawdust Lonning was 

considered to be public in 1892, and of a significant status – as most of the other 

routes in and around the area are not shown at all. 

11 Ennerdale Tithe Map 1845 (p30-39) 

11.1 Tithe Maps were not drawn up with highways as their main purpose, but they can 

be useful for identifying physical features existing at the time, and sometimes they 

can be useful for giving an indication of the way routes were considered. 

11.2 The Tithe Map for Ennerdale of 1845 covers the whole of the area, and all of the 

routes we are looking at. The main points to note are: 

Order map Page Nos. Notes 

on plan 

ABCDEFG [1,2,3] – Sawdust 31- Various No routes shown of any kind. 

32 

Lonning & Bleach Green 

FG (northern half) [2] (p32 & 38) 32 & 

38 

206 Described as “Waterend Field” 

GHIPJ – past Anglers’ Inn [4,6] 32 476 Shown as a separate plot from the fields – not in 

schedule, Anglers’ Inn is here ‘Boat House’ 

JQ 

33 & 

38 

214 Described as “Pasture” 

QKL – to Bowness [6] 34- 475, 475 is described as “Waterside & Road”, 472 is 

37, 

474 & a “Road near Bowness” and is classed as 

472 “Township Property”. 

Beckfoot & Mireside [7] 34 n/a The tracks themselves are unnumbered. 

11.3 The descriptions do not assist us much. They imply that the access road to the 

Boat House was either from Sawdust Lonning, or Beckfoot, and that there was a 

road round the lakeshore to Bowness. But there is no indication of the status of 

these ‘roads’ – that is, there is nothing to say whether they were private or public 

(although KL is ‘Township property’, so it could be assumed to have been public). 

The tracks at Mireside are unnumbered, which means that they were untithed. 

This could imply that they were public of some nature, but could also simply 

indicate that they had no real titheable value.



12 Ennerdale Common Enclosure 1865-1869 (p40-48) 

12.1 The map accompanying the enclosure award shows the following: 

Order map Page Nos. on Notes 

plan 

AB – Road [1] 46, 48 E to C Lake Road – public carriageroad. 

BC – Road [1] 46 77: C to H The current road is not shown. A track (number 

77) exists but not on quite the same alignment. 

BG – Sawdust 

Lonning [3] 

46,48 C to I Most of Sawdust Lonning is shown as C to I – the 

remainder to the lakeshore is shown as a double 

pecked line through an already enclosed field. 

The section C to I is set out as a public 

carriageroad (see below) 

DEFG [2] – 40 - No track shown, the land appears to have already 

Bleach Green 

GHIP – Sawdust 

Lonning to 

Anglers’ Inn [4] 

ONMMI – How 

Hall [5] 

PJQK – Anglers 

to Bowness [6] 

KL – Bowness 

[part of 6] 

Beckfoot & 

Mireside [7] 

been enclosed. (Belongs to Thomas Ainsworth) 

40 - Shown as a track along the lakeshore, would 

appear to already be in existence. 

40,41,45 - Shown as a defined track separate from or 

through fields, would appear to already be in 

existence. 

42,44,45 - Shown as a track (mainly) along the lakeshore, 

44,45,47 89: BB to 

CG 

42,43,45 - Existing tracks. 

would appear to already be in existence. 

The western two thirds appears as an existing 

track on already enclosed land. The new 

enclosure to the east set out a track as a private 

carriage and occupation road (89 – see below). 

12.2 Public Carriage Road – the description in the Award (p48) says: “ and one other 

Public Carriage Road or Highway of the width of thirty feet to be called Lake Road 

commencing at the said point marked A on the said Map and extending thence in 

a Southeasterly and Northeasterly direction by the point marked E and G to and 

terminating at the point marked I”. This is a prime source of evidence and is near 

enough conclusive that this route was legally created as a public carriage road. 

There are no records of its subsequent extinguishment. 

12.3 Private Carriage Road – the description in the Award (p47) says: “One other Private 

Carriage and Occupation Road of the width of twenty feet and numbered 89 on the 

said Map commencing at the point marked BB and extending thence in an easterly 

direction by the points marked CC DD GG II….which road is for the use of the 

persons interested for the time being in allotments numbered…..”. the next 

sentence explains that the maintenance of the road is the responsibility of these 

users. 

12.4 I could not find a copy of the actual Act, so cannot tell whether any pre-existing 

rights were extinguished – but it is likely.



13 Ennerdale Railway Plans 1884 (p49-57) 

13.1 Individual railway and canal schemes were promoted by Special Acts. Various 

Acts required public rights of way which cross the route of a railway to be retained 

unless their closure had been duly authorised. Therefore, although it was not the 

primary purpose of the deposited plans to record rights of way, these plans can 

provide good evidence in this context. 

13.2 The plan for a railway at Ennerdale never came to fruition, but the matter went to 

Parliamentary Session in 1884. The deposited plans and book of reference still 

exist. 

13.3 The proposed railway was north of the main area of interest, but did cross the 

tracks at How Hall and around Beckfoot and Mireside (p50-52). The relevant entries 

in the Book of Reference are: 

Order map Page Nos. on plan Notes 

Ennerdale to Croasdale road 51, 55 13 “Public Road” 

ONM – How Hall track (west) [5] 51, 55 14 “Occupation Road” 

MI – How Hall to Anglers’ Inn [5] 52, 55 20 “Occupation Road” 

Beckfoot & Mireside [7] 52, 56 37a & 48 “Occupation Road” 

Whins to Bowness road 52, 56 47 “Public Road” 

Bowness Knott bridleway 52, 57 60 “Occupation Road” 

13.4 The railway plans appear to indicate that there were no public rights at all (not 

even footpaths) over any of the routes we are currently looking at. There are also 

four other routes currently public footpaths, which are not mentioned in the railway 

plans either. 

13.5 It is therefore difficult to draw much significance from these plans.



14 Whitehaven Corporation Act 1899 (p58-75) 

14.1 This Act was to raise the water level of the lake in order to enable greater 

extraction. A map of the lake (p)58-62 and its immediate surrounds is in the county 

archives, along with a Book of Reference (p63-69). Unfortunately the numbers on 

the plan and in the book of reference do not appear to directly equate with each 

other – so any evidential value as to the status of the lakeshore route is 

questionable. 

14.2 Nonetheless, some inferences can be made (number in plan, and notes): 

No. in 

book of 

refce 

Likely 

number 

on map 

Notes 

5 (p64) 2a (p59) Occupation road, footway and driftway (p59,64) – this would appear 

to be relatively close to the weir, which is reference number 2. 

Given that the owner is David Ainsworth, and that in the Enclosure 

Award the land west of the weir was owned by Thomas Ainsworth, 

it is likely that this refers to a track running to the weir [DE – section 

2]. 

8a (p65) 

Driftway and footway 

13 (p65) 2a (p60) Occupation road, driftway and footway – given that the numbering 

seems to go clockwise around the lake, it is likely that one of these 

relates to the path along the lakeshore [FG – section 2]. 

14 (p66) 4a (p61) Road, driftway, waste and streams – the breadth of landtypes, and 

the number of owners and occupiers would imply that this parcel is 

quite lengthy. Plot 16 is a plantation – which is likely to be the one 

north of the lakeshore between points H & I, and plot 20 seems to 

be the Anglers’ Inn. Therefore, it is most likely that number 14 

relates to Sawdust Lonning and on to the junction with the How Hall 

track [possibly BG and then GHI, sections 3 and 4], and probably 

beyond [6]. 

18 (p66) 8a (p61) Occupation road – owned purely by the Dickinsons (of How Hall), 

so likely to relate to the How Hall to Anglers’ Inn route [MI, s5]. 

39 (p68) 30 (p62) Occupation road – this is soon after Gill Beck, so is most likely to be 

the track down to the lake from Mireside [s7]. 

14.3 As part of the works an agreement was reached between the Whitehaven 

Corporation and the Dickinsons (p70-75), then owners of How Hall and the Anglers’ 

Inn. This was to change the route of the ‘Road along Shore’ at two places, the 

Anglers Inn (p74) [point I], and at the stream crossing further east (p73) [at about 

point J]. The significance here is that the road was clearly considered to be a 

through road from the Anglers’ Inn to Gillerthwaite. Although the status is not 

mentioned (public or private) the inference here is that it was public, because: 

If indeed the reference to ‘Road’ in the book of reference applies to the 

lakeshore route, then the fact that this is different to the ‘occupation road’, 

‘footway’, and ‘driftway’ mentioned elsewhere in the book of reference is 

significant; 

And also, the road is described as going to Gillerthwaite (p72 – far right). If the 

main public road to Gillerthwaite was where it is now (further north), then it is 

most likely that this map would have said something like ‘to Bowness’. The 

inference being that this was the main through route to Gillerthwaite (which 

equates with the Earl of Lonsdale’s appeal in 1866 – see later); 

If it were merely an occupation road, it is questionable whether the 

Whitehaven Corporation would have needed to acquire land from the 

Dickinson family for a new road – as the private rights could have been regranted 

by the Dickinsons to those who had them.



15 Newspaper Cutting – 1882, and Council Minutes 1904 (p76-82) 

15.1 In 1882 the Whitehaven News reported on a letter from the Medical Officer of 

Health to the Whitehaven Union Rural Sanitary Authority (p76). In the 1880s, before 

local government re-organisation it was the rural councils and sanitary authorities 

that were responsible for maintaining local highways. 

15.2 This letter drew the authority’s attention to the ‘very dangerous state of the public 

roadway around Ennerdale Lake’, and in particular the section from the Anglers’ 

Inn to the farm-steadings beyond. This is described as being in the lake for about 

60-70 yards, dangerous by day and life threatening by night. The medical officer 

understood that the Trustees of the Town and Harbour of Whitehaven were 

responsible for the repair of the road. 

15.3 Presumably this refers to at least the section PJQ, and possibly further – by 

definition, there must also have been a public roadway to reach the Anglers’ – 

either via How Hall [5] or Sawdust Lonning [3,4]. Given the Whitehaven 

Corporation Act’s provisions for altering the alignment, it could well be that the 

section ‘underwater’ was at point J. This adds to the inference drawn at 14.3 that 

the road round the lake was public. 

15.4 In 1904 the Parish Council submitted a petition to the County Council referring to 

the alleged non-repair by the Whitehaven Rural District Council of the Lakeside 

Road (p77-82) – presumably relating to the above. This petition was sent to the 

District Council (78p). A later minute refers to minutes of the RDC (p80) and a letter 

from the Parish Council resulting in no action being taken by the County Council 

(p82). We do not know what actually happened, but it is clear the that Parish 

Council considered this to be a public road at that time. 

16 Proposed Stopping Up 1967 (p83-85) 

16.1 In 1967 it was proposed to raise the level of Ennerdale Water. This would have 

meant the loss of the entire lakeshore path between points E and K [Sections 

2,4,6], as well as other sections not connected to this modification application. 

The Ministry of Transport drew up plans to stop up the entire ‘highway’ and move it 

inland (p83). 

16.2 An advert in the London Gazette in May 1967 (p84) referred to a proposal to make 

an order. It cited different reference numbers, but would appear to relate to the 

same map as it proposed to divert three lengths of bridleway (further east from 

Bowness Knott) and seven lengths of footpath – which equates to the seven 

sections between letters on the plan. A later advert (p85) shows that the proposal 

was abandoned. 

16.3 It should be noted that the status in this proposed order correlates to the recently 

published (1966) definitive map, rather than anything else.



17 Ordnance Survey Large Scale Maps (p86-98) 

17.1 Early Ordnance Survey (OS) maps show all the routes – except the ones at 

Bleach Green [2]. 

17.2 The first edition 25” maps were accompanied by a Book of Reference which 

described the nature of each plot of land. These large scale OS maps gave a 

separate number for each plot of land in every local administrative division. In 

1865, Ennerdale was a Township within the large parish of St Bees rather than 

being a civil or ecumenical parish in its own right. 

17.3 The plots relating to the sections of path concerned are: 

Section Ref Description as in book of reference 

1 – road The map sheet is not available 

2 – Bleach Green (p86) No paths shown in 1865 

3 – Sawdust Lonning (p86) 337 (p93) Rough pasture, part of stream, cartroads, 

house, path, trees, &c. (Broad Moor). 

427 (p94) Rough pasture, cartroad, & stream. 

4 – Sawdust Lonning to 260 (p93) Occupation road, cart-road, streams &c. 

Anglers (p87) 

5 - How Hall (p87) 223 (p92) Occupation road. 

230 (p92) Occupation road and garden. 

232 (p92) Pasture & cartroads. 

234 (p92) Pasture, cartroads and trees. 

6 – Anglers to Bowness 

(p87-90) 

7 – Mireside & Beckfoot 

(p88) 

239 (p92) Pasture, cartroad, paths & streams. 

241 (p93) Occupation road and stream. 


432 (p94) Occupation road. 



244 (p93) Pasture & cartroads. 

205 (p92) Pasture, stream & cart-road. 


267 (p93) Occupation road. 

17.4 It is clear that in 1865 (which was just before the Enclosure Act) the OS 

considered all the sections of paths to be ‘occupation roads’ or ‘cartroads’. This 

generally means vehicular access routes for the landowners and adjoining 

landowners. 

17.5 Where routes were undeniably accepted to be public roads, the OS did generally 

record this in the Book of Reference. It is notable that what is now the tarmac road 

to Bowness Knott was listed by the OS as ‘Public Road’ (reference numbers 128, 

202, 253 (p92,93) and others). Which would imply that they considered the 

lakeshore road, and others, to be of a lesser status. 

17.6 However the OS made it quite clear that their purpose was not to determine the 

public status. Nor does it mean that there were no public rights – especially if they 

were of a lower status, such as foot or bridle rights.



17.7 The 1926 edition 6”:1 mile maps 2 (p95 )show Sawdust Lonning [3] and the route 

around the lakeshore to Bowness [4,6], the route past How Hall [5], and the ones 

at Beckfoot and Mireside [7] as routes either bounded or with double pecked lines. 

The annotation of ‘FP’ to some of the other paths (see below point Q, and the path 

running west from How Hall), and the annotation of ‘BR’ (p96) – (elsewhere on the 

same map – north-east of Beckfoot) implies that the routes we are looking at were 

of a higher physical status. The 1925 25” maps (p97-98) show very similar 

information. The inference is that they were neither footpaths nor bridleways – but 

were suitable for wheeled traffic. 

17.8 The paths at Bleach Green [2] are not shown at all. 

17.9 However, it is important to re-iterate that Ordnance Survey maps showed all 

physical features, and the OS deliberately distanced themselves from determining 

whether any route shown had public rights or otherwise. 

18 Finance Act 1910 (p57) 

18.1 Unfortunately, the maps and other relevant information is absent from the Cumbria 

Record Office. This makes it virtually impossible to identify any field book entries 

for the heriditaments within the parish. 

19 Commercial maps and Guide Books (p58-71) 

19.1 These records are of little evidential value on their own, but are very useful for 

showing a general picture of what the reputation and usage of a route was at any 

given time. Constant depiction on commercial maps, or repeated inclusion in guide 

books is indicative of a route that has become accepted as being open and used by 

the public. In particular, it is important to note that in the nineteenth and early 

twentieth century, there was not the proliferation of guide books, walk books and 

maps that there is today – the few guide books that were available would have been 

the ones mainly used. 

19.2 The relevant entries are overleaf. It is clear that the main routes to the lake and the 

Anglers Inn [3 and 5] have generally been considered to be vehicular on maps and 

in guides (especially in relation to carts and cycles) from at least 1894. This is 

especially true of the route past How Hall [5] - recent guides since the demolition of 

the Anglers’ Inn all refer to vehicular access to the site for parking, including those 

produced by the adjoining landowners (the car parking site is owned by United 

Utilities, but the track to it is owned by the National Trust). 

19.3 The routes beyond the Anglers’ to Bowness [6] are generally described as tracks 

and rough, rather than good roads, or merely footpaths. There is a variety of maps 

depicting routes at Mireside and area [7], with little real consistency. 

19.4 The maps and guides don’t really show the Bleach Green routes. 

2 These maps are the ‘quarter sheets’ and the area of interest spreads over all four quarters of sheet 68. 

These have been scanned and ‘stitched’ together to produce a composite image. There has been no 

alteration to anything on the maps themselves.



Pg Date Book Notes 

99-101 1864 The Lake Country – E Lynn Linton Remarks that the carriage-road goes no farther than the Boat-House, and there is no carriage road 

along the banks. [The Boat House became the Anglers’ Inn – there is no map so it cannot be 

determined which route (Sawdust Lonning or How Hal) is being referred to.] 

102-104 1873 Black’s Guide to the English Lakes Refers to a ‘good road… to the foot of Ennerdale Lake’ – it does not describe the exact route. 

105-107 1879 Jenkinson’s Tourist’s Guide to the 

English Lake District 

108-113 1895 Baddeley’s Thorough guide to the 

English Lake District 

114-120 1902 Brabant’s – The English Lakes (this is 

from the second edition of 1920, but 

from on-line resources it would appear 

that there was no updating, or none 

relevant to the pages relevant to this 

issue.) **see below for later edition. 

Describes a route from Floutern Tarn following a streamlet [Gill beck?], reaching a house [Routen 

Farm?] and a road. This branches to the right and runs near the shore of the lake to the Anglers’ 

Inn, or can miss the Inn and enter the cart-road at the foot of Bowness Knott. [The description is 

not over clear, but it implies that there is a road by the lake to the Anglers’ Inn, probably from the 

Beckfoot or Mireside area – most likely points P-Q] 

p21 - describes a walking route to the Anglers’ Inn via How Hall [5]. 

p192 - describes a ‘pony track’ starting from the Anglers’ Inn skirting the lake for a few hundred 

yards before turning left [IPJ – maybe Q?] 

p214/5 – Two walking routes are described – and they are clearly along the lakeshore between 

the Anglers Inn and via Bowness Cottage [6]. It mentions the path joining the ‘main road’ at point 

L, this is further described as a ‘good cart-road’ 

The maps with the book show that the vehicular route (solid red) was via How Hall [5], with the 

lakeshore route and Sawdust Lonning clearly marked, but of a lesser significance to the author. 

p313 – This describes the road past How Hall to the Anglers’ Inn [5], and adds that ‘this is hardly 

a carriage road, but although very rough it is practicable for cyclists’. The route is for those 

heading from the north (Keswick). 

p315 – refers to the Anglers’ Inn in conjunction with access to those travelling by carriage or 

cycle. It does not say which route. 

p316 – this is for those heading from the south or west, and describes the Cold Fell road into 

Ennerdale Bridge, then 2m further to the border of the lake at the Anglers’ Inn. The route is 

clearly vehicular, as it refers to the main part being tolerable going for a cycle. There is no exact 

description of which route is taken to the lake. 

p318 – describes walking to Angling Crag (southern shore) from Anglers’ Inn, and going towards 

Ennerdale Bridge but turning left before it. This seems not to be along the lakeshore [4,2] but via 

How Hall and the road. 

p318 – describes how to reach the upper valley – via the lakeshore, by the ruined Bowness 

Cottage and to the ‘main cart-track’ at L [6]. 

p324 – refers to the How Hall route [3] as a ‘cart road’, and later that it is ‘fair going for a cycle’. 

The map in the book clearly shows the How Hall route [3] as a ‘driving and cycling route’. 

Sawdust Lonning [3,4] and part of the Bowness route [6] are shown as good tracks, whilst the 

rest of the lakeshore route [6] is a ‘footpath or bridlepath’. The path at Bleach Green [2] isn’t 

shown at all, and only a part of the Beckfoot and Mireside tracks are shown [7].




121-123 1902 The Lake Counties – WG Collingwood No description, but the map (taken from Bartholomews) shows roads along Sawdust Lonning and 

How Hall to the Anglers’ Inn [3,4,5] and between Mireside and Bowness [part of 7, part of 6] – 

although on the larger map, the latter routes are more like paths than roads. 

124-126 1905/8 The English Lakes – WT Palmer Refers to a road from Ennerdale Bridge with a very steep route down to the Anglers Inn – this is 

almost certainly the How Hall route [5], as Sawdust Lonning is near enough on the level. 

Describing it as ‘very steep’ would also imply carriage or cycle, as the gradient is unremarkable for 

a pedestrian. 

127-132 1913 Motor Ways in Lakeland – GD 

Abraham 

p205 – describes a motor route from Crossdale [Croasdale], which comes practically to an end at 

Mireside, although you can continue to Gillerthwaite. This would imply that part (most) of the 

Beckfoot and Mireside tracks [7] were being used. 

p207-8 – refers to going to the Anglers Inn from Mireside via Croft Foot, and from the Anglers Inn 

to Ennerdale Bridge. Both these routes seem to be via the How Hall road [5] – a vehicular route. 

An Abrahams postcard style photograph is also included showing a car on the bend towards the 

Anglers’ [just south-east of point M]. 

133-136 c1913 English Lake District – Ward Lock This has a section on ‘Cycling & Motoring Routes’, which includes one to the Anglers’ Inn, and a 

‘very poor road along the lakeside and up the dale’. There is no map to show which route the 

former refers to [3/4 or 5], but the latter can only be along the lakeshore to Bowness [6]. It is also 

interesting to note that later on the author refers to a ‘private road used by privilege’ – which would 

imply that he considered the route to the Anglers’ not to be the same. 

This book was aimed at walking, but often distinguishes between roads and foot paths. It refers to 

leaving the cart road to go past ‘Bowness’ to the Anglers’ Inn [6]. It refers to the Anglers’ Hotel 

being ‘ten miles’ from the head of Ennerdale, and later ‘Ten miles from Dalehead to a motor road’. 

The strong inference being that Rev’d Symonds considered the ‘motor road’ to end at the Anglers’. 

140-142 Wartime Wanderings in Lakeland – WT Palmer Describes a cycling route ending at the Anglers’ Inn, and doesn’t recommend travel beyond the 

137-139 1933 Walking in the Lake District – HH 

Symonds (this is from the 1947 reprint 

– but there were no changes from the 

first print) **see below for later edition. 

143-146 1952 Brabant’s – The English Lakes (third 

edition - revised) **see above for later 

edition. 

147-149 1962-5 Walking in the Lake District – HH 

Symonds (this is a revised/updated 

edition of the 1933 publication) **see 

above. 

Anglers’ Inn although there is a rough cart-track. 

The descriptions of routes are much the same as in the earlier edition. 

One significant difference is the mention of the motorists road to the Anglers’ Hotel being clearly 

signposted [past How Hall, s5]. 

Another relevant aspect is the description of the route along the lakeshore east of the Anglers’ 

[6], which is classed as a ‘path’, reaching the ‘road’ at Bowness – although later this path is 

described as a ‘track’. 

Map only really shows the route via How Hall to lake [5], along with the public road to the north. 

The significant revision refers to the walled lonning from the valley road to Mireside [eastern part of 

7], and then the track from Mireside to the lakefoot path. The author mentions that your map may 

show a lakeside road by Bowness and Mireside [eastern half of s6] but that this is no longer a 

‘road’. 

150-152 1967 Ennerdale Valley – Lakeland Ramblers In a walk around the lake, the route from Bowness back to Bleach Green [6,4,2] is described as a 

‘rough road’.




167 1970s Walking in Ennerdale Forest – Forestry 

Commission (undated, but would 

appear to be after the demolition of the 

Anglers’ Inn in 1968, but before the 

Bleach Green waterworks 

redevelopment in the 1980s) 

A leaflet showing walking routes in the valley. The main track round the lake [2,4,6] and Sawdust 

Lonning [3] are shown as footpaths. But the route via How Hall to the Anglers’ [5[ is shown as a 

‘Public Road’ with the car park being at the old Hotel site. As is the road to Bleach Green [1]. 

153-155 1976 The Lakeland Peaks – Poucher 

(published 1960 and regularly revised) 

Says that if ‘you intend to take this long walk, park your car on the site of the demolished Anglers’ 

Inn…’ The only route accessible by car in 1976 to the Anglers’ was via How Hall [5]. 

156-160 1989 Ordnance Survey – Lake District Walks A walk round Ennerdale starting at the ‘National Trust Car Park’ – which is at the old Anglers’ Inn 

site. 

161-162 1992 Wainwright’s Coast-to-Coast Refers to a pedestrian causeway between the Anglers’ site and Bowness [6]. It also shows the 

road to Bleach Green [1] with the footpath continuing, and then along the north shore [2]. 

163-164 2007 Wild Ennerdale (landowners) Advertises a ‘Family Fun Day’ with limited parking at the Anglers’ Inn site. 

165-166 2009 Westmorland Gazette Recommends a walk, the starting point being the old Anglers’ Inn. The guide says ‘Park on the site 

of the demolished Anglers’ Inn’, and to get there the route is past How Hall – with gates [5].



19.4 The map entries of relevance are: 

Pg Date Map Notes 

168 c1920s Bacon’s Motoring and Cycling 

Road Map of the Lake District 

– 2 miles to an inch 

Shows both Sawdust Lonning [3], the section along the shore to the Inn [4] and the How Hall – Anglers Inn [5] 

routes as tracks. At the eastern end, the road depicted is along the current tarmac road, then down to Beckfoot 

and Mireside [part of 7], turning south-eastwards along the shore and up to Bowness [part of 6]. The current road 

above Beckfoot and Mireside is not shown at all. It would appear that Bacon’s map was taken mainly from 

169 c1920s Bartholomew’s half-inch map 

of the Lake District 

170 c1920s Bartholomew’s two miles to 

an inch map of the Lake 

District 

Bartholomews. 

Shows both Sawdust Lonning [3] and the How Hall – Anglers Inn [5] routes as ‘indifferent, passable roads’. The 

section along the shore to the Inn [4] is shown as a track. At the eastern end, the road depicted as ‘indifferent, 

passable’ is along the current tarmac road, then down to Beckfoot and Mireside [part of 7], turning southeastwards 

along the shore and up to Bowness [part of 6]. The current road above Beckfoot and Mireside is not 

shown at all. 

Shows the same as the half-inch map. However, it says that the indifferent roads (Sawdust Lonning and How Hall 

[3 & 5] are ‘passable for cyclists’. 

171 1923 Philips road map Shows Sawdust Lonning as a track [3], as well as part of the roads at Mireside [7]. The route via How Hall [5] is 

shown as an unnumbered ‘motoring road’. 

172 1928 RAC road map (4 miles to an 

inch) 

Clearly shows Sawdust Lonning and round the lake to the Anglers’ Inn as a road [3 and 4]. By 1928 the RAC 

would have only shown roads suitable for motor traffic. 

173 1930s Gall & Inglis Tourists Map Shows every one of the routes of interest except Bleach Green [2], as tracks or roads. 

174 1930s Geographia large scale map Shows most of the roads as something higher than a ‘footpath’. 

175 1945 Bartholomews one-inch map Shows the lakeshore path at Bleach Green [most of 2] as a track, Sawdust Lonning, How Hall and the Anglers’ 

[3,4,5] as an ‘other road’, as is part of Mireside to Bowness [pt6, pt7]. The lakeshore path [pt6] from the Angelrs to 

Mireside is shown as a footpath. 

176 1998 Collins Walking Map (1”) Shows all the lakeshore route as a footpath [pt2,4,6]. Sawdust Lonning [3] is shown as an ‘other road’, whereas 

How Hall to the Anglers’ [5] is classed as a ‘secondary road’. 

177 1958 OS 1” Tourist Map All but Bleach Green [2] are shown as ‘unmetalled’ roads. 

1981 OS 1:25,000 map This clearly shows a parking site for the public at the Anglers’ Inn site – the only vehicular access possible at this 

time was via How Hall [5].



20 Sawdust Lonning and on to Anglers’ Inn – Arguments over status and rights 

(records mainly from Cumbria County Council rights of way files) (p179-203) 

Enclosure Award Dispute (p179-195) 

20.1 During the inclosure process the land at Broadmoor was put up for sale by auction 

in 1865 (p180-181). The land affected included the plots to the south of Sawdust 

Lonning - basically between the roadway ABG and the River Ehen. 

20.2 In May 1866 a meeting of landowners (p182) discussed the proposed 

“discontinuance and stopping up of the road over Broad Moor to a field called Peat 

Field; which road has been set out by Mr Garnett the Valuer, for the use of the 

Township of Ennerdale”. The landowners recommended that the road be stopped 

up as it had never been much used or required – and was unnecessary as a public 

road. 

20.3 The Earl of Lonsdale, and other appellants (mostly, and most of, the valley 

landowners and farmers) then appealed against the stopping up of this road (p188- 

190), and this was placed before the Cumberland Quarter Sessions in 1866. The 

basis of the appeal was that the road (most of Sawdust Lonning) was a Public 

Road and was necessary for the proper accommodation of the public, and that 

stopping it up would cause great inconvenience, danger and delay – along with 

some more technicality based issues. Other notable aspects put forward were: 

the road was the shortest, easiest and best means of access to the Vale of 

Ennerdale; 

the alternatives were dangerous and difficult roads over the hill called the 

How, and by way of Croasdale – which were inconvenient, circuitous, steep, 

very narrow, and comparatively incapable of improvement; 

the road was useful for transporting iron ore, stone, slate and other minerals. 

It would appear that Sawdust Lonning (and by logic, the route round the lakeshore 

to Bowness) was the main way into Ennerdale in the 1860s – it would certainly 

seem as though the current tarmac road to Bowness Knott was not considered to 

be particularly suitable. It is also clear that if a major landowner such as the Earl 

of Lonsdale was compelled to protect the road for moving his materials, this must 

have been a public road, and it was not being used with private rights. The 

mention of heavy materials, in combination with concerns about gradients, would 

also imply that the road was of carriageway status. 

20.4 The Quarter Sessions appeal was allowed, and a note from the surveyors 

acknowledged that the road ‘has to be kept open’ (p193-195). This seemingly led to 

the road being set out as a Private Carriage Road in the Enclosure Award (see 

section 12) 

Newspaper Cutting 1900 (p196) 

20.5 In February 1900 the Whitehaven News (p196) reports a meeting of the Ennerdale 

and Kinniside Parish Council. The matter being discussed was the siting of a 

notice board relating to the ‘road leading through peat field straight to Lane Foot, 

thence to Anglers’ Inn, Mireside, Bowness, &c, and also to drift roads leading to 

various sheep commons’. Again, the distinction between drift roads, the later 

mention of a ‘footpath to Croasdale’ and the lakeshore road gives the strong 

impression that the road around the lake and Sawdust Lonning [3,4,6 – and 

possibly 7], was regarded as a public road.



Letters 1922 – see next section (How Hall) (p275-276) 

20.6 It is also worth noting that reference is made to Dickinson of How Hall walking from 

the Hotel ‘along the shore road’ through the ‘peat field to the public road on the far 

side of the field’ (p). This best fits in the previous section, as it clearly implies that 

Sawdust Lonning to the lake [3] was considered to be a public road, and cartable. 

The letter says that there was evident use by two bicycles and a cart (p275), and 

mentions a notice that was ‘not intended to refer to the road’. The Chairman of the 

Parish Council considered it to be a public road, but the author felt it was only a 

right of way for the tenements. 

Memo by Dickinson, 1930 (p197-203) 

20.7 This refers to a debate about the lakeside road [4 and 6] being public, this time 

with the Chairman of the Parish Council. The later note refers to the Enclosure 

Award showing the public road coming to an end at the Peat Field at the foot of 

Ennerdale Lake (this can only be referring to Sawdust Lonning). There is 

reference to Beck Foot, Mireside, Bowness and the Gillerthwaites having private 

rights along it. It refers to the Parish Council raising the question of the public 

status in 1904, but that this had been disputed by Mr Dickinson, and after 

representations to the Rural District and County Councils the matter had been 

dropped. (Ennerdale Parish Council minutes are not available for his period). 

Parish, District and County Council 1967-1970 (p204-236) 

20.8 The definitive map was published in 1967, and soon after this (January 1968) 

there was some discussion about the status of Sawdust Lonning. The Parish 

Council wrote to the County Council about a notice erected at Braemar Cottages 

(to the north-west of point A – see locations map) which read “Public Footpath, 

Ennerdale Lake 1, No vehicular access to lake”. They claimed that this should 

read ‘Public Road’ (p204). 

20.9 The County Council responded (p205) to the effect that part of the road was private 

and maintained by South Cumberland Water Board as an access road. There was 

then discussion as to the precise siting of the notice (p206-236). 

20.10 During the remainder of the correspondence, the Parish Council were quite clear 

in their belief that the road going south from Braemar cottages [via Sawdust 

Lonning, sections 3 and 4] was a public road as far as the Anglers’ Hotel. 

20.11 The County Council did not appear to do much investigation into the status, merely 

citing the recorded status and the ownership and maintenance as they knew it. 

They were obviously a little confused as to which road and who owned it, but the 

key items as far as they were concerned were: 

How Hall to the Anglers [s5] is an occupation road owned by South Cumberland 

Water Board (p213) (contradicts some other evidence regarding ownership – see 

later); 

The other road (unclear whether this refers to Sawdust Lonning, or Bleach 

Green) is private, also belonging to the water board; 

The Water Board as owners of the Anglers’ Hotel (see other ownership 

evidence) have not themselves restricted vehicular access to the lake (p213), and 

their engineer, Mr Henderson, indicated that they had no wish to restrict access 

(later correspondence shows that this referred to the How Hall route [s5]); 

The sign was erected at the instigation of the resident of Crag House Farm 

(south of Bleach Green – point D) who was spending time directing people to the 

lake.



20.12 A later letter (7 January 1969 (p225)) re-inforced the parish council’s view that the 

road from Braemar Cottages via Grike Bridge [A], the “sawdust” road [B-G], 

Peatfields [G-H] and alongside the lake to the Anglers Hotel [H-I] is a public road 

and not just a public footpath. 

20.13 The National Trust in March 1970 (p228) stated that their policy was that the shores 

of Ennerdale should be available for people on foot, not cars. They added that the 

Water Board were continuing to allow the public to park cars on the old Anglers’ 

Inn site, and that they should be left there. 

20.14 In May 1970 the Rural District Council wrote to the County Council (p229) regarding 

a notice across the footpath near to the site of the former Anglers’ Hotel stating 

that vehicular access was prohibited. Their Councillors stated that the track had 

been used over a long period as a public road over which cars and other vehicles 

were allowed to pass without interruption. (It is uncertain where this notice was – 

the letter refers to FP 59007, which ran along the lakeshore, reference is made to 

an enclosed map, which is not in the highway authority files. It is likely that the 

letter refers to a gate at or around point I or P).



21 How Hall to Anglers’ Inn (p237-326) 

21.1 Various Dickinson Documents 1857-1930 

21.1.1 A number of relevant documents are bundled together in one archive store. These 

are outlined here; but to get a full flavour the documents should actually be read. 

1945 Page 

237 

1857 238 Notice to 

John Tyson 

re use of 

road 

Letter Refers to the properties coming into the Dickenson family in 1832. 

The road past How Hall to the Boat House (Anglers’ Hotel, Anglers’ 

Inn) [5] appears to have been made in 1838. The gates on the 

road were said to be occasionally tethered with chain and hook to 

prevent people using the road without paying. The owners and 

occupiers of adjoining lands had given a written acknowledgement 

that the road was private. 

1857 240 Letter From Mr Dickinson saying that the road had now existed for 20 

years and that usage was at a cost of two pence each time – and 

specifically to prevent any future litigation or dispute. 

1879 241- 

242 

Note 

Describes a meeting called by Mr Tyson of Gillerthwaite about the 

road leading from there to Mireside and Bowness. It is difficult to 

interpret exactly which road (How Hall, Sawdust Lonning, or 

Lakeside) is being discussed, but the upshot was that they were 

asking the Inclosure Award makers of their intentions over the 

maintenance of the road. (A later letter shows that the 

commissioners response was “I think you may fairly call on Mr 

Tyson to adhere to the ancient customs”) 

1888 243 Declaration Declaration by the owners / occupiers of Mireside, Gillerthwaite, 

South Mosses and Beckside that they admit that they had no legal 

right or title to use the private road leading past How Hall to the 

Anglers’ Inn – and that they used it by permission of the owner, 

and for one penny a year. 

1889 244- 

251 

1904 

- 

1905 

252- 

259 

1925 260- 

262 

1928 263- 

264 

1930 265- 

266 

Letters 

Letters 

Notices 

Letter 

Notices 

One landlord refused to sign the above declaration, and letters 

were written as to the ability of the tenant to use it on sale day. 

The reason for refusing to sign was that the landlord (Barker) said 

that he had known the road for 20 years and did not believe it to be 

private. But in October 1889 (p251) he appears to have conceded 

the matter. His solicitors did make the additional comment that the 

roads at Beckfoot were also private. 

These mention the ‘Lake Road’ (which is most likely between the 

Anglers’ and Sawdust Lonning [4]). This was closed at the far end 

by ‘Old Willie Tyson’, with an ironic comment about it being a 

‘public road’. A later letter refers to the route as being the only 

road to the Boat House before the one was made via How Hall. Mr 

Ainsworth considered to be a road only for his five tenements, 

whereas Mr Dickinson believed there was a right for the How Hall 

Estate. There was no final conclusion to the discussion. 

A notice placed in the Whitehaven News in October 1925 stating 

that on 23 rd October the private road past How hall to the Anglers’ 

Inn will be closed to all vehicular traffic, except on payment of a 

penny per vehicle. Followed by an account of the users of the road 

on that day. 

Letter to the Forestry Commission referring to the damage by 

heavy lorries of the private road past How Hall to the lake. 

A notice placed in the Whitehaven News in February 1930 stating 

that on 20 th February the private road past How Hall to the Anglers’ 

Inn will be closed to all vehicular traffic, except on payment of a 

penny per vehicle. Followed by an account of the users of the road 

on that day, when the gate was guarded from 8am to 5pm. 

? 267- Letter Letter requesting usage of the road for a funeral from Mireside. 

268 

1947 269 Letter Request from Forestry Commission for permission to use the road.



21.1.2 It is worth noting that the disputes and closure seem to relate to vehicular traffic 

rather than foot or bridle usage. It is also worth noting that much of the usage 

was by farmers at Mirehouse and Beckfoot, it is quite clear that what is now the 

public road to the north of these farms was not the best route at these times. 

21.1.3 There seems to be a bit of confusion about Sawdust Lonning, the Enclosure 

Award after a court argument over the public nature of it, set it out as a 30’ wide 

public carriage road. But then further reference to it being for the owners only is 

made, as well as the public road extending beyond Broadmoor to the lakeshore. 

21.2 Timber Extraction 1922 (p270-276) 

21.2.1 This correspondence between the owner (Dickinson) of the Anglers’ Inn and How 

Hall, Ainsworth (owner of the Peat Field) and Armstrongs relates to an issue with 

timber extraction in 1922. In a nutshell, timber was being extracted in front of the 

Anglers’ Inn as the lake road across the peat field [to Sawdust Lonning [4]) was 

unsuited for timber loads. However, it is clear that the owner considered the road 

past How Hall [5] to be his private road that was being used with his permission. 

But reference is also made to the tenements having a ‘right of road’ here as well. 

21.3 Forestry Disputes 1925 - 1932 (p277-295) 

21.3.1 Mr Dickinson again makes it clear that he considers the route past How Hall [5] to 

be his private road, and that the road along the north shore of the lake [6] is also 

private and maintained privately 

21.3.2 Of particular note are newspaper adverts placed by Mr Dickinson (p291). This 

clearly shows that he advertised that the Private Road past How Hall to the 

Anglers’ Hotel would be closed for one day in 1923, except upon payment of a 

penny a vehicle (although it should be noted that the closure was for vehicles, no 

mention was made of walkers, horse riders or cyclists). 

21.4 Forestry Commission 1947 (p296-303) 

21.4.1 Correspondence granting permission to the Forestry Commission to use the road 

past How Hall, with an agreement as to repair. It is clear that the road used was 

past How Hall and along the lake to Gillerthwaite, as the existing ‘county road’ via 

Roughton Farm was not safe for the transport of men. 

21.5 Sale of How Hall 1950 (p304-307) 

21.5.1 The Dickinsons sold How Hall and surrounding land to the National Trust in 1950. 

There was some discussion about the usage of the road through How Hall to the 

Anglers’ Inn. The Anglers’ Inn was being sold to the Whitehaven Corporation at 

the same time. It is made quite clear in the correspondence that the road was 

then private, and that the future rights would be for access to the Hotel. 

21.6 Sale of Anglers’ Inn 1951 (p306-310) 

21.7 The Inn was sold to Whitehaven Corporation (which eventually became subsumed 

into United Utilities), the conveyance contained an easement for staff, owners, 

visitors, and workmen to use the road past How Hall. Crucially this right was for 

the purposes connected with the hotel ‘but not otherwise’ (p307 – clause 1). A 

newspaper cutting (p309) attached to the document from 1946 has pictures of the 

Inn and road past it, along with fears that it may be lost by raising the water level.



21.7 Various photos and miscellania (p311-316) 

21.7.1 These do not give much indication of rights, but are useful in showing the general 

condition of the roads around the Anglers’. The square photographs (p313-314) seem 

to be from about 1899, the postcards (p311, 315) quite a lot later. 

21.7.2 A more recent photograph (it looks like the late 1970s (p316)) from the Cumbria 

Image Bank seems to show cars parked and people picnicking at the Anglers’ site. 

21.8 Management Plans (p317-326) 

21.8.1 We have no correspondence or documentation relating to the road from the time 

the properties were sold. Neither of the new landowners have provided any 

information. However, there are some references to using the road and parking at 

the old Anglers’ Inn site (it was demolished in 1961) as outlined in the guide book 

section above. 

21.8.2 In 1986 a consultation was carried out regarding access to Ennerdale Water by the 

North West Water Authority and Lake District Special Planning Board. The map 

with the consultation (p318) (and the final report (p323)) showed the route as a ‘Private 

Road’ – but also showed a car park at the foot of the road. The report (paragraph 

10 and 23 (p320-321)) referred to North West Water allowing the public to drive down 

the road and that 15-20 cars could be parked there on a summer Sunday – and 

that this would be maintained (although it should be noted that NWW had no ability 

to grant permission to others to use this road, as they did not own it). 

21.8.3 A management plan in 2005 (p324-326) also referred to ongoing recreational 

vehicular usage of the track to the Anglers’ site. 

21.8.4 See also 20.11 above. 

22 Bleach Green (p327-331) 

22.1 There has been some discussion about what route exactly has been used 

between points F-G at Bleach Green. The original path ran along the edge of the 

lake itself (although the definitive line was straighter than this). The more direct, 

inland, path was formally adopted as a right of way in 2006. Horse-riders have 

said that they used the inland route before this. 

22.2 Aerial photographs show that there was no inland path in 1971 (p327), but that it had 

become clearly established by 1985 (p328). The colour photograph in the 1985 

book (p329-330) infers that the path must have been in existence for some time by 

then. The photographs were taken in the year or so running up to publication and 

the path is very obvious and well defined.



23 Analysis of evidence 

23.1 There is a considerable amount of documentary and user evidence relating to 

these routes. For analysis purposes it has been quite difficult to interpret the 

evidence as much of it relates to parts of sections or a different combination of 

sections. 

User and Anecdotal Evidence 

23.2 Possibly the easiest place to start is with the user evidence, and see whether this 

passes the 20-year dedication tests as set out in section 3 above. 

23.3 To recap, the sections of paths concerned are (with the relevant date of 

challenge): 

1 Road to Broadmoor & Bleach Green Unchallenged 

2 Bleach Green 1996 

3 Sawdust Lonning 2008 

4 Sawdust Lonning to Anglers Inn June 2009 

5 How Hall to Anglers Inn June 2009 

6 Anglers Inn to Bowness Knott June 2009 

7 Tracks around Mireside and Beckfoot June 2009 

23.4 With regard to section 1, the anecdotal evidence of extensive motor vehicular use 

and the physical nature of the route means that it does not meet the definition of 

bridleway or byway. It would appear that this route has become an all purpose 

highway – but we have no means of deciding upon this, or recording it. The matter 

should be referred to Cumbria County Council, and we cannot make a modification 

order for this section. 

23.5 With regard to section 2, the route along the middle of the lakeshore field seems 

to have appeared between the mid-1970s and the early 1980s. It is also notable 

that the majority of user evidence only dates back to about that period. Only three 

witnesses appear to have claimed horse usage in the 1970s, and then fairly 

infrequently. The gate at Bleach Green was locked in the mid-1990s, and signs 

put up to deter cyclists (who presumably must have been using it to a noticeable 

degree at the time). It is a fine judgement, but on balance it would seem as though 

there is insufficient use for the full 20-year period to 1996 for statutory inference of 

dedication to have taken place. 

23.6 We should then look at the common law provisions. Dedication would take place if 

the usage was so great, for a period of less than 20 years, that the landowner 

should have known it was taking place, yet did nothing to stop the usage. The 

usage running up to the mid-1990s was fairly substantial, and given the amount of 

work undertaken by United Utilities in the late 1980s / early 1990s at Bleach Green 

it is reasonable to assume that they should have noticed any usage by bicycle or 

horses. However, it is also worth noting that in the consultation of 1986 the map 

clearly still showed ‘public footpath’, and there was no mention of any additional 

usage in the documentation. Which could imply that the usage wasn’t large 

enough to have been noted. On the other hand, the fact that the gate at Bleach 

Green was locked and signs put up to deter cyclists, can only reasonably have 

meant that the landowners were aware that cycling was taking place. 

Unfortunately at this distance in time it is impossible to know whether these actions 

were prompted by long term irritation with cyclists, or because of a sudden 

increase or specific issue.



23.7 On balance, it would seem as though there was a reasonable level of usage during 

the 1980s and early 1990s, and that the landowner was likely to have known about 

it, although there is nothing specific to show this. I therefore consider that the 

common law provisions, on a very fine balance, have been met, and that the 

usage shows that the route has become a bridleway. 

23.8 For section 3 there is clear evidence of horse and cycle use for the twenty years 

prior to the challenge in 2008. For sections 4, 5, and 6 the same evidence 

applies, but up to June 2009 when the modification order application was made. I 

therefore consider that these routes have at least been dedicated as bridleways. 

23.8 There is much less direct user evidence for the tracks around Mireside and 

Beckfoot, section 7. The usage stated is probably insufficient for statutory 

dedication to have taken place. Indeed, as there has not actually been an 

application, there is no trigger point for the 20 years anyway. The direct evidence 

of recent use is not sufficient for common law dedication. 

Documentary Evidence 

23.9 For section 2, there is little documentary evidence. The southern section was 

(re)claimed in 1976 by the parish council as a footpath. This adds weight to the 

conclusion reached in paragraph 23.5, as if it was being regularly used by horses 

at that time, it is likely that they would have claimed this as a bridleway. 

23.10 In addition, the map evidence and aerial photographs also imply that the main 

track through the middle of the field did not exist until at least the late 1970s. 

23.11 There is nothing in the documentary evidence to enable me to reach a different 

recommendation than that reached in paragraph 23.7 (user evidence for 

bridleway). 

23.12 Sawdust Lonning and on to the Anglers’ Inn, sections 3 & 4, are different in that 

we have considerable documentation about its history. 

It appears to have been the main route out of the valley until the mid to late 

nineteenth century; 

It was used by carts belonging to local landowners as well as others for 

carting minerals and other supplies; 

During the enclosure award period a court case found that it was a road and 

should not be stopped up. There was further mention of the road only being 

open to ‘five tenements’, although it was clear that others were using it. This 

seems to have been acknowledged, as the road through Broadmoor itself 

was then set out as a ‘public carriage road’. This has not been extinguished, 

and so still exists as such. The continuation east and then round the lake 

already existed – but logic says that if a route called ‘Lake Road’ was 

designated as a public carriage road – that it must have been considered to 

continue – at least to the Lake; 

The Whitehaven Corporation Act of 1899 described it as a ‘road’, in distinction 

to other routes termed as ‘occupation roads’; 

The Parish Council in 1900 were quite clear in their belief that this was a 

vehicular road; 

The landowner of How Hall [section 4] considered it private, but notably did 

not take steps to prevent usage as he did with the How Hall road (he couldn’t 

– he didn’t own it) – he recorded usage by bicycles and carts in 1922; 

Early maps show this as a through route to the Anglers’ Inn;



The Parish Council in 1953 clearly claimed this route as a public bridleway 

when the definitive map was being drawn up. There is no record as to why 

Cumberland County Council changed this to a footpath; 

In 1967 the Parish Council were still of the opinion that the road was public, 

but they did not claim it as a bridleway or byway during the special review of 

1976. 

23.13 It would seem as though the historic route to the Anglers’ Inn and onwards to the 

valley was via Sawdust Lonning. There is evidence that the route was used by the 

public in carts or by bicycle (bicycle usage pre 1968 counts towards carriageway 

rights). The Rural District Councillors referred to use of the route by cars. 

23.14 Given the historic nature and references it would seem, on balance, that these 

sections carried vehicular rights at one time. Any motor vehicle rights will have 

been extinguished by the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural 

Communities Act 2006. I therefore consider that we should make a modification 

order to record sections 3 and 4 as a restricted byway. 

23.15 Section 6 has similar evidence in that it appears to have been the main way out 

from the valley. However, there are some significant distinctions: 

The route is beyond the Anglers’ Inn – which was one of the main public 

destinations in the area – usage beyond this may well have only been for the 

surrounding landowners. 

There is documentation from the Dickinson family with regard to the private 

nature of the access out via How Hall – and in some of this, the inference is 

clearly that the ‘lakeshore’ route was also only use ‘on sufferance’ – 

especially with regard to the forestry vehicles from the 1920s onwards. 

The owners and occupiers in 1888 made a declaration that the How Hall 

route (and by extension the lakeshore route) was used by permission. 

There was an alternative route via Routen Farm to the valley – this is 

recorded as a ‘county road’. The documentation does show that it was not 

preferred for use, but it’s very existence must have meant that any usage of 

the lakeshore route would have been lower than if it had not been there. 

23.16 Again, the decision is really on the balance of probabilities. It does seem as 

though this section has been used by carts – but the impression gained from the 

documentation was that much of this was of a private nature or with permission 

rather than as of right. I therefore consider that the section has only gained the 

bridleway rights outlined in paragraph 23.8, and that we should make a 

modification order for a bridleway accordingly. 

23.16 Section 7 around Mireside and Bowness has relatively little documentary 

evidence. And what does exist, like the corresponding user evidence, is not very 

precise or concrete. It does appear that at one time the recommended route to the 

valley was along the county road almost to Routen, then down to the lake via 

Beckfoot and Mireside. But even this evidence is not particularly conclusive. I 

therefore do not consider that the combined documentary and user evidence is 

sufficient to show that any public rights have accrued over these tracks, and 

consequently that we do not make a modification order. 

23.17 Section 5 is probably the most interesting in regard to the documents that still 

exist. It is also a little confusing because contemporaneous documents infer 

different things. 

The older maps quite clearly imply that the road past How Hall to the Anglers’ 

Inn was considered to be a public motor road. Guide books imply the same.



The Dickinson documentation clearly shows that the owners made repeated 

representations to the effect that the road was private and used with their 

permission. Even to the extent that the road was closed once a year except 

on payment of one penny. 

However, this closure and charging only ever related to vehicular use – there 

is no mention of preventing horses or bicycles. 

The property was sold in the 1950s to the National Trust and the water 

companies. Visitors to the Anglers’ Inn had an extension of the private right 

granted over the National Trust land. 

However, the Inn was demolished in 1961, and, as the right was for hotel 

purposes only (and not otherwise), it ceased on demolition. No further rights 

have been negotiated - so subsequent usage would appear to have taken 

place without any specific rights applying. 

Guidebooks and leaflets produced by various bodies and authorities during 

the 1980s and onwards all seem to accept that there was frequent public 

vehicular usage down to a car park at the Anglers’ site. This was reflected on 

maps showing the site as a car park. There is one reference to permission 

being given by the water company, but they did not actually own the land, so 

it is unlikely that this permission could actually be granted. 

The route is still used by the public in vehicles today. 

23.18 It is clear that vehicles have used this route ever since motor cars have been in the 

valley. It is also clear that whilst owed by the Dickinsons, that this usage was with 

their permission and therefore no public vehicular rights accrued before 1950. 

23.19 Between 1950 and 1961 visitors to the Anglers’ Inn were also using privately 

granted rights. 

23.20 Since 1961 usage has continued, on a smaller scale. This has been 

unchallenged, and generally tolerated, by the landowners and seems to have been 

generally accepted. I therefore consider that carriageway rights have been 

established. 

23.21 Any mechanically propelled vehicular rights have been extinguished under the 

provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 

Consequently I recommend that we make a modification order for a restricted 

byway. 

24 Conclusion 

1 Road to Broadmoor & Bleach Green Mainly used by vehicles – refer to CCC 

2 Bleach Green Bridleway Modification Order 

3 Sawdust Lonning Restricted Byway Modification Order 

4 Sawdust Lonning to Anglers Inn Restricted Byway Modification Order 

5 How Hall to Anglers Inn Restricted Byway Modification Order 

6 Anglers Inn to Bowness Knott Bridleway Modification Order 

7 Tracks around Mireside and Beckfoot No public rights established – no 

modification order.



26 Widths and furniture 

26.1 We are required to set out the widths of the paths and any limitations or conditions 

present when the rights were created. This is extremely difficult to determine 

precisely as the physical conditions have changed over the decades, and it is almost 

impossible to determine exactly when the rights were created. For instance, the 

lakeshore path has been rebuilt with new revetments since it was first used. 

26.2 However, I consider it reasonable to assume that the width of the whole track would 

have been at least cart-width, as this is how the majority of the tracks are described 

by the Ordnance Survey in 1865. And logically there would have been some 

clearance room on either side. I therefore suggest that the widths of all the routes 

are set at 3 metres, even though this entire width may not be currently available. 

The exceptions to this would be: 

At locations of historic furniture and walls (for example, south-east of Bowness 

 

Cottage there is an old open gateway of only 2.1 metres width); 

Where the width is currently wider this will be recorded, as there has been no 

indication that the public have not been able to use the entire width; 

Sawdust Lonning where described in the Enclosure Award as being a public 

carriage road of 30’ (9.15 metres) 

26.3 The main issue here would be that between points Q and K, there is rarely more 

than 2 metres available between the revetment and the field boundary. However, 

the Ordnance Survey map of 1865 clearly shows that the route was a proper cart 

track at the time, and wider than at present. We would therefore have to accept that 

the route was wider when first dedicated, but that since then some of the width has 

disappeared into the lake. 

26.3 As to furniture, there are currently a number of gates on the routes. We can safely 

assume that the limitations were never less than field gates, as the routes are all 

described as at least cart-roads in 1865. 

I consider that on Sawdust Lonning we should assume that the historic 

limitations are where on the Enclosure Award; 

For Bleach Green, the limitations should be gates where boundaries were 

shown on the National Grid map of the late 1970s – as it would appear that this 

is roughly when the path started being used as a bridle path; 

For the remainder, it is probably safe to assume that where current gates coincide 

with boundaries shown on the 1865 Ordnance Survey map that they 

were present when the route was first dedicated. 

Any other gates that exist now, and are not included as limitations within the 

order will be considered for authorisation under section 147 of the Highways 

Act 1980.



List of Documents and location 

Report Documents 

Location & reference 

section 

9 Definitive Map records Cumbria County Council (CCC) – Legal Services, or Countryside 

Team, Carlisle 

9, 15 & 

20 

Highway Authority Records (files, 

including Parish, County and District 

Cumbria County Council Legal Services, Carlisle and 

Cumberland CC minutes, Carlisle CRO. 

Council discussions 1967-1970) 

10 George Bell’s Map Carlisle CRO and 

www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/thelakes/html/lakemenu.htm 

11 Ennerdale Tithe Map Whitehaven CRO – YDX 12/8, YPR 42/132 

12 Ennerdale Common Enclosure Carlisle CRO – QRE/1/129 Whitehaven CRO – YSPC 20/34/22- 

28, Whitehaven CRO – D Di/64/1 

13 Ennerdale Railway Plans 1884 Whitehaven CRO – D Di/3/Plans/4 

13 Ennerdale Railway Book of 

Whitehaven CRO – D Di/9/10 

Reference Parliamentary Deposited 

Document 

14 Whitehaven Corporation Act 1899 Whitehaven CRO – D Di/3/7 

15 & 20 Newspaper cuttings 1882 & 1900 Whitehaven CRO – D Di/3/7 

16 Proposed stopping up of highways Whitehaven CRO – YSPC 20/28/6 

1967 

17 Ordnance Survey Large-scale maps LDNPA, CCC and Carlisle CRO 

18 Finance Act 1910 Carlisle CRO 

19 Road Maps LDNPA or websites 

19 Guidebooks LDNPA or websites 

20 Stopping up of road appeal 1865 Whitehaven CRO – D Di/9/11 

21 Timber Extraction 1922 Whitehaven CRO – D Di/69 

21 Forestry Disputes 1925 - 1932 Whitehaven CRO – D Di/69/15 

20 & 21 Various Dickinson Documents 1857- Whitehaven CRO – D Di/20/69/ 

1930 

21 Sale of How Hall 1950 Whitehaven CRO – D Di/20 

21 Forestry Commission 1947 Whitehaven CRO – D Di/19 

21 Sale of Anglers’ Inn 1951 Whitehaven CRO – D Di/19 

21 Various photos and miscellania Whitehaven CRO – D Di/3/7 

21 Management Plans LDNPA 

22 Aerial photographs Forestry Commission

ROW at Ennerdale Lakeshore, Bleach Green and How Hall

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?