Trail Riders Fellowship v Secretary of State for Environment, Food And Rural Affairs

For the statutory exemption preserving mechanically propelled vehicle rights, an application to modify a definitive map must comply strictly with paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, subject only to the de minimis principle. Documentary evidence which the applicant wishes to adduce must accompany the application. A document omitted for many years, even if later regarded as peripheral, falls outside that exception. The application therefore cannot qualify under section 67(3) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. An inspector may have a broad power to modify a proposed order, but the power must be exercised fairly and within the statutory procedure. A decision declining a substantial extension is reviewable on ordinary public law grounds and will stand where the inspector has considered the relevant matters and given rational reasons.

The claimant challenged the Secretary of State’s final decision, made through an appointed inspector, concerning the status of routes on the definitive map in Dorset. An application made in 2004 sought to upgrade part of a bridleway to a byway open to all traffic. The application listed documentary evidence, but one identified document was not attached and was not produced until about ten years later.

The inspector held that the application did not comply with paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, so the exemption in section 67(3) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 did not preserve mechanically propelled vehicle rights. She also declined to extend the order northwards from point E to point K. The central issues were whether the application was valid and whether the inspector unlawfully failed to make the requested modification.

1. Validity of the application. The claim failed on the first ground. The Court of Appeal decisions in R (Wardens and Fellows of Winchester College and another) v Hampshire CC [2008] EWCA Civ 431 and Maroudas v SSEFRA [2010] EWCA Civ 280 established a strict approach to paragraph 1 of Schedule 14, subject to de minimis departures. The judge was bound to follow them.
2. An application must be accompanied by the map and copies of documentary evidence which the applicant wishes to adduce. The requirement serves to enable affected persons to understand and test the case they must meet. The omitted document had been listed and was used to support the identification of the onward route. Its later production, approximately ten years after the application, was well beyond any permissible minor departure.
3. The obiter observations in R (Trail Riders Fellowship) v Dorset CC [2015] UKSC 8 did not displace the binding Court of Appeal authorities. The more flexible substantial-compliance approach associated with Lord Carnwath was not the law binding on the High Court.
4. Modification of the order. The second ground also failed. Trevelyan v SSETR [2001] EWCA Civ 266 recognised the inspector’s power to modify an order where the inquiry evidence justified departure from it. The inspector had recognised that power but declined to extend the order because the proposed change was substantial, required new maps and schedules, and could affect landowners who had not participated in the statutory process. Those reasons were rational and relevant. The evidence had also been found insufficient by a second inspector to establish vehicular rights over the northern section.
5. The claim was dismissed.

The judgment concerned a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s final decision following an inspector’s inquiries. The judgment does not state that the dispute had previously been determined by a court.