Says Naomi Smith
It is all too possible to round a corner on horseback and come upon a group of cattle with no prior warning -this WILL result in a horse being badly spooked at best, bolting at worst -it is only a matter of time ........... read more
Yateley Common, Hampshire
Sarah Manchester, Senior Countryside Access Development Officer,
Hampshire County Council outlines her plans
" I would like to confirm that we are planning to take two papers concerning Yateley Common to HCC Regulatory Committee – one relating to the bridleway diversion package; the other relating to a proposal to manage the common by grazing which would require fencing "
Says Sarah Manchester
For further clarification, I would like to confirm that we (HCC Countryside Service) are planning to take two papers concerning Yateley Common to HCC Regulatory Committee – one relating to the bridleway diversion package; the other relating to a proposal to manage the common by grazing which would require fencing. All being well, both papers will be presented to Committee on 20 November. I am closely involved with the ‘bridleway diversions’ paper, and in answer to a question raised in this string, I am currently in dialogue with Mark Weston about the proposal.
The wider management of the common, including options for grazing/fencing, is covered by colleagues within the Countryside Service – it is those colleagues who will be taking the relevant paper to Committee.
I hope this clarifies the situation in respect of the forthcoming Committee.
I note the comment below about Yateley Common not being a section 193 common (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/193). Records show that Yateley Common (or at least that part of the Common to which the diversions package applies) is a common to which section 193 applies. Section 193 access rights apply to people on horse-back as well as on foot (see FAQ 2, Point 1 of http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/access/openaccess/faqs.aspx). Section 193 access is area-wide access, and the legislation does not provide for the definition/registration of specific access points.
Again, I hope this clarifies the situation in respect of the access provision on Yateley Common.
Maureen Comber comments
- I note that Sarah Manchester is working directly with you and wonder why that does not include me as Hants CABO
- I also note the sudden unexplained change in the BHS policy on common land
Says Maureen Comber
I note that Sarah Manchester is working directly with you and wonder why that does not include me as Hants CABO, since none of the three asbo's I have received from HCC relate to Yately Common?
I also note the sudden unexplained change in the BHS policy on common land :
This has prompted some questions to which I would please, like an answer:
From the BHS handbook 2012, as part of the charitable aims. "We actively campaign to end discrimination in the provision of equestrian access and lobby for more places to ride"
Q1 In which case why does the Society not just object to proposals for fencing per se? Fencing and gates are obstructions at the best of times, but on horse back with the wide range of abilities and disabilities to take into account, they should be almost beyond consideration or an absolute last resort. Why has the policy not made this clear?
Q2 Why does there need to be a qualifier at all?
Q3 Why does the Society feel they can translate a temporary time limit to a maximum of ten years? Surely this is a matter for the courts rather than the Society? Temporary means limited time, transient, fleeting, brief, short lived, momentary. I have always understood it to be a measure in months rather than years and usually less than six.
Q4. The law does not support the inclosure of common land. Neither does it support application for HLS funding by others than those engaged in farming, either as tennants or owners. Many of the applications are being made by councils who are not owners and not farmers, as the common land is but vested with them for protection. Protection against the very thing they are making application for, which is fencing for inclosure. The Society are well aware of these matters and yet choose to make concessions which are not in the spirit or the letter of the law, or the wishes of their membership, or the four million others with equestrian interests. It cannot therefore be said be following its charitable aims to protect or promote the interest of horse riders or actually offer a strong voice for access. Please explain why?
Q5. Q6. As can be seen, Yately Common comes under sec.193 LPA 1925, which means that horse riders do not have to keep to the bridleways and are free to wander. That should mean that they can access the common from any point. It does not fix them to one or any particular point of entry. Any proposals for fencing will therefore diminish those rights and horse riders will once again be disadvantaged. Why is the Society not resolute in its charitable aims of protection and promotion?
Q7. It seems to me that there was no consultation about this latest policy statement. Why were not the CABO's included in these discussions since they are the volunteers nearest to the problems concerning access? Or have I been left off a list?
Q8. I am just informed that DABO is no longer in use as a title for access volunteers. Why were CABO's or County Committees not included in these discussions before this was done?
Q9. I know how much the Society values its patron. How does the Society think that patronage can be maintained when it does not stand resolute against those who are assassinating the sovereignty of Parliament by underhand means and wasting public resources in so doing?
You will see that I have copied in the Hants County Access Committee, and we look forward to hearing from you.
Brenda King comments
"As this is a sec.193 common riders can actually go anywhere they like, "
Says Brenda King
As this is a sec.193 common riders can actually go anywhere they like, (Yateley Common is not subject to any, regulation, ie 193, if it was then access would be regulated by access points and regulated by stated modes of access, which could exclude horses, the definitive access points would be registered, typical of those talking from their rears) but the definitive bridleways will be the routes which are maintained.
The other is an order for fencing and gating the common so that it can be grazed.
This order will require the approval of the Secretary of State.
Tony Barnett comments
- Sarah Manchester has in mind to re-arrange access for horses on Yateley Common, for her own personal agenda.
- She claims that the common is subject to 193, which she will fail to prove
- If BHS want to be useful, they should get involved with the public to save or regain open access to common land.
Says Tony Barnett
Sarah Manchester has in mind to re-arrange access for horses on Yateley Common, for her own personal agenda.
She claims that the common is subject to 193, which she will fail to prove, for that act to be insitu there must be an owner, there is no owners register at HCC.
The common land is not subject to regulation and as the common was vested into the protection of the authority as a section 9 1965 act, they have no jurisdiction.
During our conversation over her desire to regulate and re-arrange bridle paths, the question of insurance cover over the new equestrian access, we don't need any she said, how wrong can she be?
S 66 of the 2006 commons act prohibits the creation of "new" public rights of way, the act also ended certain unrecorded public rights of way(access as of custom), so the officer, if she decides to try and enforce the use of the new equestrian access points, she/the council will come unstuck, it will not be enforceable.
No doubt the works will need funding, to use public money for this agenda will be unlawful.
Sarah Manchester could not give a viable reason to interfer with the recorded access points other than to try to make a name for herself and with regards to her statement that she was working with BHS Mark Weston, also show ignorance.
BHS, like the council has no jurisdiction, if, BHS want to be useful, they should get involved with the public to save or regain open access to common land.
Sarah declined to involve the commoners in these matters, but in any case they will not be able to support interferrance with the land.
As it stands at the moment, Councillor Keith Chapman, the executive member for culture, recreation and countryside has deferred the matters, so no immediate steps to apply to pins has been made.
May I suggest that a public meeting is arranged and not a secret ballot, Yateley Common is open access from all points of view for pedestrians and equestrians and should remain so without councils dictatorial involvment.
Says Linda Wright
We moved to a Shropshire location a year ago having surveyed the local OS map and noted the significant number of bridleways around the property. Sadly the map appears a total fiction. Scarce any of the bridleways are usable ........... read more