Bid to register Staffordshire sports field as village green rejected

A bid to register a sports field near Stafford as a village green has been rejected after two public inquiries were unable to go ahead.

Staffordshire County Council’s countryside and rights of way panel made the decision on Glebelands Sports Field at their latest meeting on October 9 – more than four years after the original application was made to register the land in Church Eaton as a village green by High Street resident Steven Caplan.

An independent inspector appointed by Staffordshire County Council recommended the application be rejected after two public hearings were unable to go ahead earlier this year. The landowner was absent from the initial hearing scheduled for February 20 “for unavoidable valid reasons” and the applicant did not show up for a second inquiry date in September, a report to the panel said.

Mr Caplan said in his application: “The field has been used by villagers for over 35 years as an area of general recreation, play and walking. We have all used the space without permission or challenge and so make the formal application to declare the space a legal village green.”

The field is owned by the Lichfield Diocese. Land agent Balfours stated in an objection to the application: “In order for any land to qualify for a village green it has to be operated for a period of at least 20 years as of right without permission; in this case the land is subject to a lease between Lichfield Diocese and the Glebelands Sports Association and as such does not qualify for village green status.”

A second objector said: “Glebelands Sports Association, who manage the site on behalf of the sports clubs, is a registered company, who have leased the land on long-term contracts for the past 35 years. Apart from village residents who actually play cricket or tennis, other villagers have also [been] allowed by the sport association to use the facilities for their own recreational purposes over this time.

“I know this has generally worked well and see no reason for it to change. Furthermore, I cannot see how this application can succeed when the association is in a contractual arrangement with the Church of England as landowner.”

The report to the panel said concerns were raised in April by the inspector about the application and how it should proceed. The report added: “The concerns raised rest on the fact that the applicant sent in 19 identical witness statements of support which he had drafted and left for the witnesses to sign.

“As the witness statements were identical and none of them had turned up to the inquiry [on February 20] the inspector recommended the application be rejected unless the applicant notified the Commons Registration Authority ‘within a brief period’ to agree to a resumption of the oral inquiry. The applicant did supply several extra statements and an amended plan severing sections of land from the application land.

“The second non-statutory public inquiry was listed to be heard on September 4, again to be heard at the county council offices in Stafford. The applicant and his witnesses failed to appear at the inquiry and despite all reasonable attempts to contact him – including a concerted effort on the day – it was impossible to reach him.

“Despite the objecting landowner attending with a number of supporting witnesses the inspector had no option but to abandon the second inquiry. There has been no further communication from the applicant to date.

“The inspector has therefore had no option but to reject the application on the ground that the applicant, in failing to attend the oral inquiry with his witnesses on September 4, demonstrably failed to cooperate in a process which he himself had instigated by his application to register the land as a village green in May 2022.”

Panel member Councillor Jeremy Pert described Church Eaton as “a lovely area”. Fellow panel member Councillor Nicholas Thompson asked how long the field had been used as a recreational area.

The panel was told the council had information to indicate that it had been used over a 20-year period, but it was unable to cross-examine witnesses to prove this was the case. The application had been advertised through notices at the site and in the local press.

Panel chair Councillor Mike Broom said: “The inspector asked for people to come forward having given their evidence, being the same piece of paper repeated 19 times, and they failed to do that, so the inspector thought he couldn’t make a decision on it because they weren’t there. In its own standing it had to be rejected.”