Horseytalk.net/Hoofbeat EXCLUSIVE
RIDER RIGHTS

click here to read more

The Governement should sycamore rider-friendly policy !

HLF Funding

Maureen Comber writes to Drew Bennellick

I have applied to the Local Government Ombudsman, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Planning Inspectorate, National Audit Office, Audit Commission and Defra who all say the matter needs to go to the High Court to be settled

Says Maureen Comber

Says Maureen ComberI note with interest that appropriate levels of public accessibility to the projects HLF support, is a requirement of its grants and that there is an interest in seeing the funded purpose is delivered.

The question therefore is how can funding the fencing of commons help public accessibility? Certainly as a horse rider fencing obstructs access even if there are gates which in themselves almost always present a nuisance at some point. Not all horse riders are 30 something and fit.

any are young or elderly or infirm, to which gates will present a sometimes insurmountable problem.

Not only this but the character of the open landscape is forever lost and that is entirely out of keeping with other types of funding such as HLS which clearly states the character of the landscape should be enhanced if anything.

Most importantly however fencing commons alters the status quo and removes the historical protection they have always enjoyed and that is enshrined in law i.e. the owner cannot fence because of the commoners and the commoners cannot fence because they do not own the land.

Surely the protection from encroachment should be a first priority rather than any other funded purpose?

Common land has always been vulnerable to misappropriation and never more so than now when the Wildlife Trusts encouraged by Natural England with the assent of local authorities are applying to fence numerous commons all over the country. This cannot be right as any objectors not only have to fund their objection, but also the applicants who are using public money.

The Planning Inspectorate seem to permit simply because the applications are coming from the other quangos. The reason is that having ignored the commons over decades so that they have deteriorated to an unacceptable extent, grazing is seen as the be all and end all answer.

There is no scientific proof that this is the case and in many instances the other methods have not been employed.

There is a reason for this too as letting the commons overgrow restricted access by the public which they thought would be beneficial to wildlife, in fact it has been proved not to be the case.

Yesterday I attended a presentation by the South Downs National Park who are preparing to apply to the HLF for funding to create links between the various common heathlands. I think this is an excellent idea providing the links are also dedicated bridleways which will benefit walkers and horse riders. Cycling is not legally permitted on commons. I said I hoped that they would apply for extra funding to support me in my bid to reclaim 80 acres of Broxhead Common which has been illegally fenced and public access denied. This is shameful as the only site of archaeological importance is out of reach to the public.

ALL IN ALL NE ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF FRAUD BY COLLUDING WITH THE APPLICANTS, THIS IS WHY WE NEED FULL DISCLOSURE ORDER FROM THE COURTS.

Says Tony Barnett

Says Tony BarnettON APPLICATION FOR HLS, A SENIOR MEMBER OF NE VISITS THE SITE TO SEE IF IT MEETS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FUNDING.

THEY MUST HAVE ASSURANCES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED THE SUPPLEMENTARY ISSUED WITH THE CONSENT FROM PINS

1, EVIDENCE OF TRUE OWNERSHIP BY DISCLOSING TITLE OR EVIDENCE THAT CONSENT FROM AN OWNER HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND EVIDENCE IS ALSO DISCLOSED.

2, AS COMMONERS(IF ANY) MAY NOT LET, LEASE, SELL OR EXTINGUISH THEIR RIGHTS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE RIGHTS ARE REGISTERED, THEN THE CONSENT, EVEN IF LAWFULLY APPLIED FOR CANNOT MATERILISE.

3 THE ACTS OF 2006 SECTIONS 47-1 (REPEAL OF THE RIGHTS TO ENCLOSE COMMON LANDS AND 47-2 WHICH PROHIBITS ANY FORM OF ENCLOSURE) IS AN ENACTMENT TO WHICH THE SUPPLEMENTARY APPLIES TOO, WHICH ALSO CONTAINS, INTERESTS OF PERSON HAVNG RIGHTS IN RELATION TOO, OR OCCUPYING THE THE LAND, IN PARTICULAR PERSONS EXERCISING RIGHTS OF COMMON OVER IT.

THE INTERESTS OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND ANY OTHER MATTER CONSIDERED TO BE RELEVENT.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS IN NATURE CONSERVATION, CONSERVATION OF THE LANDSCAPE, PROTECTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS TO ACCESS TO ANY AREA OF THE LAND FROM ALL POINTS OF VIEW AND THE PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLIGICAL REMAINS AND FEATURE S OF HISTORICAL INTEREST.

FURTHER....THE REGULATIONS INCLUDE PROVISIONS AS TO THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN BY AN APPLICANT BEFORE SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION...THE FORM AND CONTENT OF AN APPLICATION... THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLOWED.... THE EVIDENCE TO BE SUPPLIED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION....THE FEES....THE STEPS OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY UPON RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION...THE APPOINTMENT OF ALL OF ITS FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION AND FOR THE HOLDING OF HEARING OR LOCAL INQUIRY.

SECTION 45 IS THE NEW INSERTION FOR THE 2006 COMMONS ACT AND IS THE LEGISLATION SUBSTANTIALLY ENACTED FROM SECTION 9 OF THE 65 ACT, THIS ACT DOES NOT, BESTOWE ANY JURISDICTION ON THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

THE COMMONS COMMISSIONER DID NOT REGISTER "VESTED" TITLE, BUT IF TRACED WOULD HAVE REGISTERED THE "GRANTOR/OWNER".

AS IS STATED IN THE LETTER "OBITER" IS JUST THE OPINION OF THE JUDGE WHICH IS ONLY HAS AN INCIDENTAL BEARING ON THE CASE AND IS NOT THEREFORE BINDING.

ALL IN ALL NE ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF FRAUD BY COLLUDING WITH THE APPLICANTS, THIS IS WHY WE NEED FULL DISCLOSURE ORDER FROM THE COURTS.

I have applied to the Local Government Ombudsman, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Planning Inspectorate, National Audit Office, Audit Commission and Defra who all say the matter needs to go to the High Court to be settled. The problem is the ordinary man cannot afford lawyers these days.

Do you think I should ask the SDNP to include it in their grant application or make a separate application myself? More to the point would HLF fund the reclamation through the High Court?

I pine for a more sensible approach to saving our forests

Read more here


Email this to a friend !!

Enter recipient's e-mail: