update October 2009
One cannot copy a void. In cases without any evidence, we believe the application is nothing more than a request for the authority to exercise its duty to review the Definitive Map, to which the authority does not need to respond in the absence of new evidence. If an order is made on the authority’s own volition, exemption does not apply. Defra agreed by letter dated 19 March 2009 that an application without evidence and therefore with no list cannot qualify for exemption. In Buckinghamshire, several claims had been rejected and appealed to the Secretary of State, some of which resulted in a direction to BCC to make BOAT orders. The first of these, a claim by the Chairman of the TRF, was decided by an inspector who rejected the claim as a result of Winchester. This was because, although some copy evidence may have related to this claim, there was no list. A modification to Restricted Byway (RB) was proposed by the inspector. GLPG supported the change and there were no objections – not even from the TRF. On 21 October 2009 the inspector confirmed RB status. The decision can be viewed on the PINS website http://www.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/pins/row_order_advertising/councils/2009/buckinghamshire_county_council.htm under ref FPS/P0430/7/28.
It has emerged from Maroudas v SoSEFRA ( www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/628.html ) that applications without date or signature will also fail on the ground that such defects are not de minimis. That is consistent with the Buckinghamshire inspector’s finding. It is reported that this case is being appealed but no details are yet available. GLPG’s view is that if an appeal proceeds, it is very unlikely to succeed. The High Court judge refused leave for that reason, and it is assumed that the Appeal Court has allowed leave based on a paper application.