R v Dorset County Council

A map accompanying an application to modify a definitive map satisfies the prescribed scale requirement when the map as presented is on a scale of at least 1:25,000 and identifies the relevant way. It may have been digitally produced or enlarged from a map originally drawn at a smaller scale.

Neither the statutory scheme nor the regulations require an Ordnance Survey map, equivalent cartographic detail, or any particular method of production. The word “drawn” encompasses production or reproduction by modern technology. The application map itself, rather than the map from which it was derived, must meet the prescribed criteria.

Five applications sought modification of Dorset County Council’s definitive map and statement to record vehicular public rights of way. Each application was accompanied by a computer-generated map presented at a scale of at least 1:25,000 but digitally derived from Ordnance Survey mapping originally produced at 1:50,000.

The council rejected the applications. Supperstone J dismissed the resulting judicial review claim in [2012] EWHC 2634 (Admin). The Court of Appeal allowed the claim in [2013] EWCA Civ 553.

The principal issue was whether an enlarged or digitally produced map could be “drawn to the prescribed scale” for Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. A second, contingent issue concerned whether substantial rather than strict compliance could preserve an application under Section 67 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

1. Appeal dismissed by a majority of three to two. Lord Clarke, Lord Toulson and Lord Carnwath held that each application map complied with the prescribed scale requirement. Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption dissented.

2. The relevant map was the map accompanying the application. Each such map was presented at a scale of 1:25,000 or larger and identified the relevant way. The fact that it had been digitally derived or enlarged from mapping originally produced at 1:50,000 was irrelevant. Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, read with Regulations 2 and 8(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993, therefore was satisfied.

3. The legislation did not require the application map to be an Ordnance Survey map or to contain the features ordinarily appearing on an original 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map. Its express requirements were scale and identification of the way. Parliament had used more specific language when it wished to prescribe Ordnance Survey mapping in other contexts. The court could not imply an equivalent requirement here.

4. The word “drawn” did not prescribe the map’s original method of creation. It was capable of meaning produced or reproduced and accommodated computer generation and printing. This construction also accorded with the application’s function: it initiates the authority’s investigation and must enable the authority to understand the claim.

5. Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption considered that the prescribed scale was intended to secure the surrounding detail normally associated with 1:25,000 mapping. In their view, magnifying a 1:50,000 map did not produce a compliant map and the applications were ineffective under Section 67(6) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

6. The majority’s conclusion on the first issue meant that the second issue did not arise. Lord Carnwath nevertheless considered that substantial compliance could satisfy Section 67(6), while Lord Toulson agreed with Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption that the saving applied only to applications complying with Paragraph 1 before the cut-off date. Lord Clarke expressed no concluded view. Those observations did not determine the appeal.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: By a majority of three to two, dismissed the council’s appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s order: [2015] UKSC 18 .
2. Court of Appeal: Allowed the respondents’ appeal and held that the application maps satisfied the prescribed scale requirement: [2013] EWCA Civ 553 ; [2013] PTSR 987 .
3. High Court, Administrative Court: Supperstone J dismissed the judicial review application, holding that the maps did not comply and that the non-compliance was not de minimis: [2012] EWHC 2634 (Admin) ; [2013] PTSR 302 .