COUNTY councillors have voted against adding a parcel of land to Romaldkirk village green because they were not convinced it is used for regularly for recreation.
A public inquiry was held at the end of April after objections were lodged Romaldkirk Parish Council’s bid to have the piece of land, off Sennings Lane, declared as part of the green.
Barrister Ruth Stockley, who led the inquiry, found that the land had mostly been used for dog walking.
However, she noted that dog walkers had used the land as part of a wider walking route, rather than as a destination.
Her findings suggested the parcel of land was too small for meaningful activity to take place and recommended the application be refused.
However, Derek Nixon, a member of the parish council, appealed to Durham County Council’s highways committee during its meeting last week not to follow the recommendation.
He argued that the parish council’s role was to preserve and enhance the village but the state of the land was having a negative impact.
He said: “Excessive planting has taken place both on the green and extending over the highways and byways of the village.
“Earth mounds have been built, a hedge has been planted encircling the land, a SORN car, rubbish bins, logs and rocks dumped on it.
“This is having a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of what is a beautiful village in a conservation area.
“We feel the application should be granted to protect the asset for the whole community not just one household.”
Senior legal officer for the county council Helen Lynch told the committee that the only reason they could take into account when granting village green status was if the land had been used for “lawful sports and pastime” by a “significant number” of people for “at least 20 years” .
She noted that the inquiry had found that the applicants had not shown that the criteria had been met.
Resident Murray Webb, whose home overlooks the land, and who was one of the objectors, said he was pleased the committee had opted to convene an independent inquiry.
He added: “I am pleased through that process both sides, from my perspective, have had ample opportunity to present their case and I think the findings speak for themselves.”
County councillor James Rowlandson said while there was sympathy for the parish council’s desire to protect the land there was no option but to reject the application.
The application was rejected by six votes to three.
