Contact: Dalee Kaur, Solicitor, ext 6605

1 Summary

1.1 This Report deals with two further applications to register land known as Chivers Field, Romsey as a village green under the Commons Registration (New Land) Regulations 1969 (`the Regulations') made pursuant to section 13 of the Commons Registration Act 1965.

1.2 The matter has previously been reported to the Regulatory Committee on 23 June 2004 with a recommendation "that the applications for registration made 23 July 2003 by Mrs Atkinson in respect of Chivers Field, Abbotswood, Romsey be refused on the grounds that they are repeat applications as rejected by the Regulatory Committee on 16 July 2003 and do not raise any significant new issues for consideration by the Registration Authority". Members refused the recommendation.

1.3 The Regulatory Committee has now been asked by the Chairman of the Committee on the advice of the Monitoring Officer to reconsider the Report of the Chief Executive dated 23 June 2004 which is attached.

2 Key Issues

2.1 An application to register land at Chivers Field, Romsey as village green has already been considered and rejected by the Regulatory Committee on 16 July 2003. This was following a four day public inquiry and a report and recommendation by the Inspector, Mr Stephen Morgan of Counsel.

2.2 The further two applications dated 23 July 2003 are in respect of areas of land already considered in respect of the first application.

2.3 The Regulations relating to the registration of village greens do not make provision for, nor do they anticipate repeat applications.

2.4 The Common Law principle of res judicata is applicable in the case of repeat applications. It means that where the Regulatory Committee, as Registration Authority, has determined a matter it cannot be litigated again, unless materially different fresh evidence has been discovered which was not and could not have been obtained with due diligence previously. The reasoning behind this principle is to introduce finality and certainty to the decisions making of the Registration Authority, rather than as a prelude to further later applications by the Applicant or other applications covering the same or much the same ground. Otherwise, there would be nothing to prevent further applications for the same land being made again and again well into the future. If any interested party is unhappy with any decisions of the Registration Authority, the correct approach is to challenge the decision in the Courts by way of Judicial Review, for example.

The Key question for the Committee therefore is:-

2.5 Are the two applications dated 23 July 2003 submitted by Mrs Atkinson to register land at Chivers Field in effect, a repeat of the application considered and refused by the Regulatory Committee at its meeting on the 16 July 2003. If the Committee considers that they are repeat applications, they should be rejected. If the Committee considers that they are not repeat applications, the Committee should accept them and require the statutory process to be followed.

In considering this question, the Committee should take into account only the following:-

2.6 Has the land been previously considered? Yes, although the two applications relate to a smaller area, the land is all contained within area of the first application

2.7 Has there been a change in the law to justify considering a second application? No.

2.8 Is there any materially different fresh evidence discovered which was not and could not reasonably with due diligence have been obtained previously? Mr Morgan concludes that the second application raises essentially the same issues as the original application that the Committee had rejected.

2.9 Has the Human Rights Act been considered? Yes.

3 Conclusion

3.1 The applications submitted by Mrs Atkinson to register land Chivers Field, Romsey are repeat applications as the issues raised appear identical to those that have been addressed on the previous application which the Committee refused

Recommendations

1) That the decision of the Regulatory Committee on 23 June 2004 in respect of these applications be rescinded; and

2) That the applications for registration made 23 July 2003 by Mrs Atkinson in respect of Chivers Field, Abbotswood, Romsey be rejected on the grounds that they are repeat applications as rejected by the Regulatory Committee on 16 July 2003 and do not raise any significant new issues for consideration by the Registration Authority.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this Report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this Report.

NB: the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in

the Act

Nil