Agenda item

(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 Lord Scott’s comments in paragraph 86 of the House of Lords judgement in the Oxfordshire case.

(8)       The Public Rights of Way Officer concluded her presentation by saying that, in her view, all the legal tests concerning the registration of the land as a Town Green had been met.

(9)       Mr J Chappell, the applicant introduced himself as the Chair of the Friends of Sherwood Lake.   He said that the local community wanted the lake and woodland registered as a Town Green as they had engaged in lawful sports and pastimes there for an uninterrupted period of more than the required period of 20 years.

(10)     Mr F Williams, the local Borough Councillor, said that walkers used the site because they were attracted by the beauty of the woods with their beech trees and sweet chestnuts. They also enjoyed walking their dogs. The lake was not just used for fishing. The local Brownies and many informal users used it for other lawful pastimes.  This was why the entire local population wanted this application to succeed.

(11)     The Chairman offered the representatives from Gleeson Strategic Land Ltd the opportunity to address the Panel. They respectfully declined.

(12)     Mr K G Lynes (Local Member) said that that local people had lost access to the lake since it had been recently fenced off. Before the fencing had gone up, they had organised litter picking on the site in order to take care of the land. If this application were to be granted, the lake and woodland would be brought back into full enjoyment for the local residents, their children and grandchildren.

(13)     On being put to the vote, the recommendations of the Director of Environment and Waste were unanimously agreed.

(14)     RESOLVED that the applicant be informed that the application to register the land at Sherwood Lake, Tunbridge Wells has been accepted and that the land subject to the application be formally registered as a Town Green.