210 CA14/52 - APPLICATION TO AMEND THE REGISTER TO RECORD AN HISTORIC EVENT - HISTORIC SEVERANCE OF A RIGHT OF COMMON (& CR19, APPLICATION NUMBER 1353 - APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF A REGISTER IN RELATION TO A RIGHT OF COMMON) REGISTER UNIT CL3 EASTERN MARTINDALE COMMON (HALLIN FELL, SWARTH FELLS, FUSEDALE) ENTRY 5 (NOW ENTRY 31) PDF 292 KB
[Electoral Division: Kirkby Stephen]
To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)
Mrs Gray attended the meeting at this point, but abstained from the vote as she had not been present for the whole of the discussion.
Mr Hamilton left the meeting part way through this item and did not take part in the vote.
The Development Control and Regulation Committee considered a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which detailed two applications received from Gillian Margaret Hedworth to amend the register of common land at entry 5 of register unit CL3 Eastern Martindale Common (Hallin Fell, Swarth Fells, Fusedale (“CL3”), in consequence of an historic severance of a right of common.
Members were asked to determine whether, when Hause Farm and some of its associated land was repossessed by the bank, did the common rights that attached to a section of that land also transfer, or were retained by the previous owner.
The purpose of the report was to request Members make a decision as to whether the applications should be granted and amendments made to the Council’s register of common land.
The Officer explained how both applications centred upon the same key issue, the effect of a Charge by which land at Hause Farm was charged to UCB Bank by Mrs Hedworth and her husband. More specifically, both applications contended that the right of common was not included in the Charge and thereby ceased to attach to the Charged Land, so that, in other words, the right of common was severed.
The Officer further explained that it had been pragmatic to consider the material received across both applications when coming to a recommendation for each application. Members were reminded that each application was still independent and that two separate votes would need to be carried out.
Members were informed that two objections were received, one from the Rowleys, and one from a Mr Christopher Lasper, who had no legal interest in the land.
The Rowleys’ objection involved a dispute between themselves and Mrs Hedworth as to the ownership of the right to graze 135 sheep on register unit CL3. The Officer explained that this dispute largely came down to the Charge document, which itself did not mention the common rights. Members were shown extracts from Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925 which indicated that a conveyance would be deemed to include any attached rights unless a contrary intention was expressed within the document itself. Members were told of correspondence made prior to the Charge which suggested that the intention was to exclude the grazing rights, but were reminded that this exclusion was not mentioned in the Charge itself.
Members were reminded that further details of these contentions were provided within the report and within the bundle of documents that were available by request, and that whilst the position put forward by the applicant was an arguable one, the Officer found that on balance the rights were not included within the Charge.
Mr Lasper’s ... view the full minutes text for item 210