Campaign group succeeds on single ground in battle over grazing on Dartmoor Commons

The court found the commoners’ council could not rely on local people’s estimates of animal numbers to arrive at firm conclusions on this and so had failed to fulfil its duties.

Mr Justice Mould heard that the council has statutory responsibilities under Part III of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 Act for regulating the Dartmoor Commons and under the same Act must maintain these and promote proper standards of livestock husbandry, including by assessment of the number of animals which can properly be grazed.

The Act requires the council to make regulations to ensure that the commons are not overstocked and so may fix the numbers of livestock which a commoner may graze on the commons.

Wild Justice argued that over-grazing was causing damage to wildlife and habitats and said the council had neglected to properly manage livestock.

Its successful ground of challenge concerned whether the council was in breach of its duty by failing to make any meaningful assessment of the number of animals which may properly be grazed on the commons while having regard to the preservation of the commons’ flora, fauna and ecological value.

Mould J said he accepted Wild Justice’s submission that assessment of the number of animals which can be grazed is fundamental to the council's discharge of its functions under the 1985 Act and that a core function was to regulate common rights to maintain the commons and promote livestock husbandry through periodic assessments to reach a meaningful and evidence-based judgment on the need to control overstocking and achieve the required maintenance.

The judge said that while the council had significant discretion over how it should achieve these goals, it was “clear that the control of stock numbers and the avoidance of overstocking is central to the achievement of those purposes”.

He said: “Assessment of the number of animals that may properly be grazed on the commons at any given time necessarily implies both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

“The question for the [council] is whether stocking levels exceed the capacity of the commons properly to accommodate them.”

This meant the council had to interrogate the numbers of livestock which commoners are entitled to graze on the commons and factors that affected this.

But he noted the commoners' council had said it “purported to rely upon individual members' own knowledge and experience of stocking numbers on the commons as a sufficient basis for meaningful assessment of the number of animals which may properly be grazed on the commons from time to time.

“I was offered no explanation as to how such essentially anecdotal evidence could sensibly found a determination by the [council] that the commons were overstocked, at sustainable stock levels or indeed understocked.

"In my judgment, that is not a legally sufficient basis for meaningful assessment by a regulatory body in support of performance of its core statutory functions. The [council] is a regulatory body performing public law duties. To rely solely on anecdotal information…is insufficient to fulfil the defendant's duty of reasonable inquiry.”

Mark Smulian