1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

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. Clearly, areas of adjacent

housing etc. will have fencing for legitimate purposes, but elsewhere there should be no physical barriers. A good test of whether or not land is enclosed would be to ask “can people wander freely onto and off the land, pretty much wherever they like in a number of directions (subject to the above constraints), or are they channelled to specific entrance points?” Safety barriers around roads and ponds etc. should not negate a site being classified as unenclosed provided that, for the remainder of the site they can wander on and off the land in a number of directions. Dragons’ teeth, bollards, or sagging chains or ropes between posts, which might inhibit vehicular access but enable easy pedestrian access, should not be considered as barriers in this context.

4 By occupied, we mean that someone has exclusive management, is using it for exclusive private purpose, and

has exclusive benefits from it, and that other members of society would normally respect and exclude themselves from such areas. Examples would be allotments, cultivation, or a private sports facility such as a school playing field, sports club, golf club etc. Thus, is the land available for use by all and any members of the community, without any evidence that it is being used exclusively or is reserved for particular clubs or groups? In the latter, clearly we should not exclude children’s play areas – whilst these are reserved for children, they are available to all members of a community. 5 May be obvious in many cases, but the land might have been cultivated in the past (e.g. former agricultural land). A small amount of ornamental planting on a green would be considered acceptable within the definition of being un-cultivated. However parks and gardens (with more extensive planting) would be considered as cultivated, as would allotments. Some forms of land in agricultural use could be un-cultivated – e.g. permanent pasture/meadows that have never been ploughed.

7

3. Methods

3.1 Sample size

3.1.1 The target number of 200 sites for inclusion represents approximately one tenth of the total

number of those included within the WI Survey (n=2086), to be sampled on a proportionate

basis across each county/geographic area. This number was considered adequate to provide

a meaningful analysis of the questions posed by the study.

3.2 Selection of samples

3.2.1 It was fundamental to the study that the chosen sites satisfied one of the two following

criteria:

Either registered as a village green under the 1965 Commons Registration Act.

Or registered as common land under the 1965 Act, but resembles a green, and apparently

eligible for registration as a green.

3.2.2 The existence of appropriate registration numbers on the forms was taken as evidence of

either of the above applying6. In the absence of a registration number, it was generally

assumed the site was one of the ‘supplementary’ forms completed by respondents for non-

registered areas of land thought of and used as greens by local people, and the site was thus

excluded from this study. In a minority of cases of doubt as to registration status, attempts

were made to confirm this by either checking the original RSRU ‘register forms’ or lists made

from these (where this information still exists), or by using the MAGIC website (where the

information on the occurrence of registered greens and commons has been based on the

RSRU data).

3.2.3 In principle, any site recorded in the WI Survey, and either registered as a green, or eligible

to be registered as a green but actually registered as a common, was eligible for inclusion.

To have included only those sites registered as village greens, would certainly have excluded

greens registered in error as common land instead.

3.2.4 However, the process by which the RSRU decided to send out forms for certain commons

that might actually be village greens, has resulted in some sites correctly registered as

commons being included in the WI Survey. The precise criteria that were adopted by the

RSRU are not known, although the principal one seems to have been to include any

registered common with the word ‘green’ in its name. Other examples appear to be

miscellaneous small ‘greens’, but not so-named, perhaps selected on the basis of their small

6 It was generally possible to tell from the style of handwriting, those survey forms where section 1 – Register Information, had been completed by RSRU staff, based on their collated information on registered greens. In addition, the very great majority of survey forms from registered sites had with them, an extract of the relevant portion of the RSRU 1:50,000 maps, with the various greens and commons (and their separate categories of registration numbers) highlighted upon them, which provided further confidence in this approach.

8

size. Such sites were excluded from the sample where was no a priori evidence that the land

was used and thought of as a green, and could have been registered as a green.

3.2.5 In selecting sites for inclusion in the study, it was also important to avoid any form of bias in

favour of those with particular characteristics. Beyond being grouped geographically7, as far

as discernible, the forms appeared to be randomly ordered. Given this, sampling within each

geographical unit commenced with the first record in the ‘pile’, with every subsequent tenth

record after that being selected. Where it was found for any reason that a particular record

was unsuitable (e.g. the site could not be confidently identified on the ground, or the record

was incomplete or incomprehensible), the next suitable record was adopted instead.

Subsequently, the next tenth site was then examined for suitability, and so on.

3.3 Data recording

3.3.1 All information has been recorded in MS Excel Workbook/Spreadsheet format. In addition to

the information outlined above, the following ‘base data’ were recorded for each site:

Name and registration number (village green or common)

Location (County, District, Parish)

Area

Grid reference

Ownership

Registered rights

3.3.2 In order to be able to identify sites across the various worksheets, a unique identifier was

allocated to each, and included as the first entry in each row of the spreadsheet. Essentially

this took the form of a three or four character abbreviation of the county name, and a

sequential number. For ease of cross-referencing and to maintain compatibility with the

original WI Survey, geographical/county units adopted at that time have been retained (in

some cases these now differ from current local government boundaries). This number has

been written in pencil onto the original survey forms so that sites included in this analysis

can easily be identified by anyone who might subsequently need to refer back to them.

3.3.3 Data entries in the spreadsheets have been grouped into their individual

county/geographical areas, to reflect the way the paper records have been stored, and

again, to allow easy cross-referencing between these and the computerised data.

3.3.4 As far as possible, the individual spreadsheets have been laid-out to mirror the structure and

content of the original WI Survey forms. This should allow, without undue complication, the

future addition of additional records from the WI Survey, should it later be decided to do so.

7 For many counties it was found that unregistered greens and commons had been grouped to lie at the ‘top of the pile’, before the registered greens themselves. However, beyond that, for the most part, they did not appear to be in any particular order (although there were occasional ‘clusters’ of sites that were from the same immediate geographical locality).

9

3.3.5 A test sample indicated that Q1-3 and Q7-10 of the records would provide the most relevant

information. The remaining questions on the WI Survey forms are generally of little

relevance to the current analysis, but information has been captured as far as possible.

However, there was insufficient time to scan any documents or photographs that were

appended to the paper records, though their content has of course helped to inform the

present study.

3.3.6 Two additional worksheets have been added to allow the remaining questions (as outlined

in section 2) to be answered. Broadly speaking, one of these aims to address issues of

‘character’, whilst a second examines ‘time depth’ characteristics. To allow a quantitative

assessment of the results, as far as possible, responses have been entered in a numeric

format (i.e. a figure ‘1’ to indicate an affirmative answer to a particular question). This was

to enable rapid enumeration of the number of positive responses to each (using the Auto

Sum facility of Excel). This means, therefore, that separate columns have been included as

appropriate for ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answers (with a ‘1’ being entered in the appropriate column).

10

4. Results

4.1 Number of sites sampled

4.1.1 In total, the final number of sites included in this study was 210, representing approximately

10.1% of available records from the WI Survey8. They were allocated between different

counties/geographical areas, as outlined in Appendix 3.

4.2 Reasons for not selecting sites

4.2.1 A total of 258 sites (around 12.4% of the overall total) were rejected for one reason or

another. This was perhaps somewhat higher than had been anticipated. The reasons are

summarised in Table 1, are discussed briefly below, and considered in more detail in

Appendix 4.

Table 1: Reasons for exclusion of ‘candidate’ sites

Reason for excluding Number of occurrences9

% of total (rejected sites)

Unsure of location, no map or boundary information 99 38.5%

Site not, or unlikely to be registered 88 34.1%

Incomprehensible form, very little information, or blank form returned

50 19.5%

No Street View image (all or part) 18 7.0%

Common land, not a green 7 2.7%

Other reasons 23 8.9%

4.2.2 It can be seen from Table 1 that the main reasons for exclusion of ‘candidate’ sites were

either because there was uncertainty of some kind as to where the site was located on the

ground, or because the survey form was one of those returned by the WI for non-registered

greens within their parish (which are outside the scope of this study). A significant number

of forms were also rejected because they were either too difficult/confusing to read, or

because they contained too little information (or in some cases, had been returned

completely blank).

4.2.3 Only seven sites were rejected because they appeared to be ‘true common land’, rather

than greens. As outlined in Section 3, to reduce the potential for making pre-judgements as

to the character of village greens, the exclusion of sites on this basis was only undertaken

after very careful consideration (the individual cases are discussed more fully in Appendix 4).

8 The number of sites with records available from the WI Survey has been assessed on the basis of a manual count. Due to the likelihood of small errors in the counting process, the actual number might be slightly different from that quoted in Appendix 3 – and consequently, the percentage figure quoted here, might also be slightly different from the true picture. The situation is further complicated by the fact that a small but significant proportion of records from the WI Survey are in fact from non-registered greens (and commons). 9 A minority of sites were discounted for multiple reasons and so the total of sums listed in this column will be add up to more than the actual number of sites excluded.

11

4.3 The results

4.3.1 Results from the study itself will now be considered, where appropriate, under the question

headings adopted by the WI Survey.

4.3.2 Question 1 – Register Information

4.3.2.1 Greens versus commons

4.3.2.1.1 The allocation of sampled sites between the various counties/geographical units is

outlined within Appendix 3.

4.3.2.1.2 Of the total 210 sites included in this assessment, 167 (79.5%) had been registered

as greens and 43 (20.5%) – around a fifth, as commons10. Of these commons, 34 had

the word ‘green’ as part of their name, whilst the remaining nine did not (though

they were still considered to be greens).

4.3.2.2 Area statistics

4.3.2.2.1 Using this sample, the mean area of a site was found to be 0.89ha (based on quoted,

rather than corrected areas11). Most sites are very small, usually significantly less

than one hectare. A few larger sites do exist, with the largest from this sample being

Chigwell Row Recreation Ground in Essex (study code ESS006), having an area of

16.97 ha (as quoted) or approximately 20.0ha (as checked using MAGIC). The next

largest after this was Wingfield Green in Suffolk (study code SUFF007), having a

quoted area of 14.9ha. A total of 46 sites (21.9%) had an area of 1.0ha or greater

(around a fifth).

4.3.2.3 Ownership

4.3.2.3.1 Recorded ownership across the sampled sites is outlined in Table 2. It can be seen

that the highest proportion (62.9%) were owned by Parish/Community councils12. In

the majority of cases where ‘Other’ was specified (22.9% of sites), no details were

provided as to what this was. However, in a small proportion, the owner was said to

be Town/District or Borough Councils, so these have been enumerated separately in

this analysis. Private owners accounted for 10.5% of records, and in the vast

majority, the actual owner was not specified. It is interesting that National Trust

was listed as its own category, suggesting those planning the survey expected many 10 One of the sites excluded from the study, which due to the way the form had been filled-in (primarily because there was no registration number quoted), and thought initially to be an unregistered site, was subsequently found to actually be a registered common, namely CL107, Lyewood Common, in East Sussex. 11 Only in a minority of cases were areas corrected. That is not to say that other significant discrepancies may exist. For the most part, definitive and accurate boundary maps for sites were not available (the RSRU 1:50,000 maps, where available, being inadequate for this purpose), making confirmation of areas impossible. 12 The term Parish/Community council was used as a single, ‘grouped’ category on the WI Survey form, although at that time, Community councils only occurred in Wales. However, there are now also some Community councils in England.

12

to be owned by this body, whereas the sample found only a single green purportedly

under its ownership.

Table 2: Recorded ownership of sampled sites

Category of ownership Number of sites % of total

Parish/Community Council 132 62.9%

Other 48 22.9%

Private 22 10.5%

Town/District/Borough Council 5 2.4%

Owner not stated 2 1.0%

National Trust 1 0.5%

TOTAL 210

4.3.2.4 Registered Common Rights

4.3.2.4.1 The breakdown of registered rights recorded amongst the sampled sites is shown in

Table 3. It can be seen that only a very small proportion (7.1%) had any rights listed.

In the majority of cases this was for grazing of various types, with only four sampled

sites (1.9%) having ‘other’ rights. No further detail was provided on the WI Survey

forms as to what these ‘other’ rights actually were.

4.3.2.4.2 The issue of whether any of these grazing rights are currently being exercised is

addressed under Question 8, below.

Table 3: Common Rights recorded on sampled sites

Type of right Number of sampled sites13 % of total

Total sampled sites with rights 15 7.1%

Horses/ponies 8 3.8%

Sheep 7 3.3%

Cattle 10 4.8%

Other livestock 10 4.8%

Livestock (unspecified) 1 0.5%

Other rights 4 1.9%

4.3.3 Question 2 – How frequently do the following activities take place on the green?

4.3.3.1 Activities recorded on the sampled sites are summarised in Table 4. It can be seen that the

most frequent activity was informal recreation, which occurred in one form or another on a

total of 148 sampled sites (70.5%). Closely behind this was ‘exercising the dog’, being noted

on a total of 140 sampled sites (66%). Childrens’ games of various forms were also popular,

recorded as occurring on a total of 122 sampled sites (58.0%).

13 Note that in this column, the sum of the individual rights listed, adds up to more than the overall total of greens where rights were recorded, because some greens had more than one type of right recorded.

13

Table 4: Activities recorded on sampled sites

Type of activity Takes place regularly Takes place occasionally

Number of sites % of sites Number of sites % of sites

Informal recreation 106 50.5% 42 20.0%

Dog walking 99 47.1% 41 19.5%

Picnics 19 9.0% 92 43.8%

Childrens Games 43 20.5% 79 37.6%

Fishing/pond dipping 4 1.9% 8 3.8%

Cricket 17 8.1% 23 10.9%

Football 17 8.1% 31 14.8%

Other sports 10 4.8% 11 5.2%

Fairs/village events 36 17.1% 55 26.2%

Other activities 23 11.0% 40 19.0%

4.3.3.2 Sporting activities were also commonly recorded, though not nearly as frequently as other

‘recreational’ activities. Of these, football was the most popular, noted on 48 sampled sites

(22.9%), and closely followed by cricket – on 40 (19.0%). Other types of sports were

recorded from a total of 21 sites (10.0%). The category revealed a wide variety of activities,

with rounders and ‘school sports activities’ being the most frequent, both noted on five

sampled sites, closely followed by tennis, on four. Equestrian activities were recorded from

three sampled sites, whilst fun-runs were associated with two. A wide variety of other

‘sports’ were noted from single sites, including croquet, ‘stoolball’, bowls, skittles, childrens’

cycling, village sports day, childrens ‘races, ‘spontaneous games of ball’ and golf practice.

Some activities recorded under this category (again as single occurrences) are not, perhaps,

what one would actually view as sports – including ‘Model aeroplanes’, ‘Young Farmers’,

release of homing pigeons and ‘cyclist meet’. In fact, there was a degree of overlap between

what was considered to be ‘other sports’ and ‘other activities’, these being presented as two

separate categories on the form, and an attempt has been made to take these factors into

account when preparing this discussion.

4.3.3.3 A total of 26 sampled sites (12.4%) had no form of recreation activity recorded at all (in the

majority of cases, the ‘never’ option had been ticked, but also included here are those few

sites for which this section was left blank).

4.3.3.4 During the assessment of aerial imagery, netball/volleyball-type courts were also noted to

be present on two sites.

4.3.3.4 In addition to a degree of confusion between ‘other sports’ and ‘other activities’, the two

categories of ‘Fairs/village events’ and ‘other activities’, also generated an overlap of

responses to some extent. ‘Fairs/village events’ were noted as a category on a total of 91

sampled sites (43.3%), whilst ‘other activities’ were recorded as occurring on 63 (30.0%). The

precise nature of such activities was in many cases not recorded. Where this information

was available, the most commonly encountered events have been summarised in Table 5

(overleaf).

14

Table 5: Commonly recorded events and activities on sampled sites

Type of activity Number of sites % of total

Annual village/church/school fete/fair/feast/market etc. 20 9.5%

Remembrance day (or other) outdoor services 13 6.2%

Morris/maypole/other dancing 11 5.2%

November 5th Bonfire/fireworks 8 3.8%

Parades (e.g. May Day, Easter, St Georges Day) 7 3.3%

Stalls/sales 6 2.9%

Christmas carols 5 2.4%

Christmas tree 4 1.9%

Parade/procession 4 1.9%

Barbecue 4 1.9%

Hunt 4 1.9%

Cubs/Scouts/Brownies 4 1.9%

Car boot sales 3 1.4%

Celebrations (e.g. Silver Jubilee) 3 1.4%

Circus 2 1.0%

Religions speaking and meetings 2 1.0%

4.3.3.5 A wide range of ‘further activities’ were noted on only a single site and include: Kite flying

(as noted by KC on Street View), ‘watering horses’, sketching/painting, Childrens’ Prize

Giving, Christmas pageant, Discos in pavilion, Gents hairdresser in caravan, Tug of war, Horse

and traps, Childrens’ holiday play-scheme, Beacon lighting, Charity events, Army

demonstrations, drying of clothes, Informal childrens’ games, Neighbours meeting, Band

concerts, Duck race, Fun-fair, Beamish historic car rally, Donkey derby, Soap box derby,

School nature rambles and Wedding photography.

4.3.3.6 On a total of 27 sampled sites (12.9%) none of the recreational activities specified on the

form were recorded. In 18 of these examples the respondent had ticked the ‘Never’ option

for each activity listed on the form (and in one case, had entered the comment “Too small”).

In the remaining nine examples, this section of the survey form had been left blank (though

in one case, the comment “Too small” had again been made, and on another of the forms,

the respondent had written “During visits for this survey, I have not seen any activities

taking place”).

4.3.3.7 Of these 27 sampled sites, on twelve of them (44%), a seat was recorded as being present,

so it is clear that some ‘Informal recreation’ took place on these particular sites, even though

not recorded as such.

4.3.3.8 An apparent lack of specified recreational activity does not necessarily imply that such a

purpose was not envisaged at the time of designation. For example, for three of these 27

sites, respondents provided the information that it had been awarded to the village as the

result of 19th century Inclosure awards, though for various reasons, were not recorded as

being used for recreational purposes at the time of the WI Survey.

15

4.3.4 Question 3 – Does the green have any of the following?

4.3.4.1 This question attempted to record a range of physical features present on sampled sites.

When examining Street View images, it proved possible to both verify the continued

presence of such (or not) on sites, to add further examples, and also to record additional

features that had not been considered as part of the WI Survey. An example of the latter are

post boxes, something that seems a rather obvious omission on the original forms. Another

is lamp posts which were not routinely recorded as part of the present study. The results of

the analysis are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Physical features of the sampled sites14

Feature Number of sites % of total

Trees 183 87.1%

Seat(s) 155 73.8%

Litter bin(s) 131 62.4%

Hard surface areas 109 51.9%

Sign post (other) 108 51.4%

Poles & wires 95 45.2%

Bus stop(s) 63 30.0%

Fences 56 26.7%

Phone box 48 22.9%

Notice/interpretation board 38 18.1%

Bus shelter(s) 32 15.2%

War memorial 30 14.3%

Swings etc. 30 14.3%

Stream/river 29 13.8%

Pond 26 12.4%

Junction box 24 11.4%

Grit box 23 11.0%

Post box 22 10.5%

Sports pitch 21 10.0%

Village sign 18 8.6%

Pavilion 14 6.7%

Toilets 13 6.2%

Inspection covers 11 5.2%

14 Deciding whether a particular feature was on the sampled site, or not, was at times found to be somewhat problematic. The main difficulty resulted from a lack of accurate boundary information for the majority of sites. In such cases, a judgement had to be made as to where the precise boundary lay, on the basis of all available information to hand. Thus, for example, for a triangular green with roads on all three sides, the boundary of the green was taken not to extend as far as the other side of the road, and only features physically occurring on the central, grassed area, were recorded as being present on the green. Other examples included greens bounded by hedgerows and the question as to whether the verge outside the hedgerow, in between that and the road, was a part of the green or not. Thus, for example poles and wires, and/or road signs within the structure of the hedge itself, might be included as being on the green, whereas any occurring within the road verge, and including features such as road signs, might be considered to be a part of the road, rather than the green.

16

4.3.4.2 It can be seen that trees were the most frequently recorded physical feature, occurring on

the vast majority of sampled sites. References were made in some cases to trees being

planted for commemorative purposes. However, this does not appear to have been done

consistently, so to provide a figure would risk creating a misleading impression of what is

likely to be the true situation. Note that with respect to trees, a separate and more detailed

assessment of this character was performed on the basis of available imagery (see section

13c), and what has been included here is primarily a reflection of responses entered onto

this section of the form (although a few amendments may have been thought necessary).

4.3.4.3 As one might have anticipated, seats and litter bins were also widely present, as too were

hard surface areas, including metalled roads and pavements, un-surfaced drives to adjoining

areas/properties, and a variety of paved surfaces.

4.3.4.4 It can be inferred also that many sampled sites might present a somewhat cluttered

appearance, as suggested by the frequent occurrence of features such as poles/wires of

various types and sign posts. This latter category was also noted to have a high degree of

variation, ranging from standard modern road signs, to good examples of the traditional

white-painted ‘cast’ variety, and also the wooden ‘right of way’ type. It seemed worthwhile

to distinguish between certain types of ‘sign post’, especially to record the presence of

distinctive and often decorative ‘Village signs’, and also Parish/village notice boards (as

distinct from standard road-type signs).

4.3.4.5 Other notable features that may be important in defining character can include telephone

and post boxes, parish/community/church notice boards, war memorials, childrens’ play

facilities (e.g. swings), watercourses, ponds and sports pitches. There are several instances

where mention has been made of the fact that examples of the traditional, red (K6-type)

telephone boxes have been given listed status. In the present evaluation, the different types

of telephone box were not routinely recorded, though in many cases, a note as to the type

has been made on the spreadsheet.

4.3.4.6 The category of ‘fences’ as recorded on this section of the WI Survey form was found to be

of little relevance to answering the more significant question: “Is the site enclosed?” (see

section 13c), which is essentially a different question.

4.3.4.7 ‘Inspection covers’ was a further additional category that became evident as the work

progressed. Thus there are likely to have been more sampled sites with these present –

especially as they were only noted ‘in passing’ and sites were not comprehensively searched

for their presence. However they are extremely unlikely to be important in defining the

character of village greens, in any case.

4.3.4.8 A wide range of other ‘minor’ features were noted in a fairly ‘ad-hoc’ manner on a few

sampled sites, and have not been included in Table 6. These include plaques/memorials (4),

‘heritage-style’ lamps (3), ditches (2), cattle grid (1), sundial (1), CCTV masts (1 – though

there may have been more), wooden sculpture (1), life belt (1), footbridge (1 – again there

were probably more), road view mirror (1), and bridge/culvert (1 – again more actually

17

present). From memory, planting tubs were also noted on quite a number of occasions

although their actual frequency was not recorded.

4.3.4.9 Several sampled sites had built structures associated with them. These have been noted in

Question 13 - the ‘Character’ section of the spreadsheet. No attempt has been made to

enumerate these here, as in the majority of cases, no formal boundary plan for the site was

available, making it often impossible to be certain whether the land involved was actually

registered, or not.

4.3.4.10 Historic features

4.3.4.10.1 The WI Survey form included a ‘tick box’ for ‘historic features, and in a number of

cases, the box was ticked, but no comment was made as to what this actually was.

Generally though, it was possible to deduce this from information elsewhere on the

survey form, or could be further investigated whilst viewing internet sources. An

evaluation of ‘historic features’ found to be present is provided in Table 7.

Table 7: Historic features of the sampled sites

Feature Number of sites % of total

Historic feature present 53 25.2%

Village pump 15 7.1%

Stone, market or butter cross 8 3.8%

Historic feature: type not stated on survey form 6 2.9%

Mile or boundary stone 5 2.4%

Village lock-up/prison 4 1.9%

Maypole (permanent)15 4 1.9%

Well 4 1.9%

Stocks 3 1.4%

Flag pole 3 1.4%

Drinking fountain 2 1.0%

Millstones (whole or part) 2 1.0%

Mounting block 1 0.5%

Clock tower 1 0.5%

Beacon 1 0.5%

Horse trough 1 0.5%

Roman settlement 1 0.5%

Site of pound 1 0.5%

Replica pound 1 0.5%

Pound/pinfold 1 0.5%

Ancient bridge/sheep wash 1 0.5%

Saxon defences 1 0.5%

Old fire engine house 1 0.5%

Air raid siren 1 0.5%

Old air raid shelter 1 0.5%

15 Note that for one site in Norfolk (VG27, The Village Green, Beachamwell – study code NOR007), the respondent stated “Maypole” in Question 3 (and described it as such on a sketch map), whilst the same feature (apparently) is described on the rear of a photograph in which it appears, as a “Flag pole”.

18

4.3.4.10.2 From Table 7 it can be seen that a total of 53 - roughly one quarter of sampled sites -

had some form historic feature present. Only in six cases was it not possible to

establish what form the historic feature took. It can also be inferred from the figures

above that a number of sites in fact had more than one historic feature present. The

most frequently occurring feature was a village pump, recorded from 15 of the

sampled sites. In two of these cases the feature was associated with a trough, and

on one occasion, the pump was situated within a ‘pump house’. Other feature-types

associated with the provision of water were: wells, noted on four sampled sites and

drinking fountain on two.

4.3.4.10.3 Stone or market/butter crosses occurred on eight of the sampled sites. This was

actually quite a varied category, ranging from ‘simple’ freestanding crosses, to the

elaborate roofed buildings that formed some market/butter crosses. Other

structures, too, were varied and include lock-ups/prison (four cases) and a clock

tower (just the one example).

4.3.4.10.4 Maypoles were only noted on four sampled sites, whereas the expectation might

have been for there to be more. Just to confuse matters, one of these actually took

the form of a stone cross (and has therefore also been included in the figures for

that category as well). In addition, a small number of sites were noted to erect

maypoles as temporary features when the occasion arises. Several sites contained a

reference (or map evidence) of a pound being formerly present, whereas the totals

above report only what was stated on the WI Survey forms. One site was said to

have a replica pound.

4.3.5 Question 4 – Do any of the following apply?

4.3.5.1 Responses to question 4 “Do any following apply?” are summarised in Table 8.

Table 8: Do any of the following apply?

Feature Number of sites % of total

Erosion of surface: vehicles 79 37.6%

Erosion of surface: horses 12 5.7%

Erosion of surface: people 36 17.1%

Private use by adjacent properties 52 24.8%

Parking 76 36.2%

Rubbish dumping 11 5.2%

Litter problem 38 18.1%

Pet fouling 93 44.3%

Heavy passing traffic/congestion 51 24.3%

Boundary disputes 7 3.3%

4.3.5.2 From the figures shown in Table 8, it would appear that the most frequent types of

‘encroachment’ are those to do with motor vehicles (erosion of surface, parking and heavy

passing traffic). Most cases of ‘private use’ also appeared to relate to parking (i.e. motor

19

vehicles again). Following this, fouling by pets appeared to be the most significant problem,

whereas litter and rubbish dumping were found much less frequently. Boundary disputes

seemed to be an uncommon occurrence.

4.3.6 Questions 5 – Problems/conflicts re: content of Question 4.

4.3.6.1 Question 5 contained detailed responses to the issues outlined in Question 4. For the most

part, this information is of little relevance to the issue of defining the character of greens

and has not therefore been reviewed as part of the present study.

4.3.7 Question 6 – have any developments affected the green?

4.3.7.1 Perhaps the most common theme here is the loss of parts of the site due to ‘road widening’

measures, which were referred to on a total of 12 sampled sites (remember here, these are

just cases where it has been reported by the respondent, which does not necessarily reflect

the actual number of sites where this might have occurred). New roads/drives providing

‘access to property’ were noted on eight sites, whilst the actual construction of property on

the site itself was mentioned in four cases. On the other hand, an actual increase in the

available extent of the site, from the demolition of property, was noted on three occasions.

4.3.8 Question 7 – Appearance/Wildlife

4.3.8.1 At least, the most basic of descriptions was provided in the vast majority of cases. Where no

comment at all was made in this section, a very brief summary has been added following the

assessment of on-line sources. In a minority of cases, a very detailed account was provided,

often extending to several additional sheets of notes. Details of the types of additional

documentation (or not) is provided in Table 9.

Table 9 – Maps/plans, other documents and photographs provided

Type of material Number of sites %

Sampled sites with additional material provided 123 58.6%

Sketch map/plan/OS maps 114 54.3%

Additional documents 36 17.1%

Photographs etc. 26 12.4%

No additional material provided 87 41.2%

4.3.8.2 It can be seen that well over half of the sampled sites had at least some form of additional

material provided. This most commonly took the form of plans of some sort. Note that

‘photographs’ includes copies of the originals, together with some postcards, and rarely,

newspaper cuttings. The scanning of these additional materials was outside the scope of this

contract. There is clearly a valuable resource of historical documentation contained within

the WI Survey.

20

4.3.9 Question 8 – Management and maintenance activities

4.3.9.1 Management activities recorded on the sampled sites are outlined in Table 10. From this it

can be seen that 197 sites – i.e. the vast majority, were maintained by the mowing of

grassland. Almost half had litter collection and almost the same number had tree planting.

Table 10 – Management and maintenance activities

Management activity Number of sites % of total

Grazing 12 5.7%

Mowing 197 93.8%

Litter collection 99 47.1%

Tree planting 91 43.3%

Regulation of parking 51 24.3%

4.3.9.2 As might be expected, very few sites (only twelve) were said to be grazed, the relevant

information being summarised in Table 11.

Table 11: Details of sampled sites recorded as grazed by the respondent

Study code Register no.

Name of site Grazing rights

Available comments on form etc. (R) = respondent, (KC) = report author

BED001 CL58 Thorncote Green

Yes R - “House cow and pony occasionally grazed”.

CORN001 CL327 The Green No KC – “Does not look to have been grazed in recent years”.

CUMB003 VG18 Gleaston Green No R - “Periodic grazing by sheep”.

DERB001 CL3 Ashbourne Green

Yes KC – “No evidence of any grazing in Biological Survey of Common Land Report”

DUR001 CL45 Village Green Yes R - “Grazing by local farmer”. KC – “Unlikely to be grazed now (though one of photos shows geese”).

GLOS001 CL22 Churchdown Green

No R - “Very occasionally a local farmer puts cattle out to graze”.

NYORK004 VG104 Greenhow Village Green

Yes R - “Local farmer puts cattle on in attempt to keep grass down”. KC – “First example of a green that actually looks grazed”.

NYORK005 VG22 The Village Green

No R - “Local farmer cattle graze on way to fields”.

NYORK009 VG172 The Rectory Field

No R - “Occasional grazing by cows”. KC – “Permanent grazing pasture”.

OXF003 VG8 Church Green No R - “Occasional pony grazes, but hand-held”.

SUFF001 CL25 Whitestreet Green

No R - “Grazing noted by geese on one small area in 1990”.

SUFF007 CL17 Wingfield Green Yes KC – “Cattle observed grazing on Street View images”.

21

4.3.9.3 From the above it can be seen that only in around four cases, was there strong evidence of a

site being used for grazing on anything like a regular basis (i.e. VG18 “Gleaston Green” in

Cumbria – study code CUMB003, VG104 “Greenhow Village Green” in North Yorkshire –

study code NYORK004, VG172 “The Rectory Field” in North Yorkshire – study code

NYORK009 and CL17 “Wingfield Green” in Suffolk – study code SUFF007). It is also

interesting to note that sites registered as both greens and commons have grazing rights,

and that sites without grazing rights have been listed as having grazing taking place

(including two of the four with ‘active’ grazing, highlighted above).

4.3.10 Question 9 – Management and Maintenance

4.3.10.1 To some extent, there was an overlap in content between this and the previous

question. In many cases, it seems to have been a natural response for the

respondent to state who was managing the green in the ‘details’ for Question 8 –

this being asked directly, in Question 9. From this it emerges that almost all sampled

sites – i.e. 194 (92.4%) were recorded as being managed in one way or another. The

different types of manager involved, are outlined in Table 12.

Table 12: Managers of greens

Type of manager Number of sites % of total

Local Council 132 62.8%

Parish Council 40 19.0%

Local volunteers 31 14.8%

Village Committee 11 5.2%

Other bodies 2 0.95%

4.3.10.2 Local Council was by far the most frequently-noted land manager of sampled sites.

Parish Council was not an option in itself on the WI survey form. However, many

respondents clearly chose to state this, so has been recorded as distinct from local

council. ‘Local volunteers’ includes the actions of residents mowing parts of the site

adjacent to their properties. Where appropriate, responses were amended to reflect

current practices as observed on Street View images, and in cases of apparent self-

contradiction by respondents. Several sites had more than one category of manager.

4.3.11 Question 10 – History and Local Customs

4.3.11.1 A total of 131 WI Survey records (62.4% of the sample) provided information in this

section, all very useful background information, helpful in many cases to assessing

the character and historical perspective of the sampled sites. A proportion took the

form of additional documents attached to the survey forms (see Table 9).

4.3.12 Question 11 - Respondent’s views and opinions on the use and management of the site

4.3.12.1 Comments in this section were provided for a total of 59 sampled sites (28.1% of the

sample). The general feeling seemed to be along the lines of “We would like the

green to stay exactly as it is”.

22

4.3.13 Question 12 - Other areas in the locality considered to be ‘greens’, but not identified on

the maps provided?

4.3.13.1 This particular question was not considered as relevant to this assessment and will

not be discussed any further here. Indeed, from memory, there were few, if any

responses to this question. However, it was indeed the case that a good number of

WI Survey forms were completed for unregistered ‘greens’ (as discussed earlier in

section 4.2).

4.3.14 Question 13 - Character Assessment

4.3.14.1 To make the analysis of this section more manageable, the various characteristics

being considered have been broken into a number of sub-categories. Remember

that this and subsequent parts of the assessment were made primarily on the basis

of on-line resources, as opposed to the WI Survey forms.

4.3.15 13a: Structures on or adjoining the site

4.3.15.1 The presence of three broad types of structure on or adjoining the sampled sites

was noted (namely: Public house or hotel, church or its grounds and other non-

residential properties – e.g. farm, school, village hall). It can be seen from Table 13

that a total of 134 sites (63.8%) had at least one of these present, with public houses

being the most frequently observed structure. In the vast majority of cases, these

were adjoining the site and buildings actually on the sites themselves were fairly

infrequent, although they can occur. Also note that, in the absence of ‘definitive’

maps of most sampled sites, it was not possible to be completely certain, when a

building appeared as though it might be situated on a site, whether the land upon

which it stood, was actually part of the area registered, or not. There were certainly

cases of sports pavilions, scout huts, village halls and at least one example of an old

chapel that were almost certainly situated on the registered land.

Table 13: Structures on or adjoining sampled sites

Adjoining structures Number of sites % of total

Adjoining structure: Pub/hotel 63 30.0%

Adjoining structure: Church (or grounds) 49 23.3%

Adjoining structure: Other non-residential 75 35.7%

Greens with at least one of above present 134 63.8%

None of above present 76 36.2%

Adjoining structure: Private residences 202 96.2%

Residences arranged around site 133 63.3%

Residences not arranged around site 86 41.0%

4.3.15.2 The presence of domestic residences adjoining the sampled site was also noted, as

was their apparent ‘relationship’ to it. The latter was an attempt to answer the

question: “Are the adjoining houses arranged around and focussed upon the

green?” It was found to be rather be rare for an individual site to have no domestic

23

properties associated with it at all - i.e. 96.2% of sampled sites did have properties

adjacent.

4.3.15.3 The question of whether properties are “arranged around and focussed upon the

green” was a little more difficult to answer. Yes, there were clear and unambiguous

examples of both patterns, but in a significant number of cases it was much more

difficult to make a firm decision. Indeed, on no fewer than 18 occasions, it was

thought that both circumstances applied. Nonetheless, it can be seen that a greater

proportion of sampled sites had houses ‘arranged around’ them (n = 133), than

those that did not (n = 86).

4.3.16 13b: Location and shape of sampled sites

4.3.16.1 It can be seen from Table 14 that a total of 151 sampled sites (i.e. 71.9%) were

noted as being located at road junctions. There were occasional slight difficulties

with deciding upon this character, and there were a few occasions where a road of

lesser importance, such as a ‘side-road’ into an area of adjacent housing, was

ignored in this context.

Table 14: Location and shape characteristics of sampled sites

Location/shape Number of sites % of total

At road junction: Yes 151 71.9%

At road junction: No 59 28.1%

Shape: Triangular (or broadly so) 106 50.5%

Shape: Rectangular (or broadly so) 26 12.4%

Shape: Square (or broadly so) 14 6.7%

Shape: Linear 13 6.2%

Shape: Irregular 22 10.5%

Shape: Other (including ‘various’) 28 13.3%

Location: Central 95 45.2%

Location: Peripheral 37 17.6%

Location: Neither central, nor peripheral 78 37.1%

4.3.16.2 The shape of sampled sites was again, at times, a rather difficult character to assess,

further complicated in situations where there was more than one component part of

the site. In the latter case, where appropriate, the shape of both portions has been

included in the figures shown in Table 14. In the majority of cases though, it was

relatively straightforward to estimate the shape, and it can be seen from Table 14

that fully 50 per cent of the sampled sites were triangular (or approximately so) in

outline. Indeed in many cases, the shape was unambiguously a triangle and very

often too, such greens were effectively small, triangular ‘road islands’, with roads on

all three sides. The remaining half of sampled sites had quite a mixture of shapes, as

can be inferred from Table 14.

4.3.16.3 The feature of greens commonly having roads next to them is one that was not

specifically assessed, though it was indeed generally found that a sampled site

24

would have at least one road adjoining (or crossing it) – one of the reasons why

Street View images proved to be such a useful tool in assessing their character.

4.3.16.4 Deciding whether a site was either central, or peripheral within the settlement, was

often problematic, as quite frequently, neither circumstance was found to be the

case. Thus it can be seen that in a total of 78 cases (37.1%), the sampled site was

said to be ‘neither central, nor peripheral’. In the majority of cases, this was because

the site was within a settlement, but neither central, nor peripheral to it. However,

there were also a few examples of sites not forming part of any settlement at all,

which still of course satisfied this criterion.

4.3.17 13c: Vegetation and land use characteristics

4.3.17.1 It can be seen from Table 15 that the vast majority of sampled sites (c. 93%) are

grassland-dominated, whilst very few indeed (only nine sites – 4.3%) were of

predominantly different habitat. The most frequent, alternative type was

scrub/woodland (six sites). In the other three cases, a pond was the dominant

feature of the site. There were also two cases where hard surface areas were noted

to occupy a significant proportion of the site. In fact, one of these, namely VG42

“The Square”, in Grassington, North Yorkshire (study code NYORK006), was entirely

hard-surface. This central, former market place in the Yorkshire Dales village has

been cobbled over and used as a car park, with a smaller paved area used for

seating.

Table 15: Vegetation and land use characteristics of sampled sites

Vegetation and land use Number of sites % of total

Predominantly grassland site 195 92.9%

Scattered mature trees present 182 86.7%

Predominantly other vegetation etc. types 9 4.3%

Land cultivated: Yes 1 0.5%

Land cultivated: No 209 99.5%

Land enclosed: Yes 34 16.2%

Land unenclosed: Yes 177 84.2%

4.3.17.2 Most sampled sites (c. 86%), also had mature trees present – and indeed, it was

fairly unusual for grass-dominated greens not to have trees present. In practice, the

term ‘mature trees’ proved a little difficult to adhere to strictly, and some sites will

have had the category recorded, where the trees were less than ‘fully-mature’, but

formed a conspicuous feature nonetheless.

4.3.17.3 One striking feature here is that all but one of the sampled sites appeared to be un-

cultivated. This exception relates to VG7, The Old Recreation Ground, Cottenham

Parish, Cambridgeshire (study code CAMB003). This site, owned by the Parish

Council, and a little way outside the village, is said to have been used for

recreational purposes until 1938 when new playing fields were opened. The land

25

was then rented to a local farmer, who used it for growing crops, and at present

looks like a field used for grass silage. This is not to say that other greens may not

also have been cultivated in times past, just that no documentary evidence of such

was uncovered.

4.3.17.4 Many sampled sites were noted to have a small amount of ornamental planting and

this was considered to be acceptable within the definition of being un-cultivated.

Note also that some land in agricultural use could still be un-cultivated – e.g.

permanent pasture/meadows.

4.3.17.5 The majority of sampled sites were found to be unenclosed (i.e. 84.2%). This

criterion recognised the fact that private land and property adjoining the site might

well be legitimately fenced (as outlined more fully in section 2). Here the assessment

was looking specifically at whether publicly accessible land – mainly roads, alongside

sites, possessed any ‘barriers to access’. The majority of sites found to be enclosed

tended to be of a distinctive character, namely, areas peripheral to, or outside the

village, often former agricultural land, that had been ‘designated’ for recreational

use by the community. In many cases, this change of use seemed to have occurred

in relatively recent times. This situation was in contrast to the majority of more

‘conventional’ greens, which had existed for centuries within the village as an

integral part of the settlement, used communally and unfenced from the roads that

crossed them.

4.3.17.6 One sampled site was unusual in that it was considered to have one part that was

enclosed, and another area that was not. This was CL90, Kingsley Green, of

Fernhurst Parish in West Sussex (study code WSUS002).

4.3.17.7 Fairly commonly encountered, was the practice of ‘protecting’ the edges of grass

areas from roads, by a series of wooden posts with metal chains hung between

them. In many cases, these structures were of quite slender proportions and with

the chains stretching almost to the ground, to the effect that it was considered that

most people might easily be able to step over them. In other situations, these

fittings appeared quite robust in their construction, and so visually prominent that it

was felt likely that they would form a barrier to pedestrian access .Therefore, where

these features were present around the entire length of roads adjoining the site, the

decision as to whether this represented a form of enclosure or not, had to be based

on a subjective visual assessment (which was fairly obvious in some cases, but not so

easy to decide in others). The following two examples from the county of Lancashire

are illustrative of this issue:

4.3.17.8 VG125, Stocks Green, Bolton-by-Bowland Parish (study code LANC001). Under the

heading of ‘Is land enclosed?’ the following comment was made – “Surrounded by

stout wooden posts (about 1m tall) with chains stretched between (generally always

above 0.3m above the ground at lowest point). It would not be that easy to stride

over the chains and thus the site is thus effectively enclosed”.

26

4.3.17.9 VG39, The Green at Holt Green, Aughton Parish (study code LANC002) - in contrast,

the following was stated: “Surrounded by stout (concrete?) posts and a chain. The

latter is relatively inconspicuous and stretches almost to the ground in some places

(never more than around 0.3m above) and would be relatively easy to step across.

Thus does not represent a barrier to access”.

4.3.18 13d: Land occupancy and view across the site

4.3.18.1 By occupied, it is meant that someone is using the site for exclusive private purpose,

perhaps intermittently, and has exclusive benefits from it, and that other members

of society would normally respect and exclude themselves from such areas.

Examples would be allotments, cultivation, or a private sports facility such as a

school playing field, private golf club etc, (but not a village cricket field available to

any capable member of the community).

4.3.18.2 Thus, unoccupied land would be available for use by all and any members of the

community, without any evidence that it is being used exclusively or is reserved for

particular clubs or groups. In the latter, clearly children’s play areas would not be

excluded – whilst these are reserved for children, they are available to all members

of a community.

Table 16: Land occupancy and view across the site

Land occupancy and aspect/view Number of sites % of total

Land unoccupied: Yes 208 99.0%

Land occupied: Yes 7 3.3%

Open aspect to site: Yes 201 95.7%

View obscured: Yes 21 10.0%

Residences next to site: Yes 202 96.2%

Residences arranged around and facing onto the site 133 63.3%

Not directly focussed upon the site 86 41.0%

4.3.18.3 It can be seen from Table 16 that the very great majority of sampled sites were

considered to be unoccupied. Only two sites were considered to be wholly occupied

by a single user. In both cases, the land had been let to a farmer and was no longer

used for recreational purposes. The situation on VG7 “The Old Recreation Ground”,

Cottenham, Cambridgeshire (study code CAMB003) has already been discussed

under section 13c above, whilst VG665 “The Recreation Allotment”, Egloskerry,

Cornwall (study code CORN002) was considered “too far from any settlement to be

of any value for 'exercise and recreation”.

4.3.18.4 On a further six sampled sites it was considered that a part of the area involved

might be occupied. One such case - VG19, The Village Green, West Newton Parish in

Cumbria (study code CUMB007), involved a small area of this quite extensive green

being potentially put ‘out of bounds’ from other potential uses, by an adjacent farm

parking items of machinery apparently on the site, outside the farm boundary.

27

4.3.18.5 In two cases, a car park occupied most of the sampled site, thus preventing other

uses. This related to VG42, The Square in Grassington, North Yorkshire (study code

NYORK006), as highlighted in 13.c above, where almost the entire area of the site

was used for parking, and VG16, Merstow Green in Evesham, Worcestershire (study

code HWOR002), where around 75% of the site was operated as a car park.

4.3.18.6 VG18, “The Recreation Ground”, Steep Parish in Hampshire (study code HANT007),

is said to be primarily used as a playground by the adjacent school (though some

communal activities do seem to take place as well). Thus to some extent, it could be

argued that the area was used exclusively by the school and not available for other

members of the community. However, on the other hand, it could also be said that if

this was the village school, it would be something for the whole community anyway.

4.3.18.7 VG104 “Greenhow Village Green”, Bewerley, North Yorkshire (study code

NYORK004), is a slightly ‘unusual’ case in that the major part of the site appears to

form a part of and is unfenced from a larger grazed, field and there appears to be no

recreational use of this part of the site (i.e. effectively occupied by the grazier). In

contrast, the small remaining portion is a separately fenced, childrens play area,

available for use by the entire community.

4.3.18.8 There are, of course several examples of other land that is used for grazing (see

Table 11), but there are indications on these sites of recreational activities still taking

place. There is also an example of an enclosed field that appears unused for

recreation purposes, namely VG88 “Unnamed”, Otterford Parish, Somerset (Study

code SOM003). The site lies distant from any settlement and became a ‘green’ as

the result of an enclosure award in 1851. Ownership subsequently passed to Wessex

Water, who maintain the site by occasional mowing and there was nothing to

suggest the site was ‘occupied’ in a way that would prevent other forms of use by

the community.

4.3.18.9 Finally, VG15 “The Green”, Westleton Parish, Suffolk (study code SUFF009), has a

pair of private cottages that apparently stand on the site. It could be said that the

land involved was not, therefore, available for use by the wider community. There

were other rare examples of private houses, potentially on sampled sites, but as

explained elsewhere, in these cases, there were no boundary maps available to

confirm this or otherwise.

4.3.18.9 During the assessment, there were a number of sampled sites that were ‘flagged

up’, due to the presence of features such as playing courts, children’s swings and

structures such as pavilions and cottages etc. However, in such cases, these facilities

are available for the use by all members of the community and therefore not

considered to represent a form of occupation.

4.3.18.10 In terms of the view across the sampled site, it can be seen from Table 16 that the

vast majority (i.e. 95.7%) did have a clear view across the site. Of those 21 sampled

sites were the view was obscured, this was considered to be ‘total’ in nine cases, but

28

only affected a part of the site in the remaining 12. The main reason for loss of view

(n=18) was woodland/trees/scrub (noting that small number of greens were entirely

wooded in character, whilst others had more localised stands). On a total of four

sites, the view was partially obscured by buildings (i.e. the view was restricted by

both buildings and trees on one site).

4.3.18.12 It can be seen from Table 16 that adjacent residential properties were considered to

be “arranged around and focussed onto the green” for a total of 133 sites (63.3%).

Conversely, on 86 occasions (41.0%) this was not the case (and in fact, there were a

number of occasions when both situations were considered to apply). Whilst there

were many clear-cut examples of old cottages etc. arranged around the site in what

might be described a ‘traditional manner’, in many cases it was actually quite

difficult to make a clear-cut decision. One difficulty was where properties faced the

general direction of the site, but set back to some extent in their own grounds, with

a boundary of some sort alongside the road. Another example was of (older)

properties that faced the site by virtue of it being there already when the housing

was built, and therefore being the natural ‘view’ upon which to orientate the

structures (by implication, their presence could not have influenced the existence of

the green). New housing can also be arranged around a green, but whether or not

this reflects the historical settlement pattern would need investigation on a site-by-

site basis.

4.3.19 Question 14 - Time Depth Characteristics

4.3.19.1 A combination of information provided on the forms and reference to old OS maps

were the main means used to form an opinion as to how long a particular sampled

site was likely to have existed as such. Also, being the last spreadsheet of the

assessment, as work progressed, it seemed also to be the ‘natural’ place to record

any further, more general comments summing up the character of a particular site.

4.3.19.2 Whilst a cut-off of 1900 was taken to indicate ‘well-established’ sites, in a number of

cases, there were in fact, historical references of some sampled sites going as far

back as Saxon times. Overall, it can be seen from Table 17 that a great majority of

sampled sites (i.e. 91.4%) were considered as belonging to the ‘Pre-1900’ category.

Table 17: Time depth characteristics of sampled sites

Time depth character Number of sites % of total

Evidence of use/existence pre-1900 192 91.4%

Evidence of use/existence pre-1950 7 3.4%

Evidence of origin post-1950 11 5.2%

Long-standing name 173 82.4%

4.3.19.3 Of the seven examples considered only to date back to before 1950, in four cases

there were references to a specific date when the site was given to the village (two

in 1924, one in 1929 and one in 1940). In the remaining three examples, the

29

evidence was gleaned from studying the old OS maps. In one case, namely VG23

“Memorial Place”, Alderbury Parish in Wiltshire (study code WILT003), map

evidence indicated that the site appeared in its current guise as the location of a war

memorial at some time during 1901-1925. However, going back into the late 19th

Century, the area of the present day green was shown to be used as the site of a

stock pound (i.e. the use and purpose of the green has change and it has only

existed in its current form since before 1950).

4.3.19.4 A total of 11 sampled sites were considered to have originated more recently than

1950, in all cases based primarily on mapping evidence. All of these are registered as

greens rather than commons, with seven of these having the name ‘recreation

ground’ or similar equivalent. In contrast, three are called a ‘green’ of some sort,

whilst one site, VG46 in Sheldwich Parish in Kent (study code KENT009), is called

“Sheldwich Lees”. In terms of geographical distribution, three of these post-1950

greens are in Kent, two each in Buckinghamshire and Norfolk, plus one each in the

counties of Merseyside, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Oxfordshire.

4.3.19.4 There are, of course, a minority of individual cases where it was simply not possible

to establish the likely age of the sampled site. One example is CL194 “The Pound

Ground” at Bitton, in the former county of Avon (study code AV001). The site is used

nowadays for informal recreation and occasionally for football. Having a modern

mesh fence along the adjoining road, and given the character of the surrounding

housing, it had the ‘feel’ of a ‘post-1950’ green. However, looking through the map

history, the site appears with its current boundary as far back as the earliest

available map (pre-1900), and on none of these maps is there any form of labelling

as to the use/name of the site.

4.3.19.5 Based on the current study it is suggested that the notion of a ‘long-standing’ name

for greens is of no practical use. As the work proceeded, the natural hypothesis

seemed to be that sampled sites with the word ‘green’ in the name would equate

with ‘long-standing’ names, whereas those along the lines of ‘recreation ground’

would not. On this basis, a total of 173 sites (82.4%) would be said to have ‘long-

standing’ names. However, as already outlined, the number of greens thought to

exist prior to 1900, based on the other categories of evidence was 192, so it can be

seen that not all of these can have had ‘long-standing names’.

4.3.19.6 If one examines the names of the 18 sampled sites thought to have originated post-

1900, then eight of these are still named a ‘green’ of some sort (as opposed to

something along the lines of ‘recreation ground’). These sites, therefore, have

apparently ‘long-standing’ names, even though they are of more recent origin.

Conversely, whilst researching map evidence, at least two cases can be recalled of

sites with the name ‘Recreation Ground’ (that one might thus have expected to be

of recent origin) that were clearly labelled as such on OS maps dating to before

1900. For the record these were: VG27 “Pitstone Recreation Ground”,

30

Buckinghamshire (study code BUCK008) and VG38 “The Recreation Ground”,

Fittleworth, West Sussex (study code WSUS005).

4.3.19.7 Essentially, then, attempting to draw conclusions as to the apparent age of a

particular green on the basis of its name alone is considered unlikely to be all that

helpful.

31

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1 This work has demonstrated that the WI Survey of 1990 represents a valuable resource of

information about village greens. In particular, there is a significant archive of historical

information, and clearly there is a strong case to be made for the cataloguing and

copying/scanning of this material to make it more widely available for further analysis.

5.2 A further feature of the WI Survey is the information it contains on unregistered greens. As can

be seen from Table 1, section 4.2, there were a total of 88 (probably) unregistered greens that

came to light during the present study, many of which are believed to be ‘genuine’ examples of

village greens that have escaped registration. As discussed under Appendix 4, the sampling

procedure may have been to some extent biased toward considering unregistered sites for

potential sampling. Nonetheless, the actual number of non-registered greens reported during

the WI Survey, will probably be significantly more than those identified thus far. Whatever the

actual number actually is, it is clear that the WI Survey represents a valuable resource of

information about village greens that escaped registration, for whatever reason, under the 1965

Commons Registration Act. This may be the only material that exists, anywhere, on this subject.

5.3 A common theme throughout the work was that sites seemed to have changed very little from

the accounts provided of them over 20 years ago. This finding surely demonstrates the

effectiveness of the legislation protecting registered greens and commons.

5.4 This study has also revealed how very useful Google Earth Street View is when it comes to

investigating village greens. With most sites being relatively small, and generally situated next to

roads, for the most part, almost 100% of the area of a green can be viewed, in a way that is

virtually as effective as making an actual site visit. Certainly, without Street View, it is clear that

a conclusive assessment of crucial features such as whether or not a green is enclosed could not

have been made with the same level of certainty, without actually visiting the sites.

5.5 Other on-line resources also proved to be useful, in particular, the old editions of OS maps. In

addition, ‘bird’s eye’ aerial photographs – where one can effectively get four oblique views of a

given area from all sides, as available on Bing Maps, also proved to be helpful in a few situations

(for example, where a small part of a green was distant from a road).

5.6 So, what are the characteristics of the 210 greens included in the present study? Based on this

sample, the following could be said to apply:

5.6.1 Area

The vast majority of greens will be less than one hectare in size.

A size of up to 20ha would be regarded as being exceptional.

5.6.2 Ownership

Most greens would be expected to be owned by either a community or parish council (63%

probability).

32

5.6.3 Rights

The occurrence of common rights (e.g. grazing) on greens would be unlikely, though can

occur very occasionally (8% probability).

5.6.4 Recreational use

In accordance with the 1965 Commons Registration Act and 2006 Commons Act,

registration requires that that the land involved is used for lawful sports and pastimes16.

The most popular activities are likely to be ‘informal recreation’ of some sort and dog-

walking (50% and 47% probability respectively).

5.6.5 Physical features

Most greens will be mown grassland (probability 93%), usually with trees (probability 87%).

A high proportion will have seats/litter bins (probability 74% and 62% respectively).

5.6.7 Historic features

The presence of historic feature(s) is relatively unlikely, although they will be found on

around 25% of greens.

However, when present, they are a feature likely to be highly indicative of the site being a

green.

5.6.8 Management

Almost all greens will have some form of management (92% probability).

A local or parish council will be the most likely type of manager (63% and 19% probability

respectively).

Mowing of grassland will take place on the vast majority of greens (94% probability).

5.6.9 Associated buildings

A majority of greens will have at least one of: church, public house, or other non-residential

building associated with it (64% probability).

A majority of greens will also have domestic residences associated with it (96% probability).

However, this would be true of a high proportion of any land in a ‘village’ environment.

It is more likely than not, that the dwellings will be arranged around and facing the green in

a ‘traditional’ manner (63% probability).

Buildings on the green itself will be rare (though can be present, and may take the form of

historic features).

16 In the present study, most sampled sites did, indeed, have some form of particularised recreational activity recorded as taking place (i.e. 87%). However, for the reasons outlined in section 4.3 (Question 2), the lack of such a record did not necessarily imply that no recreational activities were taking place, or that the land was not available for recreational use.

33

5.6.10 Position within settlement

It is more likely that a green will lie at an intersection of roads (probability 72%).

The most likely shape is triangular, or broadly so (probability 50%), although a wide variety

of other shapes can also occur.

A central location in the settlement is the more likely (probability 45%).

Almost equally likely, the green might be ‘neither central, nor peripheral’ (probability 37%) –

and then most probably still within, or very occasionally outside a settlement altogether.

5.6.11 Land use characteristics (concept of ‘waste of the manor’)

The green will almost certainly be uncultivated (99.5% probability).

The green is more likely to be unenclosed (84% probability), though some unenclosed greens

do occur (16% probability).

The vast majority of greens will be wholly unoccupied (probability 99%).

In the majority of cases, there will be a clear, unobstructed view across the green (96%

probability).

5.6.12 The first three criteria outlined above relate to the concept of village greens being regarded

as ‘waste of the manor’ (i.e. they should be unenclosed, unoccupied and uncultivated). This

study suggests that, yes, one might expect that the vast majority of greens will indeed be

unoccupied and uncultivated, but it is possible for a smaller proportion greens to be

enclosed. This would suggest that not all village greens need be waste of the manor.

5.6.13 One of the criteria that must be satisfied under the current legislation when applying to have

land registered as a village green is that there must have been access as of right to the land,

for a period of 20 years. It was not possible to assess this particular criterion as part of the

current study, as that would have required local enquiries to be made in each individual

case. However, it is very likely from what has been observed, that the vast majority of the

210 sites encompassed under this study, do appear to have access as of right (and in general

this would seem to be compatible with the land being unoccupied).

5.7 Time depth characteristics

A majority of greens will have existed as such since before 1900 AD (probability 91%).

5.8 Were the commons within the total sample distinct in any physical way from the greens?

5.8.1 It was highlighted in section 4.3.2.1 “Greens versus commons” that 43 of the sampled sites

(20.5%) were registered as a common, rather than a green. Given this, the question arises,

were these sites different in any way from those registered as greens? In an attempt to

answer this question, the spreadsheets were reconstituted into separate datasets for greens

and commons, and the comparative statistics thus derived are outlined in Tables 18 and 19.

34

Table 18: Compared data (areas) for sampled greens and commons

Character Greens (n = 167) Commons (n = 43)

Area (ha) Area (ha)

Mean area 0.85ha 0.89ha

Largest site 16.97ha 14.9ha

5.8.2 In table 18 it can be seen that the mean size of greens and commons was remarkably similar

(0.85ha and 0.89ha respectively). There was also a degree of similarity in the proportion

greater than one hectare in extent (Table 19).

Table 19: Compared statistics for sampled greens and commons

Character Greens (n = 167) Commons (n = 43)

No. of sites

% of sites

No. of sites

% of sites

No. of sites >1ha in extent 38 22.8% 8 18.6%

Owner: Parish/Community Council 119 71.3% 13 30.2%

Owner: Private 18 10.8% 4 9.3%

Owner: Other (incl. Town/District/Borough Council) 32 19.2% 21 48.8%

Owner: Not stated 0 0.0% 2 4.7%

Owner: National Trust 0 0.0% 1 2.3%

Common Rights registered 8 4.8% 7 16.3%

At least one form of recreation recorded 143 85.6% 40 93.0%

No form of recreation recorded on form 24 14.4% 3 7.0%

Pond present 17 10.2% 9 20.9%

Swings etc. 29 17.4% 1 2.3%

Poles/wires 70 41.9% 25 58.1%

Pavilion 13 7.8% 1 2.3%

Bus shelter 27 16.2% 4 9.3%

Telephone box 39 23.4% 9 20.9%

Sports pitch 20 12.0% 1 2.3%

Toilets 12 7.2% 1 2.3%

War memorial 28 16.8% 2 4.6%

Stream/river 20 12.0% 9 20.9%

Village sign 17 10.2% 1 2.3%

Sign posts (other) 81 48.5% 27 62.8%

Seats 131 78.4% 24 65.1%

Bus stop 53 31.7% 10 23.3%

Post box 18 10.8% 4 9.3%

Historic feature 45 26.9% 8 18.6%

Notice/interpretation board 30 18.0% 8 18.6%

Management of some sort 154 92.2% 40 93.0%

Grazing 7 4.2% 5 11.6%

Mowing 158 94.6% 39 90.7%

Litter collection 86 51.5% 13 30.2%

Tree planting 71 42.5% 20 46.5%

Managed by: Local council 107 64.1% 25 58.1%

35

Character Greens (n = 167) Commons (n = 43)

No. of sites

% of sites

No. of sites

% of sites

Managed by: Parish council 32 19.1% 8 18.6%

Managed by: Village committee 10 6.0% 1 2.3%

Managed by: Local volunteers 24 14.4% 7 16.3%

Pub/hotel 52 19.5% 11 25.6%

Church 44 26.3% 5 11.6%

Other structure 65 38.9% 10 23.3%

No structure on or adjoining 52 31.1% 24 55.8%

At road junction 121 72.5% 30 69.8%

Central within settlement 80 47.9% 15 28.3%

Peripheral to settlement 24 14.4% 13 30.2%

Neither central, nor peripheral 63 37.7% 15 28.3%

Predominantly grassland site 157 94.0% 38 88.4%

Scattered mature trees present 146 87.4% 36 83.7%

Predominantly other vegetation type 5 3.0% 4 9.3%

Cultivated: yes 1 0.6% 0 0.0%

Cultivated: no 166 99.4% 43 100%

Enclosed 31 18.6% 3 7.0%

Unenclosed 136 81.4% 41 95.3%

Unoccupied 165 98.8% 43 100%

Occupied (in part at least) 7 4.2% 0 0.0%

Open aspect to site 163 97.6% 38 88.3%

View across site obscured 14 8.4% 7 16.3%

Residences adjoining green 161 96.4% 41 95.3%

Residences arranged around and facing onto green 105 62.9% 28 65.1%

Residences not focussed on green 69 41.3% 17 39.5%

Evidence existence/use: pre-1900 149 89.2% 43 100%

Evidence existence/use: pre-1950 7 4.2% 0 0.0%

Evidence existence/use: post-1950 only 11 6.6% 0 0.0%

5.8.3 Table 19 reveals a remarkable similarity between greens and commons for many of the

characters being considered. Key points include the following:

A high proportion of both greens and commons received some form of management.

Most greens and commons were mown grassland.

Both greens and commons had roughly the same proportion of the various types of

managers involved.

Most greens and commons had mature trees present.

Both greens and commons were largely uncultivated.

A majority of greens and commons were found to have an open aspect.

Both greens and commons were found to have residences adjoining, and both were similar

in the relative proportions of properties that were arranged around and facing onto the

green, and those that were not.

Roughly three quarters of both greens and commons were situated at road junctions.

36

5.8.4 Significant differences between the character of greens and commons were also observed,

as follows:

There was some variation in the proportion of different types of owner, with

Parish/Community Council observed as owning around twice the proportion of greens,

relative to commons, whereas ‘other’ types of owner were preferentially represented on

commons.

There were proportionately more rights registered on commons as opposed to greens.

Proportionately more commons than greens were grazed.

Ponds appeared to be twice as frequent on commons as on greens.

Sports pitches were strongly preferential to greens.

Stream/river was more likely on commons.

Historic features were slightly more likely to be found on greens, than on commons.

Proportionately twice as many greens were enclosed than commons.

Greens were more likely to be central within the settlement, whereas commons were more

likely to be peripheral.

All commons were thought to have existed prior to 1900, whereas this was only the case

with 90% of greens.

5.8.5 In addition to the above analysis, when one assesses subjective observations made in

Questions 13 (‘Character’) and Question 14 (‘Time Depth’) in relation to the 43 registered

commons, then the following is found:

Sites considered to be ‘common land’ - 7

Sites described as ‘common land in origin’ - 4

Sites considered to be ‘greens’ - 28

Sites described as ‘waste of some sort’17 – 4

Also, of the 43 registered commons within the sample, 34 contained the word ‘green’ in the

name.

5.8.6 Of course, the difficulty with such objective comments is that they were in fact making a pre-

judgement against pre-conceived notions as to what the character of greens and commons

was likely to be. Nonetheless, subjectively speaking, there were certainly a proportion of the

registered commons (well over half of the sample) that were, for all intents and purposes,

entirely consistent with the notion of a ‘traditional village green’ and, conversely, others that

were, indeed, more what one might consider as being ‘genuine’ common land.

17 The term ‘waste’ as used here, should not be taken as necessarily being synonymous with a formal definition of ‘waste of the manor’. The intention was to separate these sites as not conforming to any of the other three categories listed, on the basis of an opinion being expressed as to them representing ‘some form of waste’. The precise circumstances were: Triangular plot of land, apparently unused, with scrub/trees, described as ‘waste’; a small triangular plot of land, now planted with shrubs and trees, described (subjectively) as ‘long-established waste of the manor’, and two areas of ‘roadside waste’ (albeit mown).

37

6. Acknowledgements

6.1 I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Aitchison for allowing me to make use of

this material. I am also greatly indebted to Liz Hughes and Martin Ashby for safeguarding

and storing this material over a period of several years. I am extremely grateful too, for the

assistance of Graham Bathe of Natural England, in designing the study’s methodology, the

interpretation of its findings and of general support and guidance throughout. Thanks are

due also to Kate Ashbrook of the Open Spaces Society for her enthusiastic interest in this

project, and to Grant McPhee of Defra for help with the final report. Above all, I am grateful

to the many members of the Women’s Institute who gave of their time in submitting records

and it is sincerely hoped that the work outlined here, has in some small way gone towards

rendering all their efforts worthwhile.

7. References

Aitchison, J. (1996). The Town and Village Greens of England and Wales. Landscape Research, Vol.21.

No. 1.

Aitchison J., Crowther K., Ashby M. and Redgrave L. (2000). The Common Lands of England – A

Biological Survey. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Rural Surveys

Research Unit, University of Wales, Aberystwyth.

Crowther, K. A. and Aitchison, J. W. (1993). Biological Survey of Common Land. No. 26: Derbyshire.

Rural Surveys Research Unit, Department of Geography, Institute of Earth Studies, University College

of Wales, Aberystwyth. English Nature, Peterborough.

Finch, M. (1994). Biological Survey of Common Land. No. 19: West Sussex. Rural Surveys Research

Unit, Department of Geography, Institute of Earth Studies, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.

English Nature, Peterborough.

Stamp, L.D and Hoskins, W.G. (1963). The Common Lands of England and Wales. The New Naturalist.

Collins, London.

38

Appendices

Appendix 1: WI National Survey of Town and Village Greens (1990)

The survey used a standard form which was sent out to potential respondents. A series of

accompanying explanatory notes outlined why the study was being undertaken and included

guidance on how the forms should be completed. The form itself comprised four A4-sized pages and

included a standard series of questions under the following headings:

1. Register Information

- Site number, name, parish, grid ref, ownership, rights etc. (note that, owing to the

confusion between common land and village greens, the forms also allowed for

commons to be included).

- Filled in by the RSRU prior to sending out to respondents, with the request that any

errors or omissions are annotated.

2. How frequently do the following take place on the green?

- Activities such as informal recreation, dog walking, various sports etc.

3. Does the green have any of the following?

- To record facilities such as: ponds, grit boxes, swings, bus shelters, telephone boxes,

trees, toilets, war memorials, seats, litter bins etc.

4. Do any of the following apply?

- Surface erosion (vehicles, horses, people)

- Private use by adjacent properties(e.g. garden/car parking)

- Parking on the green

- Dumping of rubbish

- Litter

- Fouling by pets

- Heavy passing traffic/congestion

- Disputed boundaries

5. Have any items noted under Sections 3 and 4 given rise to problems or conflicts?

- If so, how long have the problems existed, and what solutions have been tried?

- Have any problems been caused by deficiencies in the present law relating to greens?

6. Have any developments affected the green?

- If so, how did local people react?

- Was there any exchange of land?

7. Appearance/Wildlife

- Description of general appearance of the green and its wildlife.

- Details of trees, wildflowers, birds and other fauna

8. Do any of the following take place?

- Grazing, mowing, litter collection, tree planting, regulation of parking

9. Management and maintenance

- Is it managed, if so by whom?

10. History and local customs

- Any information or material relating to the origins of the green, local traditions, tales

and customs.

39

11. Any views about the future use and management of the green?

12. Are you aware of any other areas in the locality that you would consider to be ‘greens’,

but which are not identified on the maps provided?

13. Sketch map

- It would appear that along with the forms, respondents were supplied with a copy of the

1:50,000 maps showing the location of greens in their area. The purpose of the request

for a sketch map was to enable the green to be related more precisely to the local

road/footpath system. Developments or facilities such as ponds, pitches, pavilions etc

were to be identified, along with an approximate idea of the scale of the sketch.

Appendix 2: Completed WI Survey forms and the number of greens recorded in English

counties

County Completed WI Forms

No. greens according to Aitchison (1996) Avon 26 70

Bedfordshire 20 48

Berkshire 48 47

Buckinghamshire 82 79

Cambridgeshire 96 128

Cheshire 11 36

Cleveland 13 22

Cornwall 39 51

Cumbria 109 191

Derbyshire 13 57

Devon 59 78

Dorset 24 43

Durham 19 100

East Sussex 58 39

Essex 106 182

Gloucestershire 46 134

Greater London 5 54

Greater Manchester 4 14

Hampshire 83 136

Hereford & Worcester 37 95*1

Hertfordshire 68 84

Humberside 31 40

Isle of Wight 14 14

Kent 99 167

Lancashire 30 92

Leicestershire 66 92

Lincolnshire 3 77

Merseyside 2 6

Norfolk 73 146

Northamptonshire 45 133

Northumberland 39 53

40

County Completed WI Forms

No. greens according to Aitchison (1996) North Yorkshire 155 195*2

Nottinghamshire 49 75

Oxfordshire 93 154

Shropshire 13 25

Somerset 32 43

South Yorkshire 3 32

Staffordshire 25 38

Suffolk 110 175

Surrey 51 64

Tyne & Wear 6 18

Warwickshire 67 122

West Midlands 3 8

West Sussex 55 67

West Yorkshire 17 34

Wiltshire 39 32

Total (England) 2086 3590*3

Notes:

*1 – Aitchison (1996) does not list a figure for Worcestershire. It has been assumed that his figure for

that county is in fact for Hereford and Worcester, the two counties being administratively united at

the time.

*2 – Aitchison (1996) does not list a figure for North Yorkshire. The text makes reference to the fact

that the counties of Cumbria, Durham and North Yorkshire between them have a total of 486

registered greens. The figure quoted here for North Yorkshire has thus been derived from these

statistics.

*3 The text of Aitchison (1996) states that the “current registers....... identify 3481 greens” (a figure

that apparently includes Welsh greens). However, if one adds up the total of greens listed for English

counties in Table 1 of Aitchison (1996), then a figure of 3395 is derived. If one then adds the total of

195 greens for North Yorkshire (as derived in *2 above), then the overall total of greens in England at

that time would come to the figure of 3590 as shown above.

Appendix 3: Number of samples per county/geographical unit

County Completed WI Forms Sample size

Avon*1 26 5

Bedfordshire*1 20 5

Berkshire 48 5

Buckinghamshire 82 8

Cambridgeshire 96 9

Cheshire 11 1

Cleveland 13 1

41

County Completed WI Forms Sample size

Cornwall 39 4

Cumbria 109 11

Derbyshire 13 1

Devon 59 6

Dorset 24 2

Durham 19 2

East Sussex 58 6

Essex*2 106 11

Gloucestershire 46 5

Greater London 5 1*3

Greater Manchester 4 1*3

Hampshire 83 8

Hereford & Worcester 37 4

Hertfordshire 68 7

Humberside 31 3

Isle of Wight 14 1

Kent 99 10

Lancashire 30 3

Leicestershire 66 7

Lincolnshire 3 1*3

Merseyside 2 1*3

Norfolk 73 7

Northamptonshire 45 5

Northumberland 39 3*4

North Yorkshire 155 15

Nottinghamshire 49 5

Oxfordshire 93 9

Shropshire 13 1

Somerset 32 3

South Yorkshire 3 0*5

Staffordshire 25 3

Suffolk 110 9*4

Surrey 51 5

Tyne & Wear 6 13

Warwickshire 67 5*4

West Midlands 3 13

West Sussex 55 5*4

West Yorkshire 17 2

Wiltshire 39 3*4

Total (England) 2086 210

*1 Avon and Bedfordshire – These counties were examined as part of a preliminary assessment to develop and refine an appropriate methodology for the work. For this purpose, a target 25% sample size was adopted. It was subsequently decided to exclude one of the sites (AV005) on the basis that there was no Street View image.

42

*2 In Essex, once the requisite number of sites had been sampled, a further box containing a total of

30 approx records from the county was discovered (around 30% of the total), effectively excluding

any of these from being selected for the study. As with records from the study in general, these 30

records appeared to be fairly randomly ‘sorted’, both numerically and geographically, and this

omission is not considered to have introduced any form of bias into the sampling of that county.

*3 Counties with fewer than 10 greens have one sample from each, ensuring the maximum possible geographical spread of the analysis. *4 When nearing the latter part of sampling, it was realised that a strict 10% sample size equated not with the target number of 200 individual sites, but with a number of around 220 instead. Thus for Suffolk, Warwickshire, West Sussex and Wiltshire, the actual number of samples was revised down ever so slightly. In the case of Northumberland, sampled before this situation had been realised, one fewer than the target number had been sampled in error. In these circumstances it was decided not to retrospectively add a further sample to this county, given that the target sample size of 200 had already been exceeded across the full geographical spread intended. *5 South Yorkshire - only three sites were included in the WI Survey, and none of them was found to

be suitable for inclusion (please see Excel spreadsheet for full details).

Appendix 4: Reasons for candidate sites being excluded from the study This information should be viewed in conjunction with Table 1 (section 4.2).

Unsure of location, no map or boundary information

Firstly, in some cases it was just not possible when looking at the imagery, to relate mapping

information accompanying the form with what could be seen on the ground. An output of Professor

Aitchison’s research into registered greens and commons had been a series of 1:50,000 OS maps

showing site boundaries. These were originally hand-drawn onto standard maps, but were

subsequently drawn-up as ‘neat’ versions onto transparent masters of the map sheets, from which

paper copies were made. Copies of appropriate sections of these were in most cases, sent out with

the forms. However, with the majority of greens being very small sites, they often appear as little

more than a ‘dot’ on the map – and being hand drawn in the first place, may have also been

subjected to a degree of error in placement. These factors have meant that copies of these sheets

(where still attached to the records), whilst being found useful as a guide to the site’s general

location, were in some cases too imprecise to allow the site to be identified with confidence on the

ground.

On occasion, there were multiple ‘targets’ – i.e. confusion with other greens or commons in the

same locality, often compounded by the above difficulty (and in a minority of cases there appeared

to be information for two separate sites on the same form). In other cases, there was simply no map

or plan of any sort accompanying the record.

43

Site not registered (or details not provided)

A further situation was that of forms being returned from the WI Survey for sites that were not (or

apparently not) greens or commons registered under the 1965 Commons Registration Act. In

general, where a registration number was not entered on the form, it was assumed that such sites

were not registered (as the RSRU staff appeared to have included this amongst the information they

routinely entered onto the forms before sending them out). In a minority of cases, the situation was

checked by performing a search using the MAGIC website.

It should be remembered that these statistics do not represent an estimate of the proportion of

non-registered sites included in the WI Survey. In general, for many counties, the forms seem to

have been collated so that non-registered greens were at the ‘top of the pile’ (followed by greens

with CL registration numbers, and finally the ones registered as greens). In such cases, the sampling

method adopted, meant that ALL the non-registered greens, being ‘on top of the pile’, had to be

considered, and each in turn, rejected for inclusion, and thus listed in these statistics.

There was insufficient time to perform any further assessment of every site that was rejected on the

basis that it was considered, probably, to be unregistered. However, if one takes the county of East

Sussex as a ‘sub-sample’, the following was found: The number of greens excluded because they

were thought to be un-registered was 12 altogether. Of these, seven appeared to be ‘traditional’ or

some other form of long-established greens, whilst four were also considered to be village greens by

the respondent, but formalised during the 1950s-60s. The final example is more complicated, as it

appears to form a parcel of land with the character of a ‘traditional’ village green that in itself is a

constituent part of a larger non-registered piece of common land.

An interesting thought has arises as to the reason why some sites were not registered. In

Oxfordshire, a note on paper (as there were no further blank forms available) was submitted in place

of a standard form for a site called “The Pound at Roity Cross”, in Blewbury (Grid ref. 4533 1856). It

is stated on the sheet that “It has not been registered as the Parish Council has proof of ownership”.

Thus it would seem that in this parish at least, it was felt that sites where ownership was known did

not need to be registered. How widespread this misunderstanding may have been, more generally,

is not clear, but it may explain at least some other cases of greens not being registered.

Incomprehensible form, very little information, or blank form returned

In some cases, forms had been inadequately filled in so as to make them of no or little value to the

analysis. There were also examples of forms being returned completely blank – save for the

registration data that had been filled in by the RURU. In several cases, reasons why the form was

being returned blank were provided, though it is not possible to list all these individually here

(please refer to Excel spreadsheet).

No Street View image (all or part)

In a small number of cases, it was felt that the imagery available offered a less than ideal view of the

site – primarily when “Street View” images were not available. As will be discussed later, this facility

was found, during the development of the work, to be a most useful (and indeed crucial) tool in

assessing site characteristics. For example, it enabled a very clear view of whether a site was

44

enclosed or not, something that was almost impossible to gauge on the basis of aerial photography

alone. Given that the vast majority of sites seemed to have good coverage by “Street View” imagery,

it was felt that it would increase the accuracy of the study, if sites without it were in general

excluded.

Sites considered as being ‘true’ common land, as opposed to ‘greens’

Seven sites (all with CL registration numbers) were rejected because they were considered to be

‘genuine’ commons, as follows:

Excluded on basis of being both registered as, and called commons:

Berkshire CL29, Summerlug Common

East Sussex CL107, Lyewood Common

Excluded on basis of comments made by respondent:

Cheshire CL69, Land in Paddock Hill, Mobberley (originally site CHES001 of study, but later

excluded on basis that it should, more appropriately, be viewed as common land). Referred

to by respondent as “Common land in Mobberley, Cheshire”.

Lancashire CL118, Old Ball Green – respondent stated “Common land registered in error”.

Shropshire CL47 (unnamed site) – respondent did not complete the form and stated “There

is no village green in the accepted sense”.

South Yorkshire CL461, The Doles – respondent also did not complete the form and stated

“The common disappeared above 30 years ago to make way for a large housing estate”.

Excluded on basis that site was probably incorrectly ‘selected’ for inclusion in WI Survey by

RSRU:

Shropshire CL87, Marl Hole. RSRU presumably included because it was a small common that

appeared on the map as though it might be used as a green. However, it was considered to

be a common on the basis that it is a former quarry, now wooded and does not have the

word ‘green’ in its name.

Other reasons

The most frequent ‘other’ reason was the situation where more than one site had been described on

a single form (in a total of nine cases). Closely behind this were cases where a different site to the

one identified, had been described instead (eight examples). In two cases there was confusion as to

which site was actually being described, whilst at one site in Cumbria, the form was returned blank

with the comment “Site now built on”. Finally, for one green in North Yorkshire, in addition to the

registered green, the form also appeared to be describing an additional area of land that was not

registered.