Agenda item

APPLICATION FOR VILLAGE GREEN STATUS, LAND AT REGENT CRESCENT, REDHILL

The committee is asked to consider whether to register the land the subject of this application as a Village Green.

 

Application for Village Green status by Neil Jones as Chair of the Regent Crescent Green Preservation Society (the Applicant) dated 4 May 2021 relating to land at Regent Crescent, Redhill.

 

The County Council is the Commons Registration Authority (CRA) under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and the Commons Act 2006 which administers the Registers of Common Land and Town or Village Greens. Under Section 15 of the 2006 Act the County Council can register new land as a Town or Village Green (TVG) on application.

Minutes:

Officers:

Catherine Valiant, Countryside Access Officer

Judith Shephard, Senior Lawyer

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1.    The Countryside Access Officer introduced the report and provided a brief summery. Members noted that the committee was asked to consider whether to register the land the subject of this application as a Village Green. The application for Village Green status was by Neil Jones as Chair of the Regent Crescent Green Preservation Society (the Applicant) dated 4 May 2021 relating to land at Regent Crescent, Redhill. Members noted an explanation of the difference between ‘as of right’ and ‘by right’ in matters of this type.

2.    A Member stated that he supported paragraphs 7.8 and 8.2 on page 106 of the agenda. The Member stated that he was minded to move that the committee accepted the recommendation noted within 8.2.

3.    A Member said that he felt that the Highways issue was overwhelming and that he could see no other option but to follow the inspector’s recommendation.

4.    A Member stated that they struggled to understand why a small area of land was designated as Highways land as it was not road or pavement. The legal representative at the meeting stated that for the application to be successful then the use would need to be ‘as of right’ and so Members would have to agree that the area of land was not a area of highway.  Officers further confirmed that the Highways agreement was looked at in detail during the Inquiry and the Inspector had concluded that the area had been designated as Highway land.

5.    It was noted that Surrey County Council had either directly or indirectly maintained the land for many years.

6.    Cllr Powell stated that she was concerned that, if Members were minded to agree with the officer recommendation, then any green space designated as Highways land could be sold for developed as it was not a protected green space. A Legal Representative at the meeting explained that a process to remove the public right of use would need to be completed before the land could be disposed of.

7.    Officers confirmed that the area of land was accessible by the public.

8.    The Committee noted details of the history of the area of land.

 

The Chairman adjourned the meeting from 11:40am to 11:45am

 

9.    Cllr Mallett moved a motion that the committee vote on Recommendation 8.2 as outlined in the report. The Chairman asked the committee whether Members agreed with the conclusion of the inspector at the inquiry which was that the public used the land ‘as of right’ and not ‘by right’ as it was a public highway. 7 Members voted for, 1 voted against and there were no abstentions. Therefore the motion was lost.

10.  Following discussion, the Chairman moved an amended Recommendation 8.1 which stated ‘Officers recommend that the application be refused on the grounds that use of the land has been ‘by right’ and not ‘as of right’ as required by Section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 for the reasons given in the Inspector’s Report‘ which received 6 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention. Therefore the recommendation was agreed.

11.  Cllr Mallet requested that his vote against the recommendation was recorded which was agreed by the Chairman.

 

 

Actions / Further information to be provided:

 

None.

 

Resolved:

 

The Planning and Regulatory Committee agreed that the application be refused on the grounds that use of the land has been ‘by right’ and not ‘as of right’ as required by Section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 for the reasons given in the Inspector’s Report.

 

 

Supporting documents: