SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.
More on THAT Public Inquiry
"Trouble is the bureaucrats all seem to be in it together."
Says Maureen Comber
"I had a telephone conference with my barrister at the office of my Solicitor in Winchester. He gave the thumbs down to judicially reviewing the latest decision of the Inspector for the claimed bridlepath either on the case itself or for costs applied, although they will argue the latter vigorously with the objectors.
Firstly he said it would be too expensive to run that particular gauntlet again and not worth the effort.
Secondly he could not find a point of law upon which to argue. Apparently one can't argue with the decision other than on a point of law however skewed that decision is.
I told him that if the correct criteria had been used the Inspector could not have reached the decision that he had. The Inspector said that none of the maps showed the status of routes, but then they never do. That is the whole point of finding maps with the route on just to show it was there to be used.
Anyway I didn't want to flog that dead horse but it is a pity because I had so much historical evidence like the Finance Act 1910 records which the HCC have always said had been burnt in the blitz, but the Inspector just glossed over that by saying there was no specific path mentioned. Actually there was but of course that was not stated.
However he did say that the common issue could be put right when the 2006 registers are opened. I said I didn't think that would be in my lifetime and we needed to deal with it now.
We left it that I would draft a letter for him to send to Hampshire County Council asking them why they had never registered the 80 acres of illegally fenced common. I guess I should also be asking them for the pre-registration of title? Also if and when the SOS granted permission for the fencing."
Says Tony Barnett
"HERE YOU HAVE A GOOD CASE TO BRING IN THE AUDIT COMMISSION, AND THERE IS A GOOD REASON ALSO TO ASK FOR "AN EXTRAORDINARY AUDIT".
THE EXPENDITURE BY THE COUNCIL IS MIS-USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS,AND INCOMING IS USING THE COMMON AS COLLATERAL "MORTGAGE FRAUD".
I CAN'T REALLY SEE HOW THESE MATTERS HAVE GOT TO THE HIGH COURT BECAUSE IT IS A LOCAL "COUNTY COURT MATTER" WHERE COMMONERS RIGHTS ARE CONCERNED, WHERE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS A CONCERN AND THE COUNCIL ARE/WERE THE OFFENDERS THEN THE HIGH COURT WOULD BE THE CORRECT VENUE.
COUNCIL AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ABUSE THE TRUST OF THE PUBLIC, AND ALL SHOULD GO BEFORE A HANGING JUDGE.
I AM WITH YOU ALL THE WAY"
Says Maureen Comber
"The problem was that when the 80 acres was fenced without authorization the Hampshire County Council rented the other 100 acres for an SSSI and incidental use by the public!! They kept making orders to re-align the obstructed rights of way. We always objected because they had left nothing but a FP to gain access to the common from the north side at Picketts Hill. However I did at last after trying for about 20 years succeed in getting the FP upgraded to bridleway.
I have made several claims for bridleways (20 yr. User) and the latest was along the edge of the common, part of it along an old road alignment. I deposited the claim in 2000 but it was not taken up for research until 2006 and then the officer recommended refusal, so of course it was refused.
I appealed under sec 14 WCA 1980 to Government Office for the North East. They eventually commissioned an Inspector to look at it and advise. She instructed HCC to make an order for a bridleway along the claimed route, but then HCC objected to their own Order triggering a Public Inquiry. That took place in 2009. It was a disaster. The Inspector was short and bossy to the point of rude. She refused to confirm the Order.
I judicially reviewed her decision and defra withdrew it and quashed her findings. We were asked if we wanted a hearing or written representations and we said either but then the objectors insisted on another PI. That was held last June/July. I had added aerial photos from 1959 onwards which clearly showed the track across the common. I expect you can find it on the PINS website NATROW/Q1770/529A/07/11.
This Inspector turned it down also, virtually by saying black was white and leaving out or only referring very briefly to the supporting evidence of which there was plenty.
He also applied costs because he said I must pay for making the objectors read unnecessary documents despite the fact that it was all stuff that had been at the previous PI.
Trouble is the bureaucrats all seem to be in it together so no chance. "