Inquiry to be held over proposal for field near Shrewsbury to become village green

An inquiry is set to be held into a long-standing dispute over a field in a Shropshire village.

In May 2023 villager Mark Underwood applied to register The Glebelands in Bayston Hill, near Shrewsbury, as a village green. In order for that to be granted, he needs to prove the following:

• That a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years.
• That they continued to do so at the date of the application.

And it's the "as of right" part of the legislation that is being disputed, meaning that a public inquiry is likely to be held.

The field, next to Christ Church, is owned by the Lichfield Diocese. The land has been a core part of Bayston Hill since 1949, when the diocese first leased it to villagers.

Over the years, it has hosted fairs, events, Scouts, and is popular for dog walking. However, two years ago, metal fences were put up, preventing people from accessing the land.

At the time, the diocese said that while it understood the upset caused, the fences had to go up "to protect its interests".

In 2023, an outline application for residential development was submitted by Shingler Homes. That attracted well over 200 objections by members of the public, with the proposal later withdrawn.

Mr Underwood's application to make the site a village green was recently presented to Shropshire Council's northern planning committee, where members were asked to appoint a barrister to act at as an inspector for the inquiry.

The report says there is a "fundamental conflict" of evidence between the applicant and objectors as to whether the use of the land has been "by right" or "as of right", explaining there is an important legal distinction between the two.

"The application states that the land has been used for lawful sports and pastimes over the relevant 20 year period by a significant number of local people," said interim democratic services manager, Graham White.

"The objectors state that the land has not been used 'as of right' as the land has been leased to the parish council.

"The objectors allege that those giving evidence in support of the application do not have evidence of the field being used as a town or village green freely 'as of right' for lawful sports and recreational purposes.

"Clearly there is a significant conflict between the applicant and supporting evidence, on the one hand, and the objectors on the other.

"However, it would not be fair for members to seek to resolve this conflict and determine the application merely by regard to the documents.

"If a decision to reject the application was made without an oral hearing, this would be open to challenge by way of judicial review on the ground of a lack of procedural fairness.

"The costs to the council of an application for judicial review would be substantial; both in terms of officer time and legal representation to deal with the judicial review and also liability for the claimant’s costs should such an application be successful.

Council development manager Charlotte Morrison added: "The alternative option is that planning committee themselves can preside over a public inquiry, which will be four or five full days. What we are asking for is to be able to appoint a barrister to do that work on your behalf and come back to committee with a recommendation."

The committee unanimously approved the recommendation.