RIGHTS OF WAY WATCH
We lost. Chailey Common to be fenced for grazing cattle
Public Inquiry Result - If your horse is "alarmed by cattle" then get another horse, says Planning Inspector.
- Problems opening gates?
Riders will become "adept", says Planning Inspector
- Fencing will have some
"detrimental effects on riders in the short term" but they will be "lessened over time," says Planning Inspector
Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense.
- If a horse is "alarmed by cattle", it will always be alarmed by cattle. In any case, why should riders get another horse just because somebody decides to block their usual ride with fencing?
What happens to the horse, the Inspector is telling us to get rid of? How can he guarantee that the new, replacement horse is going to be any better when it comes to dealing with cattle? And what about costs? Not to mention emotions about having to dump an old friend at the say-so of a Government Planning official.
- Riders will become "adept" at opening gates. Oh yeah. It doesn't just depend on the rider. It depends on the horse, the gate, the speed the gate closes, the weather, whether there are people and animals nearby and a million other unknown and unknowable factors.
- "Detrimental effects in the short-term" which will be "lessened over time". A fence is a fence. A gate is a gate. It doesn't matter how long they are there they will still be "detrimental" compared to the time there was no fencing and no gates.
Do you agree with the Planning Inspectors comments?
Is he right?
Would you get rid of your horse if a Planning Inspector tells you to?