Commons Bill [Lords]

Government amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 respond to the recent judgment of the House of Lords in the Trap Grounds case. In that judgment, their lordships defined clearly and unambiguously the effect of the form of words that we originally used in the Bill to describe the type of inhabitants whose long use of land may warrant its registration as a green. That original form of words, which was taken directly from the current definition in the Commons Registration Act 1965, was"““the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality””." Lord Hoffmann’s judgment stated that"““‘Any neighbourhood within a locality’ is obviously drafted with a deliberate imprecision which contrasts with the insistence of the old law upon a locality defined by legally significant boundaries…The fact that the word ‘locality’ when it first appears in the current definition must mean a single locality is no reason why the context of ‘neighbourhood within a locality’ should not lead to the conclusion that it means ‘within a locality or localities’.””" That interpretation accords well with the intention behind clause 15. On Report in the House of Lords, we simplified this wording to refer simply to ““local inhabitants””, because at that point there were some doubts about the likely interpretation of the original phrasing. Now that the Law Lords have resolved those doubts, we think it best to revert to our original formulation, which will ensure that this criterion for registration is understood. Government amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 10 respond to the residual concerns expressed in Standing Committee, and since, about the impact of a new registration on any development that may have begun on the same land. Members will recall that in Committee, in response to a point raised by Conservative peers, we introduced clause 15(4)(d) to rule out registration of land as a green if the land had already been built on at 18 April 2006—the date of the amendment—despite a previous long period of use ““as of right”” by local people. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) suggested that the scope of our amendment might be too narrow. He pointed out that a situation might arise whereby a significant construction project had begun on the specified date, so that the parts of the development constructed after that date would not be exempted from registration and might be rendered unlawful if the land became registered. My ministerial predecessor, who is now the Minister for Schools, asked for some real-life examples of such a situation, but to date none has been produced. Nevertheless, we agree that it is probably best to avoid any possibility of such an outcome arising, so wherever construction works had begun on land by the date of tabling the new amendments—23 June 2006—that will rule out registration of any land that is, or will become, permanently unusable for public recreation because of works carried out under the same planning permission. That will prevent registration of the land as a green regardless of whether the initial construction works were on or off the alleged green, because planning permission might cover both the alleged green, and adjoining land that no-one claims is a green.