Agenda and minutes

(1)        The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer informed the Panel that Marden Parish Council wished to voluntarily register the land in question as a Village Green under the provisions of the Commons Act 2006. 

(2)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer explained that the County Council needed to establish that Marden PC had the capacity to register the land.  This entailed being able to demonstrate that the Parish Council owned the land (which it did) as well as being able to identify the locality in which the users of the land resided. In this case, the locality was the parish of Marden.  As these two tests had been passed, she was able to recommend registration.

(3)       Mr Richard Adam (Marden Parish Council) said that the case was sufficiently straight forward that the land could have been registered even if the Parish Council had not offered to do so.  Registration would enable the land to become an asset that was safeguarded for future generations. He also pointed out that a strip of land to the east and south side of the site (comprising Public Footpath KM280) was not owned by the Parish Council and that it would be essential to ensure that the boundary was carefully drawn.

(4)       RESOLVED to inform the applicant that the application to register the land known as the Playing Field at Marden 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 M Billick was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr J Mills, the landowner was also present together with his representative, Mr M Wood from Landnet Ltd.

(2)       Mr Billick, Mr Mills and Mr Wood were also present at the meeting together with some 9 members of the public.

(3)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration officer introduced the application, which had been made under Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 by Dr R Crawfurd on behalf of the St Michael’s Village Community Group.  It had been accompanied by 26 letters of support. Support had also been given by High Halden PC whilst no comment had been received from Tenterden TC.

(4)       The area of land subject to the application was a portion of Dawbourne Wood, some 7½ acres in size.  It was in the ownership of Lakehurst Developments Ltd, who had objected.  Its formal access was through a gate along Ashford Road. This gate was normally locked but had been opened for the purposes of the site visit that morning.  There were no Public Rights of Way (PROWs) across the site.  An Order designating four routes across the land as PROWs in 2007 had not been confirmed.  Some of the points made during the PROW application had informed the consideration of this application. 

(5)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration 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 St Michael’s in Tenterden.  The outstanding issues were whether it had been used “as of right” for a period of twenty years up to the date of application or met one of the criteria set out in Sections 15 (3) and (4) of the Commons Act 2006.

(6)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration 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 stealth had not been used.  There was no evidence of permission having been given. There was, however, a question as to whether use had been by force.

(7)       The Public Rights of Way and Commons Registration Officer explained that when establishing whether force had been used, the law of prescription relied on acquiescence on behalf of the landowner.  The wooden gates had been locked in 1997 and replaced by a metal gate in 2004, when signs and notices had also been put up.  People had continued to access the land through a hole in the fence. However, this did not qualify as “as of right” use because use of the land had become contentious on the basis that the landowner had clearly taken steps to discourage entry onto his land.

(8)       The articles published in the local newspaper on 29 May  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.