Leeds Group Plc v Leeds City Council.

The application for registration was made by our member the Keep Yeadon Banks Green group (KEYBAG) led by Doug Jones. Leeds Council appointed barrister Alun Alesbury to hold a public inquiry; he recommended that the land be registered and the council agreed, in February 2007. The owner of part of the land, Leeds Group plc which wanted to sell it for development, appealed to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. This appeal was made against the decision of the High court, in which the court determined that, in an application for the registration of a new green under section 22(1A) of the Commons Registration Act 1965, as amended by section 98 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (“CROW”) (now replaced by section 15 of the Commons Act 2006), there was no bar to there being users from more than one neighbourhood upon whose use the application for registration was reliant. There were two issues before the court: whether the word ‘neighbourhood’ in subsection 22(1A) of the Commons Registration Act 1965 should be interpreted to include the plural, and whether the user evidence was of adequate quality. At the time the application was made, in July 2004, the Commons Act 2006 had not been passed. The application therefore relied on the definition of greens in the Commons Registration Act 1965 as amended by section 98 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act. The Commons Registration Act 1965 defined a green as land on which the inhabitants of any locality have indulged in lawful sports and pastimes as of right for not less than 20 years. The CROW Act amended this to land on which a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged in lawful sports and pastimes as of right, for not less than 20 years. Therefore, with effect from 30 January 2001 when section 98 of the CROW Act took effect, the concept of ‘neighbourhood’ was introduced into the greens definition. This was retained in the Commons Act 2006 section 15. Alun Alesbury concluded that in the evidence two areas each qualified as a neighbourhood, but alternatively these areas could be taken together to qualify as one neighbourhood.In the High Court, the appellant challenged the ruling that ‘neighbourhood’ included ‘neighbour-hoods’, but this was rejected by the judge. Lord Justice Sullivan, in the lead judgment, said that applying the normal rules of statutory construction, the singular includes the plural unless the contrary intention appears. He concluded that there was ‘no logical reason why “any neighbourhood” should not include two or more neighbourhoods’. Lady Justice Arden agreed with him but Lord Justice Tomlinson dissented. Therefore, the appeal was rejected on that point. The other matter was about the quality of the user evidence. Until 30 January 2001 the user had to be from a locality; after that date it qualified if it came from the immediate vicinity of the land, ie from the neighbourhood. George Laurence QC for the landowners argued that their predecessor could not reasonably have been expected, before 30 January 2001, to resist the assertion of any right by people living in the immediate vicinity of the land because before that time there was no basis in law whereby user by such a limited class of people could result in the land becoming registrable as a green. Mr Laurence asked that the grounds for appeal be amended to include a ruling on whether the change n law by the CROW Act took away the vested rights of an owner of the land insofar as the applicant relied on acts of use under the amendments brought about by section 98 of the CROW Act, which would be insufficient to give rise to a green at common law. The court is to reconvene to consider this point and therefore the outcome of the registration of Yeadon Banks is not yet determined.