Langstrath and Coombe Fells COM 333
Tony Barnett writes to Richard Hunter,
TechArborA FdSc, Arboricultural and GIS Technician, H&H Land and Property Limited
- IT ONLY STRENGTHENS OUR BELIEF THAT IT IS THE INTENTION OF NATURAL ENGLAND, WITH THE HELP OF MISGUIDED PEOPLE TO STEAL, OUR RIGHTS TO OPEN ACCESS TO COMMON LAND FROM ALL POINTS OF VIEW (CROW ACT 2000)
- THE ENCLOSURE IS UNLAWFUL
- THE APPROVAL BY THE PERSONS/ORGANISATIONS MENTIONED IN YOUR EMAIL, HAVE NO JURISDICTION ON THE LAND, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS REGISTERED TO THEM.
Says Tony Barnett
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EMAIL.
HOWEVER IT ONLY STRENGTHENS OUR BELIEF THAT IT IS THE INTENTION OF NATURAL ENGLAND, WITH THE HELP OF MISGUIDED PEOPLE TO STEAL, OUR RIGHTS TO OPEN ACCESS TO COMMON LAND FROM ALL POINTS OF VIEW (CROW ACT 2000)
IF THE COMMON LAND, DOES BELONG TO THE NATIONAL TRUST, WHY THEN DID THEY NOT MAKE THE APPLICATIONS TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE?
TO MAKE SUCH AN APPLICATION, SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF PRE REGISTRATION OF TITLES WOULD BE REQUIRED, IN FACT, THEY ARE STILL REQUIRED, BY ME.
THE LAND, AS I HAVE BEEN ASSURED, HAS COMMONERS RIGHTS ATTACHED TO THE LAND, THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO GRAZE IN THE MANNER OF "PRAIRIE GRAZING", THEREFORE THE ENCLOSURE IS UNLAWFUL IN THAT RESPECT, AS THE CONSENT GIVEN, CONTAINED A SUPPLEMENTARY, IT WILL NOT BE LAWFUL IF THE WORKS ARE IN BREACH OF ANY "ENACTMENT".
I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE 2006 COMMONS ACT, "THE 1285 ACT,RIGHTS TO ENCLOSE COMMON LAND WAS REPEALED BY SECTION 47 (1) OF THAT ACT, SECTION 47 (2) PROHIBITS ANY FORM OF ENCLOSURE THAT MAY SUBSIST ALONGSIDE OF THAT ACT"
PERHAPS AN ORDER FROM THE COURT UNDER SECTION 41 OF THE 2006 ACT IS NEEDED, THIS APPLICATION WILL BE FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL EVIDENCE TO SHOW LOCUS STAN-DI, OR ANY REGULATORY ACT IS INSITU ON THIS COMMON LAND.
THE LAND "MAY" BE VESTED IN THE NT, BUT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP, TO SHOW THAT THE APPLICATION TO PINS, BY YOURSELF, WITH CONSENT, FROM A TITLE DEED HOLDER WAS CORRECT IN ORDER TO BE FREE FROM FALSE REPRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE, FALSE REPRESENTATION, AS YOU MAY KNOW IS FRAUD.
THE APPROVAL BY THE PERSONS/ORGANISATIONS MENTIONED IN YOUR EMAIL, HAVE NO JURISDICTION ON THE LAND, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS REGISTERED TO THEM.
I HAVE NOTICED ALSO THAT YOU HAVE NOT MENTIONED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMONERS, BUT AS THEY, UNDER THEIR RIGHTS LEGISLATION MAY NOT LET, LEASE, SELL OR EXTINGUISH THEIR RIGHTS, THE APPLICATION AND THE WORKS HAVE THE STRONGEST OBJECTION, AND SUBJECT TO THE GRAZING RIGHTS THE WORKS ARE UNLAWFUL, AND MAY BE TAKEN DOWN.
WITHOUT A COURT, BEING SEIZED OF ALL OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPLICATION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WAS LAWFUL, IT WILL NOT GIVE JUDGEMENT TO YOU THE APPLICANT, AND UNDER SECTION 41 OF THE ACT THE WORKS WILL BE TAKEN DOWN.
WE THE PUBLIC HAVE SCHEDULE 4 PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE ACT, THE POWER TO ENFORCE AGAINST UNLAWFUL WORKS.
AS APPROPRIATION OF COMMON LANDS ARE A NATIONAL ISSUE, THIS EMAIL WILL BE COPIED ONTO THE INTERNET.
This reply is in response to the following e-mail
Dear Mr Barnett
I have read your email and am sorry if the enclosing of part of Langstrath and Coombe Fell Common has caused distress. The project has been designed to improve the bio-diversity of the site, not to prevent public access.
The scheme has the support of The National Trust who are the owners of the land. The scheme is also supported by Natural England and has been vetted by Friends of the Lake District, Lake District National Park Authority, the Forestry Commission, English Heritage and the Open Spaces Society.
The application to erect the fence was made under the National Trust Act 1971: Section 23
The Planning Inspectorate gave consent for the works on the 21st June 2012
Everything has been done in accordance with Section 38 of the Commons Act 2006 as required by the Planning Inspectorate.