Introduction

Parties Involved: Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF) and Mr. David Tilbury as respondents; Dorset County Council as appellant. Mr. Jonathan Stuart, a member of the Friends of Dorset’s Rights of Way (FDRW), initially made the applications.

Background: The respondents made five applications under section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for modification orders to the definitive map and statement (DMS) regarding byways open to all traffic (BOATs). Dorset County Council rejected these applications, citing non-compliance with map scale requirements. The validity of this rejection was disputed, leading to an appeal resolved ultimately at the Supreme Court.

Key Issues: The central issue was whether a map accompanying an application, which was digitally enlarged from a 1:50,000 to 1:25,000 scale, satisfies the statutory requirement of being "drawn to the prescribed scale" under Schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Dorset County Council, upholding the lower courts' decisions that the digitally enlarged maps submitted with the applications complied with the required scale of at least 1:25,000 as per Schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The majority opinion held that the method of producing maps (digitally enlarging existing maps) should not negate their compliance with the scale requirement, focusing on the scale of the presented map rather than its original creation method.

However, Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption dissented, arguing that the maps should be considered as drawn to a scale only if they were originally produced at that scale, not simply enlarged versions from smaller scales.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key cases and legal principles:

• R (Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2003] 2 AC 687: Discussed the interpretation of how modern activities fit within older statute language.
• Grant v Southwestern and County Properties Ltd [1975] Ch 185: Established that technological processes can fall within statutory terms.
• R (Maroudas) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 280: Examined the strictness of procedural compliance under similar statutory provisions.
• R (Warden and Fellows of Winchester College) v Hampshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 431: Addressed strict compliance of procedural requirements.
• Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council [2006] Ch 43: Considered flexibility in procedural applications.
• Inverclyde District Council v Lord Advocate (1981) 43 P & CR 375: Highlighted the importance of procedural flexibility in applications.
• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354: Provided guidance on handling procedural irregularities.
• R v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49; [2006] 1 AC 340: Emphasized the consequences of non-compliance with procedural rules.

Legal Reasoning

The majority held that "drawn to the prescribed scale" focuses on the map's scale at the time of submission, regardless of its original scale or the method of enlargement. They interpreted the term "drawn" broadly to include modern methods like digital enlargement, provided the resulting map meets the scale requirement of not less than 1:25,000.

The dissent argued for a narrower interpretation, where only maps originally created at 1:25,000 scale would satisfy the requirement. They emphasized the importance of the method of production and original scale as intended by the legislative framework.

The majority relied on the purposive approach, considering technological evolution and the practical application in maintaining maps under legal requirements, aligning with statutory interpretation principles to remain functional and reasonable.

Impact

This judgment clarifies that agencies and applicants have flexibility in meeting statutory map scale requirements, even when utilizing digital tools to prepare maps. This could streamline application processes and reduce bureaucratic hindrances related to how maps are produced, provided the scale is correctly maintained. It sets a precedent for interpreting design requirements in a technologically progressive context, potentially affecting future cases where digital reproduction is involved.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Definitive Map and Statement (DMS): An official map that records all public rights of way within a county or area.

Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT): A type of public highway that permits the use of mechanically propelled vehicles, but is primarily used as a footpath or bridleway.

Section 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: Allows for modifications to the DMS if rights of way have changed or new evidence has emerged about existing rights.

Schedule 14: Specifies the form and requirements for applications to modify the DMS, including map scale requirements.

Section 67 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006: Relates to the extinction of certain types of unrecorded public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles unless specific conditions are met.

Substantive Compliance vs. Strict Compliance: Substantial compliance refers to meeting the essential requirements without adhering to every technical detail, whereas strict compliance requires adhering precisely to every detail mandated by regulations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Trail Riders Fellowship v Dorset County Council establishes a more pragmatic and technologically adaptable approach to interpreting statutory requirements for map scales in public rights of way applications. By focusing on the functional aspect of "drawing to scale" rather than the origination method, the court supports the modernization of procedural requirements, facilitating smoother administrative processes. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that statutory interpretations evolve with technological advancements while maintaining the integrity of legislative intent.