Environment Bulletin: Miscellaneous

New Rights Of Way Hearings Rules

The Justice Ministry have recently issued new rules which regulate the conduct of hearings and inquiries where there have been objections to orders made by local authorities relating to the creation of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways, the modification of the definitive map and statement and the stopping up, diversion or extinguishment of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways. The new rules replace the Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1994 insofar as those rules apply to any hearing or inquiry into orders mentioned above. In regard to other types of highways orders, the 1994 rules still apply. The Rights of Way (Hearings and Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2007 will come into force on 1 October 2007. Separate procedures are set out for hearings and inquiries, both as regards the preliminaries and the hearing of inquiry itself.

Dedication Of Highway - House Of Lords Case

How far is it necessary for a landowner to go to rebut any presumption that a right of way has been passively granted by public use over a number of years? The issue was considered in two appeals to the House of Lords whose decision was recently given - see R (Godmanchester Town Council) -v- Secretary of State; R (Drain) -v- Secretary of State (2007) UKHL 28. In each case the relevant local authority had added a public footpath to the definitive map and statement for the area, on the basis of 20 years' use of the public as of right. An inquiry having been held in both cases, the Inspector found that the presumption of dedication had been rebutted. In the first case there was a letter from the landowner to the county planning officer complaining of pedestrian trespass and in the second case, the landowner pointed to a clause in an agricultural tenancy requiring the tenant to keep out trespassers. In both the Court of first instance and in the Court of Appeal, judicial review proceedings brought by the appellants were dismissed. However, the House of Lords reversed the decisions. The House concluded that an intention not to dedicate a right of way had to be adequately communicated to the users of the way in question so that they would reasonably have understood the landowner's intention. What was...