Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date24 May 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] UKHL 25
CourtHouse of Lords
Date24 May 2006
Oxfordshire County Council
Oxford City Council

and another

(Respondent) (2005)
Oxfordshire County Council
Oxford City Council

and another

(Appellant) (2005)
Oxfordshire County Council
Oxford City Council

and another

(Respondents) (2005) (Conjoined Appeals)

[2006] UKHL 25

Appellate Committee

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Scott of Foscote

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Baroness Hale of Richmond


For Oxford City Council

Charles George QC

Philip Petchey

(Instructed by Oxford City Council)

For Catherine Mary Robinson

Douglas Edwards

Jeremy Pike

(Instructed by Public Law Solicitors)

For Oxfordshire County Council

George Laurence QC

Ross Crail

(Instructed by Oxfordshire County Council)


Jonathan Karas and James Maurici (Instructed by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)


My Lords,

The Trap Grounds


This appeal arises out of an application on 21 June 2002 by Miss Catherine Robinson, who lives in North Oxford, to register the Trap Grounds as a town or village green under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The site as it is today does not fit the traditional image of a town or village green. Mr Vivian Chapman, a member of the Bar expert in the law of commons and greens, described it in a report on the application which he wrote for the registration authority, the Oxfordshire County Council:

"The Trap Grounds are nine acres of undeveloped land in North Oxford. They lie between the railway to the west and the Oxford Canal to the east. About one third…is permanently under water…This part…is usually called 'the reed beds'. [They] are inaccessible to ordinary walkers since access would require wading equipment. The other two thirds ['the scrubland']…are much drier and consist of some mature trees, numerous semi-mature trees and a great deal of high scrubby undergrowth, much of which is impenetrable by the hardiest walker.… The scrubland is noticeably less overgrown at the southern end and there is a pond and wet areas in the central eastern part of the scrubland. Throughout the dry parts of the scrubland there are piles of builders' rubble, up to about a yard high, which are mostly covered in moss and undergrowth. The Trap Grounds are approached from the east by a bridge…over the canal. From the bridge a track, known as Frog Lane, leads along the northern edge of the reed beds and gives access to a circular path around the scrubland. Off this circular path there are numerous small paths through the undergrowth. Some peter out after a few yards. Some lead to small glades and clearings. I estimate that a total of about 25% of the surface area of the scrubland is reasonably accessible to the hardy walker."


Not idyllic. But town and village greens are in theory survivals from the mediaeval past, established by immemorial local customs dating back to before the accession of Richard I in 1189. When counsel for the landowner in Mounsey v Ismay (1863) 1 H & C 729 protested that the fields on which the inhabitants of Carlisle claimed a custom of holding horse races in May were arable land, Martin B replied: "It must be assumed that the custom has existed since the time of Richard the First; and why may it not have been reasonable in the then state of the land?" The Trap Grounds no doubt looked very different before they were cut off, first by the 18th century canal and then by the 19th century railway, from the great north Oxford common of Port Meadow. In those days Frog Lane was called My Lady's Way and led across the Meadow to the nunnery at Godstow where Charles Dodgson and Alice Liddell picnicked and fair Rosamund, mistress of Henry II, lies buried.

Village greens


The traditional village green is a creation of the literature of sensibility in the late 18th century. The green at Auburn in Goldsmith's The Deserted Village (1770) is the best example; a place where:

"toil, remitting, lent its turn to play,

And all the village train, from labour free,

Led up their sports beneath the spreading tree!

While many a pastime circled in the shade,

The young contending as the old survey'd;

And many a gambol frolick'd o'er the ground,

And sleights of art and feats of strength went round;

And still, as each repeated pleasure tired,

Succeeding sports the mirthful band inspired…"


No doubt there were, and perhaps are, village greens like that, but the law took a more prosaic view of the matter. It was not particularly concerned with the spreading tree and the ancient turf but simply with whether there was an immemorial custom for inhabitants of a parish, borough or similar locality to use the land for sports and pastimes. As Martin B said, the custom had in theory to date from before 1189, but such antiquity could be inferred from proof that the inhabitants had in fact used the land for such purposes for a long period in the past. The inference could be rebutted only by showing that it was impossible for such a custom to have existed in 1189.


The early cases do not use the term "village green". In Abbot v Weekly (1666) 1 Lev 176 a custom that "the inhabitants of the vill, time out of memory, & had used to dance there at all times of the year at their free will, for their recreation" was held to be a good custom. In Fitch v Rawling (1795) 2 H Bl 393 the custom was to use some land at Steeple Bumpstead in Essex for "all kinds of lawful games, sports and pastimes…at all seasonable times of the year." As Halsbury's Laws has said in successive editions (for example, 1st edn (1908), para 1247):

"the essential characteristic of a town or village green is that by immemorial custom the inhabitants of the town, village, or parish should have acquired the right of playing lawful games thereon and enjoying it for purposes of recreation."


In Mounsey v Ismay (1863) 1 H & C 729 (horseracing on arable land on Kingsmoor, outside Carlisle), Virgo v Harford ( unreported) 11 August 1892 (noted in Hunter, The Preservation of Open Spaces (1896) at pp 181-182) (football, rounders and cricket on 65 acres of open land on a hill outside Walton-in-Gordano in Somerset) and Lancashire v Hunt (1894) 10 TLR 310 (cricket and other games on 160 acres of Stockbridge Common Down) the courts upheld recreational customs on land which bore no resemblance to the village green at Auburn.


The first instance to which we were referred of the use of the term "village green" in a case or statute was in section 15 of the Inclosure Act 1845 (8 & 9 Vict c118), which provided that "no town green or village green shall be subject to be inclosed under this Act". The Act offered no definition and Mr Woolrych, in his notes on The New Inclosure Act (1846) said that the term did not refer to all the "grassy plains" on commons which were "known by the name of greens" but only to the "little patches" which "adjoin a town or hamlet and are used in the nature of easements by the inhabitants". There is no authority on the point but it seems likely that, on what would now be called a purposive construction, "town green or village green" would have been construed as Woolrych suggested, namely as any land upon which the local inhabitants enjoyed customary rights of recreation. The purpose of inclosure under the Act was after all to extinguish manorial rights of common over the land inclosed, so that it could be at the free disposal of the owner, but the Act did not extinguish customary rights: see Forbes v Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England (1872) LR 15 Eq 51. It was therefore logical to exclude land subject to customary recreational rights from the inclosure procedure.


The increase in the urban population in the 19th century made the preservation of open spaces a matter of great public concern. Near the large cities the traditional use of commons for depasturing animals declined and their principal use became the recreation of the people. This use was threatened by owners who recognised no interests in the land apart from those of a declining band of commoners and their own. The House of Commons Select Committee on Open Spaces near the Metropolis (1865) asked why long use of the commons by members of the public for recreation should not give rise to public rights. Why should Hampstead Heath not be the village green of London? The answer was that the law recognised only local customs. Rights of recreation could be established for the benefit of a parish or a town, but not for the public at large. London was too big. As Lord St Leonards LC said in Dyce v Lady James Hay (1852) 1 Macq 305, 309, a claim for all the Queen's subjects "to go at all times upon the…appellant's property…for the purpose of recreation" was:

"a claim so large as to be entirely inconsistent with the right of property"


The Select Committee said in its Second Report that this rule was illogical: it appeared to "rest upon no very intelligible principle". But the judges and writers insisted on applying it strictly. In Hammerton v Honey (1876) 24 WR 603 Sir George Jessel MR rejected a claim to rights of recreation over Stockwell Green on the ground (among others) that the evidence did not show that use of the green was confined to inhabitants of Stockwell:

"If you allege a custom for certain persons to dance on a green, and you prove in support of that allegation, not only that some people danced, but that everybody else in the world who chose danced and played cricket, you have got beyond your custom." (p 604)


In the same year as Hammerton v Honey Mr Charles Elton of Lincoln's Inn wrote a pamphlet on the bill which became the Commons Act 1876 (39 & 40 Vict c 56), in which he said by way of riposte to those who held the same views as the Select Committee:

"There have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
15 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Restrictions on the Use of Land Preliminary Sections
    • 30 Agosto 2016
    ...Residents Management Ltd (1989) 58 P & CR 1, [1989] 14 EG 78 34 Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council (Trap Grounds case) [2006] UKHL 25, [2006] 2 AC 674, HL; [2005] EWCA Civ 175, [2006] Ch 43, [2005] 3 WLR 1043, [2005] 3 All ER 961, CA 63, 65, 78, 84, 92, 93, 96, 99, 101, 11......
  • Criteria for Registration in Commons Act 2006, Section 15
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Restrictions on the Use of Land Part II. Town and village greens
    • 30 Agosto 2016
    ...irrelevant that it may be a good thing to register the claimed green on the ground that it has been long enjoyed by locals as a public 32 [2006] UKHL 25, [2006] 2 AC 674 at [61] per Lord Hoffmann. open space, of which there may be an acute shortage in the area or because it is a beautiful h......
  • Village and Hundred
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill The Law of the Manor - 2nd Edition Part IV. Setting
    • 29 Agosto 2012
    ...beyond your custom. 16 In In re Turnworth Down, Dorset [1978] Ch 251 and R v Suffolk County Council, Ex p Steed (1996) 75 P&CR 102. 17 [2006] 2 AC 674 at [17]–[19]. 18 R v Oxfordshire County Council, Ex p Sunningwell Parish Council [2000] 1 AC 335. 19 (1876) 24 WR 603. That, as discussed in......
  • Custom and Variety
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill The Law of the Manor - 2nd Edition Part I. Roots
    • 29 Agosto 2012
    ...by legally significant boundaries. I should say at this point that I cannot 17 See Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council [2006] 2 AC 674. 18 [2012] EWCA Civ 262. 19 [1896] 1 Ch 308, per Kekewich J at 313. 20 [1975] Ch 380 at 387. 21 [2006] 2 AC 674 at [11]. 22 Ibid at [27]. 23 By......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT