Commons Bill [HL]

A written agreement by the owner to access—that is what the noble Earl referred to—would prevent use being ““as of right”” if given expressly and renewed from time to time. A one-off letter would not be sufficient. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, spoke to Amendment No. 50. It would require that local inhabitants must have indulged in ““recreation””, as well as lawful sports and pastimes on land claimed as green. Sports and pastimes may overlap slightly, but, between them, they cover all forms of recreation. Therefore, we resist the amendment. Inserting the words ““and recreation”” would imply that recreation was a different form of activity from what are referred to in the clause and in the existing greens definition as ““lawful sports and pastimes””. The two concepts are interchangeable, and we would not want the clause to imply otherwise. The phrase ““sports and pastimes”” has a very wide meaning. The activities do not need to be organised, something about which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked. Informal games of football and cricket would count, noble Lords will be pleased to hear, as would blackberry picking, walking the dog, kite flying and other family activities. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke to Amendments Nos. 55 and 58. Amendment No. 55 relates to the creation of a period of grace during which an application to register land as a green may be made, even though local people’s use of the land as of right has been ended by the owner of the land. Subsection (3) already enables such a period of grace to be created by regulations. We recognise that putting a provision in the Bill to create such a period of grace, instead of making regulations to do so, would have some attractions. There would be additional clarity, and we could avoid delay in implementing the period of grace that was required. It would require careful thought and discussion with interested parties nationwide. One of the effects of the amendment, as he has worded it, is that so long as local inhabitants’ use of land as a right ended no more than two years before the enactment of Section 98 of the CROW Act, which amended the original definition of town or village green, it would be possible to apply for registration, no matter how far into the future any such application was made. We would want to avoid any suggestion that a period of grace should extend endlessly into the future. That would deprive landowners of their ability to achieve greater certainty about the status of their land, and providing that ability is one aim of this clause. Nevertheless, we want to give further thought, if the noble Lord will allow us, to this set of issues. Likewise with his Amendment No. 58. It would prevent an objector to registration of land as a green claiming that a temporary statutory closure of that land had interrupted the required period of use by local people and that a completely new 20-year period subsequent to the statutory closure would be needed in order to justify registration as a green. Again, we sympathise with his underlying intention. Although it is by no means clear that any such interruption by a statutory closure could be a successful claim, it would plainly be unreasonable if that effect were to arise. Statutory closures should not be allowed to stop the clock for the purposes of the 20-year period on which an application to register land as a green relies. We cannot accept the amendment, but we see merit in it, and I undertake to give further consideration and write to the noble Lord in good time before Report on those two amendments. I was asked about continuity. What is required is a substantial pattern of recreational use. It does not matter that no one may use the land on a particular day or week or even month. If use is prevented on an ongoing basis, though, it will prevent any successful claim. I hope that I have answered the questions that have been asked.