Farming Talk – December 17
In the recent case of Roxlena Ltd, R v Cumbria County Council, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a High Court decision.
That decision had been to dismiss a landowner’s claim for judicial review of Cumbria County Council’s authorisation of an order under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which added 34 footpaths to its definitive map and statement of public rights of way, as well as extend a bridleway over land owned by the appellant.
Four questions were considered in the case. They were, whether there was sufficient evidence to justify making the order for the footpaths; whether the council failed to discharge its duty to investigate alleged interruption of the use; whether the council had made a discovery of evidence within section 53(3)(c) of the act; and whether there was sufficient evidence to justify making the order for the bridleway.
In each of the above tests there was a worryingly low threshold which for landowners will make for grim reading when one considers that anyone can apply for a Definitive Map Modification Order and there’s no charge for doing so.
This ultimately means that landowners must apply considerable resource and effort to oppose an application where there is potentially very little supporting current or historical evidence.
Edward Randall, graduate surveyor, Fisher German
