"Now it just need for the council to write to the unlawful occupiers (of Blackbushe Airport) to demolish the developments.."

Says Tony Barnett

May I also make comment on councils decision?

Point (A) Evidence that the Blackbushe Airport has existed for 75 years is incorrect, in fact the de-registration was complied with in 1960, the infrastructure and fittings were auctioned off, in 1962, with out any application, which would be required under section 194 of the law of property act 1925, with all evidence(documentary) disclosed,this was when A.V.M.Bennett would have made his decision to occupy the land, that point would be defeated in any court.

Point(B) SSSI and any other such claims have no protection on common, the flora and fauna are fodder for commoners animals and may be harvested for winter eatage that the summer season can  produced,as commoners animals have rights from levancy to couchency no prosecutions can be submitted, the common land is also a public amenity for air and exercise, pic-nics etc, the damage to the natural phenomena is by the fumes from the unlawful occupation and the permanent hard standing and buildings, this also acts as a stopping up and a closing off of a public amenity, to write to the unlawful occupiers to re-move themselves, thus complying with the minister of works order in 1960.

point (C) All rights are alleged as per Commons Commissioners decision provided in 1974, the failure of the land not being returned back to the state in which it was needed the local authorities supervision, as for any land deal exchange conveyance or any other form of conveyance was be effected and was not, the "footprint" once established by the RAF became deceased in 1960.

 A quote by Mr Commissioner Baden Fuller"I am required by regulation 30 (1) of the Common Commissioners regulation 1071 to explain that a person aggrieved by this decision as being erroneous, in point of law,, may within 6 weeks from the date on which notice of the decision is sent to him, requires to state a case for the decision of the high court.

No application challenge was ever made to his decision to state that the registration the "Whole" of  Yateley as registered common land, now it just need for the council to write to the unlawful occupiers to demolish the developments.

The arguments against the commons commissioners first registration although at the time only provisional 5 objections were made to try and persuade him from confirming the land from being registered finale.

The pleas were as such:
Entry No(1) in the land section was made  in consequence of the applications of  rights in the rights section. Apart from the 49 entries there are now no subsisting entries in the rights section of any rights of common. The grounds of the objection No OB 304(A.V.M.Bennett) were;-

1. the land is not common land at the date of registration (wrong the lands were registered with rights of common 1st January 1926). 
2.  The person named in the various applications are not entitled to any rights of common,  
3. No rights of common exist at all. 
4. the land is not part of a manorial waste or the like (if the lands are not manorial waste, then they must be demesne lands yet no pre-registrations of title are available). 

The grounds of objection stated in objections no OB 319 by (Brigadier Sir R. A. G. Calthorpe) are; that the plan edged red on the annexed was not common land at the date of registration and the rights registered over the land did not exist at the time of their registration.

On the said annexed plan the Calthorpe part is edged red. The grounds of objection stated in objection No 265 (the secretary of state for defence) that at the date of registration none of the rights claimed extended over so much of the land distinguished by register unit CL 24 (conclusive of the matters registered, see the decision) as is shown verged red; in a letter dated 25th July 1973 the` department of the environment stated that the objection No 265 was withdrawn in respect of all existing rights entries except for the said 11 entries (in the fifth column of the said schedule marked  defence.

A lot of time was given to the claims that the commoners had abandoned their rights, and some did not have a house to which rights could be attached, no attention at all was given to he fact that the house was not as important the "application lands", with out which rights of common could not be quantified for live stock and other products, so a presumption of abandonment can be rebutted by evidence of the commoners intention to keep his rights alive, in this context,it is important to distinguish between evidence needed to prove the existence of a right by prescription and evidence to show a right which existed in the past has been kept alive, this point is illustrated in Musgrave - inclosure commissioners(1874) LR 9 QB 162 and Scruton v Stone (1893) 9 TLR 4 78.

What may interest those against the de-registration and for the order made by the Minister of works, long winded but needed in the interest of retaining the natural phenomena of the common.... For the "Crondal Records Part 1, Historical and Manorial by Mr F.J. Bagent 1891, translation and history of this indenture; the counterpart executed by the tenants was held by the Dean and Chapter of Winchester, and the original executed by the Dean and Chapter was held on behalf of the tenants at Aldershot. the county archivist offered to produce at the hearing (1974) the counterpart from the county record office(now also the record office of the diocese and cathedral) but because it is fragile, I rely on Mr.Bagents translation(which was agreed). 

This 1567 indenture in its original form occupied two and a half large skins of parchment and its schedules consisted of 30 skins; the parties`s of the other part(numbering about 150) are described as Tenauntes by copie of courte rowle and copye houlders of the mannor of crondalle in the said countie of Sowhampton parcell of possessions of the said Dean and chapter in the right of the said cathedrall churche, rights of common are dealt with as follows

ITEM, IT IS CONCLUDED and agreid betweene the parties to these presentes, that all and singular tenauntes within the said mannor or hundred , their heire`s and assignees, shall and may at all tymes, from tyme to tyme, use, accupie and enjoye, and take a suche proffyttes of all and singular waste and common apperteyninge and belonginge to the lord of the same manor or hundred, with their beastes and cattell and in shreddinge of busshes, heathe, or ferne, and diggyne of gravell and all other proffyttes and commodytees, other then in one parcell of grownde now enclosed caulled the fleate ponde, in such manner and fourme, and to all suche intentes, purposes and respects, as they or anie other their auncestores tenauntes, hathe used to do or occupie the same, alwayes reservinge and saving to the lordes of the said mannor or hundred, and to their assignees all manner of oke, elme,ashe, and beach nowe growinge or to be growinge in upon the same groundes or commons and also the said parcell of grownde caulled the great fleate ponde as it is nowsevered, the commissioner said he was not concerned with Fleate Ponde.