Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

John Trevelyan (suing on behalf of himself and all other members of the Ramblers Association) (Appellant) – and – The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Respondent)

Pays/Territoire
Royaume-Uni
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Fév 23, 2001
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Court of Appeal
Siège de la cour
London
Juge
Phillips
Brown
Longmore
Numéro de référence
2000/0392/C
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Terre et sols
Résumé
Some 20 years before the decision of this case, the Lancashire County Council had designated as a long distance footpath the Ribble Way, which followed the course of the river of that name. In doing so they had followed rights of way depicted as such on the relevant definitive map. So long as a right of way was shown on that map, its existence was conclusively demonstrated. Legislation provided, however, a procedure that could lead to the deletion from a definitive map of rights of way that had been marked on it in error. The Ribble Way passed through the land of the Mr. and Mrs. Lord along bridleway 8. This proved unwelcome, for some who walked along this bridleway trespassed from it and committed acts of vandalism. Mr. and Mrs. Lord then discovered evidence which led them to conclude that bridleway 8 had been marked on the definitive map in error where there was, in fact, no right of way. In 1985 they began the appropriate procedure to get deleted from the definitive map that part of bridleway 8 which crossed their land. This culminated in an order made by the Respondent in 1999 deleting a large part of bridleway 8 from the definitive map. The appellant appealed to have the Respondent’s order quashed. The court analyzed the correct approach and the standard of proof to be adopted by the inspector in charge when deciding about the deletion of a right of way. The evidence needed to remove a public right of way from the Definitive Map and Statement needed to be clear and cogent and demonstrate that a mistake had been made in the original claim and recording. The finding by the inspector that it was, on the evidence, beyond the bounds of credibility to accept that a right of way existed over the material portion of bridleway 8 was a finding of fact that, unless demonstrated to be perverse, manifestly satisfied the test required to justify a finding that the bridleway had been marked on the definitive map as a right of way in error. The appeal was dismissed.
Texte intégral
Trevelyan_v_SSETR.htm