a
a
a
a
a
a
For more info -
or to support us,
please get in touch:
prowl@manx.net
PROWL, 1 Castle Street,
Castletown, IM9 1LF
Or call Ian on:
01624 837 059
to be made official
Law Lords' decision means Langness
must re-open
If the owner of land used by the public does not intend the land to be dedicated as a public highway, he must have communicated this to the users of his land.
This ruling gives PRoWL the confidence to press hard
for a resolution of the Langness dispute, and if necessary consider taking the case to the Privy Council.
My way or the Highway
Property Week, Case News, 13.07.07
Warren Gordon hears how a local authority defeated a landowner over creating a public footpath.
The message: If the owner of land used by the public does not intend the land to be dedicated as a public highway, he must communicate this to the users of his land.
The case: The House of Lords has ruled that landowners could not stop their land becoming a public highway because they had not adequately shown that they did not want this to occur (Godmanchester Town Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 20.06.07, House of Lords).
This is an important test case brought before the House of Lords on whether land used by the public for a prescribed period should be ‘dedicated’ as a highway. Where the public have enjoyed access over land without interruption for 20 years, the relevant land is deemed to have been dedicated under statute as a highway unless there is ‘sufficient’ evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate the land.
The case concerned two separate applications made to modify the ‘definitive map’ by adding a right of way not shown on the map. A definitive map provides conclusive evidence of public highways.
One application was by Godmanchester Town Council to add a public footpath around part of the perimeter of a small lake in Godmanchester. The map already showed a footpath along part of the perimeter and the application was to add a path that completed a circuit around the lake. The other application was to add a footpath across land belonging to the Yattendon Estate in Berkshire.
In both situations, an inspector found that there had been use of the land by the public for more than 20 years, but was there sufficient evidence that the relevant landowners did not intend the land to be dedicated?
At Godmanchester, the evidence of the landowner, the Church Commissioners, primarily comprised a letter to the planning authority written during the 20-year period in which it complained of pedestrian trespass over its land. Such a letter would not have come to the attention of users of the land.
At Yattendon, the landowner’s evidence was primarily a clause in an agricultural tenancy of the land that required the tenant to stop unauthorised people trespassing and not to allow any footpaths to be created.
The Lords had to determine whether this was sufficient evidence that the landowners did not intend their land to be dedicated.
The Lords held that the test was whether a reasonable user of the land would have understood that the owner intended to ‘disabuse’ him or her of the idea that the land was public highway. This required evidence of overt and objective acts perceptible by and communicated to the users of the land contemporaneously at some point during the 20-year period.
The primary example is the erection and maintenance of a notice that is not visible to people using the land. Expressions of an owner’s intention that are never disclosed would not be judged ‘sufficient’.
At Godmanchester and Yattendon, the Lords held that there was insufficient evidence that the landowners did not intend their land to be dedicated. Their evidence would not have been available to the users of the land.
The Lords sent the matters to the secretary of state, as the statutory decision-making authority, to make a decision on the facts in the light of the Lords’ comments.
Summing up: Godmanchester Town Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
A local authority made an application to the secretary of state to add public footpaths to the definitive map of a local area. The paths had been used by the public for more than 20 years. The landowners did not want this to happen, and said they had tried to show that there was no intention to dedicate the land as a public highway. A letter of complaint to the planning authority and a clause in a tenancy for the land were used as evidence. The Lords had to decide whether a reasonable user of the land would have known that the landowners were trying to persuade him or her not to use the land. They decided that the evidence in question would not have been available to land users.
From the Ramblers’ Association
Landmark victory for the RA in the House of Lords
In May 2007 the RA took its first ever case to the House of Lords. The RA brought the case because interpretation of the law since the late 1990s had been making it unfairly easy for landowners to stop paths being recognised as public rights of way.
The law was always understood to be that if the general public used a path freely for twenty years or more then a public right of way was created. The exception to this was when a landowner put up a sign saying ‘no right of way’, or locked gates or ordered the public off the footpath. Through these actions, which made his intention clear to the public, the route remained private.
But in 1999 the High Court ruled that a landowner could, even after 20 years of uncontested public use, defeat a claim that a right of way had come into existence by producing evidence of virtually any sort of which the public were totally unaware - for example, letters to his solicitor, directions to staff to keep people off the path and so on. Indeed, a mere retrospective assertion by a landowner that he never intended a path to become public seemed sufficient to defeat a claim.
Staff at central office and ramblers across the country are now celebrating the dramatic overturning of this adverse precedent by the Law Lords. The House of Lords' judgment on what has become known as the 'Dorset' case (more properly known as the Godmanchester and Drain cases) was handed down on 20 June 2007 in the magnificent setting of the Chamber of the House of Lords and to everyone's delight all five judges - Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope, Lord Scott, Baroness Hale and Lord Neuberger found conclusively in the RA's favour.
This is a landmark ruling which means that, in future, actions to stop paths being recognised as public rights of way will have to be transparent. Their Lordships have thoroughly re-examined the law on how rights of way are established under section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, reverting to Lord Denning's statement of the law which had stood for more than forty years unchallenged.
Property Week, Case News, 13.07.07
To see this article in its original
context please click - http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=274&storycode=3091347
Warren Gordon hears how a local authority defeated a landowner over creating a public footpath.
The message: If the owner of land used by the public does not intend the land to be dedicated as a public highway, he must communicate this to the users of his land.
The case: The House of Lords has ruled that landowners could not stop their land becoming a public highway because they had not adequately shown that they did not want this to occur (Godmanchester Town Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 20.06.07, House of Lords).
This is an important test case brought before the House of Lords on whether land used by the public for a prescribed period should be ‘dedicated’ as a highway. Where the public have enjoyed access over land without interruption for 20 years, the relevant land is deemed to have been dedicated under statute as a highway unless there is ‘sufficient’ evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate the land.
The case concerned two separate applications made to modify the ‘definitive map’ by adding a right of way not shown on the map. A definitive map provides conclusive evidence of public highways.
One application was by Godmanchester Town Council to add a public footpath around part of the perimeter of a small lake in Godmanchester. The map already showed a footpath along part of the perimeter and the application was to add a path that completed a circuit around the lake. The other application was to add a footpath across land belonging to the Yattendon Estate in Berkshire.
In both situations, an inspector found that there had been use of the land by the public for more than 20 years, but was there sufficient evidence that the relevant landowners did not intend the land to be dedicated?
At Godmanchester, the evidence of the landowner, the Church Commissioners, primarily comprised a letter to the planning authority written during the 20-year period in which it complained of pedestrian trespass over its land. Such a letter would not have come to the attention of users of the land.
At Yattendon, the landowner’s evidence was primarily a clause in an agricultural tenancy of the land that required the tenant to stop unauthorised people trespassing and not to allow any footpaths to be created.
The Lords had to determine whether this was sufficient evidence that the landowners did not intend their land to be dedicated.
The Lords held that the test was whether a reasonable user of the land would have understood that the owner intended to ‘disabuse’ him or her of the idea that the land was public highway. This required evidence of overt and objective acts perceptible by and communicated to the users of the land contemporaneously at some point during the 20-year period.
The primary example is the erection and maintenance of a notice that is not visible to people using the land. Expressions of an owner’s intention that are never disclosed would not be judged ‘sufficient’.
At Godmanchester and Yattendon, the Lords held that there was insufficient evidence that the landowners did not intend their land to be dedicated. Their evidence would not have been available to the users of the land.
The Lords sent the matters to the secretary of state, as the statutory decision-making authority, to make a decision on the facts in the light of the Lords’ comments.
Summing up: Godmanchester Town Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
A local authority made an application to the secretary of state to add public footpaths to the definitive map of a local area. The paths had been used by the public for more than 20 years. The landowners did not want this to happen, and said they had tried to show that there was no intention to dedicate the land as a public highway. A letter of complaint to the planning authority and a clause in a tenancy for the land were used as evidence. The Lords had to decide whether a reasonable user of the land would have known that the landowners were trying to persuade him or her not to use the land. They decided that the evidence in question would not have been available to land users.
From the Ramblers’ Association
Landmark victory for the RA in the House of Lords
In May 2007 the RA took its first ever case to the House of Lords. The RA brought the case because interpretation of the law since the late 1990s had been making it unfairly easy for landowners to stop paths being recognised as public rights of way.
The law was always understood to be that if the general public used a path freely for twenty years or more then a public right of way was created. The exception to this was when a landowner put up a sign saying ‘no right of way’, or locked gates or ordered the public off the footpath. Through these actions, which made his intention clear to the public, the route remained private.
But in 1999 the High Court ruled that a landowner could, even after 20 years of uncontested public use, defeat a claim that a right of way had come into existence by producing evidence of virtually any sort of which the public were totally unaware - for example, letters to his solicitor, directions to staff to keep people off the path and so on. Indeed, a mere retrospective assertion by a landowner that he never intended a path to become public seemed sufficient to defeat a claim.
Staff at central office and ramblers across the country are now celebrating the dramatic overturning of this adverse precedent by the Law Lords. The House of Lords' judgment on what has become known as the 'Dorset' case (more properly known as the Godmanchester and Drain cases) was handed down on 20 June 2007 in the magnificent setting of the Chamber of the House of Lords and to everyone's delight all five judges - Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope, Lord Scott, Baroness Hale and Lord Neuberger found conclusively in the RA's favour.
This is a landmark ruling which means that, in future, actions to stop paths being recognised as public rights of way will have to be transparent. Their Lordships have thoroughly re-examined the law on how rights of way are established under section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, reverting to Lord Denning's statement of the law which had stood for more than forty years unchallenged.
Information for news media
Please contact:
Ian Costain - 01624 837 059
f
Local people
have enjoyed the rugged beauty
of Langness for generations
of Langness for generations