Agenda and minutes

(1)       Mr R A Pascoe and Mr R E Brookbank each made a declaration of Personal Interest as they were Members of the Planning Applications Committee which would be considering any planning application for development of the land in question.  Mr S J G Koowaree also made a declaration of Personal Interest as a Member of the Kent Adult Social Services Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  

(2)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer informed the Panel that the application had been made by Mr P Allen, accompanied by 70 user evidence questionnaires.   Objections to the application had been made by Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council and by 8 local residents. Twenty four letters of support had also been received.

(3)       The land in question was owned by Kent County Council and an objection to the application had been received from its Property Group.   Kent Adult Social Services had applied for the construction of 40 extra care apartments for older people on the land.   This application had been withdrawn.   It was still possible that a similar application would come forward at a later stage.

(4)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer said that there was a provision for the County Council to refer Village Green applications to the Planning Inspectorate in circumstances when in was considered that the authority had an interest in the outcome which would seriously call into question the authority’s ability to determine the matter impartially.    The Panel should not consider whether it had confidence in its own ability to act impartially.  It was rather a matter of whether a reasonable local resident, in possession of all the facts, could reasonably conclude that the County Council was not in a position to do so.  

(5)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer concluded her presentation by explaining the grounds for her recommendation. These were that the County Council owned the land, had recently sought to develop the land and had publicly stated that it might pursue development options in the future.  Under these circumstances, the local community could reasonably lack confidence in the decision-making process.

(6)       Mr P Allen, the applicant addressed the Panel in support of the recommendations.  He said that there was a fair amount of local mistrust of the County Council. This had arisen when it had fenced off the site at the same time as it had put the care apartments planning application forward.

(7)       Mr R A Pascoe moved, seconded by Mr A D Crowther that the recommendation set out in paragraph of the report be agreed.                                                                   carried unanimously

(8)       RESOLVED that the application to register the land known as Long Field at Angley Road, Cranbrook as a new Village Green be referred to the Planning Inspectorate for determination.

(1)       Members of the Panel visited the application site before the meeting.  The visit was also attended by Mr J Spencer from the Grasmere Pastures Residents Action Group and by Mr P Watkins of Kitewood Estates Ltd.

(2)       The Chairman informed the Panel that he was the Local Member for this application site.  He had had no connection with the application and had not previously expressed any view on its merits.  He would therefore be approaching it with an open mind.

(3)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer introduced the application.  She said that it was a re-submission of an application which had been rejected by the Panel in 2007.   Although there was no provision in Law for an identical application to be re-submitted, the circumstances were sufficiently different to enable a re-hearing on this occasion. This was because the new application was submitted under the provisions of the Commons Act 2006 rather than the Commons Registration Act 1965.  It contained new evidence, which had not been brought to the Panel’s attention in 2007.

(4)       The application had been submitted by the Grasmere Pastures Residents Action Group and had been accompanied by 152 user questionnaires.  It had received support from Chestfield Parish Council, whilst Canterbury City Council had raised no objection.  The landowner, OW Prestland Ltd had objected on the grounds that the specified locality was not a qualifying locality for registration; that the principal use of the site had been through exercise of the Public Footpaths which crossed the land rather than for lawful sorts and pastimes; that the land had not been used for lawful sports and pastimes during the months when hay was being grown and harvested; and that use of the site had not been as of right due to the erection of “private property” notices.

(5)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer then considered each of the legal tests.  In terms of whether use of the land had been “as of right”, use of the land had clearly not been through secrecy or with permission.  The question was whether it had been used by force.  There had been no fencing before 2004 but there was conflicting evidence around the “private property “signs. The objectors had claimed that there had always been such notices around the site, whilst the applicants and other users claimed either that there had been no notices before 2004 or that they could not recollect them being there.  It was also their view that the notices themselves did not refer to the land in question.   

(6)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer said that the objectors claimed that the principal use of the application site had been to walk along the designated footpath.  As such use would be “by right”, it could not have been “as of right” as would be necessary for the site to be registered.   The applicants, on the other hand, said that the site had been used by many  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

(1)       Members of the Panel visited the application site before the meeting.  The visit was also attended by Mr A Clark, Mrs A Palmer and Mrs F Cornish from the Friends of Duncan Down; and by N Strand (landowner) and his son Mr J Strand.  

(2)       The Chairman informed the Panel that he was the Local Member for this application site.  He had had no connection with the application and had not previously expressed any view on its merits.  He would therefore be approaching it with an open mind.

(3)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer introduced the application which had been submitted by The Friends of Duncan Down on 19 October 2009 under the provisions of the Commons Act 2006.   It had been accompanied by 50 user evidence questionnaires, photographs, newspaper cuttings and a leaflet.   Objections had been received from two of the three landowners, Mrs Lucchesi and Mrs Buchan.  They considered that use of the land had been by force as fences had been erected and cut down or otherwise damaged.

(4)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer then considered each of the legal tests.  In terms of whether use of the land had been “as of right”, use of the land had clearly not been through secrecy or with permission.  The objectors were claiming that use had been by force.   Investigations had led to the conclusion that there had been no sign of fencing having been put up continually or recently, although there was some evidence of the remnants of old fencing.  There had also been much evidence of use being unchallenged or otherwise restricted.  

(5)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer said that the user evidence indicated a range of activities which qualified as lawful sports and pastimes.  These included dog walking, fruit picking, jogging, photography and bird watching.

(6)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer said that the applicants had specified the electoral wards of Gorrell and Seasalter as the “locality”.  Although it was unclear whether two wards could be combined to represent a “locality”, an analysis of the addresses of those who had submitted user questionnaire forms showed that most users lived in the Gorrell ward, which could appropriately be identified as such.   The number of users was also sufficient to be defined as “significant” because there were enough respondents to indicate that the land in question was in general use by the local community.  

(7)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer said that it was clear that use of the site had continued up to and, indeed, beyond the date of application.  It was equally clear from the evidence user forms that this use had taken place for a period of 20 years.

(8)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer concluded her presentation by saying that, in her professional view, each of the legal tests had been met and that she therefore recommended that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.