Link to web site,for all documents
[These are subjectively-chosen selections, in typically long documents.]
Representations from parties
with a direct legal interest
in the land
with a direct legal interest
in the land
London Borough of Barnet and North London Waste Authority
IN THE MATTER OF:- LAND KNOWN AS “THE DUMP” BOUNDED BY ALEXANDRA ROAD, PINKHAM WAY, THE GREAT NORTH RAILWAY AND MUSWELL HILL GOLF CLUBOBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET AND NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY... The Application Site was purchased by the former Friern Barnet Local Board in 1885 from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose of a sewage works. At that time it is thought that the land lay in the area of the Tottenham Local Government reorganisation, the land came under the area of the Wood Green Local Board. [sic.] In 1898, Wood Green became an urban district and in 1933 it acquired the status of a municipal borough. In 1965, Wood Green was subsumed into the London Borough of Haringey.The site was developed as a sewage works in the late 1880s and continued in operation until the late 1960s. The earliest available Ordnance Survey (OS) map dated 1898 shows a sewage works marked on part of the site. ... The basic layout of filter beds and associated bunds was established by 1913. By the mid 1930s a soil extraction/ gravel pit appeared on the southern section of the site. New structures had appeared by 1962 amid some general expansion of the sewage works; an aerial photograph dated 1962 shows the layout and condition of the site at that date. The 1970 OS map shows the sewage works to have gone and that a road now ran into the site; this situation remained until the final map dated 1989; there is also an aerial photograph dating from 1981 showing this situation. Extracts from the relevant OS maps and aerial photographs are appended at pp…. [not filled in!] of the accompanying Bundle of Objector’s Documents. Aerial photographs dated 2003, 2006, c.2008 and 2010 show the subsequent development of road infrastructure associated with the development of the Friern Bridge Retail Park in more recent years. ...3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK/OUTLINE OF OBJECTIONS3.1 The Application in question has been made under s.15(3) Commons Act (“CA”).... "Registration of greens: Any person may apply to the commons registration authority to register land ... where a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years; and they continue to do so at the time of the application."...3.2 “A Significant Number of the Inhabitants of any Locality, or of any Neighbourhood within a Locality”... 3.2.2 “Significant number” was considered in [a case in 2002]:"... In my judgment the inspector approached the matter correctly in saying that ‘significant’, although imprecise, is an ordinary word in the English language and little help is to be gained from trying to define it in other language. In addition, the inspector correctly concluded that, whether the evidence showed that a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality or of any neighbourhood within a locality had used the meadow for informal recreation was very much a matter of impression. It is necessary to ask the question: significant for what purpose? In my judgment the correct answer is provided by Mr Mynors on behalf of the council, when he submits that what matters is that the number of people using the land in question has to be sufficient to indicate that their use of the land signifies that it is in general use by the local community for informal recreation, rather than occasional use by individuals as trespassers.”3.2.3 A “locality” was interpreted in the pre-2000 Act case law as an area known to law, or some recognised administrative division of the county :......3.2.6 The Applicant in this case seeks to rely on two “localities”. The application is therefore based on a false premise. Moreover, no evidence has been submitted to justify the claim that the areas upon which he relies are of any administrative significance. Therefore the application should fail. ......3.3 “Indulged in lawful sports and pastimes”
...3.3.2 Whilst it is not disputed that some of the claimed activities are capable of falling within the statutory phrase [a comma here helps] use of land as a shortcut or confined to paths will not support registration....3.4 “For a period of at least 20 years …”3.4.1 The Applicant claims that requisite user ceased in July 2010 when he accepts that “a fence was erected which excluded public access to the land”. The Application was made on 24th February 2012. It is accepted that, if the Applicant can prove requisite user between July 1990 and July 2010, then the Application should not fail for being made out of time.
LBB and NLWA will demonstrate however that fencing was in place throughout the claimed period and in any event well before the claimed end date, such as to make it obvious that any user was contentious....... [and so it goes on] ...
Local Planning Authority, London Borough of Haringey
9 Evidence within Submitted Town or Villaige Green Application
9.1 We do not believe that it supports the contension, on the balance of probabilities, that a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years;
9.2 In particular, it is not felt that the evidence supplied with the application, of the submitted 72 statements that claim to have used the site, is sufficient to amount to a significant number of the inhabitants of the locality or even of any neighbourhood within the locality. The addresses provided cover a very wide area and do not represent the locality, let alond a neighbourhood within a locality.
10.1 In conclusion, we therefore consider that the Applicant has failed to establish that the Land has been used by a significant number of the inhabitants of the locality, or neighbourhood within the locality, as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land as of right throughout the relevant period.
2.3 Network Rail strongly objects to the Application in respect to Network Rail land ...
3.2 We believe that the Network Rail Lane [sic] has been mistakenly included in the green boundary marked on the application plan by the Applicant.
[Network Rail then uses similar arguments to the objectors above, 'just in case'.]
Transport for London
... TfL owns a small area of land comprising of approximately 140 square metres within the application area ...
To the best of [our] knowledge, the TfL land has never been used for lawful sports or pastimes. Consequently, TfL objects to the TVG application. ...
|(Click above to enlarge)|
Link to HOME (see all posts).