Agenda and minutes

(1)       The Chairman informed the Panel that he was the leader of Swale BC.  He had not participated in any discussion on this application and was able to approach its determination with a fresh mind.

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer began her presentation by saying that there had been two applications under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2014 by Mr M Baldock.   The first application had been made on 25 March 2013, and the second on 30 October 2015. 

(3)       The Commons Registration Officer went on to say that as a result of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, the County Council was required to write to the relevant planning authorities in order to ascertain whether the application site was affected by development or a “trigger event” (with no corresponding “terminating event”). If so, the County Council would be unable to entertain the application.   Upon receipt of the first application, all planning authorities (including Swale BC) had confirmed that the site was not subject to any “trigger events.”   The County Council had therefore published notice of the application.

(4)       During the consultation process, the landowners’ representative had noted that the site had been identified in the draft Local Plan by Swale BC, which meant that it was the subject of a “trigger event.  This was confirmed by Swale BC, who had also confirmed that the land allocation had been deleted on 20 February 2014.    The advice from Kent Legal Services was that the first application should be rejected as there was a trigger event affecting the site on the date of application.  

(5)       There had been no “trigger event” in place when the second application was submitted on 30 October 2015.  This was despite the fact that an application for planning permission had been received for a change of use of the land. This application was not published until 27 November 2015, which was after the date of application.   

(6)       The Commons Registration Officer went on to consider the second application in the light of the legal tests. The first of these was whether use of the site had been “as of right.”  The main objector had asserted that a ditch had been constructed along Cryalls Lane in 2004 and that 2 notices had been erected along Cryalls Lane in 2003. They had been unable to provide photographic evidence to this effect.  The applicant on the other hand, did not accept that use of the site had been challenged in any way during the qualifying period. .

(7)       The Commons Registration Officer turned to the question of whether the land had been used for purposes of lawful sports and pastimes.  She said that this was a question where there was a conflict of evidence.   The user evidence stated that activities included walking (with or without dogs), fruit picking, picnics and playing with children.  The landowners claimed that due to its overgrown state, use would have necessarily been limited to worn paths and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

(1)       The Chairman informed the Panel that he was the leader of Swale BC.  He had not participated in any discussion on this application and was able to approach its determination with a fresh mind.

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer began her presentation by saying that the application had been made under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2014 by Mr M Baldock.   It had been accompanied by 13 user evidence questionnaires and support from Borden PC on the basis that the land had been used for recreational purposes for at least 40 years. 

(3)       The Commons Registration Officer went on to say that as a result of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, the County Council was required to write to the relevant planning authorities in order to ascertain whether the application site was affected by development or a “trigger event” (with no corresponding “terminating event”). If so, the County Council would be unable to entertain the application.   Swale BC had advised that the site had been identified in the emerging Swale Local Plan as “a transport issue requiring further consideration.”   They had provided a plan which showed potential improvements highway developments proposed by the developer affecting a strip of land on the western strip of the site bordering Wises Lane.  This land had not been the subject of any transport assessment and had not been agreed with either the Borough Council or Kent Highways.

(4)       The advice from Kent Legal Services was that that as the land was only identified for potential development and as the plan had not been formally agreed, the information available was too uncertain to positively conclude that the land had actually been identified for development and that therefore, the “trigger event had not occurred.  The Village Green application had consequently been accepted for consideration. 

(5)       The Commons Registration Officer informed the Panel that Swale BC had objected to the application because of its concerns over the impact on future development.  She explained that this was not a consideration that could affect the determination of the application. The only issue in the County Council’s remit was whether the application met the legal tests for registration. 

(6)       The Commons Registration Officer went on to consider the application in the light of the legal tests. The first of these was whether use of the site had been “as of right.”  The objectors claimed that the site was incapable of registration because it comprised highway land. This had been confirmed by a covering letter from Kent Highways Services, which also contained a disclaimer to the effect that they could not guarantee the complete accuracy of their reply.   She said that it was therefore necessary to establish whether it was indeed Highways land and, if so, the nature of the recreational use on it.  Was the land in recreational use or was it simply the case that the right of passage was being exercised.  

(7)       The Commons Registration Officer continued by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

(1)       The Commons Registration Officer reported that the application had been made by Westwell PC under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2014.   She added that the Local Member, Mr C Simkins had expressed his full support for the application.

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer then informed the Panel that the site was unregistered with the Land Registry and that no communication had been received from anyone claiming to be the Landowner.  This did not mean that the application would necessarily succeed as the legal tests all needed to be met. 

(3)    The Commons Registration Officer briefly explained that that all the tests had indeed been met.  The land had clearly been used as of right as no one had ever challenged this use.  Amongst the lawful sports and pastimes identified were dog walking, conker gathering, community bulb planting and Christmas carols.   The site had been used on regular occasions by a enough residents of the civil parish of Westwell to demonstrate that it was in use by a significant number of its inhabitants.  Use had been for over twenty years and had continued up to the date of application.   She therefore recommended that the land should be registered as a Village Green.

(4)       On being put to the vote, the recommendations were unanimously agreed.

(5)       RESOLVED that the applicant be informed that the application to register land known as Church Green at Westwell as a new Town or Village Green has been accepted and that the land subject to the application be registered as a Village Green.

(1)       The Commons Registration Officer briefly reported that the application for voluntary registration had been made under section 15 (8) of the Commons Act 2006 by East Malling and Larkfield PC.  As such, the legal tests which needed to be met were far less onerous than was normally the case.

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer confirmed that the necessary legal tests had been met in that a Land Registration search had confirmed that the application site was wholly owned by the Parish Council and that the qualifying locality was the civil parish of East Malling and Larkfield. 

(3)       On being put to the vote the recommendations were unanimously agreed.

(4)       RESOLVED that the applicant be informed that the application to register the land known as Rocks Close Green at East Malling has been accepted and that the land subject to the application be registered as a Town or Village Green.

(1)       The Commons Registration Officer briefly reported that the application for voluntary registration had been made under section 15 (8) of the Commons Act 2006 by Riverhead PC.  As such, the legal tests which needed to be met were far less onerous than was normally the case.

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer confirmed that the necessary legal tests had been met in that a Land Registration search had confirmed that the application site was for the most part owned by the Parish Council and that the qualifying locality was the civil parish of Riverhead. 

(3)       The Commons Registration Officer then said that it had come to light during the initial checks that two strips of land were not owned by the Parish Council.  The consultation period had then brought to light that the driveways of the properties in St Mary’s Drive were also not in the Parish Council’s ownership.  As a result, the application had been amended by the Parish Council to exclude these areas (as set out in Appendix A of the report).

(4)       On being put to the vote the recommendations were unanimously agreed.

(5)       RESOLVED that the applicant be informed that the application to register the land known as Riverhead Parkland at Riverhead has been accepted and that the land subject to the application (as amended and shown at Appendix A) be registered as a Town or Village Green.