COMMON LAND AT CLIVEDEN AND WHAT IT MEANS
Bordering the road by Cliveden is a strip of land which technically seems to belong to the Parish as common land. This may be a new battleground in the on-going development argument with the National Trust.
Despite its dismissal from the decision equation at the Canadian Red Cross Memorial Hospital Appeal, the issue of common land remains one of the most tantalising aspects in the fight against the attempt to plant an urban housing estate at Cliveden.
A strip of registered common land runs unbroken along the east side of the application site. This is one of the last remnants of Great Taplow Common, most of which was lost to the big estates during the Enclosures movement. At the last public inquiry into its ownership, in 1982, no one came forward to claim it and it was registered as being of ‘no known owner’, thus leaving Taplow Parish Council responsible for it under Section 9 of the 1965 Commons Registration Act. This means the Council can act as if they are owners and defend the land against encroachment and trespass.
Does it matter?
Although the appellants’ lawyer tried to argue it doesn’t really matter who owns the land, this is far from the case. He who owns the land controls the access. Unless there has been relevant use on which to claim an easement, then there can be no access by car across common land without the owner’s permission, and under a Section 9 stewardship no one appears able to grant this right. The Open Spaces Society has said every resident who crossed the common land by car would be committing a crime of trespass, so - off to the Magistrates’ Court!
Access is not the only issue. The National Trust also needs land for visibility splays. A recent High Court judgement has asserted that it is unreasonable to expect an adjoining owner to provide land for visibility splays and turned down an application on the grounds that the developer did not own the necessary land. The visibility splays argument applies not only to the main access to the proposed development but also to the proposed emergency exit at Woodgate Lodge where, although the common land strip is broken for the existing access, the visibility splays would encroach! The proposed development would also include road improvements that would involve cutting into the common land embankments. This is another activity that would need permission from the owner.
How important is it to the National Trust?
The National Trust themselves do seem to think ownership of the land is important. They have recently gone to the trouble of re-registering the Hospital Site at the Land Registry, using a map that showed the land that Lord Astor donated to the National Trust. This included some of the common land that was not his to donate. The Parish Council have challenged this registration and the matter will be going to mediation if the National Trust refuses to withdraw their claim.
The Trust have also claimed there was an access shown on a 1925 OS Map, so they cannot be stopped from crossing the common land. However, they do not mention that the access was to the Tennis Court and therefore may not be relevant.
There is not only the Canadian Red Cross Memorial Hospital Site to consider. The main gates to Cliveden are also built on common land and maps suggest that the road between the main gates and Green Drive is a public road, another little purloining by the Astor family!
What now?
If the Parish Council can prove the common land should stay as 'of no known ownership', then out could go the visibility splays, the road improvements and possibly the access to all the developments proposed at Cliveden. With no access, no visibility splays and no road improvements, there can be no development! Expert legal opinion is now needed.
“ Is there a lawyer in the house?”
