R (on the application of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and another) v Oxfordshire County Council [2010] EWHC 530 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 249 (Mar)
The court noted per curiam that the factors to be considered when determining whether a purported neighbourhood fell within s 22 (1A) of the Commons Registration Act 1965 were undoubtedly looser and more varied than those relating to locality but, as stated in R (on the application of Cheltenham Builders Ltd) v South Gloucestershire Council; Cheltenham Builders Ltd v South Gloucestershire Council ([2003] All ER (D) 128 (Nov)), a neighbourhood had to have a sufficient degree of (pre-existing) cohesiveness.
To qualify therefore, it had to be capable of meaningful description in some way. That was now emphasised by the fact that under the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1961), the entry on the register of a new town or village green would specify the locality or neighbourhood referred to in the application. That could be amended to take account of the adoption of an
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
