The Development Control Committee of Hertfordshire Council met on Thursday, 26 March 2026, to discuss applications for Singler's Marsh, Welwyn, to be registered as a village green. The committee ultimately decided to defer the decision to allow for further consideration of legal opinions and potential changes to land designation.

Singler's Marsh, Welwyn - Village Green Applications

The committee considered two applications to register Singler's Marsh, a 6.26-hectare area of open grassland in Welwyn, as a village green. The applications, made in 2020 and 2022, were supported by over 1,000 user evidence forms from local residents. However, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (WHBC), the landowner, and Bayard Developments Ltd (BDL), a local developer, objected to the applications.

Richard Cuthbert, from Hertfordshire County Council's Definitive Map & Enforcement Team, presented the inspector's recommendation report. The inspector, Noémi Byrd, a barrister with over 21 years of experience in this area of law, recommended refusing the applications on two main grounds:

• Statutory Incompatibility: The land is designated as a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The inspector concluded that the LNR designation, which prioritises conservation over recreation, is legally incompatible with the unfettered public access rights associated with village green status. This incompatibility arises from the council's power to make byelaws restricting public access to nature reserves, which would conflict with the public's rights on a registered village green.
• Permissive Use: The inspector found that the public's use of Singler's Marsh has been permissive, rather than as of right, since its acquisition by WHBC and its predecessors in 1968. Evidence suggested the land was acquired and managed as public open space, with facilities like benches and dog bins provided, indicating that the public was using the land with the council's permission.

During the meeting, members heard from various speakers. Robin Green, a barrister representing WHBC, reiterated the inspector's findings on statutory incompatibility and permissive use. Russell Hagar, speaking on behalf of the applicants, argued that the LNR designation was not widely known, that there was no actual conflict between the LNR and public use, and that there were precedents for land being both a nature reserve and a village green. He urged the committee to seek a further, more in-depth legal opinion to avoid a costly judicial review. Michael Maltz, representing Bayard Developments Ltd, stated that the proposed road widening would only affect a small portion of the marsh and that the council's current stance on public access would not change if the village green applications were refused.

The committee engaged in a lengthy debate, with members expressing concerns about the complexity of the legal arguments, the potential implications for public access to green spaces, and the inspector's finding of statutory incompatibility despite a lack of actual conflict over many years. Several members also raised points about the upcoming local government reorganisation and the potential impact on land management decisions.

Ultimately, the committee voted to defer the decision. The reasons for deferral included:

• The complexity of the application and the desire for members to have more time to consider the legal arguments and the inspector's report.
• A request for officers to seek a third, more comprehensive legal opinion on the inspector's findings, particularly given the perceived limited experience of the barrister who provided a second opinion.
• A suggestion that WHBC might reconsider its objection if the land required for road widening were excluded from the village green proposal, and that the committee should allow time for this to be explored.
• Concerns about the impact of local government reorganisation on the protection of green spaces and the potential for future unitary authorities to make different decisions.

The committee agreed that officers would explore these points further before the decision is revisited at a future meeting.