Public Inquiry

 The Public Inquiry lasted 3 days.  We felt our witnesses were interrogated.  The farmer's evidence was written by the council solicitors and he did not seem to understand it.  Mr. Laurence Q.C helped him out when he was reading it.

The Independent Inspector Mr. Vivian Chapman Q.C. will make his decision around February 2008.

Applicant’s Closing Statement

Following Mr. Laurence’s ‘Opening Statement’, and discussions between Mr Chapman and Mr Laurence, we now wish to amend our definition of both the ‘neighbourhood’ and the ‘locality’, within the ‘Commons Registration Act (1965) and the ‘Commons Registration (New Land) Regulations 1969’.  We trust we shall now have a valid site for the registration.

 Although Mr Laurence stated on page 69 in the ‘Summary of Legal Arguments on behalf of the Objector’, that the Borough of Middlesbrough would be ‘not relevant’ within the meaning of the 1965 Act, he has now agreed with Mr Chapman that, because there have been so many boundary changes, this would appear to be the only acceptable ‘locality’ for this Application.  Therefore, the land claimed as a ‘town or village green’ will now lie within the ‘locality’ of the Borough of Middlesbrough.  It is edged in green on the enclosed Middlesbrough Ward Boundaries Map, and entitled Exhibit 1A – Revised Locality Map (December 2007).  These boundaries were defined in the Local Government Act 1973, when the County Borough of Cleveland was formed, becoming effective in 1974. 

 

The ‘neighbourhood within the locality’, from which all the residents live, is now defined as the ‘McInnes Estate’.  As confirmed by Mr Vickers during his witness discussions with the Inspector, Mr Chapman, it is the name by which this neighbourhood is described, both within Middlesbrough Planning Department and by residents of the town.  The boundary of the ‘McInnes Estate’ is edged in blue on the enclosed map entitled Exhibit 1B – Revised Neighbourhood Map (December 2007).

 

The neighbourhood is formed by travelling from the intersection of the A172 Stokesley Road with Gunnergate Lane, heading west along Gunnergate Lane, to the point where Gunnergate Lane crosses Marton West Beck.  Go south there-from along Marton West Beck and south of the claimed land to the fence line crossing the  public footpath and there-from following the northern boundary of  Shandon Park houses, east along the northern boundary of said houses to the end of these houses then turning south towards Turnberry Way, go east along Turnberry Way to the western boundary of the houses in Rushmere, following the curvature of the field as far as Stainton Way,  then East to A172 / Stokesley Road and north to Gunnergate Lane.   We hope these changes will enable us to make a valid application to register the site.

 

59 residents from the McInnes Estate have completed questionnaires (lists attached) confirming that they have used the claimed land.  A significant  number – 31 people -  have walked this land for a period of not less than 20 years, as of right.  Of these 11 people (list attached) gave oral evidence.  The claimed is land is accessible to the McInnes neighbourhood, it is only a short walk and therefore even the older people who live within this neighbourhood easily manage to use the land regularly.

 

The Application was supported, originally, by a total of 81 witness statements, from which 16 gave evidence.   We were therefore surprised to find that only 2 witness statements were presented by the Objector, both of whom gave evidence, The Applicant statements were genuine, not written for them by a legal expert.  While we accept that may be the norm, we trust that it will not be to the disadvantage of the Application that all 81 evidence statements were honest and genuine .  We thought it was unfortunate that the method of interrogation was distressing for some of our witnesses. 

 

On page 69 - 3(iii) - the Objector comments that ‘as of right’ cannot be claimed for the land, yet you heard each witness state that it was without force, without secrecy and without permission.   

 

Mr Wilson did not convince us that he was, indeed, always referring to the claimed land.  He was very unsure of the position of the ‘services’.  Family connections concerning building land, farming and builders’ merchants were perhaps unfortunate!  Also Mr Wilson’s tenancy agreement was very vague – we could find no reference to R. Wilson within the documents and could not understand why he was unable to sign his own signature.  He had not signed his evidence statement in our bundle.

 

Mr. Wilson does not live or never has lived near to the site, and therefore could not possibly see anyone on the land.   He stated he did not remember seeing anybody on the land, but when questioned stated that on two occasions he did see children playing. 

 

We felt that Mr Wilson’ evidence was inconclusive.

 

Page 69, - 3 (iv) comments upon the tree growth.  The tree growth enhances the land and does not in anyway prohibit people using all of the land. 

 

Page 69 – 3(v) the issue of paths and use of the land – for many years there have been two ‘Rights of Way’ on this land one at the east side and one on the west. Middlesbrough Council maintain a wide path along the south edge. Paths zig-zag across this land and the aerial photographs, shown during this Public Inquiry, have confirmed this. 

 

The evidence provided by Mr Vickers appeared to be almost irrelevant to this Inquiry.  We have presented our case to claim this land as a TVG and we believe our witnesses have supported us honestly and truthfully in this Inquiry.  It would appear that to find one genuine error in a total of 257 questionnaires was of little impact – especially as that evidence produced an equally faulty result.  The couple live at a totally different address to the one submitted by Mr Vickers.

 

Why is Middlesbrough Council so determined to oppose our application?  

 

The sole reason is their wish to sell this land for a housing development.  We understand that precedents have been set in a similar situation.

 

As four retired people who represent at least a further 250 residents, we feel that perhaps the ammunition against us has been excessive!

 

We genuinely wish to maintain a much valued recreational and open area.  A natural woodland is a rare site in today’s world- one which we need to preserve for the use of our children.  The DVD which formed part of our evidence showed, not only the 20 years usage which is essential for the legislative procedure, but also that in Site 44 we have a dynamic situation, forced upon society when it is pushed by building developments to ever smaller recreational sites.  We need the space to wander, watch wildlife in tranquil surroundings.

 

This site is appropriate for all ages – it is easily accessible, with no necessity to use a car.   It is regularly used by a disabled elderly gentleman to walk his dog, yet is equally suitable for youngsters on their BMX bikes.

 

This is my submission. 

 

Are there any other areas in which we can assist you?