The Registration of Town and Village Greens Panel has decided to appoint an independent inspector to conduct a public inquiry on the registration of land off Canberra Crescent in Meir.

URL: https://moderngov.stoke.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=24792

Decision Maker: Registration of Town and Village Greens Panel

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Chris Parry (Head of Corporate, Property & Information Governance Team), presented the report which recommended that a non-statutory public inquiry be set up so that the evidence related to Land off Canberra Crescent could be properly examined and tested and that further legal arguments could be made by the various parties, in order to assist the Panel in determining whether to register the land off Canberra Crescent (Meir) as a Town or Village Green. On 16 October 2025 the Council received an application to register a parcel of land off Canberra Crescent in Meir (shown edged red in Appendix A of the submitted report) as a Town or Village Green. From a land ownership perspective, the site could be divided into two parts.  The majority of the Site was privately owned by two individuals and a smaller strip of land belonged to the Council. An objection was received from the owners of the privately owned land raising a range of issues (as outlined in Appendix C of the submitted report). Amongst other things, the objectors contended that a Trigger Event had occurred, which would preclude registration of the site as a Town or Village Green. Given that an objection had been received, and also taking into account the Council’s interest in the site as landowner, a Preliminary Report was commissioned in order to determine whether there were any clear “knock out blows” that would permit an expedited determination of the application without a full inquiry. Ahead of the independent inspector writing their Preliminary Report, all interested parties had been invited to submit any further representations on whether they considered a trigger event applied or not, and the appropriate procedure for determination of the application, so that the independent inspector was fully appraised of all relevant matters. Further submissions were received from the applicant and objectors (as outlined in Appendix D of the submitted report). A submission was also received from the Council’s Property Services Department expressing the view that the Council owned strip is held as public open space (see also Appendix D of the submitted report). This is something that would impact on whether the requirements for a Town or Village Green pursuant to the Commons Act 2006 are capable of being met. All submissions were provided to the independent inspector. The appointed Inspector issued their Preliminary Report in June 2026 and did not consider that there were any clear “knock out blows” which would justify rejection of the application without further investigation, and has recommended that a public inquiry be set up. The independent inspector’s report was attached at Appendix E of the submitted report. Given that it had not been possible to determine this application by reference to preliminary issues (i.e. there had been no “knock out blows”), the report recommended that an independent inspector be appointed to carry out a public inquiry and to make recommendations to the Panel. To ensure that the application was determined lawfully, fairly and robustly, it was considered necessary to appoint an independent inspector because they would provide: - expertise in the relevant law; - independence and impartiality in assessing evidence; - a structured and transparent process for examining witnesses. The associated financial and legal implications were outlined within the submitted report. Panel Members confirmed their understanding, in that it was felt not enough information was available to make a decision at this point, and questioned the form in which an inquiry might take. Officers confirmed the inquiry could either be paper-based, including additional documents to those provided to the Panel at the meeting, or could include oral submissions. It was noted best practice in a case like this, would be to include the submission of oral evidence. Papers for the inquiry would likely include additional documents, which would be supplementary to those included in the agenda pack for the Panel meeting. It was also possible that a pre-conference could be held beforehand, in order to discuss protocols and procedures. Panel Members also questioned the associated timescales for progress to be made in relation to this matter. Officers confirmed they were hopeful of progress within a matter of weeks, and that if recommendations be approved, they would look to set up the relevant conference to discuss procedure within this timeframe, acknowledging the details of this could be impacted by availability of individuals.

Date of Decision: July 24, 2026