Land can be registered as a green if a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years: see section 15 of the Commons Registration Act 2006. The requirements originate from the Commons Registration Act 1965, which referred to land on which “the inhabitants of any locality” have indulged in lawful sports and pastimes.
The 1965 Act was amended by section 98 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which was enacted following a decision that a “locality” meant an administrative unit: Ministry of Defence v Wiltshire County Council [1995] 4 All ER 931. Concerned that this made it too difficult to register new village greens, parliament relaxed the requirements to enable use by “a significant number” of the inhabitants of “any neighbourhood within a locality” to be taken into account when considering whether land was eligible for registration as a green.
The issue in Leeds Group plc v Leeds City Council [2010] EWHC 810 (Ch); [2010] PLSCS 122 was whether residents could claim to be inhabitants of “a neighbourhood within a locality”. Curiously, there was no previous authority that the judge could call on for a definition of “neighbourhood”, although the courts have commented in passing on its meaning.
The objector argued that: (i) the area in question was not a “locality” because it had ceased to exist as an administrative unit following local government reorganisation; (ii) the inhabitants resided in different neighbourhoods and could not claim to be the inhabitants of a single neighbourhood; and (iii) the areas were not sufficiently cohesive to constitute neighbourhoods because they enjoyed only limited community facilities.
The judge decided that the intentions behind the legislation were clear. He ruled that the area did constitute a relevant locality and that the legislation did not require users to originate from a single neighbourhood. He refused to define the word “neighbourhood” on the ground that parliament had deliberately chosen to be imprecise. None the less, he held that the areas enjoyed a sufficient degree of cohesiveness to constitute identifiable communities – and, therefore, neighbourhoods – despite the absence of shops, and the limited facilities available to residents.
The judge referred to the dictionary definitions of a neighbourhood as: “a district or portion of a town”; “a small but relatively self-contained sector of a larger urban area”; “the nearby or surrounding area, the vicinity” – and noted the interconnecting streets and style of housing of the areas in dispute. In other words, he appeared to focus on physical and geographical characteristics when considering the meaning of the word.
By contrast, campaigners for registration have suggested that neighbourhoods are “a social concept”, evidenced by the state of mind of their residents. This suggests that the decision could be the first of a series of disputes concerning the definition of “a neighbourhood” for the purposes of registration as a green.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
