It isn't clear to me what the original poster is hoping to achieve.
one remaining supporter claims to have used the route for the requisite 20 year period
This observation will become problematic for the original poster, and unless there is some concrete evidence that this claim is mistaken, it might be good to consider reasons why this doesn't support the way being a public footpath. For example, is this witness using the way by your permission? Therefore no public right of way has arisen. Alternatively, this one person could have acquired a right to pass on foot by prescription, but again no public right of way has arisen.
The proposed DMMO strip of land around my parents house had been marked up by the council for 14 years. This has encouraged the neighbors to believe they had a right
Given the apparent lack of action for 14 years, on the limited evidence here I'd have sympathy towards a claim that [more than one of] the neighbours now
have a right to pass and repass across the land on foot, but that doesn't make it a public right of way. Take care.