From: roger@hayter.org
On 1 Aug 2025 at 15:27:26 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
wrote:
> On 2025-08-01, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/07/2025 18:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message , at 13:36:35 on Thu, 31
>>> Jul 2025, Kempshott remarked:
>>>> Does a Local Authority have a statutory duty to keep its online
>>>> definitive map up to date?
>>>>
>>>> Ours still says "last update March 2021" and there have been many
>>>> Modification Orders passed since then.
>>>
>>> I bet there's a lot of pre-2021 changes not on it either. I've had cause
>>> to look at these maps in the past, and they are often woefully out of
date.
>>
>> It is pot luck what is and what is not included on the definitive maps.
>>
>> I suspect form the name that they are supposed to be maintained but if
>> you know an area well it isn't hard to find recent changes that are
>> missing. Updating them doesn't seem to be a high priority.
>
> There's either two possibilities, and I think the answer could be either
> depending on which local authority it is.
>
> Either it isn't "the Definitive Map" at all, it's just an online map,
> in which case I would expect there's no statutory duty to update it.
> It might claim to reflect information from the Definitive Map, but
> that doesn't make it definitive itself.
>
> Or, it is "the Definitive Map", in which case it is, er, definitive.
> If it shows a right of way exists, then it does, and if it doesn't,
> it doesn't. If they haven't updated it to show rights of way that
> the council intended to create, then they haven't created them.
I agree that this is the apparent legal situation. But it may be that a
third
possibility exists: that the 'definitive map' actually exists in a state
which
entails an old map and a set of approved amendments to it which together
constitutes the 'definitive map'. It is not impossible that a court would
accept this as the least worst interpretation.
--
Roger Hayter
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
