Agenda and minutes

(1)       The Panel visited the application site shortly before the meeting. This visit was attended by the landowners Mr and Mrs Frith and some 6 members of the public.

(2)       Mr A Frith, the landowner provided a copy of the text of his presentation to all parties prior to the meeting.  Mr R A Pascoe noted that this presentation was intending to refer to Shepway DC.  Mr Pascoe informed the Panel that he was a Member of Shepway DC but that he had not taken part in any discussions by that Authority about the application or any related topic.

(3)       The Commons Registration Officer opened her presentation by explaining that the application had been made in October 2011 under Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008.  In order for registration to take place, it needed to be shown that a significant number of the inhabitants of any 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.

(4)       The Commons Registration Officer then said that the application had been supported by 40 user evidence forms and that letters of support had been received from the Local Member, Mrs Waters and from Shepway DC Councillor, Mrs E Gould.

(5)       The  Commons Registration Officer went on to inform the Panel that the landowners, Mr and Mrs Frith had objected to the application (supported by an opinion from Counsel.)  One of these objections had been that the applicants had not complied with the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the service of notice on the landowner.  She therefore went on to address this particular question.

(6)       The Commons Registration Officer said that the applicants were required were required by Regulation 20 (1) of the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008 to serve notice of the application on the landowner “as soon as reasonably practical after receiving an acknowledgement of an application.”  She said that the Regulations seemed to have been written on the assumption that the Registration Authority would immediately begin working on an application the moment it was received. In practice, KCC had been faced with a six month backlog at the point of receipt.  The applicants had therefore been asked to notify the landowner informally but to wait until after KCC had published the notice to do so officially.  In the light of the applicant’s objection, legal advice had been taken. This advice had indicated that the landowner had placed too much reliance on the words “as soon as reasonably practical.”  This phrase was not as restrictive as the landowner believed, and DEFRA guidance appeared to advise that the landowner’s objection period should run roughly in tandem with the consultation period.  She therefore did not consider that the application should be treated as having been abandoned.

(7)       Mr Craske asked for confirmation that the application had been acknowledged informally at an early  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.