Chobham Place Woods, Surrey
Bob Milton writes to Gerry....
- This is not an acceptable position for NE to condone as it seems you do.
- I look forward with bated breath to the deliberations of the secret Lowland Commons group and hope they will address the many issues and charges brought before NE and the Government.
Says Bob Milton
I think you misunderstand the charge being made by me. The path and associated works are carried out by SHBC with the consent of NE as it is part of the SANGS mitigation works agreed by NE with Surrey Heath and is required as part of the core development and TBH SPA mitigation strategy for the Borough which is by agreement with NE. No s38 Common land consent has been sort or approved for the construction and works carried out on this s193 common and with the signs act to impede or prevent lawful and legal access.
This is not an acceptable position for NE to condone as it seems you do. This is a bit like the advice given by NE officers in the Padworth and Hawksbury cases.
It is no different in effect to the HLS agreements being signed and paid such as Hawksbury, Hartlebury and Yateley where the agreement is signed with the Local Authority who hold the land for public recreation and the agreement insists on grazing and agrees to pay for the fencing and gates yet in both these cases no internal agreement exists with the commoners and the public consultation again paid for by NE under HLS with CAP money occurs after the agreement. As I have said to you some 18months ago I believe this is a scam and a fraud and the Planning Inspectorate is complicit in this activity [eg Hednesford].
These three examples are not isolated as I have others from Cornwall to Sussex and include as again I have previously informed you such land owners as other local and county authorities, the MoD/ Defence Estates and the NT.
Another charge that is still not answered is that of NE using stewardship moneys to pay for gates and cattle grids on existing public rights of way and vehicular highways. At our last meeting you made the leap in my argument that if the payment for gates and cattle grids on highways ie existing rights of access are as stated by NE own regulations based on CAP then they would be equally unlawful for fencing where there is existing right s of recreation and access as the requirement in relation to new public access would not be met. I have not heard from you on this point since.
I look forward with bated breath to the deliberations of the secret Lowland Commons group and hope they will address the many issues and charges brought before NE and the Government. Just as an after thought I do not see why NE have chosen to limit the scope of the internal group to lowland commons as these charges apply just as much to some upland commons.