Agenda and minutes

(1)       The Public Rights of Way Officer briefly explained that a large part of Hartley Woods in the ownership of Southwark LB had been registered in 2009.  As a consequence, Hartley PC had offered to voluntarily register the remainder of the land which was under its ownership.

(2)       As this was a voluntary registration, the only matters for the Panel to consider were whether the applicants actually owned the land; and whether use of the land would be by people living in a locality. 

(3)       The necessary checks had proved that Hartley PC was indeed the landowner, whilst it was appropriate that the locality should be defined as the civil parish of Hartley.

(4)       On being put to the vote, the recommendations of the Head of Countryside Service were unanimously agreed.

(5)       RESOLVED that the applicant be informed that the application to register the land at Hartley Woods in Hartley has been accepted, and that the land subject to the application be formally registered as a Village Green.

(1)       Members of the Panel visited the application site shortly before the meeting.   Mr P Rose, the applicant and Ms R McIntyre were present.

(2)       Mrs J N Law was present for this item pursuant to Committee Procedure 2.24.  

(3)       Also present at the meeting were Mr P Rose (applicant) and Ms R McIntyre (supporter), Mrs J Taylor (Legal Services – Canterbury CC) and Mrs R Doyle (Canterbury CC Portfolio Holder for Environment and Street Scene).

(4)       The Public Rights of Way Officer introduced the application, which had been made under Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006.  She informed the Panel that it had been accompanied by more than 1000 user evidence questionnaires, three letters of support and a petition containing 70 signatures. 

(5)       Ownership of the land was predominantly by Canterbury City Council who had objected that the land was not capable of being registered.  

(6)       In 1970 the Commons Commissioner had determined that the land (which at that time was mainly owned by Herne Bay Urban District Council) should not be registered.

(7)       The Public Rights of Way Officer briefly explained that there was no dispute that the land had been used for lawful sports and pastimes by a significant number of inhabitants in the locality of Herne Bay for a period of over twenty years up to the date of the application.  The outstanding issue was whether it has been used “as of right”.

(8)       The Public Rights of Way Officer explained that in order for use of the land to have been “as of right”; use would have needed to be without force, stealth or permission.  It was clear that neither force nor stealth had been used.  The critical question was whether it had been used without permission.

(9)       In order to ascertain whether use had been with or without permission, it was necessary to investigate the purposes for and powers under which it had been acquired.   The City Council’s records were incomplete in this regard, although it claimed that the land had mainly been acquired under the Public Health Act 1875 as open space for the use and enjoyment of the public.  

(10)     The Public Rights of Way Officer said that such land as had been acquired under the 1875 Act would, in her and Counsel’s opinion, be incapable of registration as use would have been “by right” rather than “as of right.”   She added that the applicant disputed this interpretation of the Law and that it had never been tested in the Courts.

(11)     The Public Rights of Way Officer then said that the applicant had argued that it would be wrong to place reliance on entries in the Register of Council-owned land which referred to “presumably Public Health Act 1875.” 

(12)      The Public Rights of Way Officer concluded her presentation by saying that Counsel had advised that there were a large number of unanswered questions in respect of how the land was held by the City Council. The best solution would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.