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 correctly registered. Nevertheless, where there had been no evidence to support the registration, it could be treated as registered in error. Correction of the register was possible by ordering deletion of the bridleway, subject to substitution by a footpath. The inspector could look beyond the registration.
Judges:
Latham J
Citations:
Gazette 20-Apr-2001, Times 22-Mar-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 282
Links:
Statutes:
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Sch 15 12
Citing:
Appealed to – 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 by:
Appeal from – 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 – Ernstbrunner v Manchester City Council and Another Admn 16-Dec-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140095
