1. Why DM Cul-de-sacs are not credible.

1.1  A cul-de-sac is a path with a dead-end.  It does not join another road.  
      It can be a public RoW, but only if ends at a public place eg. viewpoint etc. 

1.2.  Cardinham's 19 cul-de-sacs  all end at dwellings, (not viewpoints) 
        then continues on the other side of the dwelling.  
       (Dwelling means any pivate house, farm, yard, garden, drive, etc)

1.3.  CC showed cul-de-sacs on the DM despite knowing the following : -   
   a)  None of the dwellings was a credible termination for a public cul-de-sac. 
   b)  The paths were obviously through routes, not cul-de-sacs.
   c)  The Definitive Statements did not say they were cul-de-sacs.
   d)  Schedules to the 1953 Parish Survey did not say they were cul-de-sacs.
   f)   1894-1953, records show that Cardinham Parish Council: -   
          maintained them at public expense, for public use.   
          maintained them as through paths.
          enforced public access against owners who obstructed them 
     

2.1.   CARDINHAM DM SHOWED FP1 LIKE THIS. 
     Its a useful path, 2km long.  
     
2.2  The DEFINITIVE STATEMENT says its continuous:
-  "Higher Carblake to Cardeast"

2.3  But for  for 50 years the DM showed FP 1 as 3
     separate paths separated by gaps at farmyards.
                  
    See the Gaps for yourself:    
    GAP 1-Treswithick: GAP 2-Benorth: GAP 3-Cardeast

2.4  So FP1 consists of 3 separate sections
     Section 1      Is a single ended cul-de-sac
     Section 2,     Is a double ended cul-de-sac. 
     Section 3,     Is a double ended cul-de-sac.

2.5  But no public roads connect to Sections 2 and 3   
    So there's only 2 ways to get to them: -     
      Helicopter  or  Trespass!

2.6  It was just funny until 30 years ago.  
   Then the Landowner closed FP1 through Cardeast .
    His excuse? The DM showed a Gap.  CC backed him 
 
2.7.  We submitted a Modification Order Application.
   CC ignored the evidence, then rejected it 7 years later. 
   We appealed and won.
  
2.8  Now you can read the Cardeast Story.
    And the Inspectors opinion of CC and its cul-de-sacs 

(NB The landowner at Gap 2 generously completed a path to bridge the gap by a Path Creation Order a few years ago.  The landowner at Gap 1 has never to our knowledge refused access to walkers, )

CONCLUSION
FP1 is a Cul-de-sac that obviously lacks all credibility.
  It is depressing that CC supported the landowner's  
obstruction of the path on the sole evidence of the DM.
  It is even more depressing that CC gave the landowner further support by oppposing our Modification Order Application which presented overwhelming evidence.
  Fortunately the Secretary of State's Inspector had less difficulty in understanding the evidence than CC's Legal Department and he ordered CC to reverse its refusal and grant the Order.

The sorry tale has one very positive result.
It has exposed CC's total lack of any evidence base to suport its many cul-de-sacs  

This site will continue to expand the evidence and provide examples which may help others.

So have a go.  You have nothing to lose but your paths