The claimant appealed against an order refusing his request to quash a footpath modification order. The request had not been signed as required.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘subject to the de minimis principle, an application must strictly comply with para 1 of Schedule 14 . . But that does not mean that a valid application must be contained in a single document, namely the prescribed form . . Minor departures from the requirements of para 1 do not invalidate an application. In my judgment, there are circumstances in which a valid application may be contained in the application form when read with another document.’ The lack of a date and signature in an application form can in principle be cured by a dated and signed letter sent shortly after the submission of the form, where the omissions are pointed out and the Council is asked to treat the application as bearing the date of the letter and the signature of the author of the letter. However, even making de minimis allowances, the application was not compliant.
Judges:
Dyson, Richards, Jackson LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 280
Links:
Statutes:
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53, Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 67(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – DA Botany Bay City Council v Remath Investments 15-Dec-2000
(Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) A statute provided that ‘A development application shall . . (b) be made in the prescribed form and manner; . . and (d) . . be accompanied by an environmental impact statement in the prescribed . .
Cited – Winchester College and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Apr-2008
The college appealed against modifications of definitive map to upgrade two footpaths to byways open to all traffic. The college was circled by footpaths which it wished to protect when the council constructed a new bypass.
Held: The College’s . .
Appeal from – Maroudas v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another Admn 9-Mar-2009
Application was to quash the decision of the Secretary of State, made by an inspector in May 2008 following a hearing, to confirm a modification order made in response to an application originally made under section 53(5). It had had several . .
Cited by:
Cited – Fortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
Cited – Trail Riders’ Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council Admn 2-Oct-2012
The claimants challenged rejection of five applications under section 5 of the 1981 Act for modification orders allowing the upgrade of routes to provide vehicular public rights of way. The applications had been submitted using digital mapping. The . .
Cited – Trail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council SC 18-Mar-2015
Objection had been made that a plan, used to register a right of way before it would disappear if un-registered, was to the wrong scale and that therefore the application was ineffetive.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed. The plan was too . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Administrative
Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.403355