The conclusive character of the definitive map and statement is not intended to preclude the duty of the local authority to modify them where proper. If evidence came to light to show that a mistake had been made in drawing up the definitive map, then such a mistake could be corrected in either of the three ways envisaged in Section 53(3)(c) of the 1981 Act. The objective of these provisions was to ensure that the definitive map provided as accurate a picture as possible of the relevant rights of way.
Purchas LJ said: ‘It would, in my judgment, be strange indeed if the detailed and extensive provisions of section 53 were to be inhibited in important or material respects from achieving an accurate up-to-date record. This would be particularly so if, notwithstanding the discovery of new evidence, an error which had been detected on the definitive map or in the statement would nevertheless be perpetuated.’
He sought to reconcile sections 53 and 56, saying that section 56 applies generally, but not such as to inhibit a review under section 53: ‘There is no difficulty in reconciling sections 53 and 56 of the Act 1981 once the comparatively restricted purpose of the legislation as a whole is understood, namely the preparation and maintenance of an authoritative record in the form of a definitive map and statement . . Parliament never removed the duty to revise and keep the record up to date so that not only changes caused by supervening events . . These should be taken into account in order to produce the most reliable evidence that can be achieved.’
Glidewell LJ said: ‘There are two alternative ways in which the deletion and downgrading provisions in section 53(3) may be reconciled with the provisions of section 56. The first is that adopted by Taylor J in Rubinstein’s case, 57 P and CR 111, namely by treating section 56 as pre-eminent and as limiting the operation of section 53(3). The alternative course is to interpret section 56 as not applying to the review process in section 53 at all so that the review starts from what is shown in the definitive map, but does not for its purposes treat the definitive map as conclusive. For all other purposes within the limits laid down by section 56(1) the definitive map is conclusive. In particular it is conclusive evidence in any dispute that may arise between a landowner . . and . .[users] . .’
Judges:
Glidewell LJ, Purchas LJ
Citations:
[1991] 2 QB 354, [1990] 3 All ER 490
Statutes:
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 56
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Overruled – Rubinstein v Secretary of State for the Environment 1987
Because of the conclusive nature of inclusion of a right of way on the definitive map as at the relevant date, Section 53(3)(c)(iii) could only involve consideration of evidence relating to matters after the relevant date, for example the physical . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kotarski and Another v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 13-May-2010
The applicant sought to challenge an enquiry resulting in the confirmation of of a public right of way across his land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.392870
