The appellant challenged by case stated a refusal of the Crown Court to order removal of a gate which he said obstructed a public footpath. The land-owner had persuaded the magistrates that the gate was not on the line of the footpath. The claimant said the finding of fact was perverse.
Held: There was clear evidence capable of supporting the conclusion reached by the Crown Court. As to the interpretation of the map and statement: ‘the definitive map is the primary and source document. If the accompanying statement cannot be read as supplying particulars of the position of the footpath shown on the map then the position as shown on the map prevails over the position described in the statement. It is conclusive evidence unless and until review under section 53(2).’ and ‘At review, neither the map nor its accompanying statement is conclusive evidence of its contents. In the case of irreconcilable conflict between the map and the statement, there is no evidential presumption that the map is correct and the statement not correct. The conflict is evidence of error in the preparation of the map and statement.’
Lloyd Jones J
[2009] EWHC 3293 (Admin), [2010] PTSR CS15
Bailii
Highways Act 1980 130B(2), Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 27(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Norfolk County Council, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 10-Feb-2005
The claimant sought to challenge the confirmation of a public footpath. Pitchford J described how the court should interpret the definitive map made under the 1981 Act: ‘The correct approach to interpretation of the definitive map and statement must . .
Cited – LE Walwin and Partners Limited v West Sussex County Council ChD 1975
The parties disputed the extent of a public bridleway. The definitive map appeared to show a bridleway stopping at a point where it met a footpath. However the definitive statement described the bridleway as running ‘to the foreshore’ ie. beyond the . .
Cited – Trevelyan (On Behalf Of Himself and The Ramblers Association) v The Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and The Regions CA 23-Feb-2001
An inspector, determining an application to remove a public bridleway from the definitive map, and where there was evidence only of use by foot, was right to start from the presumption that, if a right of way was shown on the definitive map, it was . .
Cited – John Trevelyan (Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Members of Ramblers Association) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Admn 24-Jan-2000
An inspector determining an application to remove a public bridleway from the definitive map, where there was evidence only of use by foot, was right to start from the presumption that, if a right of way was shown on the definitive map, it was . .
Cited – Suffolk County Council v Mason HL 1979
The House considered the status of a pedestrian right of way through a caravan site to a beach, and the 1949 Act: ‘The sections which follow section 27 deal with the further steps which have to be taken before the definitive map is completed and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Herrick and Another v Kidner and Another Admn 17-Feb-2010
Psychological Obstruction to Public Footpath
A public footpath crossed the appellants’ land. They constructed a gateway across it which they now accepted had been a significant obstruction of the right of way. The local authority served a notice requiring its removal, including the stone . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.384153
