Definitive maps and statements: presumptions and precedence following Moore v SSEFRA

The Planning Court’s decision in Moore v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2025] EWHC 3313 (Admin) clarifies the evidential status of definitive maps and definitive statements under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and how decision makers should navigate a conflict between the two.

The case concerned the location of Bridleway 18 in Little Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire.

Two provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are central. Section 56 sets out that the map and statement are conclusive evidence of the existence and status of the rights of way. Section 53 requires surveying authorities to keep the definitive records under continuous review and to make modifications where evidence shows the records are wrong. This includes correcting mistakes.

The Court of Appeal in McLeish v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2024] EWCA Civ 1562 emphasised the interplay between these provisions. s56 does not apply to the review process itself as, if it did, any errors could never be corrected through s53 because the existing map and statement would always be conclusive. The definitive records provide public certainty, but the statute also ensures they can be corrected if new evidence shows a mistake.

The starting presumption

When deciding whether a right of way marked on the definitive map exists, decision makers must start with an initial presumption that it does. This is the presumption established in Trevelyan v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWCA Civ 266. It is not derived from s56 but arises because definitive maps were created through a careful and elaborate statutory scheme, so any changes should not be made lightly.

The presumption is, however, just a starting point. It can be changed where the map and statement are in irreconcilable conflict, or where other evidence shows that existing records are mistaken.

DM or DS?

Under s56, the definitive map is the primary document. The statement sets out the particulars but depends ultimately on the conclusiveness of the map. If the statement cannot reasonably be read as describing the route shown on the map, then the map prevails.

However, once the reviewing authority or inspector is engaged in a s53 review, neither the map nor the statement is conclusive. The discovery of an irreconcilable conflict between them is evidence of error which displaces the Trevelyan presumption. From that point, the inspector must decide on the balance of probabilities, considering all relevant evidence.

Irreconcilable conflict

The circumstances in Moore are not dissimilar to those in R (Norfolk CC) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2006] 1 WLR 1103, and the inspector followed the approach established there. The statement described a route commencing at Little Berkhamsted Lane that passed between Breach House and two cottages. The cottages at 10 and 12 Little Berkhamsted Lane existed by the relevant date, even though they were absent from the Ordnance Survey used to produce the first definitive map. This made the statement’s description incompatible with the line on the map. The inspector therefore concluded that there was irreconcilable conflict between the map and statement for Bridleway 18.

Discovery of evidence and the balance of probabilities

S53 requires the discovery of evidence which, when considered with all other relevant evidence, shows that the particulars contained in the definitive records require modification. The discovery that the map and statement differ can itself be considered evidence that modification is required. Once the presumption is displaced, the inspector must consider further evidence and decide on the balance of probabilities.

The outcome in Moore

Having found an irreconcilable conflict, the inspector in Moore concluded on the balance of probabilities that Bridleway 18 ran along the route C-D-E-B and not along the original A-B line. This conclusion was supported by historic documents, aerial photography, parish council surveys and other evidence.

This case is helpful to practitioners in confirming that the definitive map is the primary source outside a review process, but once a review under s53 is triggered neither the map nor the statement is conclusive. The process must begin with the presumption set out in Trevelyan, followed by a test of the statement’s compatibility with the map, and if that fails, proceed to an evidence‑led probability assessment.