Trail Riders Fellowship & Anor, R (on the application of) v Dorset County Council

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a local surveying authority, rejected five applications made under section 53(5) and Schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”). Each application sought to add or upgrade routes to “byways open to all traffic” (“BOATs”) on the definitive map and statement (“DMS”). The rejection occurred in October 2010 on the basis that the maps accompanying the applications were computer-generated enlargements of 1:50,000 scale Ordnance Survey material rather than maps “drawn to” a scale of not less than 1:25,000 as required by the Wildlife and Countryside (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993 (“the 1993 Regulations”).

The Respondent (a user-group that had taken conduct of the applications) sought judicial review. Judge [Last Name] dismissed the claim, upholding the authority’s interpretation. The Court of Appeal (Judge [Last Name], Judge [Last Name] and Judge [Last Name]) reversed that decision, holding that the enlarged maps satisfied the statutory requirement. The Appellant obtained permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on that primary issue; a secondary issue concerning strict compliance under section 67 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) was contingent upon the primary issue.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an application map that is presented at a scale of not less than 1:25,000 satisfies paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14 to the 1981 Act, when that map is an enlarged copy derived from material originally produced at 1:50,000.
2. If the first issue is decided against the Appellant, whether non-compliant applications nevertheless preserve vehicular rights of way under the transitional saving in section 67(3)(a) of the 2006 Act, in light of section 67(6) which deems an application to be “made” only when it complies with paragraph 1 of Schedule 14.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• “Drawn to” the prescribed scale requires that the source map itself be originally prepared at 1:25,000; enlargements from smaller-scale material are insufficient.
• Requiring an original 1:25,000 map ensures the level of topographical detail Parliament intended surveying authorities to have.
• Under section 67(6) of the 2006 Act, only applications in strict compliance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 avoid extinguishment of vehicular rights; precedent dictates that strict (rather than substantial) compliance is necessary.

Respondent's Arguments

• The statutory language focuses on the scale of the map accompanying the application, not on the scale of any antecedent document; what matters is that the submitted map reproduces ground measurements at ≤1 cm = 250 m.
• Nothing in the 1981 Act or 1993 Regulations mandates the use of Ordnance Survey originals; applicants may lawfully produce or enlarge any map, provided it identifies the claimed way(s) at 1:25,000 or larger.
• Section 67(6) should not be read to impose draconian forfeiture for technical defects; substantial compliance and later waiver by the authority suffice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court delivered a majority judgment (three concurring opinions) dismissing the appeal, with two judges dissenting.

• Statutory construction of “drawn to the prescribed scale”. The majority held that the relevant instrument is the map accompanying the application. Because each submitted map reproduced ground measurements at a ratio not less than 1:25,000, it met both regulation 2 and paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 14. Requiring the source to be an original 1:25,000 map would add words not found in the legislation.
• Purpose and flexibility. Parliament intended only to ensure clarity and usability of the application map; it did not prescribe the cartographic source or the level of Ordnance Survey detail. A lay applicant should not be rendered non-compliant simply for using modern enlargement technology.
• Technological evolution. Citing Quintavalle, the Court reasoned that “drawn” encompasses computer-generated production; what matters is the final scale, not the method.
• Secondary issue on strict compliance. Because the Appellant failed on the primary issue, the saving provision in section 67(3)(a) of the 2006 Act applied and the extinguishment question did not require determination. Several judges nonetheless expressed obiter doubts about the earlier Court of Appeal authority that demanded rigid compliance.
• Dissent. The minority would have required the underlying map to have been originally prepared at 1:25,000, viewing the regulation as intended to guarantee the richer topographical detail of such maps. They also regarded section 67(6) as mandating strict compliance, so the rights of way would have been extinguished.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

The Supreme Court affirmed that an application map is compliant if the submitted document is on a scale of at least 1:25,000, regardless of whether it is an enlargement of smaller-scale material. Consequently, the five BOAT applications remain valid, and any vehicular rights associated with the routes are preserved pending determination on their merits. The decision clarifies the procedural threshold for future section 53(5) applications, endorsing a practical and technologically neutral interpretation rather than a rigid insistence on original Ordnance Survey source material.