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 inspector’s recommendation to base the registration upon a different neighbourhood
