Agenda and minutes

County Councillor P Malpas replaced County Councillor T Jones for this meeting only.

Apologies were received from County Councillors T Sharratt and J Sumner.

The Chairman reported the sad death of County Councillor Bob Mutch who died in August 2011. The Committee stood in silent tribute.

Resolved: That;

  i.  The appointment of County Councillor A Thornton and County Councillor S Leadbetter as Chair and Deputy Chair of the Sub-Committee for the remainder of the 2011/12 municipal year be noted;

  ii.  The membership of the Sub-Committee following the County Council’s annual meeting be noted; and

  iii.  The Terms of Reference of the Sub-Committee be noted.

Members are asked to consider any Personal/Prejudicial Interests they may have to disclose to the meeting in relation to matters under consideration on the Agenda.

County Councillor P Steen declared a prejudicial interest in item 6 as he was a Member of Rossendale Borough Council's Development Control Committee which had previously taken a decision in relation to this matter in 2007.

In view of this, Councillor Steen requested that item 7 on the agenda be taken before item 6. The Chairman agreed the request.

Resolved: That, the Minutes of the meeting held on the 7 February 2011 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

A report was presented on an Application from William Alan Huddleston, Margaret Elizabeth Atkin, Christine Mary Sayer and Barbara Ruth Huddleston to register severance of the rights away from land at Bell Hill Farm and then subsequent transfer of rights to the Applicants which were rights in gross.

The Sub-Committee was informed that the rights at present were registered as being the right to graze sheep to a limit of 79 and a half sheepgates (one ewe together with followers and a hog counting as the sheepgate) over the whole of CL123 and that these rights were currently shown as attached to land at Bell Hill Farm Littledale as shown on the supplemental map with the Registers referred to in the report. Copies of various Deeds had been provided and the Deed plan which was marked on the agenda as to be presented at the meeting (due to its large size) was shown to the Sub-Committee to illustrate that the farm, along with its grazing rights, was purchased in 1951 by Edward and Mary Huddleston to which parts of the land had since been transferred.

It was reported that the first transfer was in 1985 and that the grazing rights were expressly reserved to Edward and Mary Huddleston. It was a Deed of Gift of a small part of the farm and it was agreed and declared that it "does not include (and there are expressly reserved to the Donors) all those rights of common sheep and cattle gaits on Black Fell Blanche Fell and Haylot Fell appurtenant to Bell Hill Farm". It was arguable that this was when all the rights became severed but it was suggested that on balance it was not clear enough and it might be considered that only those rights attached to the small section being transferred were severed at this time. The Sub-Committee was advised that these few rights were then held in gross by Edward and Mary Huddleston.

It was also reported that there were further transfers in 1991 with rights retained by Mary Huddleston and a trustee, as Mr Huddleston had died. The Solicitors confirmed the rights in gross had passed to Mary Huddleston and Mr Gillibrand on the death of Mr Edward Huddleston. There was then a transfer of part of the farm in January 2002 but the rights had not been mentioned and in August 2002 there was the transfer of most of the remainder of the land together with all the commons rights as per the 1951 purchase to the applicants.

It was reported that notice of the application had been duly served according to the Regulations and that no response had been received save for further details being requested by a neighbouring landowner but no objection raised and a visit to inspect the file by a rights holder.

The Sub-Committee was advised that if the application was well founded the appropriate amendment to the register should be made.

The Sub-Committee was also advised that some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

A report was presented on a consultation by DEFRA regarding the Registration of New Town and Village Greens.

It was reported that DEFRA in realising the volume of applications received by local authorities, the character of the application land, the controversy attracted by applications, the cost of the determination process and the impact of registration on a landowner felt that it was sufficient to justify reform of the registration system. It was hoped that the proposals as presented by DEFRA would achieve an improved regulatory balance between protecting high quality green space valued by local communities and to enable development to occur at the right place at the right time. A list of consultees was set out at appendix 'B' to the report. The proposals were also extracted from the consultation document and set out in the report.

The Sub-Committee was informed that DEFRA were especially keen for the County Council and the other six pioneering authorities of Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 to provide their views in response to the consultation.

The Sub-Committee considered each proposal in turn. The Sub-Committee's responses to the proposals and questions were agreed as follows:

·  Response to question 1:

The Sub-Committee felt that there was sufficient reason to justify reform of the present greens registration process.

Proposal 1 – Streamline sifting of applications

Jane Turner, Senior Solicitor, highlighted that early rejection of applications were difficult to justify, especially in light of other cases being successful on the basis of six user evidence forms. Mrs Turner explained that under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006, officers could 'reject' applications on the basis of there being no user evidence forms and until such evidence is produced the application could not be considered further until it is duly made.

Whilst Members agreed with the need to streamline the sifting of applications to provide officers with additional options to reject; they felt that proposals further on in the consultation document could serve well to deter weak or vexatious applications such as the introduction of charging fees for applications to register land as a green. However, concern was expressed that for those people who could afford the proposed potential application fees (outlined further on in the consultation document) and who had their application rejected early might also be in a financially sound position to bring the County Council to judicial review. Concern was also expressed that if both parties had sufficient monies to challenge such a decision, then the application process could drag out unnecessarily.

·  Response to question 2:

The Sub-Committee felt that there were better proposals further on in the consultation document instead of those suggested under proposal 1but an additional opportunity to consider the strength of applications may be useful although possibly not used very often.

·  Response to question 3:

The Sub-Committee agreed that the owner of land affected by an application should be invited to comment on it before initial determination is made by the Registration Authority (the County Council).

Proposal 2 –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Sub-Committee considered a report on whether the County Council should join in as applicant on an application to de-register a corridor of Common Land on CL165 in connection with that part of the application land which was a publicly maintainable highway. The extent of Lancashire's administrative area was clarified.

It was reported that Coronation Power Ltd was proposing to develop a wind farm at Crook Hill which was situated on the edge of the County of Lancashire. The proposed development site covered registered common land within the boundaries of Lancashire County Council, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council.

The Sub-Committee was informed that the main construction work required on CL165 related to the construction of an access route to the turbines on Crook Hill. Instead of applying for consent to carry out such works on Common Land, the owner of CL165, Mr Dearden, Lord of the Manor, had applied for a corridor of land to be de-registered and no longer recorded as Common Land. The corridor to be de-registered accommodated the route of the proposed access road but also included existing lengths of public highway. The corridor followed the line of the highway called Landgate and was also crossed by a number of public footpaths and bridleways as it continued to the County boundary. The area of highway affected was 4,260.2 square metres (0.426 ha) and Coronation Power Ltd had included the land with highway rights on the surface in the application to remove it from the area of registered Common Land.

The Sub-Committee was advised that under s16 Commons Act 2006 the owner of any land registered as common land was the person who could apply to the Secretary of State for the land to cease to be registered. If the release land was more than 200 square metres the application must include a proposal that some replacement land be registered as common land in place of the release land. The Highway Authority had no replacement land to offer.

It was reported that the Application, which was already submitted, applied for common land to be de-registered (release land) and offered exchange land to be new common land (replacement land). The application affected a corridor of land on CL165 in Lancashire would result in the release of 6.98ha of land (which includes the 0.462ha of highway). An area of 1.6ha had been offered as replacement land immediately adjacent to CL165 and within the County boundary. The application also sought to de-register common land on CL166, CL172 and CL168 being about 22.82ha. A further area of 2.397ha had also been offered as replacement land but this was outside the Lancashire boundary and within the boundary of Rochdale MBC at Long Clough Farm, Littleborough to the south of CL168.

The Applicant recognised that the replacement land was a lot less than the release land and following completion of the construction work it was planned to re-register the released land that was not required for the day to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The next meeting of the Commons and Town Greens Sub-Committee will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, 8 and 9 November 2011 at 10am at the County Hall, Preston.

The next meeting of the Commons and Town Greens Sub-Committee will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, 8 and 9 November 2011 at 10am, County Hall, Preston.