Says Tony Barnett

YOUR APPLICATION TO ENCLOSE CHOBHAM WILL NOT TAKE PLACE, SURREY CC WILL OBJECT (JENNY ROACH) WILL HONOUR SECTIONS 47-1 & 47-2.

I HAVE ALSO REQUESTED FULL DISCLOSURE FROM SCC TO CONFIRM OWNERSHIP.

COMMONERS ON CHOBHAM WILL NOT BE IN THE POSITION TO ALLOW OTHERS GRAZING RIGHTS, AS SUCH ANY CONSTRUCTIONS PUT IN PLACE WILL BE REMOVED, LAWFULLY.

THE SUGGESTION THAT SWT WILL INTRODUCE LIVESTOCK ONTO THE COMMON LAND WILL BE UNLAWFUL, COMMONERS RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED IN 1965, ANY CLAIM TO COMMONERS RIGHTS AFTER THAT PERIOD WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Adds Tony Barnett

I SPOKE TO SCC IN REGARDS TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION BY SWT FOR CONSENT TO FENCE/ENCLOSE CHOBHAM COMMON.

I WAS ASSURED BY THE COUNCIL THAT FENCING IN OF CHOBHAM COMMON WILL NOT BE ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE 2006 COMMONS ACT PROHIBITIONS.

IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT THAT I INFORM YOU OF DOCUMENTS THAT I HAVE OBTAINED,THAT SHOW ONSLOW RECORED IN 1926 THAT THE LANDS WERE VESTED, THIS WILL IMPLY THAT CHOBHAM COMMON WAS NOT OF HIS DEMENSE LANDS AND WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN "HELD" THE LANDS IN COPYHOLD (TENURE), BY WHO THE COMMON LAND WAS LEASED BY OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN LEASED BY IS STILL UNCLEAR, BUT THE "CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT" DOES SAY PURPORTED RIGHTSOR OWNERSHIP.

THE DOCUMENTS THEREFORE CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS THERE IS NO PRE-REGISTRATIOIN OF TITLES TO SUPPORT EITHER STATEMENT.

THE SUGGESTION THAT SWT WILL INTRODUCE LIVESTOCK ONTO THE COMMON LAND WILL BE UNLAWFUL, COMMONERS RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED IN 1965, ANY CLAIM TO COMMONERS RIGHTS AFTER THAT PERIOD WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

THE CLAIM BY SCC THAT CHOBHAM IS SUBJECT TO s193 IS INCCORECT AS THE DOCUMENTS I HOLD SHOW, AS THIS COMMON LAND WAS ALLEGEDLY VESTED IN ONSLOW, BUT CHOBHAM COMMON WAS VESTED IN SCC BY THE 1965 CRA BY THE COMMONS COMMISSIONER, THIS VESTING GIVES NO JURISDICTION TO THE COUNCIL.

I HAVE CHALLENGED SWT OVER THESE MATTERS BUT AS YET NO EPLY, IN THE INTRIM ALL THAT HAVE GAINED ACCESS TO THE CONSENT LETTER, GIVEN BY WILLIE LENGERS SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT SWT MUST PROVE THAT THEE WORKS APPLIED FOR WILL BE LAWFUL, THEY WILL NOT BE.

I HAVE STATED THIS MANY TIMES, ALL, HORSE AND PEDESTRIAN SHOULD COME TOGETHER, ONE THING FOR CERTAIN IS THAT IF PEDESTRIANS LOOSE ACCESS, HORSES WILL MEET THE SAME FATE