Trail Riders Fellowship v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food And Rural Affairs (Rev 1)

A list of streets maintained under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 need not possess the cartographic precision required of a definitive map and statement. For the purpose of section 67(2)(b) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, a way is sufficiently “shown” where the list, read as a whole, identifies the continuous street. An imprecise map forming part of the list does not justify treating a section of that street as unshown, provided the descriptive list and map together identify it. An inspector who treats the precise alignment on such a map as decisive commits an error of law.

The claimant challenged a modification order concerning Oakridge Lane, a route in Hertfordshire. The order recorded parts of the route as byways open to all traffic and a central section as a restricted byway. The practical consequence was that mechanically propelled vehicles could no longer lawfully travel the whole route.

The route had not previously appeared on the definitive map and statement, but it appeared in Hertfordshire’s list of streets maintained at public expense before the commencement of Part 6 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The inspector concluded that the historic route differed from the alignment shown on the list’s accompanying GIS map between two points. The central issue was whether that discrepancy meant that the route was not “shown” in the list for the purposes of section 67(2)(b).

1. The statutory application was allowed and the modification order was quashed under paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The court could quash the order, but could not substitute an amended or alternative order.

2. The definitive map and statement and the list of streets serve different statutory purposes. The definitive map and statement is conclusive as to the particulars recorded in it. The principal purpose of a list of streets under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 is to identify highways maintainable at public expense and the authority responsible for them. The legislation does not require a list of streets to include a map or to delineate a street with definitive-map accuracy.

3. The inspector was right to consider the GIS layer because it formed part of what the county council treated as its list. She erred, however, by moving from the conclusion that the GIS details were relevant to treating the precise course of the coloured line as decisive. That approach wrongly treated the list as if it were a definitive map and treated the map as conclusive.

4. Section 67(2)(b) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 required the court to ask whether the way was shown in the list immediately before commencement. The written description clearly identified a continuous route, and the map depicted a continuous path labelled Oakridge Lane. Read together, they showed the whole route. The imprecision of the line did not prevent the exception from applying.

5. The inspector’s reasoning therefore contained a non sequitur and a clear error of law. It produced a perverse result which could not be overlooked. Any further consideration by the same or another inspector had to take account of the judgment. Costs followed the event.

Not stated in the judgment.