In a decision which stands as a stern warning to farmers, a swathe of agricultural land which became a focus for community pastimes after it went uncultivated and unfenced has been declared an asset of community value. The decision was a major blow to the owner of the land’s hopes of developing it for housing.
Most of the 46-acre site had historically been used for agriculture, although part of it had been built upon and it was also home to a butterfly sanctuary and two historic burial mounds. The land had for several years lain fallow, with its owner claiming subsidies under the European Union’s set-aside programme.
The area's parish council successfully applied to the local authority under the Localism Act 2011 for the land to be recognised as an asset of community value. That meant that notice of any proposed sale of the land would have to be given to the local authority and that, if any community interest group came forward with an alternative proposal, no sale could proceed for a six-month moratorium period.
In challenging that decision, the company that owned the land said that public use of the overgrown fields was sporadic and ancillary to their continued agricultural use. No trespassing signs had been removed in apparent acts of vandalism and it was not realistic that any community use of the land could continue given the owner’s intention to seek planning permission to build houses on it.
In rejecting the appeal, however, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) noted evidence from local people that the unfenced land was regularly used by the community for dog walking, horse riding, cycling, fitness classes and other activities. Although used for agricultural purposes for many years, it had been uncultivated for some time and there was an established history of the public having unimpeded access to it.
Since the land was designated as set-aside, the only agricultural activity carried out on it was mowing the grass annually. Community use of the land was current and substantial and it had in effect become a public recreation field. Such use could not be said to be merely ancillary to the land’s agricultural purpose and it mattered not that it amounted to trespassing.
Oliver’s Battery Limited v Winchester City Council & Anr. Case Number: CR/2019/0001