Perkins & Anor v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The statutory scheme requires definitive maps and statements to identify rights of way with accuracy justified by the available evidence. It does not impose a general requirement that a route be depicted with the highest possible precision where the evidence cannot support that level of detail. The map and statement must be read together. A route is sufficiently identified if, taken as a whole, they enable a reasonable person to understand where the footpath is shown. The court will not substitute its own planning judgment for that of the inspector unless an error of law is established.

The claimants brought a statutory appeal under paragraph 12 of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Rights of Way Act 1981. They challenged the Inspector’s confirmation of the Hertfordshire County Council (Ridge 20 and Shenley 23a) Modification Order 2005, which altered the definitive map and statement for footpaths affecting their land.

The challenge alleged that the confirmed order failed to identify the route of Shenley 23a with sufficient accuracy and breached an earlier consent order relating to a 1997 order. The central issues were the degree of precision required by the statutory scheme and the legal effect of the earlier consent order.

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. Section 56 of the Wildlife and Countryside Rights of Way Act 1981 distinguishes between the map, which confirms the existence of the route, and the statement, which supplies further particulars such as its position and width. Regulation 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993 sets a minimum map scale, while allowing greater detail where that is possible.
3. The reference in R v SSE, ex p Burrows to the highest attainable accuracy expressed the general statutory intention that the map and statement should be kept under review and updated in light of evidence. It did not impose a free-standing requirement for a highly particularised depiction of the route.
4. Where historical evidence does not justify greater precision, the order need not show the route with more particularity. The map and statement must be read together. The relevant question is whether a reasonable person can understand the location of the route from those documents.
5. The Inspector’s conclusions about the evidence, route location and description were matters of judgment and discretion. The court found no legal error and would not attempt to improve the description itself.
6. The earlier consent order quashing the 1997 order did not prohibit the making or confirmation of the 2005 order. It created no estoppel or legitimate expectation preventing the later order.

The judgment was a first-instance statutory appeal in the Administrative Court. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.