Trail Riders Fellowship & Anor, R (on the application of) v Dorset County Council & Ors

For an application under paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the accompanying document must be identifiable as a map, be drawn to a scale of not less than 1:25,000, and show the relevant way or ways.

The requirement concerns the scale of the submitted map, not the scale at which its source was originally created. A digitally enlarged or reproduced map may comply. The provision does not require an Ordnance Survey map or the features ordinarily shown on an original map at that scale. Administrative inconvenience cannot justify adding requirements which Parliament has not prescribed.

The claimants sought modification orders to upgrade existing public rights of way to byways open to all traffic. Dorset County Council rejected the applications because the accompanying maps were computer-generated enlargements derived from 1:50,000 source maps, rather than maps originally drawn at a scale of not less than 1:25,000.

Supperstone J dismissed the claim for judicial review on 2 October 2012: [2012] EWHC 2634 (Admin). The appeal concerned whether a digitally produced map at the required scale satisfied paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14.

1. Appeal allowed. The court unanimously held that the maps complied with paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Permission to appeal on the alternative de minimis ground was refused because that ground was unnecessary and, if the scale ground had failed, the non-compliance could not sensibly have been treated as de minimis.
2. Paragraph 1(a) imposes three requirements: the accompanying document must be identifiable as a map; it must be drawn to a scale of not less than 1:25,000; and it must show the way or ways to which the application relates. The provision does not require an Ordnance Survey map or the same physical features as an original Ordnance Survey map at that scale.
3. The words “drawn to” refer to the scale of the document accompanying the application. “Drawn” is not confined to original creation and includes production or reproduction by later techniques. The court therefore applied a technologically informed interpretation under which a digitally produced 1:25,000 map may satisfy the requirement even when derived from a 1:50,000 source map. The approach was supported by R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] 2 AC 687, Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] AC 800, and Grant v Southwestern and County Properties Limited [1975] Ch 185.
4. The Council’s administrative-convenience argument did not justify a more prescriptive construction. The applicant bears the notice obligation under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 14, with an alternative where ownership cannot practicably be ascertained under paragraph 2(2). The surveying authority must investigate the matters stated in the application under paragraph 3(1)(a), and further clarity may be supplied by the definitive map and statement under section 53(1).

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed. The court held that a digitally produced map at a scale of 1:25,000 could satisfy paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14: [2013] EWCA Civ 553.
2. Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (Supperstone J): The judicial review claim was dismissed on 2 October 2012: [2012] EWHC 2634 (Admin).