TRF Forums

Richard,
How does one apply for a DMMO? Is it just a case of going to the local council's rights of way department and filling in a form? There's a trail near here with a missing bit and I'd like to apply to have it put on the DM.
Bob

You need evidence in support of your application (could be historic documents, or user evidence) that shows the current DM is wrong.

John Vannuffle or Robin Hickin can help with more detailed advice.

Not long now..Judgement hand own on 18th March!

Fingers crossed....

Everything crossed!!!

Even the ruts are crossed

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cas ... dgment.pdf

18 Mar 2015

[2015] UKSC 18

UKSC 2013/0153

R (on the application of Trail Riders Fellowship and another) (Respondents) v Dorset County Council (Appellant)

Press summary (PDF) https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cas ... ummary.pdf
Judgment (PDF) https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cas ... dgment.pdf


JUDGMENTS
The Supreme Court dismisses the council’s appeal on the basis of point (i) and upholds the Court of Appeal’s decision that the maps did comply with statutory requirements by a majority of 3-2. Lord Clarke gives the leading judgment; Lord Toulson and Lord Carnwath agree with Lord Clarke. Lord Sumption and Lord Neuberger would both have decided in the appellant council’s favour on point (i). Point (ii) therefore does not arise. Had point (ii) arisen, Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption and Lord Toulson would have held that the effect of non-compliance with the statutory provisions is that the applications would not have been valid, while Lord Carnwath would have held, contrary to Winchester, that they would nonetheless have been valid. Lord Clarke prefers not to express a view on point (ii).
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD T: 020 7960 1886/1887 F: 020 7960 1901 http://www.supremecourt.uk
REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENTS
(i) Did the maps submitted with the applications comply with the statutory requirements?
Lord Clarke explains that the only question is whether the maps were drawn to a scale of not less than 1:25,000 [18-19]. He holds that they were. Each map was in fact produced to a presented scale of 1:25,000 or larger [20]. The statute and regulations could have but did not require that a map with the amount of detail of an Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 map be used, and the mere fact that one might ordinarily expect the use of an Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 map does not tell us whether that is a requirement [22-25]. Maps drawn to a scale of 1:25,000 without any reference at all to an Ordnance Survey map would satisfy the statutory provisions, even if they contained only as much detail as an Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 map [25-26]. Although the prescribed scale requirement applies to the application map and the definitive map and statement in the same terms, it is important to note that the surveying authority is under a public law duty to prepare and maintain the definitive map and statement to a professional standard, whereas lay applicants are only required to put relevant material before the surveying authority for investigation [28]. A map could be “drawn” by a computer program [29-30]. Lord Toulson [35, 40] and Lord Carnwath [51] agree with Lord Clarke.
Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption would have allowed the appeal in relation to point (i); each agrees with the other [106, 109]. Lord Neuberger considers that: the most natural meaning of Schedule 14 is that it requires that, where an applicant uses a copy of an original map, the original map must have been prepared on a scale of at least 1:25,000 [86-87]; the justification for the use of a minimum scale must have been that such a map would normally show more contextual detail [88]; it is not natural to say that a map is “drawn” to a certain scale if it has not been prepared to that scale [90]; and the terms in question must have had the same meaning in relation to both the definitive map and the map accompanying an application [91]. Lord Sumption says that the Regulations were drafted on the assumption that a 1:25,000 scale map would have more detail than a 1:50,000 map. A magnified 1:50,000 map is therefore not the same thing as a 1:25,000 map [107].
(ii) Does non-compliance with the statutory requirements mean that the maps are invalid?
Lord Neuberger explains that the ultimate question of one of statutory construction: can Parliament fairly be taken to have intended that the applications would be totally invalid if they did not comply with the statutory requirements [93]? Prior to the deadline imposed by the 2006 Act, it would have been open to the council to waive the defect by accepting a non-compliant application, or to the applicant to validate the application after its submission by providing compliant maps. The defect could not simply have been overlooked unless it could be said that the defect was de minimis (a suggestion rightly rejected by the first instance judge) [92-97]. But under section 67 of the 2006 Act, Parliament has spelled out the consequence of non-compliance: a non-compliant application is not to be treated as a valid application, and there is no jurisdiction to waive or amend the defect [99]. Any other interpretation would deprive section 67(6) of the 2006 Act of all meaning [100-105]. Lord Sumption agrees: the point may be technical, but the technicality is unavoidable [108]. Lord Toulson agrees with the approach taken by Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption [41]. He notes that all statutes must be construed in their own context but in this case section 67(6) puts the answer beyond doubt [48-50].
Lord Carnwath starts from the principle that procedural requirements such as those in the 1981 Act should be interpreted flexibly and in a non-technical way [69], and adds that such a flexible approach is particularly appropriate given that the primary duty to keep the definitive map up to date rests on the surveying authority and that the effect of the statute is retrospective [71, 78]. In this context, substantial compliance with the statutory provisions would suffice to achieve validity. Winchester was therefore too narrowly decided [73-75]. Section 67(6) is simply included for clarity [77]. He would therefore have dismissed the appeal on this basis as well (and notes that the grounds are closely related) [80-81].
Lord Clarke is sympathetic to Lord Carnwath’s general approach but prefers not to express a view on the issue until it arises on the facts of a particular case [34].
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
NOTE
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available at: http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.shtml

A good result gentlemen.

Much praise and thanks to all involved both in putting the case in Court and in carrying out all the (no doubt laborious and time-consuming) work beforehand

You've got to laugh at this...

http://www.gleam-uk.org/contentious-iss ... rset-case/

It's like Hitler saying the Bismarck just 'got a bit wet'...

Reading that GLEAM news letter, am I right in thinking they more or less forced DCC to take the action it did? And it cost DCC a lot of money yet GLEAM nothing?

You might very well think that Tony, I couldn't possibly comment!

I've got the local press digging away making FOI requests etc. We have won the right to have these DMMOs processed, but I feel there may be something even bigger to come from this.

Here is your thought for the day for Easter.

"People who pull strings sometimes find they are attached to eggs that strike them in the face."

I don't think that gleam (Their ROW advisors) is/are capable of accepting that they do seem to look at issues in a totally different way.

The case was only concerning the map scales and not as they state aimed at overturning the Winchester case. These Court proceedings could never have done that in any event.

But it has now opened a legal argument that gleam is desperate to brief against and or muddy waters. I strongly suspect that they have noticed something I have in the wording of the judgement that is extremely important and are desperate to draw attention away from it.

Indeed their own Council, who represented DCC in these proceedings, already mentioned it at a RoW conference several years ago that raised my interest.

The news letter from Gleam is purely smoke and mirrors and probably in an attempt to retain their sponsors who will see this result as a disaster.

Sadly Gleam got away with what I would see as unlawfully influencing the true process of law making to bring about the bad bits of the NERC that I also suspect was meant to work with the Winchester case..their own news letters bragging about how they sat in the House of Commons canteen and got their "retained" MPs to alter the NERC Act and then got their retained DEFRA Ministers to stop it being repealed supports this.

I now see a very bright future for the TRF with further legal action now possible as a result of the wording of this Judgement

I also see Gleams advisor Plumbe as an interested party to this case together with Gleams QC Council representing DCC as evidence supporting the possibility that Gleam forced, misled, threatened DCC into taking this to Court.