Rights of common and public rights of access

What is common land?

The term ‘common land’ usually includes all land which is subject to rights of common, ie the rights which one or more ‘commoners’ may have to take the natural produce of that land, in common with each other and with the owner of the land. In most statutes, the term ‘common’ is defined more widely as including any land subject to be inclosed under the Inclosure Acts and any town or village green.

Halsbury’s Laws of England defines a ‘right of common’ as:

‘a right, which one or more persons may have, to take or use some portion of that which another man's soil naturally produces. Such part of that produce as the commoners do not lawfully take belongs to the owner of the soil. The right is in the nature of a profit à prendre, and so must be distinguished from an easement, which, although a right over another man's land, confers no right to participation in the produce of that land.’

Members of the public do not have common law rights to wander at will over commons

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Planning News

High Court gives guidance on the new duty to ‘seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty’ of AONB for planning authorities (CPRE Kent v SSHCLG)

Planning analysis: Section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRWA 2000) came into effect on 26 December 2023 following amendments to that Act made by section 245 of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023). The provision requires relevant authorities to ‘seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty’ of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’) when exercising functions affecting such land. This case concerned a challenge to the November 2024 decision of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘the Secretary of State’) to grant planning permission for the construction of 165 dwellings and associated works in the High Weald AONB. The grounds of challenge were that the Secretary of State had breached the CRWA 2000, s 85(A1) duty (Ground 1) or alternatively, had given inadequate reasons for concluding that the duty had been complied with (Ground 2). The main issue for the High Court was whether the words ‘seek to further’ contained in the amended section 85(A1) duty had altered the substance of the duty so as to require a decision-maker to refuse planning permission for development if it is found that the proposal would cause harm to an AONB by failing to conserve or enhance its natural beauty. In dismissing the claim and upholding the Secretary of State’s decision, the judge provided guidance on the requirements of the CRWA 2000, s 85(A1) duty in the context of planning decisions affecting AONBs. Written by Max Millington, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

View Planning by content type :

Popular documents