[Electoral Division: Keswick]
To consider a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure (copy enclosed)
Members had before them a report from the Executive Director – Economy and Infrastructure which detailed an application received to correct non-registration of common land at Great How, Thirlmere.
The Applicant claimed that the land which was subject to this application was omitted from registration as part of the register unit CL123 St. John’s Common and had requested that the application land was added to that register unit.
The Applicant also claimed that the application land was not at any time finally registered as common land or as a town or village green under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and that it was recognised or designated as common land by or under an enactment, that enactment being The Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act 1879, and thus satisfied the criteria specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Commons Act 2006.
The officer took members through the report in detail.
One objection was received from United Utilities who was the owner of the application land.
The officer detailed the objection and response of the applicant to members.
The Commons Registration Officer reminded members that in line with Regulation 27 (7) an application may not be refused without first offering the applicant an opportunity to make oral representations.
On 5 November 2019 the Commons Registration Officer wrote the applicant informing him that she was minded to recommend that the two applications concerning land at Thirlmere (CA13/19 and CA13/20) be rejected, outlining the reasons and inviting the applicant to make oral representations.
The meeting took place on 21 November in the presence of Commons Registration and Legal Officers.
Following this meeting the Applicant submitted further written evidence in support of his application, based on the applicant’s research and outlined the history of Thirlmere commons and the debates relating to common land in the period leading to the passing of the 1879 Act.
Having considered the contents of oral representations and further written evidence, it it was the officer’s opinion that, despite there being some evidence that suggested that at some point in the past the Application Land may have been common land, there was still insufficient evidence to prove a direct relationship between the Application Land and the 1879 Act.
The evidence provided by the Applicant does not show on the balance of probabilities that the Application Land was recognised or designated by or under the Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act 1879 and therefore it should not be registered as common land under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Commons Act 2006.
Upon conclusion of the debate the officer recommendation was moved, seconded, and put to a vote.
With 15 for, 0 against and 0 abstentions it was
RESOLVED, that the application be rejected on the grounds that the land in question does not satisfy the criteria specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Commons Act 2006. It is considered that the Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act does not recognise or designate the land which is subject to this application as common land.