You are browsing the archive for National.

Carrington Moore Estates wants to build four houses next to Picket Mead Common at Murton, Swansea, with a driveway over the common and cabling underneath it. Last December Welsh ministers rejected appeals by the company against the refusal of permission for a similar application, but the developers are trying again to get consent.

We have objected because of the threat to common land. Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘We have repeatedly opposed plans by the developers to forge an accessway across the common. They seem never to learn that the public has the right to walk and ride over this land and that any development on or under it needs consent from Welsh ministers under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

‘This small common is precious to the community, a true gem. We shall fight any plans to damage it.’

We are delighted that the case for registering Yeadon Banks as a town green has prevailed in the Court of Appeal. The five-acre Yeadon Banks is a much-loved open space on the outskirts of Leeds.

On Friday (2 December) the Appeal Court rejected the arguments on behalf of the landowner, Leeds Group plc, that the landowner had been prejudiced by a change in the law for registering greens during the 20-year period during which local people had been exercising their rights, and that this breached the landowner’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its land under the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 section 98 changed the law on registering new greens so that after that date, the qualifying use had to be by a significant number of inhabitants of any locality or neighbourhood, for 20 years without being stopped or asking permission. Before that, the requirement was merely for the inhabitants of the locality to have used the land. The landowner argued that the 2000 Act postponed the operation of the amended definition of town and village greens to 20 years after its enactment (ie 2020).

The qualifying period for Yeadon Banks was 1984 to 2004.

The court considered that the arguments were hypothetical, and that it was unrealistic to assume that the landowner ‘was content to allow a significant number of the inhabitants of a neighbourhood to use his land for very many years because he was confident that their use was not a use by the inhabitants of a locality, and so could not ripen into a legal right’.

The judges did not consider that there was any breach of the human rights convention.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘We are highly relieved that this appeal has been dismissed. We too felt the arguments were hypothetical and that it was wrong to postpone the operation of the amended definition of greens in the 2000 Act until a full 20 years had run, ie until 2020.

‘We felt so strongly that Yeadon Banks should be registered that we gave a donation towards the cost of the appeal. We have supported the applicant, Doug Jones of Keep Yeadon Banks Green (KEYBAG), throughout the process. This is a special area of green space and we trust that it will now be secure.’

We have slated the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for driving a bulldozer through the laws for registering land as a new village green.

Herbrand Walk Beach might not have been registered as a village green if there had been a 'character test'

The society has responded to Defra’s consultation on the registration of new town or village greens. At present land can be registered as a green if it has been used by local people for informal recreation for 20 years, without being stopped or asking permission. Once registered, the land is protected from development.

The society is angry that Defra presents its proposals as an all-or-nothing package which would, the society says, ‘destructively reform’ the law.

The society also objects to Defra’s proposals to:

• introduce a ‘character test’ which would severely limit the land that can be registered as a green,

• rule out registration as a green where a site has been designated for development,

• prevent an application for land where a planning application has been submitted or on which there was statutory pre-application consultation,

• charge applicants a fee of up to £1,000.

Says Nicola Hodgson, our case officer, who advises our members on their applications to register land as greens:

‘We are dismayed that Defra is pressing for a wholesale reform of the greens registration process. While we have for two years advocated improvements to the system, to make it swifter and more transparent (which we have discussed with ministers but have apparently been ignored by Defra), we see no need to rewrite the law on registering greens.

‘Defra argues that greens applications are being used to frustrate development but it has no evidence of this. The greens registration process requires 20 years’ use by local people so they can hardly dream up evidence to thwart a planning application which is determined in a small fraction of that time.

The village green at Coatham Common, Redcar might also have failed a 'character test'

Character test
‘Defra wants to restrict registration to greens which “accord with the popularly held traditional character of such areas”, ie land which is “open and unenclosed in character”.

‘This would be disastrous as countless areas would be excluded, such as those post-industrial sites which may be the only open spaces available to local communities.

These much-loved, out-of-the way places are just as important as the traditional chocolate-box greens in the heart of villages. Indeed, greens registration is localism at its best, where local people vote with their feet.

Planning applications
‘We strongly oppose the notion of preventing registration of land once a planning application has been submitted or the land has been identified for development in a local plan. At the very least, before a planning application is determined, there should be a period during which local people can submit evidence that the land is a green.

Fees
‘We disagree with the imposition of a fee on applicants. They make the application for the public’s benefit, to record the rights that have accrued there, not for personal gain. And many applicants come from areas with low incomes, whether in the inner city or countryside, and would be deterred by such a fee.

‘We have expressed many concerns, and reiterate our proposals to improve the process by introducing time-scales, greater consultation and liaison between authorities, landowners and applicants, and better guidance. That is all that is needed.

‘We strongly suspect that these proposals are intended to allow more development of our precious green spaces. The society will fight them all the way,’ Nicola concludes.

The proposed new Local Green Space designation, in the government’s draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), is a muddle. It confers no right for the public to go there, so it may be that we can only look at it and not walk on it.

The society has responded to the consultation on the draft NPPF, in which the Department for Communities and Local Government proposes a new Local Green Space designation ‘to protect locally significant green areas which are special to local communities’. They are to be identified by local communities through the local and neighbourhood plans.

Says Nicola Hodgson, our case officer: ‘This new green space designation is so shackled by restrictions as to render it useless.

‘We are told that it must “complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services”. It “will not be appropriate for most green areas of open space”. The space must be in reasonably close proximity to a centre of population or urban area, it must hold a particular local significance and it must not be an extensive tract of land.

‘Furthermore, while it must not overlap with Green Belt, the management of development there “should be consistent with policy for Green Belts”.

‘But then we are told of a host of developments which are allowed in Green Belt and therefore on the new Local Green Space—buildings for agriculture and forestry, facilities for outdoor sport, infilling in villages, mineral extraction, engineering operations and transport infrastructure, and much else.

‘There is no requirement for the public to be able to use and enjoy the Local Green Space for informal recreation. So people may look at it but not necessarily walk on it.

‘While the Green Space is supposedly identified by the local community through the local and neighbourhood plans, there is no explanation of the process for designation. We have a list of unanswered questions which show how ill thought out the proposals are.

‘These include: How is the land designated? Do communities identify the land? Will there be a minimum requirement of public support? Who will decide if land is to be designated as Local Green Space and included in the local plan? Will there be an appeal process? What will happen to existing open space that is not designated? Who will manage the land? How will it be protected? What powers of enforcement are given to local authorities?

‘It is proposed that the designation should form part of the neighbourhood plan—but such plans are not mandatory, and are intended to allow increased development.

‘In April, we sent to Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, our manifesto, A framework for green space, which sets out what the new designation should achieve. We said that the new designation must guarantee permanent protection and must place on the local authority a duty to protect the land, together with powers of enforcement, through the courts if necessary.

‘Unfortunately Mr Pickles failed even to reply to us, and he has ignored our proposals.

‘We fear that the Local Green Space designation is completely meaningless,’ Nicola concludes.

We are deeply concerned about this consultation. We have asked our members for their views and are preparing a detailed response before the closing date of 17 October.

Coatham Common, Redcar, a much-loved space registered as a green in 2010. If Defra’s proposed ‘character test’ had been introduced the registration probably would not have succeeded.

In particular, our concerns are as follows.

1. A package
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) appears to be presenting a package of proposals, ie all or nothing. We have always accepted, indeed advocated, that some changes are needed (see below), but these can largely be achieved by amending the guidance and regulations not the law.

We are concerned that the proposed package is linked to the new Local Green Space designation in the Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework. The two designations should be considered separately. We are told that the new designation ‘will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space’ and is subject to a presumption in favour of development. Local Green Space can only be designated through the local or neighbourhood plan, which is not mandatory and for which there is no funding, so many places do not have them.

Furthermore, since it is proposed that land designated as Local Green Space cannot be registered as a green, the new designation will reduce the land available for greens registration. Therefore, it is misleading to say that Local Green Space is being offered as part of the package for greens, when even if it satisfies the criteria for greens registration, it cannot be registered as such.

2. The character test
We oppose the introduction of ‘a character test to ensure that greens accord with the popularly held traditional character of such areas’. Defra proposes that land should be open and unenclosed in character and also suggests that the land should, for instance, be in the heart of the settlement, be irregular in shape and have historic characteristics. It seems that Defra wants only to preserve those chocolate-box spots in the centre of villages. Such a restriction goes against the legal basis of registration, which is that land has been used by local people, for lawful sports and pastimes, for 20 years without being stopped and without permission.

At present it is possible to register any bit of land which has the qualifying use, however scruffy. The much-loved, out-of-the-way places are just as important, and people’s use of these spaces is a splendid example of localism.

3. Relationship with planning
We also deplore the proposals to rule out making a greens registration application where a site has been designated for development in a proposed or adopted local or neighbourhood plan, or where planning permission has been given. We propose that a reasonable period is allowed, before any of these actions take place, to enable local people to gather and submit evidence of the existence of a green.

4. Charging a fee
Defra proposes that applicants for greens should be charged a fee of up to £1,000 (possibly refundable where the application is granted). We oppose this because many applicants come from areas with low incomes, whether in the inner city or the countryside. In any case, they are applying for the benefit of the public, not for personal gain.

Open Spaces Society’s proposals
Nearly two years ago, we put proposals to the environment minister for improving and streamlining the process for registering new greens. These required changes to regulations and guidance rather than legislation.

Our proposals include:
• introducing time limits for every stage of the process,
• a basic evidential test so that registration authorities can reject applications which don’t have sufficient evidence,
• consultation between the registration authority, applicant and landowner to see if agreement can be reached at an early stage, perhaps to register a smaller area,
• avoiding the employment of costly lawyers to determine applications,
• much greater liaison between planning authorities and registration authorities so that each knows what the other is doing on a piece of land.

Unfortunately, few of these have been adopted in the consultation paper.

We urge members of the society and others to respond to Defra’s consultation before 17 October 2011.

The society’s trustees have made an award to Peter Newman for achieving 25 years on our board. They presented Peter with a blotter at their meeting this week, to thank him both for his long service to the committee and as a campaigner for public paths in the Welsh Marches. Peter lives and works in Kington, Herefordshire.

Peter Newman (left) receives his long-service award from chairman of trustees, Tim Crowther

Peter invented and runs the Kington Footpath Scheme, which works with offenders on Community Payback to erect signposts on public paths and install footbridges and ditch crossings.

Says Peter: ‘I was delighted to receive this award for my 25 years as a trustee of the Open Spaces Society, a job which I thoroughly enjoy.’

It is likely that Peter is the longest-serving trustee in the society’s 146-year history.

The Welsh Government has refused retrospective consent for a four-and-a-half-mile-long fence across common land in the Brecon Beacons National Park.

The fence runs from near Pontsticill Reservoir in the south, crossing the hillside via Upper Neuadd Reservoir, passing just to the east of the famous summits of Pen y Fan and Cribyn and then cutting down through Cwm Cynwyn.

It was erected by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) during the 2001 foot-and-mouth epidemic, but it should have been removed within five years and was not. Therefore, since 2006 it has been unlawful since it required consent from the Welsh environment minister under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The unlawful fence. Photo Sîon Brackenbury.

In September 2009, the Brecon Beacon Commoners’ Association applied for consent for the fence to remain. The Open Spaces Society, Ramblers and National Trust were among the objectors. The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority and the Countryside Council for Wales asked for the decision to be delayed while they negotiated a management agreement for the land, but eventually the commoners pulled out of the negotiations and the case was decided by Mr Stephen Jones on behalf of the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development.

Mr Jones needed to be satisfied that the fence ‘would benefit the neighbourhood’. He rejected the application because the fence ‘is visible from close views and…it visually divides the extensive landscape of the commons’. He continued: ‘The fence acts as a barrier—both psychological and physical—to members of the public gaining access to land either side of it…the expected ability to roam anywhere over the commons is adversely affected by access across the fence being available via specific locations only.’

He was also concerned that the applicants had given no indication of the management regime to be adopted if the fence was to be retained, nor of the levels of grazing and the effect on the vegetation. He did not consider that the arguments which were put forward by the commoners on the management of the commons justified overriding the general rights of access to the commons or the objections to the retention of the fence on visual grounds.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘This is an excellent outcome. The fence, which strides across the superb open landscape of the Brecon Beacons National Park, is an eyesore and a severe impediment to public access. It is not the right solution to the management of the commons.

‘We recognise that the area needs to be grazed and we have urged the Welsh Government to support traditional management regimes such as shepherding; these would create employment and remove the need for any fencing. We still hope that this will be possible under Glastir.

‘Meanwhile, the fence is unlawful and must go. We are sending a formal complaint to the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority’s enforcement officer and asking that the authority takes steps to ensure that the ugly fencing is removed forthwith,’ Kate concludes.

Please respond to the government’s red-tape challenge which, until 21 September, focuses on the environment.  You can comment here .

Government is consulting on the abolition of regulations which crucially affect our work on open spaces and paths, such as those relating to commons, open access, public rights of way, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty—to name a few.

It is vital that we speak up in defence of these laws which have protected our commons, greens, open spaces, paths, beautiful landscapes and rights of access.  So please respond before 21 September.

Our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook, has been invited to serve on the sounding board for the Red-Tape Challenge Environment Theme.

On Saturday 3 September the society held its open day at Northwick Park, in the London Borough of Brent. It was hosted by our feisty Northwick Park Group at St Cuthbert’s Hall and 34 people attended.

Perusing the displays

Margaret Roake from the Northwick Park Group gave us a short history of Harrow.  She spoke of how Harrow became popular as commuter land when the metropolitan railway was developed, quoting the rhyme:

‘The richest crop that you can grow, is a crop of houses, all in a row.’

Our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook, picked up on this when she spoke about the current row over the government’s proposals to dismantle the planning system, and to smother green spaces with housing when ample brownfield sites were available.  Nicola Hodgson, our case officer, talked about the government’s consultation on town and village greens, and support officer Esther Finch set out the many ways in which members can help the society by volunteering.

Chris Beney addresses the group

Gaynor Lloyd described the Northwick Park Group’s campaign, with the society’s help, to reopen the blocked path across Northwick Park Golf Course driving range, and Graham Wright from the Ramblers spoke about Harrow’s footpaths. Then OSS trustee and local correspondent Chris Beney described his work on reducing, and making user friendly, the structures on public paths.

After lunch we set off on a walk over the golf course.

Setting off on the walk, Gaynor Lloyd explains where we're going

From the golf course we crossed Harrow School playing-fields and went up to the lovely village of Harrow-on-the-Hill. There we were greeted by Keith Perrin of the Northwick Park Group, who brought a welcome supply of refreshments which we enjoyed on the steps leading up from the war memorial.

Refreshments

Then we visited the church and churchyard, with its fascinating graves, including a stone in memory of Byron’s daughter, Allegra, whose precise burial site is unknown.

In memory of Allegra

Finally, we stopped at the site on the summit of the hill where Byron wrote ‘Spot of my youth’. In his day the view must have been open and magnificent but now it is somewhat overgrown by trees.

Then it was back to the hall for strawberries, scones and cream.

We are most grateful to the Northwick Park Group for organising such a
splendid event.

Surrounded by 80 of his friends, Rodney Legg was buried in a wildflower meadow on a Dorset hillside on Saturday 30 July.

A few weeks before he died on 22 July he had chosen the best spot in the lovely Higher Ground Meadow, Corscombe, on the prow of the hill overlooking the Dorset and Somerset countryside he loved.

The ceremony was held in a barn, and we sat on straw bales, while swallows zipped in and out. Most people were informally dressed: ‘Come as you are’, Di Hooley, Rod’s companion, had told those who had inquired about dress code. It seemed right; after all, that’s what Rodney did.

The ceremony was conducted by the Revd Stephen Batty of St Aldhelm’s church at Branksome, Poole. He began with a short profile of Rodney, calling him a ‘monographer, a cutter of wires, a necessary irritant and a liberator of closed pathways’ among much else.

After singing ‘I vow to thee my county’ (Rodney’s choice) we were invited to tell stories about him. Di read about his first memories from ‘Legg over Dorset’ his autobiography, to be published by Halsgrove in August. I contributed some of the many hilarious incidents of his 20 years as our chairman and on the National Trust council: Rodney’s reports were prolific and personal.

Then we followed the coffin, decorated by Di with photos and copies of press coverage from the vast archive, through the flower-spangled meadows to Rodney’s spot.

There we sang ‘Abide with me’ and looked out over his beautiful landscape while his neighbour, Geoff Pearce, tolled a sexton’s bell 64 times, for each year of this far-too-short life. (The nineteenth-century bell was made by the great bell-founding firm, John Taylor of Loughborough.) Two buzzards were mewing overhead. We ended by singing ‘Jerusalem’.

If Rodney had been with us, he would have been hidden in odd places taking photographs from unusual angles. I don’t have his skill, but I made sure the event was well recorded. It was truly memorable and a fitting tribute to our eccentric, incorrigible, unignorable, determined, campaigning former chairman.

Kate Ashbrook

Rodney’s obituary in The Guardian

Rodney’s obituary in The Daily Telegraph