Trail riders lose High Court challenge to decision of inspector on rights of way in Northumberland

The High Court has rejected a challenge to an inspector’s decision concerning rights of way in Northumberland, brought by the Trail Riders Fellowship.

In Trail Riders Fellowship v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor [2023] EWHC 900 (Admin) His Honour Judge Jarman KC said there were no grounds on which the High Court should quash decisions by inspector Sue Arnott, who had been appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider proposed modifications following a public inquiry into Northumberland County Council's Definitive Map Modification Order.

The case concerned a byway from the B1340 road south of Bamburgh, via Greenhill and Fowberry, to the U2018 road at Shoreston Hall.

Ms Arnott had determined that part of the route between Greenhill and Fowberry should be a footpath only rather than open to all traffic.

The fellowship said the modification was wrong as a matter of public law, and that the whole route should be open to any traffic.

It argued that Ms Arnott made a mistake in concluding that a 1951 highway authority map did not show a physical feature between Greenhill and Fowberry, and she did not accord proper weight to pre-1931 maps showing such a feature.

The riders also argued Ms Arnott misdirected herself in law as to the improbability of two vehicular cul-de-sacs leading to Greenhill and Fowberry respectively if the intervening track were a footpath only.

Northumberland did not appear but the Secretary of State argued in response that the inspector did not say that the 1951 map showed no link between Greenhill and Fowberry but rather that the link shown was on a different alignment to the order route.

The Secretary of State also argued that Ms Arnott dealt with each of the pre-1931 maps and the weight to be attached to them were matters for her, and she had given reasons for concluding that the route comprised two vehicular cul-de-sacs, as each lead to several properties.

HHJ Jarman said: “I am unpersuaded that in [examining the link between the two places] the inspector made any mistake at all. If she did, in my judgment, it was not a mistake as to existing fact or one that was uncontentious or objectively verifiable.”

He added that it was for the inspector to decide the weight to be accorded to historic maps and “it is not appropriate for this court to attempt to review her balancing exercising”.

Turning to the submission that Ms Arnott ought to have taken into account the improbability of two cul-de-sacs at each end of the route and it changing status from a highway to a footpath and back to a highway, HHJ Jarman said: “The inspector pointed to such an indication, namely that the cul-de-sacs led to several properties, and [Northumberland] appeared to have no difficulty in accepting these cul-de-sacs as highways."

Mark Smulian