Trail Riders Fellowship v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food And Rural Affairs (Rev 1)

(ii) that a highway shown in the m ap and statem ent as a highway of a particular descrip tion ought to be there shown as a highway of a different description; ..."

13. It was pursuant to section 53(3)(c)(i) of the 1981 Act that the process was first triggered in this case to add Oakridge Lane to the DMS by the m odification order ultimately made pursuant to section 53(2)(b). (i) List of streets

14. The function and purpose of the DMS is clearly to re cord in a way which is "conclusive" (in accordance with the provisions of the 1981 Act) the existence an d course or alignment of rights of way. Quite separate and distinct are the provisions of Part IV of the Highways Act 1980 (the 1980 Ac t) which relate to the m aintenance of highways which are m aintainable at public expense. Section 36(6) of the 1980 act provides that: "The council of every county ... shall cause to be m ade, and shall keep corrected up to d ate, a list of the streets within th eir area which are highways maintainable at the public expense."

15. The word "street" is very widely defined in that Act and includes "any highway, road, lane, footway, alley or passa ge", and it is comm on ground that Oakridge Lane falls within that definition of a street. A list of streets (LoS) is a public document which is required to be kept availabl e for public inspection (see s ection 36(7) of the 1980 Act). A LoS may serve a range of purposes, but it is apparent that its essential and prim ary purpose is to enable anyone to find out whet her or not a given st reet or highway is maintainable at public expense and, if so, by which authorit y. There is no provision in relation to a LoS corresponding to the "conclusive" provisions of section 56 of the 1981 Act in relation to a DMS. (i) The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the extinctio n of certain rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles

16. Part 6 of the Natural E nvironment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERCA) made provision for the ending of certain existing unrecorded public rights of way. As is clear from the government's consultative document quoted at paragraph 160 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Fortune v W iltshire County Council [2012] EWCA Civ 334 , [2013] 1 WLR 808 , the avowed broad purpose of Part 6 of NERCA was to extinguish the right to drive modern mechanically propelled vehicles over so-called "green lanes" in reliance upon ancient, but unrecorded, rights of way based upon horse-drawn vehicles. However, rights which were alr eady recorded in certain forms before the commencement of the Act were preserved. So far as is material, section 67 of NERCA provides as follows. "67. Ending of certain existing unrecorded public rights of way (1) An existing public right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles is extinguished if it is over a way which, imm ediately before commencement - (a) was not shown in a definitive map or statement, or (b) ... But this is subject to subsections (2) to (8). (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an existing public right of way if - (a) ... (b) immediately before commencement it was not shown in a definitive map and sta tement but was shown in a list required to be kept under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 (list of highways maintainable at public expense) ..."

17. It is common ground in this case that imm ediately before the comm encement of NERCA on 2 May 2006 there was an existing public right of way for m echanically propelled vehicles over the whole of Oakri dge Lane, but, as I have stated, Oakridge Lane was not at that time shown in the relevant DMS. Thus, the existing right of way was, by operation of NERCA on the comm encement date, automatically extinguished unless it was saved by the exception m ade in section 67(2)(b); in short, if the "way" was “shown" in the LoS. The list of streets

18. The Hertfordshire County Council did maintain a list of streets, and Oakridge Lane was shown upon it immediately before the commencement of NERCA. Hertfordshire have explained, and the insp ector accepted, and I accept, that the LoS comprised both a descriptive list in words in the conventional sen se of a list, and also an accom panying map recorded as a Geographic Inf ormation System layer. The relevant part of the descriptive LoS is now at bundle 1 page 56 and appears as follows:

19. The reference to "sewage works" is to the south of point F, and the reference to "northern access road to A51" is a reference to point A, so the whole of Oakridge Lane from points A to F is clearly encom passed by the verbal description in the written list. The relevant part of the LoS, as recorded in m ap form, is now at bundle 2 page 60. This is a highly m agnified portion of a much larger and smaller scale map. It clearly depicts a way from north to south which is coloured in magenta and which is clearly marked as "Oakridge Lane (Path)". Those words are printed alongside the depicted way twice, both just above the now disputed s ection between points C to E and also just below that section, between points E and F. None of t hese lettered points are themselves marked on the LoS map, as all the lettered points have only been identified and labelled later by the inspector.

20. A black and white scan of the map at page 60 appears below, although it is not reproduced with the magenta colouring nor the blue colouring of the brook.

21. For some distance to the nor th of what is now point C, Oakridge Lane is immediately adjacent and parallel to a brook. For a short distance between points C and E, the brook meanders or deviates in an ark or bow-shape to the left and then turns quite sharply to the right (as one looks at th e map) and continues in a so uth-easterly direction away from Oakridge Lane. Apparently, there are over the brook two bridges, a short distance apart. The way as marked in magenta on the map bows slightly to the right and passes over the more south-easterly of the two bridges shortly before what is now point E. The decision of the inspector

22. The inspector heard evidence and considered a considerable num ber of old m aps and other documents. She concluded at paragraph 12 of her fi rst decision, now at bundle 2 page 338: "12. Taking together the historic docum entary evidence summarised above, I agree with the pa rties that public carria geway rights exist over Oakridge Lane. It has existed as a through route since at least 1766. The 1898 Main Roads Order and 1910 Finan ce Act Map point to it being a public vehicular way and the County Maps, OS, DMS and other records are not inconsistent with that status."

23. However, the inspector also concluded that, between what she identified as points C and E, the historic public carriageway did not follow the slightly bowed course or alignment over the bridge marked in magenta on the m ap with the L oS, but a more straight course or alignment over the other b ridge slightly to the wes t or left as one looks at the map. The distance betw een the two alignments is apparently at its widest about 30 metres on the ground.

24. This led the inspector to conclude that the true historic right of way (ie the straight line) between points C and E was not shown on the LoS and, according ly, that the section between C and E (but not the rem ainder of Oakridge Lane to the north of C and south of E) was not shown in the LoS, albeit that the slightly bowed alignment m arked in magenta clearly was. It is upon the discre pancy (said by Hertfordshire to be due to error) between the precise course or alignment of the historic right of way, as found by the inspector, and the way marked in magenta upon the map that this dispute hinges and turns. The reasoning of the inspector

25. The reasoning of the inspector is contained within paragraphs 13 to 23 of her first Order Decision dated 14 January 2015. Those paragraphs are too l ong to quote in full. At paragraph 17 the inspector agreed with the argument on behalf of the TRF and others: " ... that the LoS was designed to be a record of maintenance, that it fulfils a different role to that of the DM S, and its application to the 2006 Act could not have been envisaged when the 1980 Act was drawn up."

26. The inspector further agreed that the legisl ation is silent as to what inform ation is required to be contained in a LoS or what form it should take. She continued within paragraph 17 that: "Some guidance, however, is to be found in Fortune (at paragraph 1135 of the judgment) that it is the responsi bility of the Highway Authority to decide how best to m ake and keep co rrected up to date its own section 36(6) list."

27. Pausing there, one can o nly gaze in awe and wonderment at the m ighty first instance judgment of His Honour Judge McCahill QC in Fortune , but it is correct that at paragraph 1135 it does say just that. The inspector continued at paragraphs 18 to 23 of her Order Decision as follows: "18. With that in m ind, and in the absence of any requirem ents in the legislation as to what form the LoS should take, it follows that I must have regard to what the Council says is its LoS (paragraph 16). Therefore I do not share Mr Kind' s view that the details contained in the GIS lay er are irrelevant. The GIS layer form s an integral part of what the Council regards as its LoS. As regards Oakr idge Lane the descriptive element of the LoS gives details of the length of roads defined by start and end points together with other relevant information, and the mapping element shows its alignment. The essence of Mr We stley's argument is that Oakridge Lane was shown on the LoS in 2006, notwithstanding that the entry on that List required correction. Howe ver, whilst it m ight have been the Council's intention to record the hist oric alignment of Oakridge Lane, it does not alter the fact that immediately before 2 May 2006, the alignment recorded between points C and E was different to the historic route ...

19. I recognise that earlier records in cluded Oakridge Lane as a publicly maintainable highway long before 2 May 2006 ... However, the question is whether the Order ro ute was shown on the LoS imm ediately prior to this date, not what was shown before then or after, or what should have been shown. It follows that I do no t share the view that the statuto ry purpose would be frustrated if vehicula r rights were extinguished merely because of inaccurate particulars of alignment. 20 ... I have concluded that the L ist kept by the Council for the purposes of the 1980 Act and relevant to th e provisions of the 2006 Act contain both a database and a GIS layer which should be read together. 21 ... 22 ...

23. The length C-E is som e 110 metres which represents som e 10% of the Order route. I agree with the Council that this is not insignificant such that it could be regarded as a minor discrepancy or departure. As regards a sideways displacement ... the routes are close t ogether towards point C but the divergence m ore pronounced towards E. To a degree, the issue depends on the map scale as to how eas y it is to disti nguish between the two. However, the Council argue the difference between the routes is clearly distinguishable on a 1:10,000 m ap, this being the scale of their Definitive Map. I am not persuaded that any difference between the two routes can be regarded as sufficiently m inor such that th e section C-D should be recorded as a Byway. I therefore conclude that whilst Oakridge Lane was recorded in the LoS, it w as shown on a sufficiently different alignment between C and E imm ediately before 2 May 2006. It follows that the exception cannot apply to this leng th of the Order route whic h should therefore be recorded as a Restricted Byway." Analysis

28. In my view this reasoning clearly contains a non sequitur and, with due respect to her and her specialist expertise in this field, th e inspector made an error of law. I agree with the inspector at the beginning of paragraph 18 that she "must have regard to what the council says is its L oS." I agree also that "the detail s contained in the GIS layer" cannot be treated as "irrelevant" or be wholly disregar ded. The non sequitur and error is that the inspec tor then jumped from not treating "the deta ils", viz the p recise alignment of the magenta line, as "irrelevant" to making them decisive. In the process, although she had correctly recognised diffe rences between a LoS a nd a DMS in paragraph 17 of her Order Decision, she trea ted the map within the LoS as if it was required to contain, and did contain, the cartographic accuracy and precision of a DMS; and treated it as "conclusive", although a LoS is not required to include any map at all.

29. It is in fact very obvious from the map in point in this case at bundle page 60 that the magenta line is only intended to identify, and not precisely to delineate, a given "street". In the bottom right-hand corner of the map are a number of residential streets. The thin magenta line passes through the middle of each such street but does not colour in the whole width of the street. T he magenta line over the lower parts of Oakridge Lane (roughly between points E and F) does not colour in the whole width of the lane as clearly printed on the m ap. At various points where the lane borders the brook the magenta line has obviously been imprecisely drawn and in places runs up the middle of the brook itself. All this is consistent with the purpose of a LoS wh ich is essentially to identify and record which streets are maintainable at public expense, but not, in contrast to a DMS, precisely to delineate them.

30. The requirement of section 67(2)(b) of NERCA is sim ply that imm ediately before commencement the way "was shown in a list required to be kept under section 36(6) ..." The descriptive list in list form , now at bundle page 56, clearly does "show" and describe a continuous way from beyond or south of point F to point A, and the m ap at page 60 clearly depicts a continuous path tw ice labelled as "Oakridge Lane". In my view, the whole of Oakridge Lane was pa tently "shown" in the LoS, and section 67(2)(b) neither requires nor ju stifies the decisive concentration which the inspector gave to the precise course of the magenta line on the m ap. This led her to reach a conclusion which is, frankly, perverse and which Parliament cannot have intended.

31. Whilst the primary purpose of Part 6 of NE RCA was clearly to extinguish existing but unrecorded public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles, Parliament clearly intended to make exceptions for those which were shown either in a DMS (which may be expected to be accurate and precise) or in a LoS (which may not be). This adm itted historic and continuous right of way was so shown in the L oS, and it is perverse that over one section of its length it was autom atically extinguished because of imprecision in the magenta line upon the map which is part of, but not the whole of, the LoS.

32. The written and oral submissions of both Mr Adrian Pay on behalf of the TRF and Mr Mark Westmoreland Smith on behalf of the Secretary of State all display great learning in this field, and I was indebted to them. It was a privilege to listen to them. However, none of the authorities cited are directly in point and I do not base m y decision on such matters as the differing scales of v arious maps and what scales any given regulation may require.

33. For the short reason given, I am very clearly satisfied (as paragraph 12(2) of schedule 2 to the 1981 Act require s) that the inspector m ade an order which is founded upon a clear error of law and is, accordingly, not within the powers under section 53. I am also clearly satisfied that that error has created in this case a perverse result such that th e error cannot, in my discretion, be overlooked. Outcome

34. I will accordingly exercise my power and discretion under paragraph 12(2) of schedule 15 to quash. Counsel agreed at the hearing that if that was my conclusion they would be able to consider an d agree whether I s hould formally quash the whole order, or quash only the m aterial and infected provisions of it. I have no power other than to quash, and I cannot subs titute any amended or alternative form of order. However, if this matter is f urther considered by the sa me or another inspector, she or he must clearly have regard to the contents of this judgment. [END OF JUDGMENT]

35. MR JUSTICE HOLMAN: I think you were agreed with Mr W estmoreland Smith that you would be able to draft and agree an appropriate form of order.

36. MR PAY: Yes. I have had communicati ons with Mr Westmoreland Smith. He asked whether we could have until close of play tomorrow to agree a formal order.

37. MR JUSTICE HOLMAN: Certainly. You can certainly have until close of play on Thursday.

38. MR PAY: I am very grateful.

39. MR JUSTICE HOLMAN: I think we agreed that costs would inevitably follow the event.

40. MR PAY: Indeed. I am very grateful, m y Lord, and very grateful for the speed at which you have delivered the judgment.