Administrator: Fiona Southern Tel: 017684 84849
Address: Mark’s House, Stewart Hill, Hesket Newmarket,
Wigton, Cumbria CA7 8HX
Email: fiona@cumbriacommoners.org.uk
Website: www.cumbriacommoners.org.uk
Ms Hannah McMinn
Common Land (Registration) Branch
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
3/C Nobel house
17 Smith Square
LONDON SW1P 3JR 20th September 2007
Dear Hannah
Consultation on the Updating the Commons Registers
Thank you for giving the Federation of Cumbria Commoners the opportunity to comment on the consultation document on the updating of commons registers. The Federation was established in 2003 with funding from Defra in response to increasing concern that the importance and complexity of commons was not well understood by policymakers. It represents nearly 600 members and is now financed entirely by subscription. The Federation is managed by a committee of volunteer commoners from across the county and has links with commons’ groups in Lancashire, Yorkshire and elsewhere in the UK.
The Federation welcomes the opportunities presented by Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 and appreciates the extent and openness of the consultation undertaken by Defra prior to the circulation of the consultation document.
Proposal 1: implementation. The Federation is disappointed that Cumbria, or part thereof, has not been chosen as a pilot area. We recognize the need to phase in implementation although it is regrettable that this will mean that updating of the county register will not occur until March 2012 at the earliest. We believe that the transitional phase will require a minimum of 2 years in Cumbria due to the extent of common land in the county and the complexity of many of the registers.
Proposal 2: form of rights section of the register. We support the proposed changes to the rights section of the register subject to comments on proposals 3 to 6 below.
Declaration of entitlement to rights
Proposal 3: the Federation believes that it is essential for proposal 3 to be enacted. Ideally this would be on a mandatory rather than a voluntary basis. It would be preferable for applicants to have to state which part of the dominant tenement their rights are attached to in column 5 rather than simply referring to the entire dominant tenement in the 1965 register. We suggest that the registration officer should be required to record on the individual entry which earlier entry number the declaration relates to as this will go some way to creating a useable and useful register of rights for commoners.
We absolutely agree that there is a need for a combination of incentives and disincentives to encourage declarations. In addition a high level of targeted publicity will be required. It would be beneficial if you were able to say that Natural England and Defra would contact all individuals with declarations of entitlement when considering an application for grant on common land.
Proposal 4: we question the need to require all land to be registered with the Land Registry before a declaration will be processed. The Bampton pilot taught us that a high proportion of dominant tenements are not registered. The cost of registration at approximately £600 (excluding legal fees) will prove prohibitive to many and will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the declaration of entitlement section. Would an alternative be a statutory declaration from a solicitor stating that the applicant has title?
Proposal 5: the Federation is happy with the suggestion that the applicant should calculate his or her own number of rights and suggests that they should also be asked to list the individual field numbers of the dominant tenement to which they relate (assuming it is not all) together with the area and that this should be listed in column 5.
Proposal 6: we accept the need for a small fee to be charged for the work involved in recording the declaration on the register but given that the applicant will calculate the number of rights believe that a fee of £15 would reflect the work involved for the registration officer.
Existing Regulations.
Proposal 10: inspection of registers. The Federation accepts that it is reasonable for registration offices to make a charge for the provision of copies but would oppose the imposition of any fee under s2 (3) for the right of the individual to inspect and make their own copies of the register.
Applications to Amend the Register under sections 6 to 9.
Proposal 11: support.
Proposal 12: we support the need for a widespread opportunity to comment on proposed amendments to the register. In addition owners of rights in gross should be notified.
Proposal 15: charges for amendments. The Federation believes that the guide costs of £100 to £300 for amending the register, including registering the transfer of rights in gross and reallocation of rights, is too high given the amount of work required of the registration officer.
Proposal 16: We believe that it is acceptable to consult Natural England in the absence of a government agency dedicated to agriculture; however, we do not believe that Natural England’s views should be binding in any way and in addition the views of the Commons Council or voluntary association for the common should be sought. The views of the commoners on the ability of the common to sustain additional or varied rights are valid and based on decades of collective and relevant experience. These views should be given equal weight to those of Natural England. Also refer to notes on proposal 12 regarding individuals to be notified.
Proposal 17: apportionment. The Federation continues to believe that the registration of all apportionment is essential if the registers are to be useful documents of relevance to the commoning community.
Proposals 18, 19, 20 and 21: again owners of rights in gross over the land should also be notified.
Severance.
Proposal 25: Natural England should be required to provide information to the Commons Council and others as to its intentions regarding the severed rights i.e. will they be leased, exercised in hand or allowed to lie dormant. This will enable the consulted parties to give better consideration to the proposal.
Proposal 27: Natural England should also be required to provide proof of the Commons Council’s consent when applying for registration of transfer of severed rights. It is suggested that the landowner’s consent should have been obtained prior to making the application and it seems appropriate, given section 1(4) of Schedule 1 that Common’s Council consent should also have been obtained in advance.
Proposal 28: temporary severance by letting or leasing. The Federation supports this proposal and believes that most of the commons in upland Cumbria fall into the category of requiring a longer letting term of ten years. This requirement reflects the nature of upland agriculture and the long term commitment required to establish a heafed flock of acclimatized, even aged sheep on exposed, unenclosed hillsides at high altitude. Anything less than ten years would be of limited use. The majority of tenanted hill farms in Cumbria are let on leases of ten years or more for this reason.
Proposal 30: severance by order. The Federation is concerned by the statement that Defra will not normally make an order permitting the severance of rights in relation to a particular common and that for it do so it will be necessary to show that the rights were granted for a fixed number of beasts. We understood this clause to have been included in the Act because of concerns about the unpredictability of the future of agriculture and the risk that an increasing number of rights could fall into the ownership of individuals with no interest in the agricultural management of the fell and with no inclination to let these rights. In such circumstances the number of actively used rights on a common could be reduced below the critical mass required in order for a common and its hefts to function and an application for local severance may be the only way of ensuring future management of the common.
Proposal 33: local authorities should also notify the owners of rights in gross over the land in question. It would be beneficial to place notices on site as is required when applying for consent to carry out works on commons; this should reach most people with an economic or amenity interest in the common. Local advertising is effective and relatively cheap in Cumbria and the Federation would support the requirement to place notices in the appropriate local newspaper. An additional possibility would be to send notices to parish councils requesting that they display them on parish notice boards.
Proposal 34: the Federation supports the proposals regarding awards of costs for unreasonable behavior.
Proposal 37: local authorities should also notify owners of rights in gross over the land in question.
Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require clarification on any of the above points.
Yours sincerely
Fiona Southern
Fiona Southern
Administrator