Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 15:"Page 8, line 28, at end insert—" ““(3A)   In considering any application under this section, a registration authority may decline to consider or to register— (a)   any land which is built on or paved and was lawfully built on or paved before the coming into force of this Act; (b)   part of an open space, another part of which is registrable under subsection (2) or (3), if the part of the open space concerned does not meet the criteria set out in subsections (2) or (3); (c)   any open space or part of an open space in a town that has been lawfully fenced, or has had signs placed on it or adjoining it limiting rights of access, or to which access has been lawfully restricted during any part of the 20 years concerned. (3B)   For the purposes of this Part a tract of land in an urban area may not be registered as a town or village green merely because it is an open space over which people have walked or exercised animals throughout a period of 20 years.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to clarify the situation in urban areas as opposed to rural common areas. I make no apology for returning to this issue. It is of increasing concern to local authorities, particularly those which are based in urban areas. It is agreed across the Chamber that there is a need to protect traditional commons and village greens. Many of them have fallen inside city boundaries as those cities have grown and many have been created as focal points for communities. I think that we all know of examples of village greens, with their open spaces, playgrounds, seats and trees. Often, they are playing fields. Similarly, we may know of traditional commons, greens and heaths that have become enclosed in urban space. However, there is another form of open land that falls outside any common-sense definition of a village green. That could be a tract of space by a major road, a derelict patch of ground or a piece of ground which may be attached to a traditional green, but which has been fenced from it and used for other purposes. It may be the site of an old electricity substation, for example. We should surely aim to protect the first category of land, but allow local authorities and local communities to determine the best use of the second category. We should remember that all this ground is covered and protected by planning systems. However, registration as a village green provides much greater protection. Since the recent changes in the law, following test cases that we have discussed, there have been a number of examples where campaigners who oppose the development of ground have sought village green status for urban land and thus frustrated possible development. I mentioned in Committee the case of one London borough which intended to sell a small tract of land alongside a major dual carriageway leading into London, much of the rest of which had been built on as far as the edge of the road. Owing to its position, the land was worth well in excess of £1 million. There was no playing field on it; there was no play area. The local authority published plans to use the capital receipts from the land to provide affordable housing. Both the sale and the intended use were wholly in accord with, and possibly encouraged by, government planning strategy and the strategy of the mayor. However, as is frequently the case with plans for affordable housing, local objections were raised and campaigners succeeded in having the land registered as a village green under the law now established. No one had ever thought of it as a village green previously, but it is now, even though no village centre exists. It spelt the end for capital receipts; it spelt the end for affordable housing. The local authority concerned faces other applications. Meanwhile, a risk analysis conducted by a London local authority concludes that even land that has been paved over or otherwise built on could in some circumstances be registered as a village green. It could be a car park, a garden attached to a local community centre or a library, for example. Village green status could be sought to frustrate the extensions of existing community building. I know from the Minister’s response at an earlier stage that he understands the points that we have made and he was going to think about them, but I wonder whether he fully understands the potential gravity of the situation, particularly in urban settings. A great deal of local authority land is potentially at risk and, as pressure increases to provide extra housing in some areas, the problem is likely to worsen and not to ease. I appreciate that my wording may not be perfect, but I hope that, if not today but perhaps at Third Reading, the Minister will indicate any ways in which he is prepared to go further to address the problem. Has he consulted officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in detail on the planning implications of this issue? It may be a good thing; it could be a bad thing; but it could drive a coach and horses through Mr Prescott’s visions of developing underused land in urban settings. I believe that all the circumstances covered in my amendment are ones that ought to frustrate automatic designation of urban land as a village green. I would appreciate a detailed response from the Minister, and if he cannot give it today—though I suspect that he will be able to do so—I hope that he can give me one before Third Reading. If he were to do so and could tell me that it either could or could not be included in the Bill, he would give considerable comfort to local authorities that are trying to plan sensible asset management strategies for the future. Further clarification is needed, and if he cannot accept the amendment, though I do not intend to press it today, I reserve the right to come back with it at Third Reading. I apologise to noble Lords that it is rather lengthy, but it deals with a slightly unusual aspect of this Commons Bill. I beg to move.