Agenda and minutes

(1)       Members of the Panel visited the application site prior to the meeting.  The visit was attended by Dr L Hall (the applicant); Mrs J Roberts (Tunbridge Wells BC – the landowner) and by some 15 members of the public.

(2)       Correspondence from Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council was circulated to the Panel Members prior to the meeting.

(3)       The Public Rights of Way Officer introduced the application. She explained the reasons for the Director of Environment and Waste’s recommendations to refuse the application.  These were that the Offices themselves could not have been used by the public as of right; and that the land surrounding the building had not been used by a significant number of inhabitants from a neighbourhood within the administrative parish of Cranbrook and Sissinghurst for lawful sports and pastimes (which had only taken place infrequently).

(4)       Mr A Bringloe addressed the Panel in support of the application. He said that he had been employed as the most senior Officer at the Borough Council Offices in Cranbrook between 1992 and 2006.  During this period there had been a number of activities such as dog walking. Children were always playing outside during Office hours (skateboarding, cycling, football).  On occasions, the Office staff had needed to ask the children to keep the noise down.  The decision to allow these activities had been taken following consultation with the Police, because it was considered to be preferable for the children to play there than in the road.

(5)       Mr Bringloe said that the gates were never shut during the time that he had been there. It would have been pointless to lock them as so many people had keys to the site and building. He took issue with the description of the Offices in paragraph 21 of the report as a commercial building and said that because of the frequency of its use by the public, it had many of the attributes of a village hall and was seen as such by the local residents. Its many users included the Vine Church, the Town Band (who kept their instruments there), Age Concern and the Kent Highways Project. 

(6)       Mr Bringloe replied to a question by Mr Pascoe by saying that users were charged for using the building.

(7)       Mrs J Martin-Gutkowska said that she lived in the neighbouring Wheatfield Drive. She had personally seen the frequency with which children (including her son) had used the land to play in. She had taken pictures of her son skateboarding there whilst she had personally used the land for bird watching.   Many of the residents had affirmed that their children and grandchildren played there as it was the only safe, open place in the vicinity, particularly for those children who lived in Joyce Close (which bounded the site to the North).

(8)       Mr N Whitehead said that he lived opposite the Council Offices.  He had seen that the site had been used as a playground by teenagers for biking,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

(1)       Members of the Panel visited the site prior to the meeting. The visit was attended by the applicant, Mr J Chappell and by Mr K G Lynes, the Local Member.   The landowners, Gleeson Strategic Land Limited had been invited but did not attend.

(2)       Correspondence from Gleeson Strategic Land Limited dated 19 and 22 October 2010 had previously been circulated to all Members of the Panel.  Photographs taken by the Officers had also been circulated to them showing the network of paths through the woodland.

(3)       The Public Rights of Way Officer introduced the application and explained the reasons for the Director of Environment and Waste’s recommendations.  She explained that the landowners had submitted three grounds for objection and considered each of these in turn.

(4)       The Public Rights of Way Officer said that the Landowner’s first ground for objection was that the evidence submitted related almost exclusively to the lake. She had, however, concluded that there was very clear evidence of use as well trodden paths criss-crossed the site, whilst the large amounts of litter indicated widespread use of the entire site.  The Public Rights of Way Officer referred the Panel to Lightman J’s comments in paragraph 95 of the first instance in the Oxfordshire case as well as to Lord Hoffman’s comments in paragraph 67 of the House of Lords decision in the same case.

(5)       The Public Rights of Way Officer said that the Landowner’s second ground for objection was that the previous landowner had entered into a legal agreement with the Sherwood Park Angling Club in 1994. This agreement was contained in paragraph D of the report and certainly indicated that the Angling Club was using the land with permission.  Gleesons had not, however, been able to provide any further information about the users. Nor had they been able to show in what way this agreement had been enforced.  It was therefore very difficult to conclude that the general use of the site had not been as of right.

(6)       The Public Rights of Way Officer said that the Landowner’s third ground for objection was that a fence had been erected along the boundary with Greggs Wood Road in 2008 and that this had replaced an earlier fence.  Gleesons had been asked to provide evidence of locked gates or notices but had been unable to do so. 

(7)       The Public Rights of Way Officer responded to several criticisms raised by Gleesons in their letters relating to procedural matters. She explained that the County Council had no investigative duty in relation to Village green applications and that it was for the landowners to provide rebutting evidence. They had been provided with ample opportunity to do so. She added that the grounds for holding a Public Inquiry were set out in the Whitney case and referred the Panel to paragraph 66 of the Court of Appeal’s judgement in that case.  She also responded to the Human Rights issue raised by Gleesons by referring the Panel to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.