Agenda item

(1)          The Commons Registration Officer updated the Panel on the background to this procedural matter that was before them in relation to the application to register land known as Chaucer Fields in Canterbury as a new Town or Village Green.  The application had been made by a group of local residents in April 2011 and an objection to the application had been received from the University of Kent (as landowner). This matter had been considered by a meeting of the Panel on 11 September 2011 where the Panel had agreed to refer this application to a Public Inquiry for further consideration.

(2)          The Commons Registration Officer explained that as a result of that decision officers had instructed an independent Barrister (the Inspector for the Public Inquiry) experienced in this area of legislation to hold a Public Inquiry and arrangements were made for this to commence on 18 March 2014.  Prior to the commencement of the Inquiry the applicants had contacted the County Council and stated that they wished to amend their application to rely on section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 in conjunction with section 15(7)(b), instead of section 15(3). Further details of this amendment were set out in paragraphs 12 – 27 of the report.  The Commons Registration Officer explained in some detail the effect of the proposed modification and the arguments both in support of and in opposition to allowing the proposed amendment. She also referred to the case of R (Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council (the Newhaven case). The presumption in this case appeared to be that section 15(7)(b) applied only to post-Act permission and did not operate retrospectively.

(3)          The Commons Registration Officer explained that a hearing had been held on 18 March 2013 at which both parties had made representations to the Inspector on this issue.  The Inspectors conclusions and recommendations were summarised in paragraphs 28 to 31 of the report.  The Inspector had expressed a preference for the University’s interpretation of section 15(7)(b) of the Commons Act 2006  (i.e. that it did not apply to permissions granted prior to the commencement of the section on 7 April 2007).  

(4)          The Commons Registration Officer referred to the comments by the applicants and landowners on the Inspectors report as set out in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the report.  The Inspector advised that having considered these comments she could see nothing within them to change the conclusion reached in her report of 22 January 2014.  The Inspector had also noted that Newhaven Port & Properties had withdrawn their appeal to the Supreme court so that there was no longer any question of adjourning further consideration of this application.  The Commons and Registration Officer confirmed that the Inspectors advice accorded with DEFRA’s current guidance.

(5)          The Chairman referred the Committee to the recommendation set out in the report and commended the tireless work carried out by the parties involved.   Mr Manion thanked the Common Registration Officer for a clear report on a complex issue and moved the recommendation in the report.  This was seconded by Mr Maddison.

(6)          The motion was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Inspector’s advice (contained in her report dated 22January 2014) to proceed with this application be endorsed on the basis that section 15(7)(b) of the Commons Act 2006 does not have retrospective effect.