The court considered the proposed diversion of a public footpath.
Held: ‘ the expression ‘substantially less convenient to the public’ is eminently capable of finding a satisfactory meaning by reference to consideration of such matters as the length, difficulty of walking and purpose of the path. Those are features which readily fall within the presumed contemplation of the draftsman of this section as falling within the natural and ordinary meaning of the word ‘convenient’.’
The inspector had conflated the concept of convenience with the concept of expediency as contained within the subsection.
Judges:
Turner J
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 844 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Judicial Review, Land
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.251512