Agenda item

The Definitive Map Team Manager presented the application which had been made on behalf of ‘King Charles Estate Residents Association’ for the registration of land at Happy Island, Bridport as a town or village green.

 

The application was initially received in February 2013. Stating that the land should be registered as a town or village green because it been used by residents for over 20 years with no objection from the land owner.

 

The application was accompanied by 14 forms of evidence which detailed use of the Land such as walking, picnicking, kite flying and other activities which could support the registration of land as a town or village green.

 

The application was made under Section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 which required that:

- a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood in a locality, have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the Land for a period of at least 20 years; and

- they continued to do so at the time of the application.

 

In accordance with the Regulations, adverts on site and in the local press had invited objections to the application. The objection period expired on 8 May 2015. The following objections had been received from a local resident and by the landowners, these and the Applicant’s responses were:-

 

a) The field may have been previously regarded as a recreational area, but this was no longer the case since the island in the river had changed.

b) The top eastern portion of the field had never been regarded as a public recreational area.

c) If the top eastern part of the field was developed, the landowner could allow the bottom western portion to go into local government ownership as a public area.

 

The applicant had responded to these comments by saying, that the river was not part of the application, the field was not included in the Local Plan and therefore could not be developed, the objection was merely and no evidence had been provided to support it.

 

The landowner had also raised the following points

a) The user evidence was insufficient – in that it was not significant, it does not go up to the date of the application in 2014 and it was predominantly linear use. Also, there was no evidence of user Parish wide.

b) Use for lawful sports and pastimes was wholly anecdotal. No photographic evidence had been produced, and the land had been in agricultural use since at least 1997 which would have interrupted public use of the land.

c) Signs had been erected on site in 2008 stating that there was no public access to the land other than along the footpath.

 

The landowners had included paperwork supporting their objection this  related to a deposit under S31(6) of the Highways Act 1980 and their lack of intention to dedicate any further public rights of way across the Land.  They had also enclosed a copy of the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Draft Local Plan which drew attention to the possibility of a trigger event which would invalidate the application.

 

The applicant had responded to say that

The application had been made on 4 June 2013 and that should be the reference point. The dates on the evidence forms were the relevant ones relating to the preceding 20 years.  There was no requirement to produce a proportional number of evidence forms and evidence did not have to be photographic.  There had been no trigger event and the inclusion of the Draft Local Plan was irrelevant and out of date.

 

The Definitive Map Team Manager advised that the main issue was whether the test in section 15(2) of the Commons Act set out in paragraph 3.2 of the report has been satisfied.

 

It was considered by Officers that the evidence of use from 16 people was not sufficient to demonstrate that the land was in general use by the local community. The objectors had provided written and photographic evidence that notices were erected on site in 2008. Officers considered therefore that the use evidenced in support of the application indicates that use was not as of right.

 

In concluding the presentation, the committee members were advised that

 

The legal tests for the registration of a new town or village green had not been met and the application was recommended for refusal.

 

Cllrs Bolwell and Clayton were both Ward Members for this application and elected to take part in the debate as committee members rather than speak as Ward Member.

 

Members sought clarity of the trigger events and why there had been such a delay between the application and coming to committee.  Cllr Clayton as one of the Ward Members had not been contacted about the application and 10.1 of the report stated that the legal tests for the registration of a new town or village green had not been met.

 

Proposed by Cllr Jespersen, seconded by Cllr Ridout.

 

On being put to the vote the committee’s “minded to” decision was to

unanimously support the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

 

Decision:

The Head of Planning confirmed that he had heard the full debate and the application would be refused in line with the committee’s minded to decision