Agenda item

(1)       The Chairman informed the Panel that the Local Member, Mr A J King had sent his apologies owing to a clash with other Council business.  He had expressed his support for the application. 

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer began her presentation by saying that the application had been made by Mr E Bates under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008.  Objection had been received from the Landowner (Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance). The Panel had considered the application in September 2013 and had referred the matter to a non-statutory Public Inquiry.  The Inspector had produced a detailed report dated 25 September 2014. 

(3)       The Commons Registration Officer went on to summarise the Inspector’s findings in respect of the tests that had to be met in order for registration to take place. The first of these was whether use had been “as of right.”

(4)       The Inspector had examined the landowner’s contention that use of the land had been by force because two of the entrances had been created by users creating a hole in the hedge. The Inspector’s conclusion on this point was that although this may well have been the original method of entry, those who had used it afterwards had done so without knowledge of the original damage and that the gaps were sufficiently wide for them to have continued to use these entry points without force.

(5)       The Inspector had also considered whether use had been with permission. The landowner had contended that (as in the Barkas case) the land had been set aside for the purposes of public recreation and was therefore incapable of registration. The Inspector had concluded on this point that there had been no power conveyed by statute upon which the landowner was seeking to rely in this case (section 507A of the Education Act 1996) to allow local authorities to make playing fields available other than to those receiving primary or secondary education. The Barkas case therefore did not apply in this instance.

(6)       The Inspector had also considered another point raised by the landowner that the village fete had been held on the site every summer. This had involved people gaining admission by buying a programme. On one occasion, the Parish magazine had advertised the event as taking place “by kind permission of the head teacher.” The Inspector’s conclusion had been that the fete committee had been acting in the same way as any other local inhabitant and that (crucially) permission to hold the fete had not been sought from the landowner.  It could not, therefore, be inferred that use had taken place through implied permission.  Use of the land had consequently been “as of right” up to the fete in June 2011.

(7)       The Commons Registration Officer then informed the Committee that the Inspector had concluded that there was a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that use of the land had been for the purposes of lawful sports and pastimes.

(8)       The Inspector had considered the test of whether use had been by a significant number of inhabitants of a particular locality or neighbourhood within a locality. The applicant had relied on the parish of Goudhurst as the locality and the Inspector had agreed that this was correct.  She had also agreed that the land had been in general use by the community throughout the period in question and that this use had increased after the construction of a gravel path along the northern and western edges of the site in 1998. 

(9)       The Inspector had also found that the date when use had ceased to be as of right was June 2011. The application had been made in November 2011, well within the two year period of grace which had applied at the time.  Use of the land had taken place well in excess of the necessary twenty period. 

(10)     The Inspector’s overall conclusion had been that all of the necessary tests had been met.  She had, however, recommended that it would be prudent to await the conclusion of the Newhaven case, as this would have a bearing on the question of “statutory incompatibility.” The reason for this was that the landowner held the land under powers contained in the “Endowments and Glebe Measures 1976.”  The landowner contended that registration as a village green would prejudice the execution of the landowner’s duties under the Measures.  Following the judgement of the Supreme Court, the Inspector had concluded that registration would not be incompatible with the landowner’s statutory duty as set out in the Measure because that duty was not dependent on the land being free from constraint to any potential future development. 

(11)     The Commons Registration Officer said in conclusion that she had carefully considered the Inspector’s findings and that she recommended that registration should take place.

(12)     Mr E Bates (applicant) briefly expressed his gratitude to the many local residents who had formed a residents group in support of the application and given evidence at the Public Inquiry. He also wished to thank the Inspector and the Commons Registration Officer for their helpfulness and patience throughout the process. 

(13)     On being put to the vote, the recommendations of the Commons registration Officer were carried by 4 votes to 0.

(14)     RESOLVED that for the reasons set out in the Inspector’s reported dated 25 September 2014, that the applicant be informed that the application to register land known as Glebe Field at Goudhurst has been accepted and that the land subject to the application be registered as a Village Green.