Click here to read the letter in full

Minister's letter raises even more questions ...

Says Maureen Comber

My MP is doing his stuff but the attached raises even more questions which I hope

others will be asking as well as myself, such as why the Minister considers it fair that Defra's

Quangos are not only putting our commons in jeopardy by fencing them and altering the status quo,

but why the public are being put to such expense by NE's abuse of the guidance from Defra?

Commoners are clearly not being consulted initially.

- All the stewardship agreements I have seen have been made without a legal internal agreement with the commoners. It is my belief that all such agreements and payments are fraudulent

- It seems to be the norm for the managers and NE to sign the stewardship agreement before consulting in any form so that such consultation is a sham and is ignored by NE, applicants and usually the Inspectorate

- No weight seems to be given for any public concerns or wishes under any of the consultations. They even redo the consultations two or three times with differently phrased questions to get around public objections

Says Bob Milton

There are a couple of points that need clarification

Para 2 you can see there is no duty or remits for NE under Stewardship to protect existing public access rights and is only available for nature conservation and where new public access –permissive or otherwise is to be made available and that does not necessarily mean equestrian [see Hawksbury common Sth Gloucs]

Para 3 It is not a case of being entitled but is having complete management control so where the Local Authority has retained the power to enforce or grant easements then there is no lease ie legal right for the land but is only a management contract and is no different to having a contract to cut the grass.

Para 4 All the stewardship agreements I have seen have been made without a legal internal agreement with the commoners. It is my belief that all such agreements and payments are fraudulent.

Para 6 It seems to be the norm for the managers and NE to sign the stewardship agreement before consulting in any form so that such consultation is a sham and is ignored by NE, applicants and usually the Inspectorate as they are they say bound by s28G S9 CROW 2000

Para 7 I see that the Minister agrees that there is no scientific evidence only that it is ‘thought to be an effective tool…’

Para 8 Yes it is from any part of the highway over or adjacent to it. I think it was LJ Sullivan in one of his fencing of commons cases

Para 9 The issue of due regard has been twisted to such an extent that Inspectors will give maximum weight to NE as government advisor and little and no weight to any other consideration especially that of the lack of scientific evidence even when the subject of a scientific paper by Professor Newton at Bournemouth University. No weight seems to be given for any public concerns or wishes under any of the consultations. They even redo the consultations two or three times with differently phrased questions to get around public objections. What is the saying of Mark Twain and Disraeli ‘there are lies, dam lies and statistics’. To which can be added interpretations by the planning inspectorate. It is my belief that the criteria for fencing are stand alone considerations and are not to be weighed against each other as is the practice by the present crop of inspectors. It can be seen from the 1998 Chobham decision that the inspector refused the s194 fencing on the grounds of not meeting one of the criteria.

Para 10 what constitutes ‘…appropriate and sufficient means of access to enable the public to continue their rights of access.’ In the decision on Hednesford by Richard Hepburn which is s193 no equestrian access was or is allowed to the enclosed area and the consent is for a ‘temporary period of 20yrs’ by which time some of us will be dead or suffering from dementia.