Says Adrienne Yentis
A friend of mine recently was riding on the heath
and she came across a group of cattle strung out across the bridlepath with no way through – the only way off was to turn round. Fortunately her horse
remained calm throughout. But you can imagine how a nervous horse might react ........... read more
The Planning Inspectorate
Tony Barnett reports on a conversation with Richard Holland, Senior Officerr, PINS
- PINS are as much use to establishing the correct outcome as a man is in creating life after having a vasectomy
- Richard Holland agrees to examine "live" applications for consent for works on common land and look at both the application and objections
Says Tony Barnett
I spoke to Richard Holland senior officer at the planning inspectorate over concerns regarding the amount of "Planning Applications" to his department by the magical appearance of "Owners" of common land, which for the 1965 CRA were registered as Section 9 of that act, which since the repeal of that act under the 2006 commons act are now registered as Section 45, however, the legislation was substantially re-enacted, meaning no owners of the commons so registered have been traced, in essence are still/can be classed as un-owned, which is often used.
Statements from PINS officers in relation to applications for consent to "develop/enclose" are given carte blanch, no documents are requested and those that do forward inadequate information cannot be debated on as the legislation provides the officers are not qualified to adjudicate, so evidence is not required.
I pushed Richard (there seems no other way) to satisfy queries on how they,PINS, can give without evidence consent to the application, this is a "Planning Application", although Richard didn't see it as such, nevertheless drawings etc are forwarded with the application, this then in any mans language is a planning application and as such evidence of claims must/should be disclosed.
Consent though is given, even when evidence from objectors are disclosed to show that the applicant is not an owner or have lawful occupation or where the applicant claims to have consent from an owner, this is a statutory declaration,a statement of truth, but knowingly false by the applicant, the same false statement are made in county courts, this perjury, the claims to PINS is fraud, in truth and safety, we the public can make such statements because false representation is fraud and the applicant is committing fraud
In conversation with Richard I put this to him, he of course didn't see it that way.
Claims from PINS has always been "we are directed by DEFRA/Secretary of state to give consent no matter what, how can that be? PINS are supposed to be autonomous, legislation decreed that PINS should deal with applications for works on common land, but if they are not of the profession of Conveyance how can the correct, lawful,unbiased decision be made, PINS also say that any "mistakes", then the public can take the Minister to court, if PINS are "Autonomous" how can the secretary of state be prosecuted?
I speak with the knowledge of having a minister from the secretary of states office to examine applications and that of objections, and as such I have been given judgement, PINS do not follow that procedure because they are not competent at conveyance, civil or criminal law, they are as much use to establishing the correct outcome as a man is in creating life after having a vasectomy.
My conversation with Richard resulted in him agreeing to examine "live" applications for consent for works on common land and look at both the application and objections, anyone that is aware of preempted applications may send them to me, those that are before PINS now but have not been examined and are still pending, either write to Richard Holland with your knowledge or to me.
Comments Craig Weatherhill
"I suspect that the stated offence has been committed in certain applications relating to Common Land, in which case the LPA should be alerted, and has a clear duty to prosecute. If the LPA does not, then it is complicit in the offence."
Says Craig Weatherhill
Planning application forms all contain Ownership Certificates A to D, to be completed as required, or as relevant. Required by Article 12 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.
A - Sole Ownership, and no agricultural tenants. B - Shared Ownership (all other owners/agricultural tenants known). This requires Notice No.1 to be sent to all known owners/agricultural tenants, with a copy sent to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) C - Shared ownership (some other owners/agricultural tenants known). This requires Notice No 1 as above, and Notice No. 2 to be published in a local newspaper. Copies to the LPA. D - Shared ownership (None of the other owners/agricultural tenants known). Notice No 2 to be published in a local newspaper, with copy to the LPA.
Planning guidance states quite clearly: "It is an offence, knowingly or recklessly, to complete a false or misleading certificate."
I suspect that the stated offence has been committed in certain applications relating to Common Land, in which case the LPA should be alerted, and has a clear duty to prosecute. If the LPA does not, then it is complicit in the offence.
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