Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Welcome everybody, it's a little bit after three o'clock, at least I hope it is, let me check mine. It is exactly three o'clock, so, Kieran, you are on the dot. Welcome to this meeting of the Western Area Planning Committee. My name is Newberry, I'm the chairman of the committee. The first item is apologies. Kieran, I take it you are looking after us today? Yes, no apologies, Chair. No apologies, okay, so are we all here? [BLANK_AUDIO] We have a substitution, I see Mike Sankey is here replacing-- Thank you, Chair, Councillor Jonathan Seed. Replacing Councillor Seed, okay, well we will note the, I mean, if somebody is replaced, he doesn't technically have to send his apologies, but we can certainly note that Councillor Sankey is here instead of Councillor Seed. And thank you very much indeed, you're always keen to come. Second item is minutes of the previous meeting, those were on the 8th of May, they are circulated. Does anyone have any corrections or points that they're not happy with about those minutes? I don't see anyone indicating, so I will move that we approve them. Someone, thank you, Councillor Parks. All in favour, please indicate. Any against? Those are approved. Kieran, we'll leave it till the end and I will initial them, etc. The declarations of interest, this is only for members of Wiltshire Council, nobody else who is here needs to declare any interests in anything on the agenda. Do any members of Wiltshire Council have any declarations of interest? I don't see anyone waving, so we can move on from that. The four chairmans announcements, I don't have any special ones, we have a couple of routine ones that we usually give at this point. The first is, could ask everyone to turn off their devices, whether it's mobile phones or iPads or whatever it is, just so that they don't start ringing or making noises in the middle of when somebody is speaking. And we usually say that we're not aware, I take it we're not aware of any fire drills, Kieran. So if you hear a fire alarm go off, I will hand over to Kieran, who will immediately take us by the safe route out of the building, which is not down a lift, I know that. I will explain the procedure under the next item. So for the benefit of people who might not have been in one of these meetings before, this is the way that we go about a main item on the agenda. An officer will present a report and explain the recommendation. I ask members of the committee if they have any questions to the officer, and there's a chance to reply to those. We then go to the public participation section for those who signed in, and for today there are four people who signed in, Duncan Sparrowhawk, John Strike, Kerry King and Councillor Linda Ladner of Winsley Parish Council. Oh, do we have Murali Bandaru with us? Aigala Murali Bandaru has signed in, but we think is not with us today, so I will come back to that when we get to the public participation. Chair, if I may, it's Kerry Kemp, just for the minutes, rather than keen. I did say Kerry Kemp, yeah. So we've got those four people who are with us, Duncan Sparrowhawk, John Strike, Kerry Kemp and Councillor Linda Ladner, and we may have Murali Bandaru, but we think he or she is not here yet. And we will take you in that order if you are in agreement, though we have a certain amount of rules about the order we take you in. The speakers will be asked to speak within three minutes, except in the case of the Parish Council, which is allowed four minutes. We then bring in the local member, and I see Councillor Johnnie Kidney is with us today who will be able to give us his thoughts on this without any time limit. I then open the debate and somebody is asked to move a motion and someone to second it. At the end of the debate we go to a vote. And we are urged to remind members of the public that when we are as a committee debating something, we are not allowed to have any objections, any passing of notes, any communication. It's sort of a separate session which we don't have any involvement by the public in. Now, the next item then is six, planning appeals and updates, and I ask Kenny to take us through this item. We have also the matter of the report that we asked for as a committee on an urgent item last meeting and we will take that as a separate report under this item for a technical reason. So let's go then to Kenny Green for the appeals and updates. Kenny. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. So starting off with the appeals, we've got three determined appeals listed for the period of 26th of April to the 17th of May. All three related to residential development. Two were successfully defended by the council, but it's the one at Elmley's Farm which I wish to speak to in particular. So Elmley's Farm was a rural property, as the name suggests, and the application related to an unauthorised occupation of a holiday let. So an application came to the council, we considered it and refused it under delegated authority based on conflicts with CP 4 to 8. So members will be aware that's our key policy for any application relating to conversion of rural buildings. So it was a holiday let as a lawful use. But in this particular case, the applicant allowed a family member to occupy as a permanent residence contrary to permission, contrary to our policies, because they hadn't gone through the CP 4 to 8 tests on testing whether there was any alternative use other than residential. So, we rightly refused it in line with our core strategy and the MPPF. It went to appeal. Now the appeal inspector agreed with us in terms of our policy assessment. It didn't comply with CP 2, didn't comply with CP 4 to 8 either. However, the inspector applied significant weight to the personal circumstances of the occupier, which inspectors do from time to time. And in most cases, as in this case, the inspector gave a temporary personal permission. So the lawful use, as it was in terms of a holiday let, will revert back to that when that property is vacated. So the occupier isn't the applicant, it's a close family relative. And anyone reading the appeal decision will note that there's a paragraph in it where the inspector says there's very special circumstances and for reasons of privacy, the inspector didn't want to set them out. And because it's a public forum that's streamed online, I won't go down that route either, with respect Chair. But there are reasons that the inspector reached to justify a personal permission. And once that use ceases, whether the person occupying it, vacates it or passes away, the lawful use will revert back to a holiday let. So there won't be any need for another application to get the use back to a holiday let. It reverts automatically by virtue of that permission. One thing to note, anyone looking at that permission and the condition. There is a bit of a mistake by the inspector. And it relates to the very last line of condition two, which I'll read out here. So bear in mind the inspector has allowed this and the condition two reads as follows. The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Miss Valerie Austin. When the premises cease to be occupied by Miss Valerie Austin, the use hereby permitted shall cease within three months of the cessation of such occupation and the use shall revert back to its lawful use as a holiday let. That sounds alright, but the permission will grant the lawful use as a dwelling house, unrestricted dwelling house. In my mind, that should have had an extra word before that last use of lawful, and it should have said previous lawful use. I don't think it's going to create a problem for the council because it's quite clear what that decision means in reality. It's allowing the occupier to live there, and then once she vacates the property, within three months the use must revert back to a hold let. Thank you, Chair. I'll stop there just in case there's any questions about the appeals. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Kenny. Are there any questions to our senior planning officer about his appeals report? I'm not seeing anyone indicating, so we also have Kenny to speak to the report, which is Agenda Supplement 1, and Kieran, what we're going to do, I think, is to minute this as a separate, minute the previous one as the appeals, and this is the update on the urgent item from last time. And back to you, Kenny, to talk us through this report. Thanks again, Chair. This is the report that Councillor Caribbean asked for. Thank you, Chair. So hopefully members have been able to read the supplement that was distributed by the DEM services team. I wasn't present at the last meeting, but with the benefit of these meetings being streamed, I did watch it again and followed the instruction that the committee made to create a report, which hopefully answers Councillor Carbon's request ultimately in terms of setting out the background to the application, which, just to clarify, related to a 10-house affordable housing scheme on the edge of Holt, which was allowed as an exception site. Now, when we get applications as exception sites for affordable housing and they are approved, it's critical that when the registered social landlord or the registered provider advertises those properties, they make it very clear that it is an exception site, which carries obviously a requirement that those interested parties that want to be considered for one of the houses, they meet the allocations policy that the council have got. And that in itself is enshrined within Section 106, which binds that original permission. So I think from hearing the debate that took place during the last meeting, Councillor Carbon was very keen for this committee to support him and agree that our policies and the permissions that we issue are adhered to in full and that when we allow affordable housing on exception sites, it's right that local people with a connection with a local area have got elevated status. And that follows our policies and there is a process to be followed there if there are such people that want to take ownership or take occupancy of one of these properties. So it's a fairly lengthy report, chair, because there's quite a lot to cover. I have included sections with the Section 106, I've included sections that I've obtained from work that my colleague behind me, Amy, managed to kickstart because I believe Amy was here for the May committee meeting, so she knew exactly what the committee were after. And hopefully this report covers all the key issues. And just to summarise and to make some clear statements, having liaised with colleagues in the housing team, who themselves have spoken to the registered provider who is known as Stonewater. Some people here may well know who those people are. They are fully aware of their requirements in terms of their advertisement, the nominations, the allocation policy and the processes that need to be followed in line with the original consent and the legal agreement. So hopefully chair, that provides the detail that the committee was after. And I'll open up to any questions. Sure. Thank you. Right. First of all, are there any questions? Councillor Carbon, I see you first. Yeah, not so much a question as a comment. Thank you very much for the committee and thanks to the officers for producing that report. It's been great and I think it's been very helpful. The report itself is purely factual. It just sets out everything that's required to happen in accordance with CP44. But the reason that I've raised it was the fear, I think, among the parish and the village, that things were not going to happen the way they were meant to happen, according to policy CP44. And the problem really doesn't lie so much with the planning side. It's that interface between planning and housing where things have sometimes broken down. Also, the developers themselves weren't fully understanding, but hopefully they are now. And they do. They are clear about what's meant to happen. The problem I think within the village is that people who should be... hang on. Sorry, that was my laptop timing out and causing problems. Let me find what I was going to come back to. For example, several people have contacted me about the fact that they haven't been able to get through the housing barriers. In response to that, I've been able to get through housing and they have been able to get through that so that they've got on to the allocations list and therefore they're eligible to bid for the properties. But the fact that people are not going straight in through housing and they're having to go through the parish council or through their county council to get to that stage is a bit worrying. So many of them as well. And I'll give you another example just to wrap up. I think I've said all I need to about this otherwise, except that the advertisement is any day now. So we shall find out within the next few days. In a sense, we won't find out immediately whether it's worked or not because of confidentiality. We're not going to be able to get a list of people and see if they have a connection with the village or didn't they. But the village itself I think will work that out within a few months. So we'll get some feedback as to whether things have indeed worked or not. But let me just finish with an example. So this is someone who wrote to me. So they were born in Holt, which is unusual. Not many people get born in Holt these days. They usually get born in the big towns. They lived all their lives pretty well. They've got parents, brothers, sisters and family members. I'm not going to say too much because of confidentiality. So I am paraphrasing to some extent. They were evicted from a private rent. They were given temporary accommodation for a while and then housed, but way up in North Wiltshire. So it's a classic example of someone for whom CP44 was written and created. They've got everything that ticks all the boxes about their connection to the village concerned. And yet they haven't been allowed to go on the housing register. If you know the allocations policy, you will have detected from what I just said why they're not allowed to go on the housing register. I'll leave it at that. And that's why I think things haven't entirely worked. Part of it is specific to this case. Part of it is a general problem around the way that the exceptions policy is working, especially with regards to the housing side of things. Policies under review. I should certainly be making representations as we go through the review process as to how CP whatever it will be in the new one can be improved. And if anyone here or if you know of anyone across the county who is thinking of having an exception site created in their town or village, or village mostly, then there are lessons to be learned here and I'm quite happy to discuss that with anybody as to what these lessons are. And I'm sure the Parish Council would be willing to do so as well. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Councillor Carzi. When we get to it, I'm quite happy for you to move that we note the report, or that we express some opinion, so long as it's not any decision which we're not in a position to take. Before we go there, does anyone have any questions to the officer about the report, about what's in the report? I'm not seeing anyone indicating. So what would you like us to do about this report Councillor Carton? Because if we look at page five, you had raised this seeking a statement of support from the committee to ensure that when it comes to nominations property allocation, the affordable homes satisfy the Council's policy. So are you happy that this report shows that it does, or what would you like to do? Yes, again I thank the committee very much for its support and for the work that's been done and I think it has helped tremendously. So well done and thank you then. What else can we do to note the report? Okay, so you're moving that we note the report. Somebody to second that? Thank you, Councillor Weiger. Anyone else wish to speak? Okay, so all in favour of noting the report, please indicate. That is unanimous I think. So thank you Councillor Carvin for raising that and as you say, the report is now there for anyone to refer to on a sort of factual basis. Let us then – so we're going to minute that as a special agenda item raised under that. Let us then go back to the main agenda. This is the main business that members of the public are all, I think, with us for today. The Commons Act 2006 application to register land as a town or village green and I am going to hand over to Janice Green, who is one of our definitive map officers, to take us through her report on the application. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everybody. Okay. Okay, so we should be – no. Thanks Karen, if I let you know. Thank you. So, yes, thank you. This is the matter of an application made to Boucher Council as the Commons Registration Authority to register land in the parish of Winsley, which is located to the west of Bradford and Avon as a town or village green. Thank you, Karen. So the application land is known as Northfield Playingfield, located on the Tynings Estate in Winsley between Northfield and the B3108 Winsley Bypass Road to the north. Officers have included photographs of the application land, with a map indicating the approximate location and direction of the photographs. So this is the application land looking generally southeast. The land is approximately 1,860 square metres in area and is laid to grass now being enclosed by fencing and hedging on all sides. At the time of the town village green application in March 2021, the land was not fenced on its western side against the highway Northfield. The installation of the fencing was first reported to Wiltshire Council in July 2021. And this is important because, for the legal tests to be considered in this case, which is use of the land by local inhabitants, continuing at the time of application. So the application land looking generally east showing the now padlocked gate in the fence erected on the western side of the land in July 2021, with additional signage stating that it's private land and no entry. So currently the land is not accessible by local inhabitants. And this is the application land looking generally east again, the surfaced and grassed area located to the west of the fence. So that's in the foreground of the photograph is actually recorded highway. And the footway and recorded highway area to the west of the application land looking north towards the B3108 Winsley Bypass. So the legislation, the application is made under section 15 1 of the Commons Act 2006, which states that any person may apply to register land as a town or village green where subsection 2, 3 or 4 applies. In this case, the application is made under section 15 2 of the 2006 act, where it is claimed that a significant number of inhabitants of any locality or neighbourhood within a locality have indulged as a fright in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years, and they continue to do so at the time of the application. This is the legal test to be applied in this case, and where the application is made in 2021, the 20 year user period in question is 2001 to 2021 with use continuing at the time of application. So the application is made by Winsley Parish Council, it's dated and received by Wiltshire Council, as the Commons Registration Authority on the first of March 2021, and it's date stamped accordingly. The land is in the ownership of BK Land and Estates Limited, who are based in Maidenhead, who purchased the land at auction in March 2021. So 171 parties provide evidence in support of the application, and there are two objections made on behalf of the landowner, BKLE, and a local resident, Mr. B. Cooper. Wiltshire Council, as the registration authority must remain neutral and determine the application in a manner which is fair and reasonable to all parties. The Growth and Infrastructure Act of 2013 introduced a series of provisions to make it more difficult to register land as a town or village green amid concerns that these applications were being made as a method to thwart planning outside of the planning framework. This included at section 16 the insertion of section 15 C into the Commons Act 2006, which excludes the right to apply to register land where certain planning trigger events have occurred, for example, a live planning application or inclusion of the land in a published draft or adopted development plan, which identifies the land for development. And the right to apply to register land is revived with certain corresponding terminating events have occurred. So upon receipt of an application to register land as a town or village green, the registration authority must consult with the planning authorities and consider planning trigger events, which would extinguish the right to apply. And in this case, the planning authorities have confirmed that there are no planning trigger events in place over the land, which would extinguish the right to apply to register all of the land or any parts of it as a town or village green. And the Commons registration authority may continue to determine the application. So the identification of a locality or neighbourhood within a locality is important in the application, as if the application is successful, and the land is registered as a town or village green, it's only the inhabitants of that locality or neighbourhood who will have the right to use the land for lawful sports and pastimes. Officers consider that in this case the applicant identifies Winsley settlement boundary with some additions as the relevant neighbourhood within a locality of Winsley parish, as shown outlined on the plans submitted by the applicants. So 171 witnesses provide evidence in support of the application, and that includes 153 current residents of the identified Winsley settlement area, and 13 former inhabitants where addresses are provided. So it's not possible to register existing highway as a town or village green where use would be by right rather than qualifying user as of right to support registration as a town or village green. So, officers have considered the status of the land and considered that it's possible to rely on the current highway record, which does not record the majority of the application land as highway, but does record the land immediately to the west of the application and as highway, and that's shown coloured orange on the plan on the left hand side. There is however, a small section of the application land showing shaded blue on the plan on the right hand side, which is recorded highway. So, if the land is successfully registered as a town village green, it will be necessary to exclude this section from the register entry. So in order for an application to be successful each element of the legal test as set out at section 15 two of the Commons Act 2006 must be met in full, where it is no trivial matter for a landowner to have land registered as a green, and the burden of proving that each of the statutory qualifying requirements is met, lies with the applicant, and there is no duty placed upon the Commons registration authority to further investigate the claim, or to reformulate the applicants case. So the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that local inhabitants have acquired a right to exercise lawful sports and pastimes on the land. So evidence is key in these cases, and there are no other considerations in the determination of the application. In this case, the evidence of whether or not a significant number of inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighborhood within a locality, have indulged as a right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years, with us continuing at the time of application, is in dispute. And the three main grounds of objection are from the objectors. The identification of the locality or neighborhood within a locality. So the objector claims that this is not adequately identified and therefore the application is not truly made. Secondly, user as of right, the objector claims that the use of the land was not without permission and without secrecy. And thirdly, sufficiency of evidence, the objector claims that the evidence is inadequate to satisfy the statutory test. So the registration authority has a duty at common law to process applications made under section 51 of the Commons Act 2006 in a fair and reasonable manner, and its decision is open to legal challenge. There's no clear guidance available to authorities regarding when it is appropriate to hold a non-statutory public inquiry. However, this is considered in the case of R on the application of Whitney vs. Commons commissioners 2004 in the Court of Appeal, which sets out that a public inquiry should be held where there is serious dispute of fact, which is likely to be resolved by hearing from witnesses, or the matter is of great local interest. An inspector appointed by the registration authority to preside over the inquiry will hear evidence from all parties and produce a recommendation to the registration authority to assist in its determination of the application. There is no requirement for the registration authority to follow the inspectors recommendation. However, any alternative decision must be supported by clear evidential reasons. And all evidence provided at a public inquiry may be given additional weight, whereas it's subject to testing through cross-examination. So the officer's recommendation in this case is that where there is significant dispute of the evidence, to appoint an independent inspector on behalf of the Commons registration authority to preside over a non-statutory public inquiry, at which the evidence of all parties will be heard and tested through cross-examination and to produce an advisory report and a recommendation regarding the application to the Western Area Planning Committee to assist the Commons registration authority in its determination of the application to register land known as Northfield/Plainfield/Winsley as a town or village green as soon as is reasonably practicable. So the committee in this case is acting in its regulatory function, which requires the committee to act in a quasi-judicial capacity. When the committee acts in this capacity, it must follow the proper procedure which accords with the requirements of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. If the committee uses its powers to determine the application against the officer's recommendation to hold a non-statutory public inquiry, the committee must give legally valid reasons for this determination, which must be supported by evidence. Thank you. Thank you, Janice. I think the crunch question here, as to whether we need to set up a non-statutory local inquiry, is looking on page 39, Law Justice Waller, in any case where there is a serious dispute, a registration authority will invariably need to appoint an independent expert to hold a public inquiry. So can you just take us through, is there any authority for what a serious dispute is, and can you tell us what the serious disputes are on this matter? Thank you. Yes, so there is no guidance available to authorities when it is appropriate to hold a public inquiry, but we do have the Whitney case, which we referred to. In this case, there are three main grounds of objection which are identified, and the objector firstly looks at the identification of the locality or neighbourhood within a locality. The objector claims that it has not been adequately identified, and therefore the application is not duly made. Should we stop there? Presumably we see exactly what land the applicant is applying for to be registered as a town or village green. Is that not the issue that we need to establish? Why is there a serious dispute about that? I'm just looking at the grounds of objection which the objector has referred to, which we will need to address in the application. So the first point of objection is the identification within the application. So it's the applicant's application, it's not for the Commons Registration Authority to advise the applicant what to include within their application. So the first point of objection is that they are stating that the applicants have not adequately identified the locality or neighbourhood within a locality. So a locality is an administrative area or area with legally significant boundaries, so that can be a parish or electoral ward. And a neighbourhood does not need to be an area known to law, but must be cohesive and capable of meaningful description, such as a housing estate, but not just a line drawn around the properties which provide evidence. So I think in this case that the objector may be looking at is the identified neighbourhood within a locality, which aligns quite closely with the settlement boundary for Winsley, as set out in the core strategy document. So I think with some additions, so I think the objector is looking at is that capable of meaningful description and capable of being a cohesive area. So the inspector could ask additional questions on what constitutes that neighbourhood. Forgive me. What is the serious dispute there? I mean, we have the land identified that the applicant is applying to register. We see exactly what that is. The applicant says that the neighbourhood is Winsley. We know what that is. If there's a serious dispute between the applicant and the objectors, can you identify it? Can you tell us what it is? So the neighbourhood that they have identified within the locality, I think what they have done is they've looked at the core strategy document and used that boundary, but then added to that boundary as well. So they have extended it northward and extended it south and eastward as well. So the objector is saying, is that a valid neighbourhood qualification? And presumably you can advise us whether it is or isn't. Can you tell us whether it is or isn't? I think that that needs to be, maybe that needs additional evidence and hearing from the witnesses. It's a question that we could put, because this is not the only point that the objectors have picked up. Forgive me, Janice. I was just stopping to look at that particular one. So let's go on to the other two issues. Can you tell us what the signature theories are? We also have the objector is looking at user as of right. So the objector claims that the user as of right needs to be without force, without secrecy and without permission. So the objector is saying that the use of the land has not been without permission and without secrecy. And they set out that at appendix seven and appendix 10 in their objections. Sorry, I'm going to find my reference. Apologise. So in the as of right question, the objector disputes that the use of the land has been without permission, where it considers that Wilshire Council effective, County Council, sorry, effectively issued a license to use the land for the provision of community recreation space, where the objector states that it effectively had control over the application land, given its dedication to highway purposes. And secondly, without secrecy, where the landowner would not have been aware of its use, its true ownership not coming to light until 2020. So do we have some evidence from the objector of this license? I think the the the inspector's sorry, the objector is referring to the the section 40 agreement. So we have a plan that we are in possession of the application land, which form parts of a section 40 agreement of the Highways Act, 1959 made in 1968, and the land was held by Wilshire County Council as the highway authority, for the purposes of the eastern section of the Winsley bypass. However, once the alternative route of bypass was agreed in about 1991, the evidence suggests that the application land returned to the control of the landowner, which was at that time the developer, Alfred Robinson, builder and contractors. And it did not acquire highway rates and was never used for highway purposes. So I think that the objector there is referring to that period when it was held by Wilshire Council for that purposes. And I think during that period, it's likely that statutory incompatibility occurs. So during that period, user would not have been as of right and qualifying user, but would have been by right. But whether or not that continues after that date, the objector seemed to suggest that it does. Why would it? That's I think that's what we need more information. We probably need more information from the... Forgive me, Janice. I mean, if this is a specific period which there is a problem about, and it runs from, I think you said 1968 to 1991, that isn't exactly fatal to the application, is it? I mean, presumably most of the evidence is after 1991. Yes, yes. We are looking in this case at a period of user from 2001 to 2021. So, I mean, if there is such a section 40 agreement, we have a copy of that, do we? We don't have the wording, unfortunately. We have searched for the wording of the agreement. We only have the plan. So the objector doesn't have a copy of it? They would have seen the report and they would have seen a copy of the section 40 plan. They seem to be aware of the land being held by Wilshire County Council for a period of time. Okay, so if this were to be a correct objection and it related to all use of the land between 1968 and 1991, would that be a significant or serious issue that we needed to refer for a non-status inquiry about? Maybe not prior to 1991, but I think we do need further information regarding the objection and also evidence regarding use as a right. The objector is bringing these objections forward. Okay, but the objector has given us all his objection. We either have it or we don't have it, I think. He's given all, yes, the submission so far. Okay, so the third issue? Yes, so the third issue is then the efficiency of user. So the objector goes into quite a lot of detail about the evidence not being inadequate to satisfy the statutory test. And that's set out in their statement at appendix 7. And they then look at some specific examples of the contents of the witness statement and suggest that it's not, that the evidence is inadequate. So the words are that it is inadequate to satisfy the statutory test. And they set out there at paragraph 31 a few examples of how the statements, I'll just read you this example here, so 31. By way of just a few examples, the EQ of Susan Stark says that she uses the land between 1992 and 2007. She says in a reply to a question about frequency of use many times when our children were young. As evidence of use within the relevant period, the EQ is worthless because it does not give any information about when the claimed activity actually occurred during the application period. And they list other examples of that as well. Okay, so that may be the significance. So we've got this third issue of particular, how many of the witness statements have been challenged by the objector in that way? So they do mention three examples of paragraph 31 of their objection statement, but they then go on at 32 to say the aforementioned evidence questionnaires are just a few examples and there are many more that speak to the wider point. Okay, so they say there are many witnesses' statements that they wish to challenge. Yes. Right, so that I think, thank you very much. I mean, clearly we don't as a local authority have to set up a non-statuary inquiry for all applications for Dartmoor Village Greens, but according to Lord Justice Waller, we have to do it where there is a serious dispute. And there we are. So that answers my question. Right, we have other members who may wish to ask some questions about this report. Carster, Pitt, Ridard. Thank you, Joe, and following on from your theme, I wrote down three words, substantial, serious, significant, and they all have to have some form of interpretation bias. The one I was, you've raised the serious one. What would be considered a substantial dispute of fact? Do we have any guidance on that or can the legal officer, I mean, we've got three words there. Serious, which you've challenged. We've got substantial dispute in the papers and you've also mentioned, Chair, what is significant. And they're all open to interpretation of some kind. Do we have any form of case law that defines those words so that we can have some guidance? I think we have the case officer, who is an expert on this area, and we also have a legal officer with us, and we could go to both of them, perhaps. If you look at page 39, what the Court of Appeals says, it uses the word serious dispute. So serious dispute, I think, is what we need to establish. Janice, should we go to Amy Pierce? Let's hear what Amy says about what is a serious dispute and when we need to have a non-statured inquiry and whether we need one in this case. I think you've quite rightly identified that the case law just refers to serious and then it's the matter for you to determine what is serious. I'm not aware of any case law which will give you an actual determination of what serious is. That would be a matter of interpretation for the Committee. However, the plan officer or Janice has prepared the report, reviewed all the evidence, and in her recommendation, she believes that there is potential for the evidence to be disputed and that's why she's recommending that it go to a public inquiry. So having considered the matter, that is the recommendation for the Committee. But I'm afraid I can't help you in terms of case law that specifically determines what serious is. It is a matter for you to determine that, I'm afraid. Okay, let's go back to Janice. Janice, what in your view is the most serious dispute between the objectors and the applicants in the case that we're looking at? Well, I think we have three main points of objection, but perhaps the most serious really is the one which challenges the user evidence submitted. And that is not all of the user evidence, but it's many of the witness statements, is that right? It does refer to many. It gives three specific examples and then refers to many other examples within the evidence questionnaires. Okay, right. Any other questions? Councillor Vihk. Sorry, if I just capture the chase completely on this. In terms of procedure, if we were to approve the spinach green, does the landowner have a right of appeal? Janice. Thank you. Yes, the landowner does have the right to appeal. So that is under the appeal to the High Court under Section 14(1)(b) of the Commons Registration Act 1965. There are no time limits to bring proceedings in that case, but the landowner, sorry, the landowner also is able to judicially review the decision of the Council to the court within three months. Am I right in thinking that if the landowner went to either a judicial review or a High Court appeal, then the Council would have to take on a barrister and that would be a more expensive undertaking than the inquiry? That's correct. Yes, the costs of any legal challenge could potentially significantly outweigh the costs of the public inquiry. Thank you, Councillor Barry. Paragraph 40 on page 39. Ultimately, a request for judicial review could be made with significant costs against the Council if it is found to have acted unlawfully. And that is the crunch issue, I think, isn't it, Janice, whether we would be acting unlawfully. And if it was a planning matter, the judges are not interested in planning judgement, they're interested in procedure. And I suppose the challenge would be that our procedure was wrong. Is that it? That's correct. Yes. So the main reasons for application would be illegality of the decision, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the decision. OK, you want to come back? Then I'm going to go to Councillor Clark. But if it was a High Court appeal, then the landowner would be appealing on the grounds that we had simply got it wrong, that we made the wrong judgement. And that there was a serious dispute and the reasons were justified. So just in looking at that, the arguments are threefold, as you say, on the locality. I mean, are we seriously not making a judgement that the locality has been properly defined by the applicant? Because they've sent us a map of the Winsley settlement boundary that I believe is the exhibit C referred to by the landowner. Are we saying that we believe there is a doubt about that, that it isn't a proper definition of a locality? The objective has raised a doubt with that. We perhaps do need additional to hear from the witnesses on that, because it's also about whether that area is cohesive. Does it have things like shops and all that nature to make it a cohesive area of meaningful description? We made a judgement on that because it does have shops and it is a case of area and is a settlement boundary that's recognised as a settlement boundary by the wheelchair council. The settlement boundary in this case is different to the area which has been identified by the applicants. They've actually extended it to the north to include the application land, which is not part of the settlement boundary at the moment. And they've also extended it to the south and east to include additional properties which are not currently within the settlement boundary as it appears in the core strategy. So they have extended it in areas. When I was involved in an appeal the locality was defined as a particular division of wheelchair council. That was accepted by both parties. Are you saying that because it's not so clearly defined as a particular geographical or formal entity, there is therefore a genuine doubt about this that needs to be explored at inquiry? In the other case that you are discussing there, we looked at a locality alone. So the applicant identified a locality. So in this case I believe that the applicant is identifying a neighbourhood within a locality. There is a force. Am I rightly thinking that the landowner is arguing that there was no resistance to people using this for games and recreation because the owner didn't know they owned it. They thought that it had gone to wheelchair council highways. But if that's the case, surely what the legal test here is, did the landowner try to stop people using it? Sorry, could you repeat the question? Isn't the legal test in terms of force, in terms of have people used this as of right, the test of that surely is did the landowner try to stop them? The fact that landowner might not have been aware they owned the land doesn't seem to be relevant to that. The landowner didn't try to stop them. So do we have a judgment that that second argument advanced by the landowner might fall on that basis? Try to stop them or give them permission of course. Yeah, but the landowner did, exactly. But they did nothing in this case because they weren't sure they owned the land apparently. The landowner does make reference. So you don't specifically refer to the test force. What they are disputing is the test of without permission and without secrecy. Without secrecy part of that argument. I believe they are suggesting that the landowner wasn't aware of people using the land because they weren't necessarily aware of their ownership of the land at that time. The final argument advanced by the landowner is that the evidence is insufficient and they cite three out of 171 pieces of evidence. As it were pick holes, for example saying that there's a gap between children and grandchildren. Well there would if there was just one family using it, but with multiple families there's not going to be children of all ages all the time. And is that not contradicted? I was looking at one of the pieces of evidence here on page 159 where somebody says they've lived in Northfield for 26 years and in all that time they've seen it constantly used by local children. So couldn't one each put together an equally compelling argument the other way. That's in fact although the landowner has picked out a few examples where they say that there might be some gap in the evidence of a particular person. If you look at the totality of this evidence and that one I've just cited is only one of three I've just seen. Where an individual says they've seen this land being used for the entire time in question for sports and activities. So I'm just wondering again are we not making any kind of judgment on that third reason as to whether it is actually valid? The objector is raising a point but we don't only have objections from the landowner in this case we also have objections from a local resident as well who is disputing the sufficiency of user. So, got two other people waiting to speak to ask questions. We're still on the questions stage. I've got Councillor Clark and Councillor Parks. Councillor Clark? Thanks Chairman I was just wondering in the report it says that the period for the landowner to comment was extended. Was there any particular reason for this? And again looking at this when we talk about the landowner the objector was it BKE lands they only bought the land after the application had gone in had they not? The actual landowner for 20 years isn't the current landowner and has Wiltshire Council done anything to find out what the landowner during the 20 year period thinks about this? The Wiltshire Council as the Commons Registration Authority doesn't have investigative duties in this matter. We rely on the evidence submitted by the parties and yes, the current landowner is relatively new and bought the land around the same time that the Tana Village Green application was submitted. Just after I think wasn't it? Yes, the objector did request an extension to the time for making their objection within the time period. We must treat these application, must be fair and reasonable to all parties and where they had asked for that extension we saw no reason not to grant that extension. We also extended that extension to everybody who had submitted representations during the relevant period. And then I've got Councilor Bill Parks. Yeah, thank you, Chair and to a certain extent, Councillor Clark's asked the question, but I thank officers for the report. There's a lot of detail work, a lot of time and consideration put into it. Just for my own peace of mind, the piece of land in question was owned by Wiltshire, presumably, County Council as was. That's going to be Wiltshire Council and has been sold with the applicants knowledge that there was an application. I don't believe that it was ever owned by Wiltshire Council. I think we held the land for a period for the purposes of, of highway to the potential of using that land for the eastern section of the Winsley bypass. I'm not sure that there's no evidence of Wiltshire Council ever owned the land, but we did hold it for highway purposes between 1968 and 1991. And I think after that time, it reverted to the landowner, the control of the landowner who was at that time, Alfred Robinson developers at that time. And the piece of ground in question was obviously never, never declared as highway or any other bits may have been or have been. So, I don't think there's a lot of evidence of that at that time, but I think it has also been maintained by Winsley Parish Council. In 2019 my other question is, am I right in understanding that Winsley Parish maintain that parcel of ground? From whenever, 19, I think it has also at times been maintained by, by also Wiltshire County Council and also the district council at times as well. So, there has been a record of public maintenance and with that knowledge, presumably maintained. By, by funds from the public purse, albeit Paris or whatever, but with the public funds. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] So, in the application the applicant submitted some records of maintenance and I can see that in 2002, 2003, the contract requests for a quote from West Wilts District Council by Winsley Parish Council for grounds maintenance of Winsley Village, including Northfield playing field. So, that was a particular something that happened in 2003. What was the involvement of the district council? Has that been established? So, in the evidence 1993 to 1994, it looks like it continues until about 2001. So, 1993 to about 2001, confirmation from West Wilts District Council to Winsley Parish Council offering services for grounds maintenance, including Northfield and Saxon Way. And it looks like that continues until about 2000. So, the district council was offering services to the parish council, which presumably was in some way occupying or maintaining the land at the time. Yes, it appears so, yes. So, it seems as if the district council was just offering services, which we don't know whether they were taken up. No, we've only got the confirmation from West Wilts District Council. OK, and the request for quotes. OK, we're doing our best with this. Are there any other questions before we go to the public participation? Councillor Suzanne Wickham. Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask if this application moves on today to the public inquiry, will all the people who have written in support of this application have the opportunity to provide further evidence, if you like? My point is that members of the public possibly looked at this in the light of, of course, we've used this for 20 years, you know, we've our kids did it, our grandchildren have used it, etc. What maybe was not explained to them would be what I would call the burden of proof. Have they been able to show any evidence? So, for instance, people will have had birthday parties there, gatherings, they may have photographs in which they could show the evidence that they've used it. So, I guess the question is, would they have the opportunity to submit further evidence to the next inquiry, if that were the case? Yes, so the public inquiry is the opportunity to hear from the witnesses in person and for witnesses to be cross examined. What generally happens in in previous public inquiries, but it's all down to the inspector and how the inspector actually wants to deal with the, with the evidence. Obviously, inspectors have taken a view that there is a maybe a more limited number of, of witnesses giving evidence. So that, but, but obviously that that evidence is then tested at the public inquiry, but I would hope that anybody who wanted to participate in that process would be able to do so being a being a public inquiry and provide new evidence that we haven't got here today. Yes, thank you very much. Yes. Are there any other questions from members to the officers before we go to the public participation? Councillor Kidney, were you indicating? Am I allowed to make an observation point? Just very briefly on the, on the sort of the three main areas that have been raised. Just regarding locality, first of all, the approach the parish council took in its use of maps, removes all ambiguity about the land concerned. In fact, it's helpful and their validity in defining locality is supported by all the evidence questionnaires garnered by the parish council. I believe this is the approach that's widely used in planning applications. Furthermore, the parish council responded on this very point as follows. The neighbourhood within the locality of Winsley parish to which the claimed green relate is closely aligned to the Winsley settlement boundary with a small number of additional properties included. It is clear from any map that the neighbourhood area has been based on the main residential area of Winsley, including the old village, the tiny estate and residences along the main Bradford Road. The northern edge of the neighbourhood boundary runs along the B three one away, which provides a clear edge to the residential area. The southern and eastern edges of the neighbourhood boundary deviates slightly from the settlement boundary to include a small number of properties which lie just outside the boundary. Northfield playing field itself, as has been explained, lies outside the settlement boundary. So the neighbourhood boundary has been drawn to include Northfield and the properties adjacent to this area of land. I think that makes it extremely clear, and I don't see how a public inquiry at great expense would make it any clearer. I'll treat that as a question, I think. Yeah, on the second point, I will frame this as a question. Ignorance is not a defence in UK law, is that not the case? So even if the landowner didn't know that they own the land, ignorance isn't a defence, I'm afraid. So I think that puts that one to bed. Or does it not? There's my question. And on the third point, on the validity of the questionnaires, I think, Councillor Veigt, I'll cover that really well. If you look at the whole, there's a very clear picture of continued use over the time period. Some of that sporadically by some individuals, others over the entire period of time. But looking at the overall picture, again, it's not contested. So unless officers feel otherwise, did you not agree that it's not contested on that basis? So those three questions, Janice. So firstly, the objector will have seen the reply at Appendix 9, in which the applicant replies to the objections, and they maintain their objection based on that reply at Appendix 9 that they've seen from the applicant. And the objector says in their second statement of objection that the applicant has simply drawn a line on a map in a position that appears convenient. There is no explanation, for example, as to why the blue line incorporates properties outside the settlement boundary and why they form part of the established neighbourhood. The applicant has failed to appreciate that a settlement boundary by and of itself does not identify a neighbourhood for the purposes of the 2006 Act without something more. A settlement boundary is a planning tool. It says nothing as to the existence of a cohesive neighbourhood. So they are maintaining that objection. Are they maintaining that Winsley is not a neighbourhood? Is that their contention, that Winsley doesn't exist? I'm just trying to understand what their contention is. I think what they're saying is that the settlement boundary within the core strategy is different to the neighbourhood. That's not relevant, though, is it? It is in this case because they are saying that the neighbourhood needs to be a cohesive or an area of meaningful description. I think the objectors are saying that with the amendments to the settlement boundary, it may appear to them that the neighbourhood identified, although it aligns quite closely with the settlement boundary from the core strategy, it may appear to them that it is a line just drawn around the properties that submit evidence without any meaningful description. Can you clarify what the Commons Act requires? So for the Commons Act, this was set out in the Padico case in 2011, which set out that a locality should be an administrative area with legally significant boundaries, for example, a parish or an electoral ward, but that a neighbourhood does not need to be an area known to law, but must be cohesive and capable of meaningful description. So a housing estate, but not just a line drawn around the addresses of those providing evidence. I think Cancer Kidney is saying that this area has been meaningfully described. Has the area not been meaningfully described? I believe it has, I mean, the objector on one hand is saying that the settlement boundary is just a planning tool and is irrelevant. And now they're complaining that the line shown on the map isn't the settlement boundary, because the line shown on the map is what we understand to be the village of Winsley, because there are some properties outside the settlement boundary that are part of the village of Winsley. So unless the objector is saying that the village of Winsley doesn't exist, unless it's defined by the settlement boundary, which they also say is irrelevant because it's a planning tool, I don't quite see what their objection is. Shall we go to the other two questions? So with the ignorance of the landowner, that is what they are maintaining within their objection for the secrecy. But could we get legal advice? Because ignorance, as far as I understand it, is not a defence in UK law. I think, just to move away from that point slightly, my understanding of their issue is they're saying that, having looked at their objection, I think one of the points that they are raising is that it was under the impression that the control and permission of the land was earned by the council, and they were obtaining the council's permission to use the land, and therefore they were doing it with permission. It might not have been permission from the correct landowner, but it was therefore being done with permission of who they believed was the landowner. So I think that's the issue that the objector is raising, that yes the landowner might not have been aware of the ownership of the land, but that the council was effectively giving that permission, and therefore someone was giving permission and therefore it wasn't as of right. But nobody's provided any evidence that any permission was ever given, are they? I think my understanding is that, just on the objector's comments on page 244 when they talk about the license being given and the application being given, and also I think they refer to evidence of asking the council's permission for, I believe is it funding for the land I thought I'd read, but I could be incorrect on that. But that's my understanding. Paragraph 9 of their supplemental objection sets that out. But it appears to be all in their imagination, isn't it? I mean they don't have any evidence, they don't have any piece of paper or any witness statement that asserts this. They're imagining it, aren't they? No no, you'll get your slot in a minute. Sorry Chad, can you just ask the question again? Yeah, I'm just saying that as far as I can make out, they're not providing any evidence of what they say. They appear to be asserting it, sort of plucking it out of the air. I believe they do apply exhibits to their statement which they say supports their position. Now part of having a public inquiry will be able to test that evidence further and first… But there is no evidence to test, is there? In their view, they have submitted evidence which they consider to support their position. It's a matter for the committee to determine whether or not they accept that evidence or not. But the recommendation of the officer is for that evidence to be further tested by way of a public inquiry. Okay, so what is the evidence? Evidence is either a document or a verbal statement but evidence is a statement by somebody who knows facts and that can then, as you say, be tested. But in this case, do we have any evidence of any kind which could be tested? Well they would suggest that they do but that's a matter for them. I'm not here to advance their case. They believe that they have evidence supporting their position and that's what they have submitted as part of their objection. Can you give us a page number? Page 242, I believe, is what their supplemental objection when they refer to it and they exhibit documents along with that. Sorry, did you say 242? 242 is the beginning of their supplemental objection statement. Can you give us a paragraph number? A paragraph 9 is when they refer to the bit as a right issue which was being raised. A paragraph 9 on page 244? Yes. So... this is... was effectively unaware that he'd owned or had control of the land. So this is a statement by Rowene Amigo and does she have any knowledge of this? Well, Rowene Amigo will be the barrister, I'm assuming that they've hired to forward their objection to it. So she won't have probably personal knowledge but she's prepared a statement on behalf of her client which I'm assuming is the landowner. But she's not referring to any evidence, she's simply plucking this out of the air, isn't she? I think that the evidence that they're citing is parish council minutes from 1991. I think that's what they mentioned here and they mentioned it earlier on as well. OK, let's go back to your third question, Councillor Kidney. Could you remind us what it was? Relating to the objection that the evidence questionnaires don't all consistently refer to exactly the same period of time, but it was more that, well, can we not view this as a whole because it paints a picture of some people using it while they lived in the village and then they may have moved on or their children grew up, whereas others have used it throughout the whole period or have witnessed people using it throughout the period. So again, it's not a valid objection because the overall picture is one of continuous use over the entire period, is it not? Janice. So at Appendix 10. So in that, again, the objector would have had sight of the applicant's comments on the objections and the representations, and they do maintain this objection at paragraph 13. So in reply to Beakerley's third ground of objection, the application reiterates some of the evidence it has provided in support. The inadequacy of the evidence as identified in the objector's statement is not in any way addressed. Further representations have also been provided, which appear to be responses to the publication of the application. None of these responses improve the inadequate quality of the evidence relied upon for the reasons set out in the original objection statement and may raise irrelevant issues such as the desire to maintain the application land as a public recreation space, which forms no part of the statutory test. So they are maintaining that objection. Well, they would, wouldn't they? Yes, I think cancer kidneys question is where is the significant, what was the law justices, and the series, where is the serious dispute? I think it is in the, obviously they are, they are, they haven't included in the objection statement. They haven't included all of the examples. They do say that there are more and the public inquiry would drill down into those additional, those additional examples. And that, Karen is pointing out that may be something that they will address when they come to speak to us. Right. So we've got double questions for members looking around the room. I'm not seeing any more questions. Okay. Well, now let's just then back to the public participation. And we have now, I gather, Murali Bandaru has joined us. And in order to be able to address that we have, yeah, Marali Bandaru who is an objector. We have Duncan Sparrowhawk who is a supporter. John Strike who is a supporter. Kerri Kemp who is a supporter. And Linda Lardner representing the parish council. And we will take them, we have to take Murali Bandaru first. And we will do that. Over to Mr. Murali Bandaru. And what you ask regarding whether council has got authority to do it. In all the evidence submitted from the council, parish council. They submitted evidence from one person who said he worked as a councillor for Winslet Parish Council and he and another councillor they went to Wilshire Council and got an agreement. Or got permission from Wilshire Council to use this land for recreation. And he mentioned that in his evidence statement and which has been submitted. Oh, sorry, Mr. Brown. You have up to three minutes if you need it. All right. And I would like to say stick with all the objections. What Mrs. Janice Green has mentioned in relation to that land. And I think, I mean, like, I think it's not, I wouldn't suggest to go forward with this application as it would be wasting public funds. Thank you very much. Next speaker then is Duncan Sparrowhawk. Are you there, Mr. Sparrowhawk. Oh, right, this is good luck to you. You have up to three minutes. I hope you're feeling brave. Hello, my name is Duncan. I am 11 but I have lived in Winsley since 2014 when I was a toddler. Sport is my main passion in life and I exercise every day. So Northfield playing field has always been very important to me. We used the playing field when I was a cub for wide games, practicing, putting up tents and pioneering, which is building things with poles, knots and lashings. Northfield was the first place I went to practice when I got my hardball cricket kick. It gave me a chance to practice catching and facing a hardball and gain confidence before playing at the local club. My brother and I love playing football with our friends using the rusty goalpost. When it finally broke, we wrote to the Parish Council asking if we could, if they could be replaced. They provided two and we were over the moon. They were used every day by us and lots of other children until the land was closed off. In lockdown, this was a great place to go because we only had one hour each day to play. The time I spent there was precious to me because I met new people which led to strong friendships. At the time when it was hard to get out, socialise and keep fit, the park at Northfield helped me to avoid loneliness. During home schooling and lockdown, my teachers sent PE homework to keep us fit and healthy. Northfield was the place I went to do it. Northfield playing field has always been really important to me for sport, scouting, fitness and just being outdoors. I really hope it can be kept as a place myself and many others can continue to use for the sport and activities that we love. I fear that if Northfield is ignored and not looked after, future generations of children just like me will not be able to play games and keep fit and have fun. Well done, thank you very much. Next speaker then is John Strike who is also a supporter. Thank you. Good afternoon. I live on Northfield which is the road that leads up to the land in question. I'm here on behalf of other parents similar to my age with younger children, younger than Duncan. Unfortunately a lot of them can't be here today because of workaments but we moved to this road in 2016 and one of the main reasons for us moving to this road was because of that land and the fact that we knew it was a safe place that our children could play, socialise, get fresh air. Without being near the road. Our son was born six years ago and for those first three years that's exactly how we used it. He kicked his first ball there. We had picnics there, we exercised the dogs there and sort of enjoyed the wide space. As you see from appendix 16, it isn't just us who have used that, there are many other families who have used it for exactly the same sort of reasons. Socialising, barbecues, cricket, football, kite flying, all kinds. My daughter is now three years old, she's missed out on three years of that land because it was sealed off. My son has also missed out on three years of that land as well. As I said we're one of many families now who live in Winsley and particularly on Northfield. To give you an idea of the demographic I think is important because our road has 16 houses. When we moved there in 2016 only two of those houses had children under the age of 10 and now eight or nine of those houses have children under the age of 10. That sort of gives you an idea that it's quadrupled. As an older generation moved on in Winsley, the Tining Estate in particular, which is the estate connected to this land. There are tremendous amount more children in general in the Tining Estate that I feel would benefit from having a safe place to do recreation, sports and just be outdoors. The alternative currently is that my children play out in the road which is unsafe. There are delivery drivers on every road and our road is an exception. There's always building work that's beyond our control going on and other such things. From a personal point of view, my son has ADHD and Autism and he can't effectively risk assess. He constantly is on the move and can't stay still. Having that land there would be tremendously useful to us and for his safety. I think he's part of a generation that have missed out on a chunk of time where they could socialise because of the lockdowns and such like. We need now more than ever time to get them outside away from screens. I believe the value of green spaces within residential settings for general well-being is increasing by planning so hopefully that land can be secured for the next generation. Thank you. Well done Mr. Stripe. You were absolutely on the dot for three minutes. The next speaker is Kerry Kemp who is also a supporter. Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak. My name is Kerry Kemp and I've lived in Winsley all of my life. I wasn't going to tell you the year I was born, but I will, 1964. I lived in the old village. I then when I got married in 95, I moved on to the Tining Estate and then I moved from Broomeground to Northfield and my property looks onto the piece of land we are talking about. I can stand at my kitchen window and I watch the children, adults, grandparents playing. Like I said, I have played on that land myself as a child. So that's why I thought it was important you know the date. I've watched this beautiful green space being well used by our community and it's been also well kept by the Winsley Parish Council. Some of the things I've seen. Children obviously playing football, the teens and adults playing football and then just sitting around afterwards chatting, using it as a social area. I've seen people practicing martial arts which I had to be honest scared me the first time I saw these two men in black as ninjas was a little worrying. I spoke with them and they explained what they were doing. I've seen personal trainers there with people putting them through their paces. A lovely young girl was using the land for hurdles. She wanted to practice and improve on the hurdles. My husband is a sports teacher and was able to give her some advice on setting up and various things. The scouts. I've seen the scouts doing their orienteering skills. I myself was a scout leader at one stage and I know how invaluable that piece of land therefore is. I've seen children on ponies cantering around the edges of it. Again, the roads have become a little bit dangerous for people to ride so it's a safe place to go. Not so recently, but however, but children even sitting and reading and enjoying that bit of peace and quiet up there. Children have been camping out overnight. I was quite horrified originally and when I asked them. I've seen people playing cricket. I mean, basically football posts have been up there for an awful long time and when they were asked to be renewed. That's what was basically Windsor Parish Council did. I just personally would like this open space to remember remain as an open space for future generations like John. I've obviously live in Norfield and there has been a great influx of young families and I think that's so important that they can go up and play. I know John's son, he is regularly up and down on his bike. We have a great conversation, but I always think it would be nice that they could get to play back over in the safety of the area. This land is really invaluable and I would just like the residents, young and old, to be able to continue working as I continue using and playing with it. It's a beautiful, beautiful piece of land that we're not being able to use at present. So thank you. Thank you very much. And then the final speaker is Councillor Linda Ladner, who is representing Winsley Parish Council, who is I think the applicant. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, everybody. For Northfield to be approved as a village green, Winsley PC has to prove that a significant number of inhabitants have been indulged as a right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years and continue to do so at the time of application. We believe that this is comprehensively shown in the evidence we have presented, both in the written submission and statements made by residents today. It's difficult to see what grounds the evidence can be questioned on. Residents who have lived in the village for over 20 years have testified that the land in question as a whole has been used regularly for sports and pastimes. Other residents, including children who have moved to the area in more recent years, describe their frequent use of Northfield playing field. BK London Estates suggests the evidence is inadequate, to be sufficient is general and unspecific. We feel the evidence is more than adequate for anyone to draw the conclusion that the land meets the criteria for village green designation. The quantity of information provided, 173 people, along with specific details from many residents makes the use of... The numerical data in appendix 15 shows this, football, cricket, rugby, dog walking, ball games and apparently ninja and tent building. And recollections of individuals building snowmen, obstacle courses, parties, etc. has been used for a wide variety of things over a huge number of years. Also, the thoroughly evidenced record of the parish council's maintenance of the land adds weight to the argument that this land has been maintained as a community facility for well over 20 years. This is shown in the multiple statements provided in appendix 14. In response to points raised by the landowners, Wiltshire council has confirmed there are no trigger events. Wiltshire council has also taken considerable time to check the application to declare it valid. This is based on the fact that the neighbourhood had been carefully considered and also confirmed as valid. The parish council has shown that the land has been used as of right, once the land was no longer needed for possible highways use in the early 90's. It was returned to the original developer and remained in private ownership. There has been no agreement in place on the land. It's a piece of private land that has been used by the community as of right, with no permission sought or given. This use has been unchallenged for over 30 years. It was clearly the intention for this land to be set aside as a recreational amenity within the settlement of Winsley. The PC and residents wish to see that retained. Under the risk assessment section of Wiltshire council's report suggested that where there is serious dispute in a village green application, a public inquiry should be held to find the facts. Winsley PC believes that there is no serious dispute of the facts in this case. Objections by the current landowner have been made. But we do not believe that these raise serious questions about the validity of the application or the fact that this application meets the criteria for a village green. In paragraph 41 of Wiltshire council's report, it is stated that a public inquiry is required if there is sufficient to speak to factual issues. I would argue that the objections put forward by the landowners are not sufficient. It is unfortunate that the purchasers of this land did not fully understand the nature of the land they were buying. The village green application was submitted to Wiltshire council on the 1st of March '21 and asset of community value was submitted on the 3rd of March. This information was provided to the auctioneers who included it in the sellers pack ahead of the auction on the 10th of March '21. This pack included a photo of the field with goal posts, well-worn patches in front of both. The parish council advertised this information at the Northfield playing field before the auction. The recreational use of the field was clear. The landowners may have made a mistake in their understanding in the nature of the land, but the community should not lose out because of this mistake. BK land and estates may not like the fact that the land they have bought has been, should continue to be, a community amenity, but not agreeing with the situation does not grounds for a valid objection to this application. Paragraph 43 of Wiltshire council's report notes that there is no clear guidance on when a public inquiry should be held, but it is the authorities duty to determine an application in a fair and reasonable manner. Given the evidence provided, this application can be decided in a fair and reasonable manner at this point today. Holding a public meeting, a public inquiry sorry, will add nothing more except to prolong an already long procedure and incur higher costs for all. And I agree with the supporter who said that a public inquiry would be expensive. Having carefully considered all the information provided, additional statements made today, we ask that members of the committee conclude that there is more than enough evidence to make the decision at this point that Northfield playing field meets the criteria to be designated a town and village green. Thank you. Thank you councilor Ladner and now the local member of councilor Kidney. Thank you chairman. Thank you members of the committee and thank you Janice for the report today. As I'm sure you can tell from the statements made here today, the current situation with Northfield has been a cause of great upset and stress for the community of Winsley. As you've heard, generations of families have enjoyed unrestricted use of the playing field for more than half a century, since the timing of state was constructed in the late 1960s. Northfield has been cared for and maintained by Winsley Parish Council for decades and indeed for a time as you've heard today, it was maintained by the then West Wills District Council on behalf of the parish council. The field has had goal posts in place since around the mid 1970s and more recently these old goal posts were upgraded with new posts installed by the parish council following a request from young people at the estate as Duncan described earlier. The parish council also looked to install benches around the playing field over the years and for generations families have gathered at the playing field to play, socialise and relax. Children's birthday parties have been held there, picnics have been held there and more recently during the pandemic, the playing field was an absolute lifeline for young families on the estate. This unrestricted access and enjoyment of the playing field as of right has continued for more than 50 years and crucially, continued up to and beyond the point that the application to register the playing field as a town in Village Green was made. It should also be stressed that the application was made prior to the purchase of the land at auction by the current landowner and that the application was made known to the auctioneers who as Linda pointed out, listed that fact in the particulars of sale. So how have we come to this situation that we find ourselves in today? Well, when the estate was built in the late 1960s, it would appear that the freehold titles for the very few areas of green space, highway verges and the Northfield playing field, stayed with the company who built it. Initially as we've heard, the playing field was incorporated into highways land by the county council at the time, while plans for the B3008 Winsley bypass were being progressed. When decided by the council, the land should be used as recreation space and from then on, the community used it as such. Then in 1991, the county council determined that they did not need the land for highways and the title was returned to the freeholder. The use of the land didn't change, however, the community continued to use it as a playing field for the following decades, with the parish council continuing its care and maintenance. Over the years, the builder of the estate seems to have ceased trading with its assets, including all those freeholds of verges and playing fields, eventually falling into the hands of an organisation called Legacy Land Holdings. Now as far as I can gather, this organisation's business model appears to be the acquisition of such verges and green spaces in housing estates from this era, paying pennies and then trying to sell them all for whatever profit they can. Indeed, just as an aside, shortly after this Northfield situation emerged, this organisation wrote to families in the estate who had small areas of grass verge and footpath in front of their homes, between their homes and the street, and stated that they were the owners of the verge and would the households like to buy them before they consider their options as to what they would do with the land. Members of this committee may well have come across this conduct in estates within their own communities, particularly those representing from a similar, dating from a similar era. Indeed, I've come across reports from other parts of the country of Legacy Land Holdings attempting to sell highways, verges and playing fields in other communities. When the parish council became aware of the situation with Northfield and the fact that the Legacy Land Holding company intended to dispose of the playing field at Alton, the community mobilised immediately. We submitted the application to register the land as the town of Village Green well before the auction, informing the vendors and the auctioneers of this and ensuring that the information was made known far and wide, including in the particulars of sale in the auction listing. The playing field was also put forward as an asset of community value, and the parish council approached the vendor directly, offering to purchase the land. This was rejected and the auction went ahead and sadly the parish council, although supported by a grant from Wiltshire Council via the area board and an extraordinary fundraising effort by the community, attempted to purchase the playing field but was sadly unsuccessful. In the meantime, the town of Village Green application continued for a further three years, which brings us to where we are today. I hope members will have had the opportunity to read the many representations from residents of Winslow who care so deeply about this much-loved playing field and have been devastated by the loss of what is the only space where kids can kick a ball and families can enjoy green, open space within the large, tiny estate, the part of the village where most of the young families live. Members will no doubt also have noted the objection from the lawyers representing the landowners. We talked a bit about this earlier. May I remind you they purchased the land having clear access to the fact that an application to register the land as the town of Village Green had been submitted prior to the auction and that it had been nominated as an asset of community value. They will also have been well aware that the playing field falls within the Westvilles Green Belt. The objections raised by them are distractions at best. They're broadly nitpicking over things like the definition of a neighbourhood and a seemingly desperate suggestion that the application is invalid, which seems nonsensical given that the application has been validated by the Wilshire Council as the Commons Registration Authority and has been in process for more than three years. There also appears to be a suggestion that perhaps the previous freeholder didn't realise they owned the land for many decades. Even so, and I seriously doubt this, ignorance, as I have said earlier, isn't a defence in law. They also point to a grant application made by the parish council in 2005 for the provision of a BMX grant. Again, this proves nothing other than that the land was used by the community and the parish council was looking at options for investing into recreational facilities. Within all this obfuscation are a couple of paragraphs, 26 to 28, which actually state the facts. And that is that the council made provision for the use of the land as public open space and then in 1991 informed the freeholder that the land was no longer needed for highway purposes and with the use as public space, continuing until and beyond the submission of this application. The other objection from a member of the public also doesn't contest the facts. Indeed, it confirms that the field was used daily for football. The objection simply doesn't seem to like the idea of children having somewhere to play within the estate, which is regrettable. However, the facts are uncontested. The proposal for an independent inquiry is put forward on the basis of these objections being received. But as they don't contest the facts of continued, uninterrupted use of the playing field by the public for more than half a century, I would suggest that this would seem unnecessary. I hope members will agree with me that this is quite possibly one of the most cast iron applications for a town and village application that has ever been considered by this council. The evidence of continued and uninterrupted community use of the playing field as of right for more than 50 years, right up to and beyond the point of application for registration as a town and village green, is clear, and indeed it appears to be accepted by the Objectors. I note the proposal for an inquiry, but I would ask the committee to consider really seriously whether this is necessary, whether there is any reason that this much-loved playing field shouldn't be confirmed as a town and village green here today. Only if the advice from the council's legal team and officers is that the inquiry would somehow add considerable weight to the offence of any future appeal against the decision, and that no consideration be given to any further delay in cost. Otherwise, let's just get on with this today. Let's return this land that has been used for play and recreation for more than half a century back to the community where it belongs. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kidney. Well, we're about to go into the debate on this application, so I ask members of the public, please, not to interrupt us. I see at least two ways forward which have been identified so far. One is the Office of Recommendation, that we set up a non-statutory local inquiry, public inquiry. The other is the one promoted by Councillor Kidney and the parish council, which is that we're in a position to determine this today. Those are not the only options. I mean, clearly, if there were a legal, a significant legal issue which members wanted to be reassured about, such as, for instance, this one about whether the owner not knowing that he'd owned the land, whether somebody else could give permission for the use of it, whether there is any evidence that anybody else who could, I mean, that, I think, is a significant issue which, quite possibly, a suitably qualified barrister at a local inquiry could help us a good deal on, but it may be that there is a speedier way to deal with that and that we could get a council's opinion on it rather than spending 10,000 or 15,000 on a local public inquiry. There are various ways forward here and it's up to the committee as to which way we go. I've got Councillor Colbin indicating to speak first. Who else is waiting to speak? Councillor Clark. Okay, let's go to, oh, and then Councillor Weigert. So I've got Councillor Colbin, Councillor Clark and Councillor Weigert. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move option 1 of paragraph 47 on page 41, which is that based on the available evidence to register the land as a TVG, where it is considered that the legal test for the registration as set out under sections 15(1) and 2 of the Commons Act 2006 have been met in full over the whole of the application land. Obviously, that excludes that blue patch that you mentioned earlier on. I think we've had a fairly good, nearly two hours worth of taking this around. And I think the evidence seems to be fairly clear. It's as cast iron as Councillor Kudney described it as, yeah, you're not going to get anything much simpler than this. If you compare it with the two previous ones we've considered, which were far more complicated than those we did send to an inquiry, and I think we were probably correct to do so because of the complications involved. This one satisfies all the tests quite clearly, I think. And we've got, again, 300 pages of evidence to say why that should be. Looking at the objections, I guess, you know, if you're the landowner in this case, you're probably going to object, unless you're very philanthropic. You're probably going to employ a lawyer to find some objections to inject around and that lawyer is going to find something to put in their case. And that's, again, you used the phrase 'plucking out of the air'. I think that's what we've seen from the objections. They don't really carry any weight. And the word 'serious' was used. These are not serious objections. Therefore, they don't need to be treated seriously. What you were making about someone else giving permission, I don't think that would have much of a run. I could walk onto your land and I could say to a member of the public, 'look, member of the public, I own this land, I'm going to give you permission to walk on it'. Anybody could do that and it doesn't follow that that would have any kind of impact on an application like this. So no, I don't see the need to investigate further, I think the investigations have been done, the evidence we have before us is quite clear and that is the reasoning behind the proposal I'm making here. So officers are saying in the report that if the committee were to determine today, it would have to give reasons and your reason, Councillor Carvin, as you've just explained it, that the evidence is clear. I think that's the reason that you're coming up with. Yes, and the contrary evidence is non-existent virtually and not serious, you were saying. So the evidence is clear and the contrary evidence is not serious. Okay, well, let's see if there's a seconder for that. Councillor Palme is seconding the motion to register the land as a town or village green. I've got Councillor Clark is the next speaker. I was going to ask a question, Chairman, but there's something on the table that's obviously gone. You were going to ask a question and now that there's something on the table, you will leave your question out of the picture. Is that it? Oh, I don't think my question would be relevant until we've resolved whether Councillor Carvin's motion is serious. Okay, fair enough. I understand that. So I think Councillor Veiga is next. I'm prepared to go along with this. I think the objections, taking them in reversal to the third objection is that the evidence doesn't stack up. I think that can be dealt with by looking at 171 statements that between them I think quite clearly show 20 years of use, lawful sports and pastimes. So I think there's been an attempt to pick holes a bit with those 171 by citing three, but I think you can cite many more that do add up to that evidence. Okay, so the second objection falls. The second objection is the one about as of right. And what I'm looking at where the law says, what the law says is, have indulged as of right in lawful sports. Now, the fact that they at one point asked the Council if they could use the land because they thought the Council used it, doesn't to me take away the fact that they've used it as of right. People have been using it as of right throughout. They just as a belt and braces kind of approach asked the Council, and the Council didn't actually own it. So in terms of the owner of the land, there has been no attempt to prevent people using it for the last 20 years, I think that falls. I think the only possible loophole that the landowner could exploit is the one about locality. Because I do see on page 260, when you're discussing this, that there is legal precedent to say that a locality must be, let me find the phrase, a recognizable neighborhood or something which is defined elsewhere. Or capable of meaningful description, is that right? Yes, so for example, at Winsley Parish or a certain electoral division is already established as a particular geography, whereas the map that's been presented of the so-called neighborhood with the blue line that was shown us earlier on, Janice, but that map of the claimed locality, the exhibit C, is not Winsley Parish, it is not Winsley Ward, it's not a particular thing. But then I do see, and this is the question I have, on paragraph 18, page 260, at the bottom the report says, from this information, officers consider the applicant is claiming the neighborhood of Winsley settlement within the locality of Winsley Parish. So, if we accept that that is a valid locality then I think that one falls as well. I think it's the only tiny technical loophole the landowner could use and I think they would be ill-advised to go to the High Court with all the expenditure that is put on that particular loophole in the technicality. So therefore, on that basis, I'm prepared to support this. Councillor Andrew James. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I didn't ask a question in questions because it was going down the route of, are we going to send this to an appeal? And of course, let's go on procedural on some of these. I mean, we've done quite a few of these public open spaces things. And some of them we have sent to go to public inquiry and we've had the expense of going to public inquiry. And this one, I think, if it went to public inquiry, with the evidence that's been put forward, I say, I feel I know which way the public inquiry would be minded to go. If I was wrong, well, so be it. If it didn't go to a if it did go to a public inquiry and we put the expense of their public inquiry. As Councillor Vickers said in the questions, which is where I was going to come in on the questions. If it didn't, if it went through on a public inquiry that they gave us a recommendation that we get to the same point as we are now, you know, and we pass it, it could still be appealed by the applicant and then we would still have the expense of having to defend the appeal as well. So for that reason, I think I mean, I believe, you know, for having heard all the evidence and that there's enough evidence for us to make a decision today. Thank you, Councillor Davies. Councillor. Sorry, my mind has gone blank, but I'm pointing in the right direction. And then Councillor Suzanne Wyck. Sorry, I'm putting my hand up against the floaty thing on the screen. Oh, I beg pardon, Councillor Wyck. I thought you were indicating to speak. You need to shield your eyes from glare. Chair, I do have a question that is, if this motion is passed, will the landowner be obliged to restore public access with immediate effects? Let's go to Janice Green on that. Yes, if land is registered as the town of Village Green, it's protected under certain Victorian statutes and that makes it an offence to obstruct use, recreational use of the land. I think that answers that question. Is there anyone else who's waiting to speak? Councillor Clark. Thanks, Chairman. It's not often that I've spoken, if defence is the right word, assuming the developer or the landowner, but I think we're going down really dodgy ground here. The ones that we've seen recently for TVGs, I'm sure we've all sat here and thought, oh, it's obvious, but we've sent it off for public inquiry. And not got the result that we thought we would get, or some of us thought we would get. I can't help thinking, I'll just have a quick look on the website and apparently the applicant paid £66,000 for this land, plus they paid for the barrister's advice already. I think it's, we're certain that if this motion is approved, we're going to be taken off to judicial review, or we're going to be referred to the ombudsman for mad administration or something. I know it's a bit of a wimpish thing to do, but if we go to public inquiry, even if it's non-statutory, that must be cheaper. I think we've been told in the past that these inquiries cost us £10,000 to £15,000. If we get hauled off to judicial review, we're probably looking at treble that we've got to employ a barrister. I sympathise with the applicant, because personally I would think it's a no-brainer, but there's always something there that we're missing, and today we've been asking questions about what did the solicitor say, what did they mean this, and we haven't got an answer. We can't find out. It worries me that as this is all being recorded, that undoubtedly the landowner is going to look back at this recording and his barrister or their barrister is bound to say, You yourself said you didn't get a reply, you didn't know what the correct answer to this was, and you've still gone ahead and granted permission when you didn't have the full facts. And I have every sympathy with Winsley Parish Council and members of this committee that proposed and seconded this, but I think we would be going down a really dodgy path if we were to do this rather than referring it for non-statutory public inquiry. So unless I'm convinced in the next few minutes, Chairman, I regret to say that I won't be supporting it. Thanks very much, Councillor Clark. Are there any other speakers? If there are no new speakers, I will go back to Councillor Carbone to sum up on his motion for registering the land as a town or village green. Thanks. Well, I think I've covered it all, and other people have covered it all fairly comprehensively. To pick up on the last point, yes, there's a risk. There's a risk either way. There's a risk to the objector should they seek to go through the legal process. People who go through the legal process and are deemed by such to behave unreasonably can have costs against them. So the risk exists on both sides. Whichever course of action we take, there is the risk. So that's why I think that, as I say, if we lost on this one, then the whole legislation might as well be thrown out because this is as clear as you can possibly get, Chairman. So I think on that basis, I'll stick to the original proposal and hope it will be supported by the committee. Okay, Councillor Carbone, we've got to the point of going to the vote. The motion moved by Councillor Carbone is, as he said, to register the land as a town or village green for the reason he's given, which is that the evidence is clear and that the evidence to the contrary is not serious. I think that was your expression. Would all in favour please show 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Any against? Thank you, Councillor Clark. I'm voting against as well, not because I think it's the wrong decision but for the reasons that Councillor Clark has explained. So that decision is taken and we have decided to register the land as a town or village green. Thank you very much to everybody. That concludes the meeting. [End of session] [BLANK_AUDIO]