Can a right of way be removed in England and Wales?

A right of way can become an unexpectedly heavy burden on a property.

Perhaps an old conveyance gives a neighbour access across the middle of a garden, although nobody has used the route for decades. Sometimes the person benefiting from the right now has a perfectly good entrance elsewhere, leaving the owner of the burdened land wondering why the historic route should remain.

Can a right of way be removed in the UK? For private rights affecting land in England and Wales, the answer is yes—but only in limited circumstances.

The simplest method is a formal deed of release agreed by everyone with a relevant interest. A right may also end through abandonment, unity of ownership and occupation, expiry of the lease or other instrument (document) from which it arises, or a specific statutory process.

What will not normally remove it is simply leaving it unused. A private right of way can survive for generations without anyone walking or driving over it.

I have always found that disused access rights invited wishful thinking. A blocked gate, mature hedge or alternative driveway made the old route look finished with. Legally, it was often very much alive.

This guide explains private rights of way in England and Wales. Public footpaths and other public highways are governed by separate rules, while Scotland and Northern Ireland have different property-law systems.

You may also find this helpful: Neighbour blocking right of way: What can I do?

Quick answer: can a private right of way be removed?

Yes, but usually only through one of the following routes:

• a formal deed releasing the right;
• clear legal abandonment;
• unity of ownership and occupation of the benefiting and burdened land;
• expiry or termination of the lease or other limited arrangement carrying the right; or
• legislation or a statutory power that extinguishes or overrides it.

In practice, most voluntary removals are achieved through a deed of release. The person benefiting from the right does not have to agree, and may ask for compensation or a suitable alternative route.

Non-use alone is not sufficient. HM Land Registry requires evidence that the person entitled to the easement demonstrated a firm intention that neither they nor their successors would ever use it again.

First identify what kind of right exists

People commonly use “right of way” to describe several legally different arrangements.

A true private right of way is usually an easement. It benefits one piece of land and burdens another. It ordinarily passes automatically when either property is sold.

The benefiting property is called the dominant land. The property over which the route passes is the servient land.

By contrast, a personal licence is permission given to a particular person. Depending on its terms, it may be revocable and may not pass to future owners.

An informal arrangement such as “you can use our side gate while you live next door” may therefore be very different from a deed granting the property “a right of way at all times and for all purposes”.

Before considering removal, establish whether the claimed right is:

• a legal easement;
• an equitable right;
• a right contained in a lease;
• a personal licence;
• a public right of way; or
• no legally enforceable right at all.

The title register is the starting point, but it is not always the complete answer.

Check the register and the original deed

For registered land, the benefit of a right of way may appear in the property register of the dominant title. The burden may appear in the charges register of the servient title.

The register often summarises rather than reproduces the original grant. It may refer to a conveyance or transfer containing the full wording and plan. That document should be obtained and read as a whole.

Important questions include:

• who can use the route;
• whether it is on foot, with vehicles or both;
• the route and width;
• whether use is limited to a particular purpose;
• whether gates are permitted;
• who must repair or contribute to maintenance;
• whether the route can be relocated; and
• whether the right lasts indefinitely or for a limited term.

Do not assume that the absence of matching entries on both titles proves the right does not exist. Registration history, unregistered deeds, prescription and overriding-interest rules can complicate the position. HM Land Registry’s practice guide on easements explains how rights are entered and removed from the register.

How are private rights of way created?

Understanding how the right arose may help establish whether and how it can end.

Express grant or reservation

Most residential rights of way are created expressly in a deed.

When land is divided, the seller may grant the buyer access over land being retained. Alternatively, the seller may reserve a right over the property being sold.

The wording of the deed defines the scope of the right. A right “on foot only” does not ordinarily permit cars. A route granted for access to a garage may raise questions if the garage disappears or the land is redeveloped, although the precise answer depends on construing the deed rather than applying a universal rule.

Implied easements

A right may arise without being written expressly into the transfer.

An easement of necessity may be implied where land would otherwise have no legal means of access. The test is not merely whether the route would be much more convenient or whether the alternative is expensive.

Other implied rights may arise from the parties’ common intention, the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows or section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

These are technical legal doctrines, and the absence of an express title entry should not lead either owner to assume that no right exists.

Prescription

A private right of way may also arise through long use.

Broadly, the claimant must establish use for at least 20 years that was:

• without force;
• without secrecy; and
• without permission.

The use must be sufficiently regular and consistent with the right claimed. It need not occur every day, but occasional or ambiguous use may not be enough.

A prescriptive right is limited by the character and extent of the historic use. Twenty years of pedestrian access will not ordinarily create an unrestricted vehicular right. HM Land Registry’s practice guide on easements claimed by prescription explains the evidential and registration requirements.

Removing a right by deed of release

A deed of release is the safest and most straightforward method of extinguishing a private right of way.

The owner of the dominant land formally releases the right benefiting that property. The corresponding entries can then be removed or amended at HM Land Registry.

A proper release should identify:

• the dominant and servient properties;
• the original deed creating the right;
• the particular right being released;
• whether the release is complete or limited;
• any payment or replacement access;
• the date on which the release takes effect; and
• responsibility for Land Registry and professional costs.

Who must agree?

It may not be enough to obtain the signature of the neighbouring homeowner.

HM Land Registry says that interested parties may include:

• the registered owner of the dominant land;
• any mortgage lender with a charge over it;
• leaseholders whose titles carry the benefit;
• a freeholder where the dominant interest is leasehold; and
• anyone with a protected contract or other registered interest that would be adversely affected.

If a necessary lender or leaseholder is omitted, the release may not extinguish the right effectively.

Does the benefiting owner have to agree?

Usually, yes.

The servient owner cannot generally compel the neighbour to give up a valid private easement merely because it reduces privacy, obstructs development or has not recently been used.

The parties may negotiate compensation. Its amount depends on factors such as the right’s practical importance, the value released for development, the availability of alternative access and the effect on the dominant property.

There is no automatic statutory valuation formula for an ordinary voluntary release.

Varying or relocating the right instead

Complete removal is not always necessary.

The owners may agree to:

• move the route;
• alter its width;
• change pedestrian access to vehicular access or vice versa;
• restrict particular users or times;
• regulate gates and security;
• replace an awkward route with a more convenient one; or
• release part of the existing right while retaining the remainder.

Where the route is changing, the usual solution is a deed releasing the existing easement and granting a replacement. The new route should be shown clearly on an accurate plan and registered against all affected titles.

A servient owner should not assume that they can move the route unilaterally merely because the proposed alternative appears equally usable. Unless the deed reserves a relocation power or the beneficiary agrees, changing an established route may interfere with the easement.

The same applies where planning permission shows a new access. Planning approval does not alter private property rights or authorise interference with an easement.

Abandonment of a right of way

Abandonment is possible, but difficult to prove.

The central question is not simply whether the route stopped being used. It is whether the conduct of the dominant owner objectively demonstrated a fixed intention that neither they nor any future owner would ever assert or transmit the right again.

HM Land Registry adopts the Court of Appeal test from Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman: the person entitled must have demonstrated a settled intention never thereafter to assert the easement or attempt to pass it to anyone else.

What evidence might support abandonment?

Depending on the circumstances, evidence might include:

• the dominant owner permanently building over their own entrance to the route;
• participating in a permanent redevelopment fundamentally inconsistent with future use;
• signing documents expressly treating the route as surrendered;
• accepting permanent arrangements that make future exercise impossible; or
• other unequivocal conduct showing that the right has been given up for the property and its successors.

Even apparently strong facts require caution. A temporary obstruction, locked gate, removable shed or overgrown hedge may show only that the route was not currently needed.

What does not usually prove abandonment?

The following will not ordinarily be sufficient by themselves:

• many years of non-use;
• an alternative driveway becoming available;
• the route becoming overgrown;
• a fence or gate being placed across it;
• the dominant property being temporarily vacant;
• the current owner saying that they have no plans to use it; or
• the route no longer serving its original practical purpose.

Non-use must be considered in context. Where the owner simply had no occasion to use the right, there may be no reason to infer abandonment.

How long before an unused right of way expires?

There is no fixed period.

Private easements do not ordinarily expire after 10, 12, 20 or any other number of years merely because they have not been exercised.

In Benn v Hardinge, a private right of way survived approximately 175 years of non-use. The dominant owners had another access and therefore no occasion to use the route; that did not establish an intention to abandon it.

In Dwyer v City of Westminster, a route had not been used and had been obstructed for around 40 years. The Court of Appeal held that the right remained because the lack of use was explicable and the obstructions were removable rather than evidence of permanent abandonment.

These cases do not mean abandonment is impossible. They demonstrate how strong and unequivocal the evidence must be.

Does an alternative entrance remove the right?

No, a right of way does not ordinarily disappear because the dominant property later acquires a better driveway, a new road is constructed or access becomes available over other land.

That alternative may explain why the original route stopped being used. Far from proving abandonment, it may provide an innocent explanation for the non-use.

A different result may follow where the original grant was expressly limited to a particular circumstance and its wording says that the right ends when that circumstance ceases. That depends on the deed.

Can blocking the route eventually extinguish it?

Not merely through the passage of time.

A servient owner cannot normally extinguish an easement by placing a fence, gate, shed or other obstruction across the route and waiting.

The beneficiary may be entitled to seek removal of the obstruction, a declaration, an injunction or damages. The precise remedy depends on the extent of the interference and the circumstances.

Long acquiescence in a genuinely permanent alteration can become relevant evidence when abandonment or estoppel is argued. It is not sensible, however, to build over a registered route on the assumption that silence will eventually remove it.

Read Neighbour blocking right of way: what can I do? for the law on gates, parking and other obstructions.

What about estoppel?

Estoppel is a legal rule that stops someone from going back on their word or changing their story. It prevents a person from denying a past promise or statement if someone else relied on it and would be unfairly harmed as a result.

In relation to a right of way, estoppel should not be treated as a simple alternative to obtaining a deed of release.

In an exceptional case, the person benefiting from a right may make a clear representation—or knowingly allow the servient owner to proceed on a clear understanding—that the right will no longer be asserted. If the servient owner reasonably relies on that position and incurs substantial detriment, the dominant owner may be prevented from enforcing the right inconsistently.

The result depends on the representation, knowledge, reliance, detriment and overall fairness of the case. Silence alone is rarely enough.

Even where enforcement is affected, the Land Registry consequences still need to be addressed properly. An owner should not assume that an informal conversation or failure to object automatically deletes the easement from both titles.

Unity of ownership and occupation

An easement exists because one property benefits from a right over a different property.

If the dominant and servient land come into the same ownership and possession, there is no longer a need for one property to hold an easement over the other. The right may therefore be extinguished through unity of ownership and occupation.

Both elements matter. HM Land Registry expressly states that there must be unity of ownership and possession, not simply some commercial connection between the owners.

Complications can arise where:

• one property is leased;
• the titles are subject to different mortgages;
• beneficial and legal ownership differ;
• only part of either property is acquired; or
• the properties are owned by related but legally separate companies.

Buying the neighbouring property should not therefore be assumed automatically to clear every easement without examining the titles and occupations.

Nor can an owner release a right to themselves while the relevant ownership arrangements remain legally separate. The position should be resolved as part of the acquisition or later title work.

Rights connected with leases

A right of way granted by a lease will normally end when the lease itself terminates.

The right may also end or change if the lease is surrendered, merged or replaced, depending on the documents and interests involved.

HM Land Registry ordinarily removes the benefit of leasehold easements when the registered leasehold title is closed.

Care is required where the freeholder, an intermediate landlord or another leaseholder also enjoys the same route independently. Ending one lease may not remove every person’s right.

Time-limited and conditional rights

Some easements are created for a fixed period or subject to an express terminating event.

A deed might grant temporary access during construction, until a new road is adopted or while a particular use continues. If the stated period or condition ends, the easement may end according to its terms.

Not every reference to a purpose creates a terminating condition.

For example, wording granting access “for the purpose of reaching the garage” may define the permitted use rather than state expressly that the right disappears if the garage is removed. The whole deed and surrounding legal context must be interpreted.

Extinguishment by statute

A private easement may occasionally be extinguished or overridden by legislation or the lawful exercise of a statutory power.

This can occur in compulsory-purchase and certain public development contexts. The person whose right is overridden may have a statutory claim for compensation.

It is not an ordinary procedure available to a homeowner who finds an easement inconvenient. HM Land Registry requires proper evidence of the statute or statutory process relied upon before removing the entry.

Can planning permission remove a right of way?

No, not by itself.

Planning permission decides whether proposed development is acceptable under planning law. It does not decide private ownership or extinguish private easements.

A council may approve a house, extension or commercial development that cannot lawfully be built without first releasing or accommodating a neighbouring right of way. The developer must resolve those private rights separately.

Starting construction across the route without doing so may result in an injunction, damages or costly redesign.

In some public-sector or statutory-development cases, legislation may allow rights to be overridden with compensation. That is an exception requiring a valid statutory power, not an ordinary consequence of planning permission.

Can excessive use cause the whole right to be lost?

Usually not.

A person may exceed a right by:

• driving where only pedestrian access is permitted;
• using the route for land it does not benefit;
• creating substantially different traffic through redevelopment; or
• using it for a prohibited commercial purpose.

The normal legal response is to restrain the excessive part of the use rather than extinguish the valid right altogether.

Only where lawful and unlawful use cannot realistically be separated might more extensive restrictions be considered. The precise scope of the original grant remains critical.

How is a right removed from the Land Registry?

First, establish that the easement has genuinely been extinguished.

An entry cannot properly be removed simply because:

• the servient owner dislikes it;
• the route has not been used;
• nobody knows the current beneficiary;
• the physical path has disappeared; or
• the proposed development would be more valuable without it.

The application must include evidence of the legal basis for extinguishment.

For a deed of release, HM Land Registry requires a certified copy and evidence that all necessary interested parties have joined in or consented. Where abandonment is alleged, the relevant circumstances must be set out in a statement of truth or statutory declaration.

The application should cover every affected registered title. Depending on how the right is protected, the Registry may:

• remove the benefit from the dominant title;
• cancel or amend the notice against the servient title;
• enter a note recording that a particular right has been extinguished; or
• leave other rights contained within the same entry intact.

The Registry may serve notice of the application. If the dominant owner objects, the entry will not simply be deleted while the substantive dispute remains unresolved. Under section 73 of the Land Registration Act 2002, an unresolved objection may ultimately require determination through the tribunal process.

Can the court declare that the right never existed?

Yes.

Sometimes the true issue is not whether a valid right has been removed but whether it was ever created, whether it benefits the claimant’s land or whether it has the scope being asserted.

A court may be asked to determine:

• the proper interpretation of the original deed;
• whether an implied or prescriptive right arose;
• the route or width;
• whether vehicles are permitted;
• which land benefits;
• whether the right has been abandoned; or
• whether an obstruction unlawfully interferes with it.

A successful declaration that no easement exists can support an application to alter the register.

Court proceedings involve significant costs risk, particularly where historic deeds, witness evidence and survey plans are required. See Property litigation costs UK: A practical guide for homeowners.

Private and public rights of way are different

A private right of way benefits particular land or individuals. A public right of way is exercisable by the public and forms part of the highway network.

A private deed between a landowner and neighbour cannot extinguish a public footpath, bridleway or highway. Nor is a public route lost merely because few people use it.

Public routes generally require a formal stopping-up or diversion order under legislation such as the Highways Act 1980 or the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The process usually involves public notice and the opportunity to object.

Where development affects a public route, planning permission does not automatically stop up or divert it. The necessary legal order must take effect before the highway is obstructed. In England, the Department for Transport publishes guidance on applying to close or divert a highway. Welsh authorities follow corresponding rights-of-way procedures and ministerial guidance.

A title may be affected by both private and public rights along the same route. Releasing one does not necessarily remove the other.

Buying property affected by an old right of way

An unused right should not be dismissed as harmless.

Before buying, establish:

• who benefits;
• whether the dominant land has been divided;
• whether the right permits vehicles;
• whether it applies at all times and for all purposes;
• whether the route is physically obstructed;
• whether anyone has threatened to reinstate it;
• who repairs and pays for the surface; and
• whether proposed extensions, gates or parking would interfere with it.

The benefit may pass to several plots created from the original dominant land, depending on the grant and use. A quiet route serving one house can therefore become more significant if development occurs.

Conversely, the wording may restrict the right to the original property or purpose. The actual deed, rather than assumptions based on the red line on a plan, must be examined.

Selling or mortgaging property affected by a right

Rights of way can affect value, marketability and mortgage lending.

A buyer may worry about loss of privacy or future traffic. A lender may object where access to the property depends on an uncertain, unregistered or inadequately defined right.

Where a release or variation is being negotiated before sale, allow enough time for:

• title investigation;
• valuation and negotiation;
• lender consent;
• preparation of an accurate plan;
• execution of the deed; and
• registration.

An agreement between two neighbours is not necessarily complete if one property’s lender has not consented or the register still records the old arrangement.

Frequently asked questions

The practical point: remove the legal right before removing the route

An unused track can look like spare land. It may be covered by grass, hidden behind fencing or incorporated into somebody’s garden.

None of that necessarily changes the title.

The safest approach is to begin with the original deed and both sets of title documents. Establish precisely what was granted, which land benefits and whether every necessary owner, lender and leaseholder can agree to a release.

Where agreement is possible, document it formally and update the register before building, selling or refinancing.

Where abandonment is alleged, look for unequivocal conduct—not merely years of silence.

In my experience, the dangerous moment was when a physical fact was mistaken for a legal one. A route can disappear on the ground while the right over it remains firmly in place.

Last legally reviewed: 24 July 2026

This guide is based on general principles of English and Welsh law, is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or establish a professional relationship.

About the author, Clare Lowes