R v Oxfordshire County Council, ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
JudgeLORD BROWNE-WILKINSON,LORD STEYN,LORD HOFFMANN,LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH,LORD MILLETT
Judgment Date24 June 1999
Judgment citation (vLex)[1999] UKHL J0624-3

[1999] UKHL J0624-3

HOUSE OF LORDS

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Lord Steyn

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

Lord Millett

Regina
and
Oxfordshire County Council

And Others

(Respondents)

Ex Parte

Sunningwell Parish Council
(Appellants)
LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON

My Lords,

1

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Hoffmann. I agree with it and for the reasons which he gives would allow the appeal and direct the Oxfordshire County Council to register the glebe as a village green.

LORD STEYN

My Lords,

2

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Hoffmann. For the reasons given by him I would also make the order he proposes.

LORD HOFFMANN

My Lords,

3

The glebe at Sunningwell in Oxfordshire is an open space of about 10 acres near the ancient village church. It used formed part of the endowment of the Rectory. The rector let it for grazing and received the rent. On a reorganisation of church properties in 1978 it was transferred to the Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance ("the Board"). The land slopes upwards towards to the south and is crossed by a largely unfenced public footpath running south from the village towards Abingdon. Local people use the glebe for such outdoor pursuits as walking their dogs, playing family and childrens' games, flying kites, picking blackberries, fishing in the stream and tobogganing down the slope when snow falls.

4

In 1994 the Board obtained planning permission to build two houses on the northern boundary of the glebe. The villagers were very much opposed. They wanted it preserved as an open space. The parish council applied to the County Council to register the glebe as a town or village green under the Commons Registration Act 1965. It is unclear what rights, if any, registration would confer upon the villagers. The Act is silent on the point. But registration would prevent the proposed development because by section 29 of the Commons Act 1876 encroachment on or inclosure of a town or village green is deemed to be a public nuisance.

5

Section 22(1) of the Act of 1965 contains a three-part definition of a town or village green. They are usually called classes a, b and c. I shall use the same terminology.

"[a] land which has been allotted by or under any Act for the exercise or recreation of the inhabitants of any locality or [b] on which the inhabitants of any locality have a customary right to indulge in lawful sports and pastimes or [c] on which the inhabitants of any locality have indulged in such sports and pastimes as of right for not less than 20 years."

6

Class a includes land which was allotted for exercise and recreation by Act of Parliament or the Inclosure Commissioners when making an order for the inclosure of a common under the Inclosure Act 1845. Before 1845, when commons were inclosed under private Acts of Parliament, it was common for the Act itself to set aside some land for this purpose. There is no suggestion that the glebe was so allotted and the parish council do not rely upon class a. Class b refers to land which by immemorial custom the local inhabitants are entitled to use for sports and pastimes. This is the traditional village green with its memories of maypole dancing, cricket and warm beer. Immemorial custom means in theory a custom which predates the accession of Richard I in 1189. Although, as I shall in due course explain, the law may presume a custom of such antiquity on evidence which a historian might regard as somewhat slender, the parish council do not rely upon class b. They take their stand on class c, which was first introduced by the Act of 1965 itself. It is no longer necessary to resort to fictions or presumptions about what was happening in 1189. It is sufficient that the inhabitants of the locality have in fact used the land as of right for lawful sports and pastimes for more than 20 years.

7

The main purpose of the Act of 1965 was to preserve and improve common land and town and village greens. It gave effect to the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land 1955-1958 (1958) (Cmnd. 462) which emphasised the public importance of such open spaces. Some commons and greens were in danger of being encroached upon by developers because of legal and factual uncertainties about their status. Others were well established as commons or greens but there was uncertainty about who owned the soil. This made it difficult for the local people to make improvements (for example, by building a cricket pavilion). There was no one from whom they could obtain the necessary consent.

8

The Act of 1965 dealt with these problems by creating local registers of common land and town and village greens which recorded the rights, if any, of the commoners and the names of the owners of the land. If no one claimed ownership of a town or village green, it could be vested in the local authority. Regulations made under the Act prescribed time limits for registrations and objections and the determination of disputes by Commons Commissioners. In principle, the policy of the Act was to have a once-and-for-all nationwide inquiry into commons, common rights and town and village greens. When the process had been completed, the register was conclusive. By section 2(2), no land capable of being registered under the Act was to be deemed to be common land or a town or village green unless so registered.

9

In the case of greens in classes a or b, this meant that unless they were registered within the prescribed time-limit, they could not be registered as such thereafter. (There is a question about whether non-registration of a class a green also extinguished the prior statutory rights of exercise and recreation, but that need not detain us now.) But a class c green could come into existence upon the expiry of any period of 20 years' user. This might be after the original registration period had expired. Section 13 therefore provided for the amendment of the register in various situations including where "(b) any land becomes common land or a town or village green." The Sunningwell Parish Council applied to the Oxfordshire County Council, as registration authority, for an amendment to add the glebe to the register on the ground that it had become a village green by 20 years' user ending on 1 January 1994.

10

The Board objected to the application. The regulations made under section 13 prescribe no procedure for resolving disputes over applications for amendment. The jurisdiction of the Commons Commissioners was limited to disputes arising out of the original applications, all of which have now been determined. The County Council was left free to decide upon its own procedure for dealing with an application to amend. It decided to hold a non-statutory public inquiry and appointed Mr. Vivian Chapman, a barrister with great experience of this branch of the law, to act as inspector. Mr. Chapman sat for two days in the Village Hall, received written and oral evidence and heard legal submissions. He submitted a report to the County Council in which he made various findings of fact which the County Council accepted. I shall refer to these later. But he recommended that the application be refused on the ground that the user of the land by the villagers had not been shown to be "as of right." In coming to this conclusion, he followed the decision of the Court of Appeal in Reg. v. Suffolk County Council, Ex parte Steed (1996) 75 P. & C.R. 102 which held that "as of right" meant that the right must be exercised in the belief that it is a right enjoyed by the inhabitants of the village to the exclusion of all other people. In the present case, the witnesses all said that they thought they had the right to use the glebe. But they did not say that they thought that the right was confined to inhabitants of the village. Some thought it was a general public right and others had no views on the matter. This was held to be fatal to the application.

11

The parish council applied for judicial review of the County Council's decision. Buxton J. refused leave and the application was renewed before the Court of Appeal (Lord Woolf M.R., Waller and Robert Walker L.JJ.). They decided that they were bound by Reg. v Suffolk County Council, Ex parte Steed. to dismiss the application. But they also expressed the view that your Lordships might think that that case was wrongly decided. The Court of Appeal therefore granted leave to move for judicial review, dismissed the substantive application and gave leave to appeal to your Lordships' House.

12

The principal issue before your Lordships thus turns on the meaning of the words "as of right" in the definition of a green in section 22(1). The language is plainly derived from judicial pronouncements and earlier legislation on the acquisition of rights by prescription. To put the words in their context, it is therefore necessary to say something about the historical background.

13

Any legal system must have rules of prescription which prevent the disturbance of long-established de facto enjoyment. But the principles upon which they achieve this result may be very different. In systems based on Roman law, prescription is regarded as one of the methods by which ownership can be acquired. The ancient Twelve Tables called it usucapio, meaning literally a taking by use. A logical consequence was that, in laying down the conditions for a valid usucapio, the law concerned itself with the nature of the property and the method by which the acquirer had obtained possession. Thus usucapio of a res sacra or res furtiva was not allowed and the acquirer had to have taken possession in good faith. The law was not concerned with the acts or state of mind of the previous owner, who was assumed to have played no part in the transaction. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 cases
  • R (Whitmey) v Commons Commissioners
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 July 2004
    ...not necessary for the particular case in front of him, and therefore it is not a binding authority. 10 In the House of Lords, in R v Oxfordshire County Council ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council [2000] 1 AC 335, the House had to consider this area of the law with regard to the question of......
  • Odey v Barber
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 29 November 2006
    ...there is evidence of a specific grant of a licence. As Lord Hoffmann explained (with my emphasis added) in the R v Oxfordshire County Council ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council [2000] 1 AC 335, 350 that: “As Lord Cockburn C.J. observed, the jury were instructed that if there were no eviden......
  • Paddico (267) Ltd v (1) Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 23 June 2011
    ...understanding of this area of the law can be obtained most easily from reading Lord Hoffmann's two important speeches in R v. Oxfordshire County Council, ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council [2000] 1 A.C. 335 (the " Sunningwell case"), and in Oxfordshire County Council v. Oxford Ci......
  • Ainsley David Powell and Jane Shergar Irani v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Doncaster Borough Council (Interested Party)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 5 December 2014
    ...EWHC 2933 in my view the real starting point for this argument is the seminal decision of the House of Lords in R v Oxfordshire County Council Ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council [2000] 1 AC 335. This landmark decision addressed the question of the correct approach to the test of "as o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The future of prescriptive easements in Australia and England.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 31 Nbr. 1, April 2007
    • 1 April 2007
    ...Ltd [1997] AC 655, 703. (18) Alan Rodger, Owners and Neighbours in Roman Law (1972) 1-2. (19) Ibid 3. (20) Oxfordshire County Council [2000] 1 AC 335, 349 (Lord Hoffmann). With respect to the Roman law origins: see Barry Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (1962) 120-30; R W Lee, The Ele......
  • Recognising an Ecological Ethic of Care in the Law of Everyday Shared Spaces
    • United Kingdom
    • Social & Legal Studies Nbr. 29-3, June 2020
    • 1 June 2020
    ...UKSC 31, overturning R (Beresford) vSunderland CC [2003] UKHL 60.5. R v Oxfordshire County Council ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council [2000] 1AC 335, 349D-351H.6. R (Beresford) vSunderland CC [2003] UKHL 60.7. Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2016.8. McAlpine (n. ii).9. R (Lewi......

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