Transcript

Good morning, everybody, and thank you for your attendance at today's Regulatory Committee, Tuesday 1 April 2025. Agenda item 1, apologies. I have apologies from Councillor Clark, Councillor Jens and Councillor Phillips. Are there any other apologies? No, so they're noted. Then we have disclosures of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interest. Any that aren't already declared? No? Okay, that's fine. Then we move to the minutes of the previous meeting. Can I have somebody to propose those minutes? Councillor Warwick, somebody to second them? Councillor Cook? All those in favour of accepting the minutes? Yes, we're good. Yep, so that's accepted. Great, so we'll move on to item 2, Kersley Newlands, Kersley End, application to register a new town or village green. And I think we have the officer to present this, if you'd like to do that now. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillors. It's a good long while since a village green matter has been before the regular... Yes, exactly, exactly. And they do tend to be a bit like buses, though, village green applications. So having had one, I'll probably be deluged with them now, but never mind, never mind. So it's mostly in the report, but there are a few matters I ought to update you on. I mean, if we very briefly review the application land. So we're in Kersley Newlands here, which, as you see, lies just between Coventry and Bedworth, just to the south of the M6. Yes, and, sorry, yes, the, the, sorry, just let me go back and restart that, but the, yes, sorry, yes. If I, if I, if I, now the Kersley Newlands is, just to the, it was basically, it's just to the north of Prologis. Yes, sorry, I've got to, it's the first time I've had to grapple with the technology in earnest, so I'm just learning its ways, but, yeah. So Kersley Newlands lies just to the north of Prologis Park, which is the site of the former Coventry Colliery, which closed in 1991. And, uh, Kersley Newlands is, um, essentially a, um, built to, um, by the National Coal Board in years gone by to provide, um, accommodation for, um, colliery employees. And the application has been, there have been a few twists or turns in this application, because when it first started out, it did cover a very wide, uh, swathe of Kersley Newlands, and involved a variety of, um, uh, roadside verges, essentially, which, which are described on the plan that, there, that came in with the original application. Uh, now, having looked at it at some length, it was eventually decided that those, the vast majority of those areas were actually unrecorded, um, public highways that the County Council was already paying to maintain those verges. So that makes it effectively impossible to succeed with a village green application, uh, because, because it's highway, the public have a right at, uh, common law to, to, to, to walk across it. So, so it's inconsistent with the, uh, statutory concept of, uh, village greens. Uh, but there is one area that, uh, we did appear to actually not be highway and to be capable of potentially being registered as village green. And you can see this is the little area right at the edge of the village at the end of, uh, Summers Road, uh, which is the last surviving part of the application land. And if, if we, if we have a look at a few, uh, photo shots of it, you can see that here, here you are coming up right to the end of Summers Road, uh, on the edge of the village. And this is the entrance to the, uh, land. Now, I did spend some time trying to work out who the owner was, and it's, uh, one of these things that's lost in the mists of time, unfortunately. Uh, it, it seems likely that it was at some stage owned by the, uh, National Coal Board, but when the colliery closed, uh, the Coal Board, uh, transferred the ownership of the houses to the Borough Council. Uh, and they have been contacted about this land and disclaim any knowledge of it, as do the Borough Council. So, it, it, it is an orphan, this, this little field. And if we go on to the next shot. Now, possibly this, this was, this was taken in the, uh, the winter. So, it's not, not looking at its best. So, you, you possibly couldn't say that it, it was an object of beauty, but, but that's not one of the statutory criteria for registering a village green. Uh, you, you can see at the back of the shot, that's, uh, the houses on Collier Close. Uh, and you can see also a wooden fence, uh, in the mid, mid distance, which, uh, we will come on to shortly. And I did establish that, that the pots and equipment, equipment belong to one of the, uh, the applicants who has, um, been, uh, using it for gardening purposes. So, that, that's what those bits and bobs are. Now, we have, uh, a considerable amount of evidence submitted with the application. Uh, when it first came in and still covered the, uh, wider area, uh, there was a considerable amount of, um, evidence forms provided, 148 in total. Now, when we reduced the application land, uh, that, that created a bit of a problem because much of the evidence related to the wider area. Uh, and you could legitimately have said, well, how do we know that all this evidence actually applies to the, uh, smaller piece of land we're now considering. So, to their credit, the applicants did go off and get further evidence, uh, another 40 statements which speak directly to the use of this particular parcel of land. And I'll, I'll, I'll show you an example of one of those forms which, which has been, uh, redacted. And that's it there. And you, you have, um, 40 of these, uh, 40 individuals. And you have, uh, there's a, there's a classic, uh, checklist of things that people do on Village Greens. Although this, this is none of the, uh, not actually in any of the legislation. And the, uh, the, the, the most classic one of all, I think, is blackberry picking or blackberry collecting here. But you, you, you see, you get the idea. Basically, 40 people said that in one way or another, they, they actually use this particular piece of land for village green type purposes. If, if we can describe it that way. So, that is the evidence for the applicant. Now, very belatedly, we did have, uh, a couple of objectors, objections in. Uh, they, they are two residents who live in Collier Close. So, we, we were looking at the back of their houses, uh, in the shot a while ago. Uh, and they, they are neighbours of one of the applicants. Uh, and there is, uh, an element of neighbour dispute here, as you'll see, because, uh, they, they claim that, uh, one of the applicants has essentially been using this land as an extension to their garden. Uh, and this isn't a public public use, uh, the objectors say. Uh, now, one of the objectors did confirm in correspondence that the fence we were looking at earlier, earlier, was actually put up in 2023 because they had concerns about security and management of the land. Uh, and, uh, it's alleged by the objector that they tidied up the bit of land behind the fence, uh, and they don't mind essentially what happens to the rest of it. They deny that the application land has been used by anyone other than the applicant, and hence they say it can't satisfy the statutory test for registering a new village green. And they do mention that this isn't the first application for a village green that we've had in, uh, Kersley Newlands. A few years ago now, there was an application made in respect of a much larger field next to the application land. And that went all the way through a rather complicated, uh, statutory procedure. So we had an informal local inquiry to examine the evidence, and the barrister acted as an inspector. And that application did, did not succeed because it was found that, uh, the statutory criteria weren't satisfied. Now, they suggest that the objectors suggest that, well, if it failed the last time, that this one also ought to fail, uh, on the same grounds. Now, I think it would be helpful just to spend a moment on the statutory tests that, uh, the committee has to apply today in deciding whether or not the application should be granted. So we're dealing with Section 15.2 of the Commons Act 2006, and those are the statutory grounds there. Uh, it has to be proven that a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality or any neighbourhood within a locality have indulged in lawful, as of right, in lawful sports and pastimes for 20 years. And they continue to do so, or were stopped from doing so less than one year ago. And if we just run very, very quickly through those, in, in red, I've put, um, officers' views on those different limbs of the statutory test. Now, unhelpfully, the Act doesn't actually define what a significant number of inhabitants is, so it's been left to the courts in various village green cases over recent years to say that it doesn't mean a huge number. It doesn't mean a majority of the residents, uh, and, and for reference purposes, the, the, the, as I've said in the report, the, the population of Kersley Newlands is about 4,000 people. So we have 40, uh, so we have 40, uh, witness statements in respect of this land, and, and I believe that in accordance with the, the cases we've got on this, uh, that's enough to be considered as a, as a, as a significant number for these purposes. We do have quite a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as, a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as aoq not relying on the landowner giving us permission we're going on because we think we've got a right to do so that's what that phrase means now as to the length of time they've been doing it the forms cover quite a wide range but some are only a few years some are 37 years so there's a range but I think there is enough to justify the conclusion that this activity has been going on for at least 20 years and the last limb of the statutory definition we saw the fence earlier now clearly that could be construed as somebody deciding that they actually want to stop people using at least part of the application land but the the act does allow what's what's known as a period of grace which means that the applicant has a chance no more than a year if they're fenced out of the land and somebody stops them trying to use it they have a year to actually get their village green application in and it can go ahead even if they've been stopped from using the application land therefore i would submit that uh it doesn't actually matter that the fence was put up in this case because the application was put in less than a year later therefore the application can go ahead in respect of the whole of the application land not just the bit outside the fence so final slide uh what about the objectors i mean there's no reason to doubt what they say um perhaps they didn't witness anybody other than the applicant using the land but it's two people against 40 evidence forms uh so the burden of proof as lawyers call it in this case that that you have to satisfy is what what's known as the civil burden of proof and that's on the balance of the evidence so is it more likely than not that the statutory tests have been satisfied and if if you think that is that burden has been met you you you you are able then validly to approve the application uh and it is always sad and very regrettable and as counts as you'll notice when neighbor disputes arise but and hopefully those can be resolved in some other way but this isn't really the forum to do it in because when you you have a statutory test to decide has it been satisfied or has it not been satisfied and uh the balance of the evidence as it says in the report is i believe in the favor of the application but the decision is of course yours to make uh and that is all i have to say but if you uh would like to raise any um uh right uh sorry i shouldn't really be doing this i know mr goering here is one of the applicants he's endeavoring to pass me a note on an evidential point i don't think it adds to what we have before us but but thank thank you for that mr goering but but that is all i have to say uh so but if you have any questions i'd be happy to try and uh deal with them thank you thank you peter um before we we get on to the debate move the motion is there that's all right don't worry um does any member have a question on the presentation that we've just had so uh councillor phalp uh then warwick then sinclair then mills oh and uh councillor carriage too thank you thank you chairman can i just go back to the neighbor and the reason why they put the fence up yeah because have you got the slide on that uh i can go right i might i might have let me see if i will they let you i've worked out how to go backwards now rather than coming out altogether so yes there we go yes because i think the reason the gentleman said he put the fence up was because he was concerned about anti-social behavior etc etc but then i was a bit unclear because then it was i haven't seen anybody using it so it's just a contradiction um which i wanted some clarification either if you put a fence up it's because people are using it and you're worried about anti-social behavior yes but then the um uh they said they haven't seen anybody using it apart from the uh one person so it was just clarification i'm a bit confused with that i mean i think there is a perception on the part of the objectors that make registering it as a village green would increase their problems potentially but the the other view on that is that actually it'll make it no worse than it already is because if people can are able to already able to to get in there they their situation is no worse but obviously that doesn't uh lessen the concern in their eyes i've got the problem with you know they've got a concern but they've got a concern but they said nobody uses it perhaps they put the fence up thinking there will be a problem in the future i don't know i can't remember how long the fence has been up it's about 12 months so not sure okay thank you thank you councillor uh councillor warwick thank you chair yeah it is as the officer says always sadness when there's a dispute over something um it's a useful piece of land for the community in the area it's in as you say with the size of the fences that the the properties around it have got you might not see anybody in there because those fences are quite tall at the back of the properties anyway um i don't know it's a relevant question but i'll ask it anyway should the application be granted is somebody going to take on the management of the land or is it uh is it just going to be you know left as is uh that's that is a almost always a universal question on these occasions but but the comp the village green legislation has many flaws to be frank and it's not clear who would look after a village green but that's the case for any village green whether it's a new one or an existing one uh so it doesn't actually impact on the statutory tests that have to apply but of course it is a concern because people don't want it uh to fall to rack and ruin but it's it's a community effort that has to be organized amongst the local community uh thank you pete actually to councillor warwick's point the the follow-on the the the missing bit in your explanation there was what effect does it have just if you could refresh members uh memory to convey uh confer village green status is it simply that it just can't then be built on and has to be used for that purpose and is there a liability on the county council is something else that is the the follow-up to that thank you yes well the county council is the registration authority for common land purposes now we don't have a duty to look after the common land per se we do have a a very vague uh we have to try and prevent it being uh infringed on and the main purpose of registering well the main effect of registering a village green is that you can't build on it and you can't fence it off now exactly what rights you have over a village green as a local resident aren't entirely clear because again that's one of the uh other shortcomings in the legislation because it doesn't say the the traditional way of defining it is that the things we were looking at on the evidence forms the blackberry picking and the dog walking uh those are they're not in the act but they're classic ways of proving a village green so people say when it's become a village green the public and then do those sorts of things thank you councillor sinclair yeah thanks i want to explore the ownership of the land i'm confused so from what you said there is not clarity over the ownership of this piece of land no party owns this land from what anybody can see um so you've nodded so i accept so that's the that's that's that list that i'll answer that correctly my question then is i don't if nobody owns it that implies to me that everyone has rights over it so i don't understand why an individual can't claim a part and put a fence up and say this is mine no one else owns it it's mine and i don't understand how the county council can say to an applicant we're turning it into a village green when nobody owns it that that bit would i'd welcome clout to go there is a scope for the where the owner of land is known there is scope to make voluntary registrations of village green because that that was introduced a few years ago because it's recognized that sometimes uh the owner might want to make a um a public spirited gesture and for the local community but the statutory test we're looking at in 152 isn't dependent on ownership it's it's dependent on the rights the the way people have used the land and it doesn't there doesn't need to be an owner or a known owner uh that that's just not not required to to prove the test the statutory test for registering a new village green so just so i'm clear what you said there if there is a piece of land as there is here where there is no known legal owner the legal ability there is the legal ability for the county council to designate that land as a village green that's what i think you've just said irrespective of anybody else's claims on that land is that right it has to meet the test so it has to meet the legal tests so if for example part of it has been fenced off for more than a year so the public don't have access then it wouldn't meet the test but this one in peter's judgment does based on the evidence so the ownership is to a large extent irrelevant it's whether it meets the tests of public access and those activities thank you you've answered my question um actually at this point um forgive me councillor mills i'll bring you in in just one moment i think it's important to stress to members we are not determining ownership of the land in any way shape or form um and just because the land hasn't isn't formally recorded in the land registry as having an owner clearly there was an original owner the predecessor to the coal board um but neither they or the subsequent coal board nor the transferees uh of those houses that were built on the coal board land i.e. North Warwick Council have wanted to assert any claims on that and looking at the piece of land the cost of of trying to develop it would probably not be worthwhile for either of those entities so we could possibly understand why they don't want to put their hand up and take on that responsibility i think that's not an uncommon situation around uh the country if i can bring councillor mills it now thank you thanks chair um i'm just trying to get it clear you've got you've got three fences there you've got fence behind the houses and you've got you've got three fences you've got post and rail and a fence and the fence behind uh the houses there where does this village green start uh i believe the um yes it's it's a concrete is it a concrete fence it i think it runs up to the concrete fence yes yes is the ground higher there uh so so will that concrete fence be replaced uh it doesn't it's not relevant for the purpose of the application whether it's replaced or not no um just if it helps when i went out there um that's the boundary of people's back gardens um the plan that i saw drawn is up to there it's the wooden fence that's been erected subsequently yeah but the concrete things that's their back garden as far as the plan marries up to it if you actually go walk over there it's not as big as you think that bit of ground just um and uh bring in councillor carriage and then uh councillor humphries thank you uh councillor humphries i'm a bit confused really in in newton regis they decided to get the village pond made the village green and it got silted up so they decided they wanted to clear the silt this is a piece of uh ground that or the pond ground as i refer to the pond was um it doesn't belong to anybody but they've got stopped removing the silt because at that stage there was going to be toxic contamination from the washings off the road etc and what would come off the farm so it's had to so i'm coming back to your argument no one's got responsibility what comes off there somebody must have responsibility i just don't understand if you know whether it was part of the coal board and maybe they buried uh five ton of asbestos or something there who knows what's there but somebody must have responsibility in the end for the environment thank you well yes i i think i think we're getting into a wider sphere of environmental law here because as you say the i believe personally having looked at the titles it was the coal board it was owned by the coal board although they don't want to be bothered with it essentially because because of all these issues but if push came to shove and there was contamination under there i think people would naturally start with the national coal board and make them responsible for that particular issue but that that doesn't go to the ownership and that that would have to be pursued under the separate legislation so it's not not directly relevant to the criteria the committee looks at today for a village green but thank you councillor um if i can just uh ask her on our legal officer um this the summary of what we're being asked here is to agree with the recommendation um that the offices of the council have determined it does meet the test so just to be clear this isn't about ownership this is just about giving it under section 15 brackets 2 2006 uh act status as village green so nothing more than that and if people want to assert their rights of ownership then that's done through a different legal mechanism and whatever which is nothing to do with us um but we are just here so i will if there are oh councillor you wanted to come back in or no um uh in that case if there's no other speakers i will from the chair move the recommendation as printed that the regulatory committee approves the application submitted to warwickshire county council and authorizes uh the addition of the land shown on the plan at appendix one uh to this report to the register of town and village greens maintained by warwickshire county council under the commons act 2006 uh is there a seconder for that councillor warwick i'll be seconded you chair thank you um any member councillor sinclair i was only going to comment based on the conversation and the questions that we had i can't see any reason that we wouldn't follow that recommendation um if if members are satisfied that you know there is no good reason to um to say that you know we feel that the offices have made the wrong determination then then that's following the recommendation so um any other member um before we take the vote i would just like to mention that there was a request to speak um however the uh council constitution is very clear um requests to speak have to be within three days uh of the the the committee meeting that is to be fair to allow fairness to allow the other her side an opportunity to be informed and to make arrangements to come along and speak also um because the application to speak wasn't received within the three days it really was quite last minute um that it wasn't deemed fair and reasonable for us to to allow one party to speak and not afford the other one party the appropriate time but i think it's fair to say that um we fully understand the applicant's position and evidence and that's documented here and also the objectors uh statements and evidence that's documented here so i'm not sure that um it's not giving us the full picture by doing that uh and so i'm perfectly satisfied as chair that we can make a decision today um so if there are no other speakers uh having been uh moved and seconded uh can i uh have a show of hands of all those in favor okay that appears to be unanimous yeah no one against no extensions okay that's passed thank you we now come on to item three this is reports containing exempt or confidential information being the minutes of a confidential item that was heard at the previous meeting on that basis i will move from the chair just before you do that chair as this is the last meeting of the year and before we move into uh closed session can i move a vote of thanks to you as chair for your efforts during the year and to our officers for the sterling work they've performed uh thank you very much councillor warwick um i think it's very much in order to um to thank all the officers uh and in caroline in particular uh for all the support that they've given to us and and as the the final bit won't be recorded as you say i would like to put on record my thanks to all the members of the committee for all of your work and for your attendances uh it has been very much appreciated we've done some really good stuff here in the regulatory committee um it will be a very different composition committee um next time it convenes some point in the summer or after as we're having elections uh i know a number quite a considerable number of councillors aren't re-staying myself included so a lot of us won't be here next time yeah thank you councillor mills um but to uh whoever is here um after things return after the elections i wish them well and i hope they keep up the sterling work uh that this uh committee's started so far so thank you all um i will now move that members of the public be excluded from the meeting uh items mentioned on the grounds that their presence would involve disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph one schedule 12a of part one of the local government act 1972 it's a mouthful it's a mouthful it's a mouthful it's a mouthful