Minutes:
(1) Members of the Panel had visited the application site prior to the meeting. The visit was attended by Mr S Bax (applicant), Mrs J Taylor (Canterbury City Council) and some 11 members of the public. These included Rev Walling from Barton Residents Association.
(2) Correspondence from Dr S Bax in response to the report had been circulated to the Panel before the meeting. Correspondence from Mr M J Northey (Local Member) in support of the application was tabled.
(3) The Public Rights of Way Officer introduced the application, which had been made under the Commons Act 2006. It had been accompanied by 8 user evidence questionnaires. The land in question had been acquired by Canterbury City Council in 1926 under the Allotments Act.
(4) The Public Rights of Way Officer reported that Canterbury City Council had objected to the application on the grounds that the land had not been used by a significant number of the residents of the locality for the purposes of lawful sports and pastimes over the required period. It had refused permission for a BMX track to be built in 1997 and had removed BMX jumps erected by local youths in 2001.
(5) The Public Rights of Way Officer set out the legal tests that needed to be met in order for registration to take place. She said that, in her view, use had been as of right for a period of twenty years up to the date of the application.
(6) The Public Rights of Way Officer then said that the user evidence questionnaires and evidence provided by the City Council had indicated that use of the land had been trivial and sporadic. For this reason, it could not be said that use had been for lawful sports and pastimes or by a significant number of inhabitants of a particular locality or neighbourhood within a locality. Accordingly, she recommended that the application should not be accepted.
(7) Mr Murphy, a local resident said that he had lived opposite the site since 1985. he had played ball games since 1986. Numerous people had used the site, including an elderly lady who used to walk her dog. He asked the Panel to ensure that this part of Canterbury remained open for recreational use by local residents.
(8) Dr S Bax (applicant) said that the only question that now needed to be addressed was whether use had been by a sufficient number of local people for the landowners to have been made aware that the land was in use. A number of people had observed use which was more widespread than the report suggested, because it had only taken actual claimed usefully into account - although observed use had been reported.
(9) Dr Bax produced an aerial photograph taken in 1998, which he said indicated that the grass had been trimmed and footpaths laid out. Other photographs suggested that the land had been walked on and that the City Council had been aware of this to such an extent that it had cut the grass at least once a year since 1987.
(10) Dr Bax concluded his presentation by saying that use of the land had been sufficient for Canterbury City Council to have been aware of it. However, it had chosen not to take steps to put a stop to this use. He therefore suggested that the Panel should either confirm the Village Green status or defer the application to enable a non-statutory public inquiry to examine the “significant usage” question in greater detail. The land was needed as an open space for local residents.
(11) The Public Rights of Way Officer commented on Dr Bax’ presentation by saying that the Members of the Panel were not allowed to take the question of the need for open space into consideration. Nor could it now consider the new evidence provided by the aerial photograph and the user questionnaire from Mr and Mrs Murphy. The applicant had been asked to provide such information on 10 December 2010. This would have been the appropriate time for this to have been given to the officers. It was important to note the judgement of the Supreme Court that the use of the land needed to be of such amount and in such manner to indicate to the City Council that it was of general use by the community.
(12) Mrs J Taylor (Canterbury City Council) said that she was satisfied with the recommendation to not accept the application. She said that four allotment owners had given evidence that there had been very little use. Two ladies had walked their dogs on the land for a period but this had stopped. Since that time, use had been very occasional indeed, which was the reason that the City Council had not noticed it. On the one occasion in 2001 that the land had been widely used as a BMX track, the City Council had asked the boys to leave.
(13) Dr Bax summed up his case by saying that its primary point was whether the landowner would have known that use was taking place. In his view there was enough evidence to demonstrate that the City Council should have been aware.
(14) The Chairman assured Dr Bax that his request for consideration of the application to be deferred pending a non-statutory public inquiry would be recorded in the Minutes.
(15) On being put to the vote, the recommendations of the Head of Countryside Access were unanimously agreed.
(16) RESOLVED that the applicant be informed that the application to register the land at Pilgrims Way, Canterbury as a new Village Green has not been accepted.