See answers to previous information requests

I’m interested in active travel schemes in which local authorities and communities have encountered landowner difficulties. I am looking to establish the scale, nationally, of the problem, the length of potential routes these landowners are blocking (including potential routes that would connect to the landowner’s land but cannot proceed over a longer distance or in their entirety without that landowner’s assent). I am not looking to expose individual landowners, but to understand the scale of the problem. Can you tell me:

1. The length, in miles, of A) proposed traffic-free paths or greenways being held up because they would need to cross a resistant landowner’s land, and B) the total length of route(s) that would be deliverable were those landowners to assent, i.e. if a proposed path would travel three miles between two towns but A), landowner X refuses to agree to a path across 500m of their land (and there’s no feasible alternative), B), this makes the whole three miles undeliverable, or so expensive to re-route as to be undeliverable.
Our Local Cycling and Walking Implementation Plan shows at a high level our plans for cycling in the borough. Although some of these pass through, or require strips of land from private owners to be delivered, the hold up is more to do with lack of funding for this infrastructure – we are yet to develop our plans to the next stage before any discussions with Landowners take place. Many of our plans are based on existing knowledge of future developments and so they are planned with land-take in mind as part of an agreement with the developer during the planning process. Despite this, our estimate of length that could be delivered if land ownership was not an issue would be approx. 2 miles which would make a route of approximately 4 miles possible. Note that the above means we have generally avoided the need the land take by redirecting our routes.

2. Has your local authority successfully used A) the threat (for want of a better word) of, or B) implemented, CPO (compulsory purchase order) powers to deliver any traffic-free cycling and/or walking paths since April 2017? If so, any details would be appreciated.
No.