Key Facts
- •Claimant challenged the inspector's decision allowing deregistration and exchange of land (33,000m²) from Woodcock Hill Village Green for replacement land (36,000m²).
- •The green was registered in 2008.
- •The inspector considered public interest, neighborhood interests and the interests of persons with rights on the land.
- •Objectors argued the exchange would reduce biodiversity, and the replacement land was less accessible and in a different community.
- •The inspector concluded that potential benefits outweighed disadvantages.
- •The claimant argued the inspector erred in considering the interests of those outside the defined neighborhood and failed to consider a fallback option of continued maintenance by local residents.
Legal Principles
Registration of a town or village green requires use by inhabitants of a locality or neighborhood for lawful sports and pastimes for at least 20 years.
Commons Act 2006, section 15
Deregistration and exchange of land from a town or village green requires consideration of: interests of persons with rights on the land; interests of the neighborhood; public interest; and any other relevant matter.
Commons Act 2006, section 16(6)
Public interest in section 16 includes nature conservation, landscape conservation, public access, and protection of historical features.
Commons Act 2006, section 16(8)
Only relevant inhabitants have a right to recreation on a town or village green; the public at large does not.
Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council [2006] UKHL 25; Barkas v North Yorkshire County Council [2014] UKSC 31
In considering deregistration and exchange, the Secretary of State expects that interests of landowners, commoners, and the wider public will be no worse off.
Common Land Consents Policy, paragraph 5.1
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found the inspector did not err in law. The definition of 'neighbourhood' in section 16(6)(b) is broader than in section 15. The inspector correctly considered the interests of the defined neighbourhood and the wider neighbourhood. The inspector considered the 'fallback' option, and his weighting of factors was a matter of judgment, not legal error.