Town or village green — Community use of land — Registration of land as village green — Land allegedly used for recreational purposes for 20 years by residents — Whether significant number of residents used land — Whether registering authority had power to register part only of land included in application — Section 22(1) of Commons Registration Act 1965 — Section 98(1) of Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
The claimant obtained planning permission for a residential development on land in Staffordshire. The future of the development was placed in doubt when the defendant council subsequently accepted an application, by local residents, for the registration of part of the land, known as Ladydale Meadow, as a village green within the meaning of section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965, as amended by section 98(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This defined a “town or village green” as “land on which for not less than twenty years a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged in lawful sports and pastimes as of right, and… continue to do so”. The claimant challenged the council’s decision to accept the application
A planning inspector considered evidence from local inhabitants that the meadow had been used for informal recreation by local residents for over 20 years. The village population was 20,000 and a total of 16 witnesses, six of whom had lived in the area for the whole 20 years, gave evidence that they, and others, had used the land for the entire period. The inspector recommended that part of the land identified in the application should be registered as a village green on the grounds that: (i) there had been substantial use of the land, for informal recreation, for over 20 years; (ii) those who used the land had walked from their homes in the village; (iii) they had approached the meadow via a stile or gate; (iv) there were no signs prohibiting use of the land; and (v) permission had not been sought, nor objection made, to the use of the land for recreation.
The claimant applied for judicial review, arguing that there was no evidence that the number of people using the land for informal recreation was significant, as required by section 22(1) of the 1965 Act. It also contended that the council, as registering authority, did not have the power to accept an application for registration for part only of the land specified in the application.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
1. Where a neighbourhood had a limited number of inhabitants, the word “significant”, in section 22(1), did not necessarily mean “considerable” or “substantial”. The inspector had adopted the correct approach when he said that “significant” should be taken as an ordinary word, and that whether the evidence showed that a significant number of inhabitants had used the meadow was a matter of impression. What was important was that the number of people using the land was sufficient to indicate that it was in use, generally, by the community, rather than by individuals as trespassers. There was ample evidence to show that the land in question had been used for informal recreation, for 20 years or more, by a significant number of inhabitants.
2. The council had not proposed to register any land outside the application site, and it was clear from the inspector’s report that he had not intended any additional land to be registered. The land was identified to give appropriate notice to anyone who might wish to object. So long as there was no alteration to the boundary, which would defeat the purpose of identifying the land in the application, there could be no sensible objection to the extent of the land to be registered being decreased by the registering authority. There was no question of the council having been careless, nor any suggestion of prejudice to the claimant.
3. Even if the council had no power to register a lesser area, no useful purpose would be served in quashing their decision, since the only consequence would be another application for that lesser area.
Harry Wolton QC and Robin Green (instructed by Laytons, of Guildford) appeared for the claimant; Charles Mynors (instructed by the solicitor to Staffordshire County Council) appeared for the defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
