DOCSLIB.ORG

An Assessment of the Character of Town Or Village Greens in England

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Assessment of the Character of Town Or Village Greens in England An Assessment of the Character of Town or Village Greens in England A Study of 210 sites Karl Crowther BSc, CEnv, MIEEM Defra Project Ref: NR0146 Report Date: March 2011 1 CONTENTS 1 Background and Introduction 3 2 Objectives 5 3 Methods 7 3.1 Sample Size 7 3.2 Selection of samples 7 3.3 Data recording 8 4 Results 10 4.1 Number of sites sampled 10 4.2 Reasons for not selecting sites 10 4.3 The results 11 5 Discussion and Conclusions 31 6 Acknowledgements 37 7 References 37 APPENDICES Appendix 1: WI National Survey of Town and Village Greens (1990) 38 Appendix 2: Completed WI Survey forms and the number of greens 39 recorded in English Counties. Appendix 3: Number of samples per county/geographical unit. 40 Appendix 4: Reasons for candidate sites being excluded from the study. 42 2 1. Background and Introduction 1.1 Mention of the word “Village Green” brings to mind the notion of a well-tended, grassy area with a scattering of mature trees forming the focal point of an English village, with centuries- old cottages and, usually, a pub looking directly onto it, with perhaps a maypole, village pump or war memorial, and in summer, alive to the sound of Morris dancing and the inevitable game of cricket. The ‘traditional’ village green certainly has a long (and often fascinating) history, but what are the precise defining characteristics of a village green? The research outlined here has set out to look for answers to that question. 1.2 Going back to the very origins of village greens and commons, around a thousand or so years ago, the green was the common property of the village and its main purpose was to provide space and security for cattle and sheep in an emergency (Stamp & Hoskins, 1963). Such greens were also probably used for communal grazing. Other greens appear to have arisen through particular geographical circumstances, for example around natural clearings in woodland. In less troubled times, greens became used increasingly for recreational and commercial purposes (e.g. fairs and markets). Also, village greens were invariably used for archery practice and some continued to be used for grazing purposes. 1.3 Thus, according to Aitchison (1996), prior to the Commons Registration Act, 1965, in common law, “greens were generally considered to be areas of land subject to customary rights of exercise and recreation. Such rights would normally apply to the inhabitants of a particular locality (e.g. parish or settlement) and be for specified activities (e.g. cricket, archery, dancing around a maypole)”. 1.4 The first attempt to prepare a comprehensive list of commons and village greens in England was the work of Dudley Stamp (presented in Stamp & Hoskins, 1963), based on final returns made by counties to the Royal Commission on Common Land (1955-58). There then followed the 1965 Commons Registration Act of 1965, which defines a town or village green as: “Land which has been allotted by or under any Act for the exercise or recreation of the inhabitants of any locality, or on which the inhabitants of any locality have a customary right to indulge in lawful sports and pastimes, or on which the inhabitants of any locality have indulged in such sports and pastimes as of right for not less than twenty years”. 1.5 Any land that was thought to comply with these three criteria could be put forward to be registered as a town or village green. If there were no objections, the land concerned was then formally registered as such. Unfortunately, many difficulties were encountered in the registration process, which led amongst other things, to some village greens being registered erroneously as commons (and vice-versa). Furthermore, some village greens appear not to have been registered at all under the Act which is why Schedule 2, paragraph 3, of the Commons Act 2006 allows for the registration of greens which were not registered but which are recognised as greens under other enactments. The 2006 Act, which now supersedes the Commons Registration Act, 1965, also makes it possible for ‘new’ greens to 3 be registered under section 15(1), provided that they fulfil certain criteria. Landowners can also voluntarily register their land under section 15(8). 1.6 Around 1990, information on the registration of common land and village greens in England and Wales was collated by Professor Aitchison’s Rural Surveys Research Unit (RSRU) at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. He wrote two papers on the subject, one in “Landscape Research” (Aitchison, 1996), and the other in a journal entitled “Area”. This work was limited to analysis of locations, numbers, areas and ownership, plus a comparison with estimates based upon the same criteria by Dudley Stamp (as published in Stamp & Hoskins, 1963). 1.7 Professor Aitchison was also involved in the 1990 National Survey of Town and Village Greens1 – a joint (and unfinanced) venture between the RSRU, the Countryside Commission and the National Federation of Women’s Institutes (hereafter referred to as “the WI Survey”). This survey set out to investigate the character of village greens in much more detail and included requests for information on: activities taking place, physical features present, appearance and wildlife, management activities, problems and conflicts, history and local customs (Appendix 1 provides a more detailed listing of the information that was requested). Other information such as sketch plans, maps, documents and photographs was also asked for. 1.8 WI members were invited to complete standard survey forms for greens (and commons) in their Parish. Guidance notes supplied with the forms highlighted the fact that some greens might be registered as commons vice-versa. To ensure that coverage was a wide as possible, forms were sent out not only for greens, but also some registered commons it was felt might well be regarded as ‘greens’ by local people. Respondents were also invited to complete additional forms for non-registered sites that were thought of and used as greens by local people. Completed forms were then sent back to the RSRU in Aberystwyth. 1.9 An assessment of the material available from the WI Survey (Appendix 2) reveals that within England there are approximately 20902 completed forms, with examples from all English counties. This figure represents around 58% of the then total number of greens (based on figures in Aitchison, 1996). 1.10 Despite the fact that the WI Survey was undertaken in 1990, it still represents a valuable source of information on the use, value, management, history and character of over half of the village greens (and commons) that were registered at that time. 1.11 Nowadays, a further potentially valuable source of information on village greens is the internet. Various on-line resources provide aerial and ground-level imagery (e.g. Google Earth – www.earth.google.co.uk, Bing Maps – www.bing.com/maps) and a useful archive of old Ordnance Survey maps (Landmark Information Group - www.old-maps.co.uk) dating back as far as the latter part of the 19th century . 1 The National Survey of Town and Village Greens covered both England and Wales. 2 There are also approximately 75 completed forms from a total of eight Welsh counties/administrative units. Note that coverage of Wales may not be complete, as it would appear that there are some counties/administrative units from Wales with no WI Survey records available. 4 1.12 With the availability of these two above resources, it was suggested they be used to identify a series of features that define the characteristics of village greens registered under the 1965 Act. 2. Objectives 2.1 This study aims to examine the character of village greens using a sample of sites that were included in the WI Survey of 1990, in conjunction with a range of appropriate on-line resources. To achieve this, the following questions have been addressed: a) Location i) Is the site central, or peripheral within a settlement? ii) How close is it to a church, pub, hall or other meeting point? iii) Is it located at a junction of roads? iv) What is the approximate shape (or a broad indication thereof)? b) Vegetation i) Is the site predominantly grassland? ii) Are there mature trees present? iii) Is it predominantly of a different vegetation type – and if so, what? (or is it non- vegetated)? iv) Is there a pond? c) Aspect/View (in broad terms) i) Is there an unobstructed view across the site? ii) Is the view across the site obscured? d) Residences i) Are the surrounding residences (if present), arranged around and facing onto the site, or not? e) Structures – are any of the following present? i) War memorial ii) Other sculpture iii) Seating iv) Bus Shelter v) Phone Box vi) Pavilion vii) Other – e.g. stocks, pump, notice board f) Is there evidence of events and meetings? i) Fairs ii) Dancing, music iii) Events 5 g) Time depth i) Is there evidence of existence/use pre-1950? ii) Is there evidence of existence/use pre-1900? iii) Is there other historic evidence? iv) Does the site have a long-standing name? h) Is the site used for any of the following sports? i) Cricket ii) Football iii) Any other sports? i) Does the site have children’s play facilities? j) How was the site managed at the time of WI study? i) By local community ii) By authority for the community iii) Privately managed k) Relationship to concepts of waste of a manor, comprising tests of: i) Is the land unenclosed?3 ii) Is the land unoccupied?4 iii) Is the land uncultivated?5 3 Unenclosed land means no ‘barrier to entrance’ effectively surrounding the site.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mayor's Biodiversity Strategy
    Connecting with London’s nature The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy July 2002 copyright Greater London Authority July 2002 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN 1 85261 385 8 Cover photograph credit PA Photos This publication is printed on Evolution Satin The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy Mayor of London iii contents foreword vi 1 introduction 1 2 London’s biodiversity: the context 7 London’s wildlife habitats 7 Woodland 8 Grassland 9 The River Thames and its tributaries 10 The canals 11 Ponds and lakes 11 Heathland 12 Farmland 12 Parks and squares 13 Cemeteries and churchyards 13 Gardens and allotments 14 Community gardens, city farms and ecology centres 14 Railway land, linesides and roadsides 14 Wasteland 15 The built environment 15 Protected sites 16 London’s rare species 19 The existing programme of work for biodiversity 20 The Mayor’s vision for London 22 Objectives for biodiversity 23 References 24 3 linkages with other strategies and crosscutting themes 27 Health 27 Sustainable development 28 Equality of opportunities 29 Access to natural green space 30 Threats to perceived safety and physical barriers to access 31 Paid and voluntary employment 31 Consultation 31 Black and ethnic minority people 31 Faith groups 32 Disabled people 32 Older people 32 Young people and children 32 State of the environment 32 The London Plan 33 Transport 33 iv Mayor of London The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy Economic development 34 Waste management
    [Show full text]
  • Market Research Report Stages 1 and 2 Town and Village Greens Project
    Town and Village Greens Project Market Research Report Stages 1 and 2 Prepared for: John Powell Defra Sustainable Land Use Division 5B/E Ergon House Horseferry Road London SW1P 2AL Prepared by: Diane Simpson ADAS UK Ltd Woodthorne Wergs Road Wolverhampton WV6 8TQ Date: April 2006 Copyright The proposed approach and methodology is protected by copyright and no part of this document may be copied or disclosed to any third party, either before or after the contract is awarded, without the written consent of ADAS. 0936648 Town and Village Greens Report Executive Summary 1. Introduction In April 2005 ADAS were commissioned by Defra to undertake a research survey of Town and Village Greens within England and Wales. The three main objectives were to: • Review and update existing data on greens • Identify and analyse conflicts of interest occurring in relation to the registration of new greens • Analyse the problems arising over the use and management of greens including vehicular access and parking 2. Method The survey was conducted in two stages. Stage one addressed the first of the project objectives and comprised three elements. Firstly a review of literature on greens and summary of the issues raised; secondly an analysis of the Defra database of greens registered pre 1993 and thirdly an email survey amongst Commons Registration Authorities to provide an update on the number of greens applied for and registered since 1993. Stage 2 involved a series of in depth face to face and telephone interviews. Commons Registration Officers and Council solicitors were consulted to provide an understanding of registration issues, whilst Parish Councillors were interviewed to explore the issues associated with the management of greens.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Hackney
    Archaeological Priority Areas Appraisal Priority Areas Archaeological London Borough of Hackney Archaeological Priority Areas Appraisal June 2017 Client: London Borough of Hackney Issue No: 2 NGR: Cl¡e nt Name: H isto ric Englan d Client Ref No:. Document Title: Lon d on Borough of Hackney Document Type: Archaeological Priority Area App râisa I Report N o.: Grid Reference: P la n n ing Reference: Site Code: lnvoice Code: HACAPACO Receiving Body: Accession No.: OA Document File Location: X:\l\London Hackney APA Review\For Rev¡ew 12-06-2017 OA Graphics File Location: X:\l\London Hackney APA Review\For Review 12-06-2017 lssue No: 2 Date: 15 June 2017 Prepa red by: Ch a rlotte Malone Checked by: lanto Wain Edited by: Edward Biddulph Approved for issue by: lâ nto Wa¡n Sìgn atu re: Disclaimet: Th¡s document has been prepared foî the titled prcject û nañed pdrt thereof ond should not be relied upon or used for ony other project w¡thoutøn inde pendent check being coried out os to its su¡tdb¡ ty ond prìor written duthot¡ly ofOxÍord Archoeology be¡ngobtoined. Oxfotd Archoeology ãcceÞts no responsib¡lity or l¡ab¡l¡tyfot the consequences oÍthis docuntenl be¡ng usedfor o purpose otherthdn the purposesÍor which ¡l was con)nissioned. Any person/pøtty us¡ng or rely¡ng on the docuûlentfor such othet putposes dgrees ond w lby such use or rcl¡once betøken toconÍìrmthe¡t agreenent to ind emn¡[y OxJord Atchoeology for o]lloss oî doñoge rcsultins thereÍrom. OxÍord Archdeology ûccepts no rcspons¡b¡lity ot fiab¡l¡ly for this tlocume l to any porty other thõn the pt:rson/patty by whom ¡l wos conlm¡ssioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Determined Town and Village Green Applications
    STUDY OF DETERMINED TOWN AND VILLAGE GREEN APPLICATIONS (Defra Project Code NR0139) FINAL REPORT TO COMMON LAND TEAM, DEFRA by the Countryside & Community Research Institute and Asken Ltd Christopher Short, Stephen Owen, Carol Kambites, Ken Taylor, Owain Jones and Nick Lewis October 2009 Study of Determined Town and Village Green Applications CCRI & Asken Ltd Author Biographies Christopher Short is Senior Research Fellow within the CCRI and has over 20 years‟ experience of rural research and over 10 years on issues concerning common land and town and village greens. Chris was part of the consortium involved in evaluating the impact of the proposals for reform that ultimately became the Commons Act 2006, as technical project manager of a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) completed for Defra. He is also the convenor of the National Seminar on Common Land and Village Greens, 1999 to 2009 which has attracted well over 1000 delegates during this period. Chris was project manager for this research and was involved at every stage, including the analysis and report writing. Stephen Owen is Professor of Local Planning in the CCRI. He is a chartered town planner with over 35 years‟ experience of practising, researching and teaching settlement planning and community development in rural areas. The focus of his policy-oriented research over the past ten years has been the role of community- based initiatives in planning for sustainable development in the countryside and the linkages through to strategic planning. Steve led the planning outputs in the research. Dr Carol Kambites has worked in CCRI since 2004. Carol‟s research interests are mainly in sustainability, communities and social capital, planning, local governance and the ways in which people relate to the places where they live.
    [Show full text]
  • 230000 Open Spaces Spring
    AUTUMN 2009 VOLUME 29 No 6 D Registering commons D Our open day in Aldbury D Path change and expediency Opinion . 1 Taking action. 2 Path issues . 5 Our open day . 8 Far and wide . 10 COVER STORY Open forum. 15 Our vice-president Richard Reviews . 16 Mabey points to the route taken by the navvies from Tring Station in 1866, when they felled the illegal fencing erected International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) by Lord Brownlow near this spot 0265-8445 on Berkhamsted Common, Hertfordshire. The walk was part All rights reserved © Open Spaces Society of our open day at Aldbury on 15 August (see page 8). Photo: Kate Ashbrook. were sacrificed to the interests of habitat conservation. Inclosure Commoners are applying to retain a four-and-a-half-mile fence, marching across the Brecon Beacons National goes on Park. It was erected as an emergency measure during the foot-and-mouth The process of parliamentary outbreak in 2001 and was never inclosure which began in the removed. We have urged the Welsh eighteenth century has savaged the Assembly Government to get rid of the common land of England and Wales. fence and instead to put money into Now Barry Sheerman MP (Labour, shepherding, but with no success. Huddersfield) is attempting to right some of those wrongs, with his Nibbled away Common Land and Repeal of Inclosure Commons are nibbled away Acts Bill, the purpose of which is ‘to insidiously. We are opposing plans for reinstate rights of common and to a plant nursery which include making a reopen common land; to repeal the driveway over Furze Common at Inclosure Acts; and for connected Barsham in Suffolk.
    [Show full text]