Key Facts
- •Patricia Strack appealed against the dismissal of her judicial review claim concerning the deregistration of part of Woodcock Hill Village Green and land exchange under section 16 of the Commons Act 2006.
- •The inspector granted the application, considering the interests of the neighbourhood, public interest, and other relevant matters.
- •Ms Strack argued the inspector wrongly conflated interests of those with legal recreation rights on the green with those of local inhabitants without such rights.
- •The appeal raised three issues: inspector's conflation of interests, misinterpretation of the Common Land Consents Policy, and erroneous consideration of the 'fallback' (continued maintenance by the committee).
- •The 'release land' (33,000 sq m) was to be exchanged for 'replacement land' (36,000 sq m) with ecological enhancements on 'improvement land' (24,000 sq m).
Legal Principles
The meaning of 'neighbourhood' in section 16(6)(b) of the Commons Act 2006 encompasses all local inhabitants, not just those whose use led to the green's registration.
Lane J.'s judgment and Court of Appeal judgment
Town and village green rights vest in residents of the defined locality or neighbourhood, not the general public; however, the practical reality is that the landowner may find it difficult to distinguish between users with and without legal rights.
Court of Appeal judgment
Section 16(6) of the Commons Act 2006 requires consideration of a broad range of interests, without a hierarchy or prescribed weighting; the decision-maker must strike a balance between these interests.
Court of Appeal judgment
The Common Land Consents Policy requires an overall assessment of the effects of a proposed exchange on all relevant interests, not necessarily a net benefit for each individual interest.
Court of Appeal judgment
In planning decisions, the court focuses on the substance of the decision, not perfection in language, ensuring lawful procedure and a rational conclusion.
Court of Appeal judgment
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
While the Court of Appeal found the inspector erred in law by referring to 'the public' having rights at paragraph 15 of the decision letter instead of the specific residents of the defined neighbourhood, this error was deemed immaterial given the overall assessment and the application of section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The inspector's balancing exercise was lawful and his conclusions rational.