Agenda item

(1)       Mr S C Manion informed the Panel that he was the Local Member for this application.  He had taken no part in any discussions of the application except to advise the applicants who to contact within KCC.  He was therefore able to approach the determination of the application with a completely fresh mind.

(2)       The Commons Registration Officer began her presentation by saying that it had been made by Mr R Chatfield under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008.  The site consisted of two plots of land. The northern section had been owned by the MoD until it was sold to Ledger Farms in the 1970s. The southern section had also been owned by the MoD until being sold to a local family in 1992. 

(3)       The Panel had considered this application on 26 November 2013 and had decided to refer it to a Public Inquiry in order to clarify the issues.  The Public Inquiry had been held in June 2014. The Inspector had produced a report in October 2014. Following consideration of comments made by both parties, a revised, final version was issued on 30 March 2015.

(4)       The Commons Registration Officer moved on to describe the Inspector’s findings in respect of the individual tests for registration to take place.  The first of these was whether use of the land had been “as of right”.  The main issue had been whether use had taken place by force.  In this instance, the pertinent question was whether the use had been contentious. The Inspector had accepted the previous landowner’s evidence that he had erected fencing in 1992 and had also put up notices, but had considered that these had been “feeble” and insufficient measures to deter walkers from recreating on the site.  She had concluded, accordingly that this test had been met.

(5)       The Commons Registration Officer turned to the question of whether use of the land had been for the purposes of lawful sports and pastimes.  The Inspector had decided to discount evidence of fruit picking as it had not been possible to determine whether this activity had taken place for commercial purposes.  She had nevertheless concluded that, generally speaking, lawful sports and pastimes had taken place to some degree.

(6)       The Inspector had also considered whether the walking activities which had taken place constituted “rights of way type use” or lawful recreation. The distinction between the two was whether people were walking between two points or generally recreating. There were three paths on the site, two of which did not have specifically defined routes or destinations. The third path did, however, fulfil the “rights of way criteria.” The Inspector had therefore discounted use of that particular path.  Her overall conclusion was that the overall usage could be considered as qualifying use for Village Green registration. 

(7)       The next test was whether use had been by a significant number of inhabitants of a particular locality, or a neighbourhood within a locality.  The Inspector had found that the ecclesiastical parish of Walmer was a legally recognised administrative unit which was capable of registration. 

(8)       The Inspector had heard evidence that Travellers had gained unpermitted entry onto the site in 1999. They had left by August 2000 at the latest. During this period, a number of anti-social activities had taken place, including the burning of cars, raves, human waste and household rubbish.  She had also considered contemporaneous newspaper articles which had described the site as a “rubbish tip” and had suggested that people were not going to the area at the time.  As a result of the evidence given during the Public Inquiry, she had concluded that the number of people on site during this period (both in the area of the Traveller encampment and the woodland) had diminished to such an extent that it could not be considered that a significant number had recreated on the site. 

(9)       The Commons Registration Officer briefly explained that the application had been made in November 2012. Use had been challenged in August of that year in the northern section and in October 2012 in the southern section by prohibitive notices and the erection of barbed wire fencing.  The Inspector had therefore agreed that the application had been made within the two year grace period as set out in the Commons Registration Act at that time.

(10)     The Commons Registration Officer then said that the Inspector had concluded that the final test of whether use had taken place over a period of twenty years or more had not been met due to the interruption of use in 1999/2000 as described in (8) above.  As a result, the application had failed, in her view to meet all the legal tests required for registration to be able to take place.  

(11)     The Commons Registration Officer concluded her presentation by saying that she had carefully considered the Inspector’s findings and that she had agreed with her conclusion that the tests had not been met.  She therefore recommended accordingly.   

(12)     The Chairman asked whether, in the light of the recommendation, any of the parties wished to address the Panel. 

(13)     Mr Roger Chatfield (applicant) addressed the Panel. He said that the Inspector’s report had failed to acknowledge a number of witnesses.  He accepted that New Age Travellers had used the site from 1996 to 2000 but added that, in his view, the period of disruption by other Travellers had only taken place for a few weeks in the summer of 1999.  He then referred to paragraph 185 of the Inspector’s report in which the Inspector had inferred that a number of witnesses had not been on the site during the period of disruption. This had been disputed by one of the witnesses herself, who had said that she had been present during that time and had seen the burnt out cars, which had not interfered with her use of the area. All in all, there were 7 witnesses who had testified to their presence for recreational purposes during this period, although the Inspector had decided they had not been there.  

(14)     Morag Ellis QC spoke on behalf of the landowners.  She said that the reasons for rejection of the application set out in paragraph 191 of the Inspector’s report referred to the meadow part of Site A where the encampment had been. The usage that Mr Chatfield had described had taken place in the woodland area and had no bearing on this aspect of the findings because the Inspector had found other reasons for discounting the woodland itself.  She then said that paragraph 200 of the Inspector’s report clarified that the witnesses Mr Chatfield had referred to were all describing the New Age Travellers rather than the disruptive Travellers.  She urged the Panel to accept the Inspector‘s findings as they had been reached following a great deal of detailed consideration of a great deal of evidence.

(15)     Mr Chatfield asked the Panel to note that four witnesses had testified that the disruptive Travellers had only been at the site for a very short period and that this had not deterred them from using the site.  This contrasted with the Inspector’s assumption that the Travellers had been there for a much longer time. 

(16)     Mr Manion paid tribute to Mr Chatfield’s work in preparing and promoting the application.  He added that whilst it was clear that there had been a great deal of use of the site for recreational purposes, the Panel had to act according to the Law which required this use to be uninterrupted.

(17)     On being put to the vote, the recommendations of the Commons Registration Officer were carried unanimously.

(18)     RESOLVED that for the reasons set out in the Inspector’s report dated 30 March 2015, the applicant be informed that the application to register land known as Coldblow Woods and Sports Ground at Ripple as a new Village Green has not been accepted.