Agenda and minutes

(1)       Members of the Panel visited the site before the meeting. The visit was attended by Mr Ken Ingleton (Chairman of Minster-on-Sea PC) and by Mr John Stanford and Mr Mike Young (also Minster-on-Sea PC).  Mr A D Crowther, Vice-Chairman of the Regulation Committee was also present. 

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer introduced the application which had been made by Minster-on-Sea PC under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006.  She said that the land in question (except for a small tract to the north of the sewage pumping station) was owned by Swale BC who had made no formal objection. 

(3)       Swale BC had confirmed that the land had been registered in their name in 1967 and had also drawn attention to a reference to the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 contained in the Land Registry title.  This suggested that the land might have been held for recreational purposes. However, no further documentation had been produced as supporting evidence to this effect.

(4)       The Commons Registration Officer then explained that the task for the Panel was to consider whether it could be shown that a significant number of the residents of a locality or of any neighbourhood within a locality had indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years up to the date of application.  This meant that the Panel had to consider whether every single test contained in the Commons Act 2006 had been met.  This was necessary, even though there had been no objection to the application.

(5)       The Commons Registration Officer went on to consider each of the tests. She said that there had indisputably been no question of force or secrecy in the use of the site.  Furthermore, there was no confirmation that the land had been held under the provisions of the Physical Education and Training Act 1937; nor was there any other evidence that use had been with permission. She therefore concluded that use of the land had been “as of right.”

(6)       The Commons Registration Officer then said that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the land had been used for lawful sports and pastimes.  Use had been by a significant number of people from the administrative area of Minster-on-Sea – as evidenced by the 86 user forms. This use had been taking place for well over the required 20 year period and had continued up to and beyond the date of application in November 2010.

(7)       The Commons Registration Officer concluded her presentation by saying that as all the legal tests had been met, her recommendation to the Panel was that the land should be formally registered as a Village Green.

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

(9)       RESOLVED to inform the applicant that the application to register the land known as Scrapsgate Open Space and Playing Field at Minster-on-Sea as a new Village  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

(1)       The Commons Registration Officer briefly introduced the report, explaining that she had concluded that the user evidence demonstrated that the site had been used by local residents without challenge for recreational purposes for a period in excess of 20 years and that all the legal tests for registration had been met. She therefore recommended that the land in question should be registered as a Village Green.

(2)       Mr Ashley Clark, the applicant addressed the Panel. He said that this was the third Village Green application at Duncan Down, and that registration would ensure that the overall size of the Village Green would be 52 acres – one of the largest in the Country.

(3)       Mr Clark added that the Friends of Duncan Down had installed a footbridge across the brook in order to improve access and to enable the site to be tidied up.  There had been an objection from a local resident to this activity.  Once the land was registered as a Village Green, its status would be regularised and it would be properly maintained.  The user evidence clearly demonstrated that the land had been used for lawful sports and pastimes for longer than the required period – so it was entirely appropriate that registration should take place.

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

(5)       RESOLVED to inform the applicant that the application to register the land at Duncan Down in Whitstable as a new Village Green 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 before the meeting. This visit was attended by the applicant, Mr Richard Norman; representatives from the University of Kent (the landowners); Mr G K Gibbens (the local Member) and some 25 members of the public.

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer introduced the application which had been made under Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008.  The application had been accompanied by 262 user evidence questionnaires together with detailed statements of use from the applicants, photographs, a map showing the locality, a newspaper article and a list of facts and figures relating to St Stephen’s ward in the city of Canterbury.  Letters of support had also been received from 85 local residents and students at the University.

(3)       The Commons Registration Officer said that the University of Kent as the landowner had objected to the application.  They had claimed that use of the land for lawful sports and pastimes had not been by a significant number of residents of the locality; that use of the site had been with permission; and that such use as had occurred had been confined to public footpaths and “desire lines”.  

(4)       The Commons Registration Officer then said that it was the University’s contention that signs had been erected at some point between November 1989 and April 1990 at each entrance to the University (including Chaucer Field).  These had stated that the land was private property and that access was by way of a revocable licence. Since then, these signs had often become illegible, but had also been replaced from time to time.  The University also believed that the land was unattractive and unsuitable for lawful sports and pastimes as much of it was densely covered in trees, whilst other parts had been used to take a hay crop.

(5)       The Commons Registration Officer then referred to Appendix D of the report which contained 11 statutory declarations from current and former University employees. Their evidence was that notices had been in place at various times (explaining that use was by revocable permission) and that the land was mainly used as a short cut to and from the University. Any other use (such as by dog walkers) had been in exercise of existing rights of way over the application site. 

(6)       The Commons Registration Officer went on to consider the legal tests, each of which had to be met in full for registration to take place. She explained that the task for the Panel was to consider whether it could be shown that a significant number of the residents of a locality or of any neighbourhood within a locality had indulged as of rights in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years. 

(7)       The first test was whether use of the land had been as of right.  It was agreed by all parties that use of the land had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.