Agenda and minutes

The Committee membership varied from that shown on the agenda by the inclusion of Mr H R Craske and Mr R J Lees instead of Mr A D Crowther and Mr T Gates.

(1)       Members of the Panel visited the application site prior to the meeting.  This visit was attended by Mrs L Boycott (a Gravesham Borough Councillor) and Mr M Ciuca (Gravesham BC Legal Services.)

(2)       The Chairman had been unable to attend the visit to the site owing to traffic congestion.  He offered to vacate the chair in favour of one of the other four Panel Members. The Panel agreed that his absence from the site visit should not prevent him from either chairing the meeting or from in any other way participating in the decision making process.

(3)       Mr H R Craske informed the Panel that he was a Gravesham Borough Councillor.  He had, though, at no stage been involved in discussions about this application and therefore did not have a personal interest in this matter.

(4)       The Commons Registration Officer introduced the application by saying that it had been made by a local resident, Mrs B Field under Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008 and had been accompanied by 17 User Questionnaire forms.  The site of the application was a discrete part of the Culverstone Recreation Ground, consisting of grassland and trees. It had been planted with daffodils which were in full flower when Members had visited the site. 

(5)       The land in question was owned by Gravesham BC which also owned the rest of the Recreation Ground, having been acquired by the Borough Council from the former Strood Rural District Council in March 1974.  Gravesham BC had objected to the application on the grounds that the land had been acquired specifically for the purposes of public recreation and that use of the site had therefore taken place “by right” rather than “as of right.”

(6)       The Commons Registration Officer then considered each of the legal tests. The first of these was whether use of the land had been “as of right.”  It was evident that people had been able to use the land freely and without hindrance.  In order for the application to succeed, this use would also have needed to be without permission.   Gravesham BC had claimed that it had acquired the land from Strood Rural District Council in exercise of powers contained in the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937.   Although the Deed of Transfer between the two authorities was silent on this point, there was a significant body of evidence (set out in paragraph 21 of the report) in support of the Borough Council’s contention.

(7)       The Commons Registration Officer explained that although there was no specific legal provision to prevent land held under the Physical Training and Recreation Act being registered, there were strong judicial precedents to suggest that this was the case. She referred to the Beresford and Barkas Court cases.   In the second of these, the High Court had ruled that as the public were legally entitled to use the land, they should not be regarded as trespassing when they did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(1)       Mr H R Craske informed the Panel that regularly walked on the land in question.  However, none of the parties concerned were known to him and he was able to approach this matter with a fresh mind.

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer said that this was an application that the County Council was able to consider as part of the Pilot Project.   She explained that Common Land had been defined in the Commons Registration Act 1965 as land subject to traditional rights (“rights of common”) or waste land of a manor not subject to rights of common.  The most widely exercised rights of common (which legally went back to medieval times) was the right to graze animals.  There were also other less familiar rights such as “pannage” (a right to turn out pigs in woodland to graze on acorns) or “piscary” (a right to fish).  

(3)       The Commons Registration Officer then turned to the application itself.  The land had been acquired from the University of Cambridge by ET Ledger and Son Ltd.  Evidence of a Deed of Sale had been provided.  The transfer of the Rights of Common associated with this land would not take place until it was entered on the Register. 

(4)       On being put to the vote, the recommendations of the head of Regulatory Services were unanimously agreed.

(5)       RESOLVED to inform the applicant that the application to amend the Register of Common Land to reflect the recent transfer of rights of common has been accepted and that the Register of Common Land for Unit CL86 be amended accordingly.