The village green: no need for change in law governing registration

A national gathering looking at the future of village greens rejected the idea that preserving open spaces is preventing the building of affordable rural housing.

The annual seminar on common land and village and town greens was hosted by the University of Gloucester and included a debate between Open Spaces Society general secretary Kate Ashbrook and Cameron Watt of the National Housing Federation.

Experts at the meeting this week rejected the necessity of changing the laws governing commons and greens. The seminar, organised by the Countryside and Community Research Institute, heard opposing views on relaxing rules on green spaces to enable more houses to be built.

Ms Ashbrook proposed a motion asserting the seminar believed that little change is needed to the current town and village greens regulations. A majority of delegates voted in favour.

The OSS boss said: “There is no evidence that the current system is flawed. Of course developers claim that people are making mischievous claims that land is a green in order to stop building. But there is no evidence that this is happening in more than a handful of cases.

“We often only realise we value things when they are threatened. The same is true for green spaces.  When land is threatened, people recognise that they have enjoyed using it for many years and they want to save it.

“If they have used it for informal recreation for 20 years, without being stopped and without asking permission, they may be able to register it as a green. Registration records and confirms their rights to use the land for recreation; it does not create new rights. And it protects the land from development.”

She said Mr Watt, whose organisation represents 1,200 independent, not-for-profit housing associations, of overstating the effect registrations have on cheap housing.

“In opposing the motion, Mr Watt grossly exaggerated his case,” Ms Ashbrook said. “He asserted that greens registrations were preventing affordable housing. He claimed, outrageously, that ‘the current system could leave much of rural England without affordable housing for a generation’.

“There is certainly no evidence for such a wild statement. And he slated those who were applying for registration, saying ‘No fair-minded person could call these village greens. These vexatious applications have been put in by selfish Nimbys’. Again, he cannot substantiate such an accusation.”

She continued: “The only research on village greens registrations is that commissioned by Defra from the Countryside and Community Research Institute.  It does not show there is a problem with the current system. At a time when it is vital to save money, reviewing the greens-registration process is one piece of work which does not need doing.

“Furthermore, the Government has announced that it wants to create a new designation, to protect green areas of particular importance to local communities. It has such a designation already: the town or village green.”

The OSS general secretary accepts there is scope for some minor changes to the practice of registering greens, in particular, setting a timescale to minimise delays; clearer legal explanation of terms; greater powers to reject erroneous applications and also to reject irrelevant objections; a simplified process using written representations rather than a full public inquiry; better liaison between planners and the registration authorities, and a move to encourage agreement by discussion.

At present, land can be registered as a town or village green if it has been used by local people for ‘lawful sports and pastimes’ – informal recreation – for 20 years, freely and openly. Once registered, the land is protected from encroachment and development by the Inclosure Act 1857 and the Commons Act 1876. Local people have a right to enjoy the land for recreation.