The Battle for Broxhead Common

2024 C102 near Cradle Lane exit

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 128

1. The Order for a bridleway link between Cradle Lane and BW54 on Broxhead Common meant that the dangerous bends on the C102 could now be avoided, and the horse riders would be safely off-road if the firing of guns from the rifle range spooked them.
2. However, the joy of my success was soon overshadowed by the news that Hampshire County Council intended to OBJECT to its own Order.
3. In May 2007, I was elected the District Councillor for Selborne Ward, East Hampshire, so hoped I might know the people who might have some influence.
4. 12th December 2008, naturally I lost no time seeking answers from Ray Ellis, Executive Member for Efficiency, Performance and Rural Policy of Hampshire County Council.
5. On 17th December 2008, I emailed my County Councillor, copied in the Leader and Deputy Leader of East Hampshire District Council and asked who had made such a decision and why.
   2008_17_12 Email to Mark K-G
6. On 16th January 2009, having not received a reply I emailed my County Councillor again, copying in HCC’s Head of Information Compliance, and this time asked for more detail.
   2009_16_01 Email to Mark K-G
7. 6th February 2009 a reply came from the Executive Member for Efficiency, Performance and Rural Policy.
   2009 From Cllr Ray Ellis re Order 54 to Cradle Lane27022021
8. 12th February 2009 having had no positive responses I wrote to confirm my appeal under Paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 14 to the Council’s refusal to add a bridleway between Cradle Lane and BW54 in the Parish of Headley.
9. 14th February 2009 I replied to Ray Ellis’s letter asking him to clarify some of his points.
   2009_14_02 Email to Cllr Ray Ellis
10. 15th February 2009 As a long shot I wrote to the Chair of the Regulatory Committee with whom I had a passing acquaintance.
    2009-15-02 Email to Cllr Pat Devereau
11. 23rd February 2009 Ray Ellis replied but it was an exact copy of his previous letter. He did not seem to understand that a material change had occurred since the only decision of the Regulatory Committee.
    2009_23_02 Email from Cllr Ray Ellis

C102 Gun Club on left

Next time: Nor all thy Piety nor Wit……

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common opposite the Rifle Range

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 127

1. On 12th February 2007, I sent my appeal to the Government Office for the Northeast (GONE) against HCC’s refusal for a bridleway between BW54 and Cradle Lane on Broxhead Common,
   2007_12__02 MC to GONE
2. Much correspondence followed by written representations between me, and Hampshire County Council, and the Government Office for the Northeast.
3. On 29th August 2007, the Casework Team of Defra informed me that the exchange of written representations was complete and would now proceed to the decision stage.
   2007 _08_29 from DEFRA
4. 14th September 2007 a letter arrived from GONE to say that they had commissioned an Inspector’s report on behalf of DEFRA.
   2007_09_14_ GONE to MC
5. 9 January 2008, I am told to expect the decision by 4th April 2008
   2008 _01_09 from DEFRA
6. I telephoned in May to chase it up only to be told that I should get in touch again at the end of June if I had not received it. This I did.
7. 24th July 2008, a reply explained that they had been moving office and taking on extra work for Transport cases. They hoped to issue a decision towards the end of August.
8. 12th August 2008 the decision came.
   Planning Inspector Susan Doran had ALLOWED my appeal.
   2008_08__12 _ GONE to MC
9. 8th October 2008 Hampshire County Council duly made the Order for a bridleway between Cradle Lane and BW54 on Broxhead Common.
   2008 BW54 to Cradle Lane ORDER
   2008 Claim BW54 to Cradle PLAN03022021
10. I was delighted as it was the culmination of years of trying to achieve a reasonably inexpensive solution to the problems of the firing of guns so close to the road C102, and an important link in the BW network.
11. However, the fates were to deliver a cruel blow and what happened next is almost unbelievable.

C102 looking east

Next time: The moving finger writes and having writ moves on…

The Battle for Broxhead Common

2024 C102 Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 125

1. So, that is how I had arrived at my claim for a bridleway between BW54 and Cradle Lane, which I had submitted on 9th October 2000 and was still waiting for HCC to progress, when Planning Inspector Mark Yates made his decision for bridleways on Broxhead Common in April 2007. He had decided that the terms of the lease already gave horse riders permission to ride on the common.
2. Jim Colbourne, my friend and mentor in rights of way matters was also totally frustrated with EHDC and HCC. The problems often came about because of the contract set up between them. This permitted EHDC to have control of rights of way in East Hampshire but invariably meant HCC would be used as a negative excuse when anything needed to be done. Jim complained to the Local Government Ombudsman about this situation.
   2001 The Wade Way 2 2
3. 31st October 2000 the Ombudsman published his report and found maladministration in East Hampshire District Council and Hampshire County Council’s handling of Rights of Way Matters.
   The Ombudsman recommended that both Councils undertake a review of arrangements for the inspection of footpaths including the adequacy of resources.
   2000 Maladministration
4. 20th April, 2001, however, the Highways Authority of HCC had admitted to the court that they may have a duty of care for horse riders under sec.130 HA 1980, so as Mr Justice Sedley had said that it was a matter that could be resolved by discussion and agreement I thought it worth pointing out that the ‘landowner’ had a planning application in the vicinity so perhaps clearing the old highway over the common land so that all non-motorised users (NMU’s) could enjoy it as a bridleway, might be an opportunity for a planning gain?
   Sadly, as with all other such opportunities it came to nothing, probably because as was becoming obvious, council’s generally preferred cash incentives under s.106 agreements rather than legal rights etc.
   2001-20-04 MC to EHDC PLANNING
5. 10th October 2002, considering all the foregoing I had hoped that my claim for a bridleway now numbered 694, would have helped focus HCC’s attention on the need to clear a few fallen trees on a path we had been using since time immemorial and is shown as part of an old highway to Lindord, so I wrote again to the friendly rights of way manager.
   2002 16_10_02 MC to AS

2024 C102 Headley Park

Next time: to be continued

The Battle for Broxhead Common

2024 Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 124

1. 2000. A new century was upon us. The internet was still there despite doomster predictions and a new Rights of Way Manager had materialised at Hampshire County Council.
2. 9th June 2000 I wrote to him about a couple of things and re-arranged a meeting with him at the end of the month.
   2000 _09_06 MC to AS
3. 30th June 2000, I wrote to thank him and bring him up to date with one or two of the problems I had taken him to see.
   2000 _30_06 MC to AS
4. 18th July 2000. He says it will be necessary to make a formal application for bridleway rights from BW 54 to Cradle Lane so they can be investigated. My heart sank because the process takes years, nevertheless nothing ventured nothing gained as they say.
   2000_18_07 AS to MC
5. 2nd October 2000 I did as the Senior Rights of Way Manager had instructed and made a formal application to Hampshire County Council for a bridleway between Cradle Lane and BW54 on Broxhead Common.
   2000_9_10 HCC receipt for claim no. 294
6. 13th October 2000 I wrote again to remind the friendly Rights of Way Manager that HCC had not yet addressed their responsibilities regarding the C102 opposite the Rifle Range and asked him if he could clarify the contract between East Hampshire District Council and HCC with regard to rights of way.
   2000_13_10 MC to AS
7. 31st October 2000 a reply came saying how seriously HCC take their responsibilities regarding rights of way and addresses the issue of a claim I had made under the Discovering Lost Ways initiative set up by Natural England which eventually became BW 504 Binsted. I think it was probably the only Lost Way recorded by HCC although I may be mistaken. He also enlightened me as to the renewal contract for rights of way with EHDC.
   2001_22_1 AS to MC
8. 22 January 2001 another letter from the Rights of Way Manager after a prompt from me about various rights of way problems in the area. It seems financing Hampshire County Council’s statutory duties regarding rights of way problems is still an issue.

C102 looking east from track on to common

To be continued:

The Battle for Broxhead Common

From C102. Note the extent of the woodland between the r (1)

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 123

1. I had to wonder why it was proving so difficult to clear a couple of fallen trees across the path of an ancient highway which runs across the common land. It is still clearly marked on all the OS maps. Not only would it link the existing bridleways and byways but most importantly, remove all vulnerable road users from the existing dangers of the C102.
   So, my County Councillor duly wrote to Ted Mason, following up with my request.
   1998 John Filer to Ted Mason 17_4_1998 5
2. 7th August 1998 he had a reply from Mr Mason. He says that HCC are currently negotiating compensation payable to Mr Whitfield because of the Creation Order for upgrading FP54 to bridleway and the Council’s scarce resources will be spent on higher priorities.
   1998 Ted Mason to Filer
3. It was beginning to feel as if I had been given the ‘black spot’ for reclaiming rights that should not have been denied in the first instance and surely the least expensive option was clearing a few fallen trees on the common land.
4. It was not just me that was asking for relatively minor adjustments to make life safer and easier for horse riders on Broxhead Common. Others wrote also. Mrs Thomas received a reply couched in much the same terms as the one above. She later moved to France in the wake of several others also fed up with this strange reluctance by Hampshire County Council to uphold the rights and privileges of their ratepayers.
   1998 Bridget Thomas to HCC
5. 18th May 1999 I wrote another letter to Ted Mason, Principal Solicitor copied to my County Councillor. I tried to explain the law and how it had been interpreted on other occasions, after all settled law is the basis of life as we know it on these islands.
   1999 Letter MC to Ted Mason
6. 26th May 1999 I had a reply from Edward White, another of Hampshire County Council’s solicitors. It informs me that Edward Mason has been forced into early retirement.
   1999 Mason retired
7. However, the turn of the century was almost upon us, and big changes were coming to both EHDC and HCC

Broxhead Common. No horse riding signs erected 1997

Next time: We can but hope.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

C102 Headley Park on the bends

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 122

1. 24th June 1996. A reply had come not from EHDC but Hampshire County Council. It said that “I note from your letter that you regard your client as a member of a class, namely that of a highway user. With respect it would appear that your client is abnormally sensitive…..If you consider that a tort has been committed by the rifle club, then your action must lie against the tort feaser.”
   1996 Solicitors Letter to EHDC
2. To cut another long story short I judicially reviewed their unhelpful decision and was grateful to the Judge who gave me leave because he said it was a matter that could be resolved by discussion and agreement.
   1996 HCC to Shentons re rifle range
3. That should have settled the issue except there was no discussion or agreement before Hampshire County Council lost no time in scurrying up to London to get the action removed.
   1997 Judicial Review granted
4. But I was not giving up. In May 1998 I wrote to County Councillor Mike Roberts, and he advised writing to Ted Mason in the Council’s Chief Executive’s department, which I then did.
   1998 Roberts to MC
5. 13th March 1998 the reply came from Mrs Tett in HCC’s Legal Practice, in which she says that “the land opposite the rifle club is not common land and is privately owned and the highway at this location consists of the carriageway and only a narrow verge which is too narrow for the accommodation of horse riders. Therefore, the County Council has no plans to make a Creation Order for a Bridleway under Section 26 Highways Act 1980.”
   1998 MC to HCC re rifle range
6. 18th March 1998 I replied by refuting her suggestion that the land was not common land as I had already checked with my contact in the Chief Executive’s Department. I also quoted information from my recent successful application to upgrade FP54 to bridleway.
   1998 MC to HCC re rifle range
7. 31st March 1998 the reply came, this time from the man himself. He was obviously very rattled by my success the previous year in achieving the upgrade to FP54 after 20 years of trying.
   1998 MASON to MC re rifle range
8. 23rd April 1998 he wrote again saying that the strip of common land in question does not form part of the highway so Sec. 71 HA 1980 does not apply.
   1998 Mason to MC re verges

2014 vandalising the common land by Headley Park

Next time: I am still not giving up.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

C102 looking east from track on to common 31st May 2007

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 121

1. Any of my readers who are familiar with the countryside in northeast Hampshire will know that it is traversed by numerous narrow winding country lanes. These should be a delight for those that prefer to leave their vehicles in the garage and explore on foot, horse, or cycle. They are prevented from being so because despite many requests over the years, successive governments have left the speed limit at 60 mph. While I agree to some extent that their excuse of “the geography of the road will dictate the speed of the vehicle”, it is not always the case especially on the straight sections. Neither does it give priority to vulnerable road users.
2. The problem can be clearly seen on the C102 from Cradle Lane past Headley Park, then the Headley Park Rifle Range on the right, up to Trottsford and the A325. The hairpin bends and lack of refuge past Headley Park are a nightmare, as were the dustbins and puffing steam from the kitchen ventilators, while just a little further up the road the sudden and unexpected loud gunshots can cause a startled horse to slip on the tarmacked surface. At that point the road is straight with a noticeable incline which tempts the traffic to speed up.
3. The obvious solution would be to eliminate the risks involved by linking Cradle Lane directly with BW54. This could be easily done by clearing the old highway alignment of Cradle Lane which runs through the common land opposite the gun club and can be seen on all OS maps. That would remove all vulnerable road users from this dangerous section of the C102. In fact, that is what many of us had been doing in any case until 1989 when the first of the two hurricanes brought numerous trees down.
   2000 map Cradle Lane extension
4. I had written to Hampshire County Council asking that it be made available on several occasions since the 1970’s but found it time consuming with the usual reluctance to help.
5. By 1996 I was feeling frustrated by the total refusal of HCC to adopt what should have been a cheap and easy solution to the problem, so I instructed my Solicitor to write directly to the Highways Authority of East Hampshire District Council asking for action to be taken under Section 130 HA 1980 which says, “It is the duty of the Highway Authority to assert and protect the rights of the public to use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the Highway Authority including any roadside waste which forms part of it.”

C102 looking west from track on common

Next time: to be continued.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common Willy and Shep

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 120

1. I found the Leader’s response quite unacceptable simply because the Planning Inspector’s decision says riders already have rights under the terms of the lease, also HCC have had two years to investigate and produce further paths on a permissive basis, to no avail.
2. 17th September 2007 I write another letter to the Leader and try to be as clear and concise as possible to help him understand the situation. If he does not agree with the decision of the Planning Inspectorate, then surely, they should appeal it so that due process can be followed.
   2007 MC to KT email 17.9.0710022021
3. 10th October 2007 I receive a reply. It says that the Inspector’s decision is only binding in respect of bridleway rights. The terms of the lease and the Inspector’s decision only refer to the existence of permissive access.
   The other points are noted and do not prevent the provision of new access for horse riders where this can be achieved in a manner which is not harmful to the nature conservation value of the land.
   2007 KT to MC email 10.10.0710022021
4. Talking about the nature conservation value of the land where 80 acres has been obliterated by unlawful fencing while changing it into grassland and at least another five acres groomed for a sports field, speaks volumes for the sheer hypocrisy from the people who all taxpayers pay to help look after our environment.
5. 15th October 2007 I reply and address his points directly.
   2007 MC to KT email 15.10.0710022021
6. 1st November 2007 I receive a reply saying the Countryside Service will take this up directly with the owner of the land and if I wish to follow that up, I should contact them.
   2007 KT to MC email 23.10.07 10022021
7. Which of course I did but it wasn’t until 1st January 2013 that the Head of Countryside specifically addressed the matter in an email focusing on another problem. He says that it had been followed up, but as no help would come from either the landowner or Natural England (now English Nature) it seemed an inappropriate time to address the situation.
   2012 Andrew Smith re signs copy
8. It seems therefore that Hampshire County Council does not follow due process or heed the decisions of its own committees or the Planning Inspectorate, in fact it had become a law unto itself.

Broxhead Common

Next time: This claim was quickly followed by my next.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

24-08-07_1231 Broxhead heathland

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 119

1. 21st December 2006 I receive a short email from the Leader, which says it is not possible for him to respond until after Christmas.
   2006 Nov letter KT to MC 1
2. 8th February 2007 The letter from the Leader arrived by email. It is mainly a defence of the Officers of the Recreation and Heritage Department, highlighting their expertise in investigating applications to modify the Definitive Map, but then came a shocking revelation where he says, “Rights of Way Improvement Plans are not relevant to these decisions.”
   2007 February letter KT to MC
3. We volunteers had been working with the Local Access Forums and other interested bodies to help improve the Footpaths, Bridleways and Byways which run like golden threads of peace and tranquillity throughout the countryside. However, they could be much improved by being linked up because there are sometimes considerable lengths in the network that are missing. This is the main reason why vulnerable road users must use the tarmacked roads to get from one bridleway to the next.
4. However, clearly all my questions had not been addressed, especially the reminder to HCC of the recommendation by their Regulatory Committee that instead of supporting my application to recognise paths that had been used since time immemorial as bridleways, better provision should be sought for horse riders on Broxhead Common. As far as we could see nothing had been done to address this instruction. All we could do now was to wait for the Planning Inspectorate’s decision.
5. 8th August 2007 was the date I received the decision from Inspector Mark Yates, detailed in Part 114 of this series.
6. 9th August 2007 I was quick to email the Leader and once again bring him up to date.
   2007 MC to Ken Thornber
7. 12th September the Leader responds. He acknowledges the decision but then says that the report does not say that routes for riders must be provided under the terms of the lease, however, it might be a good time to review with the landowner the possibilities for allowing permissive access for riders.
   2007 KT to MC email 12.9.0710022021

24-08-07_1231 Broxhead heathland

Next time: the correspondence continues

The Battle for Broxhead Common

One of the claimed paths

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 118

1. The third objector was of course Hampshire County Council in the form of its Regulatory Committee. However, when they made the decision to refuse my claim for bridleways on Broxhead Common, they had agreed that efforts would be made to increase permissive use of the common and in particular the claimed routes. This decision would be referred to the Chair of HCC.
2. However, despite the re-assurance nothing happened. So, on 3rd August 2006, I emailed my County Councillor, copying in the Leader of Hampshire County Council to ask if he could help.
   2006 email to County Cllr. re signs on common17022021
3. 12th August 2006 the British Horse Society’s County Chair wrote to Hampshire County Council’s Chief Executives Office explaining the situation and asking for an explanation regarding the appearance of the ‘No horse-riding signs.’
   2006 August Brenda King letter to Chief Executives08122020
4. 2nd October 2006 his reply was placatory but far from comforting. He says “the Regulatory Committee’s decision is being acted upon, but the Council does need to know the views of the owner and understand the terms of the lease. The new signs are not in response to this issue but in the interests of safeguarding areas of high nature conservation value across the common.”
   So, we were back to the landowner and the conservationists again.
   2006 letter KT to MC 1
5. 5th October 2006 I wrote again. After thanking him for HCC’s initiative for instigating the Rights of Way Improvement Plans, I tried to clear up some facts regarding Broxhead Common of which he may still be ignorant. Councillors are very dependent on the professional advice of the Officers of the Council because of the variety of departments which cover multiple interests. However, at the same time the situation on the ground is not always understood.
   2006 letter MC to KT
6. 28th November 2006 is the date of the next letter from the Leader.
   He says, “a permissive route may not find favour while there is a possibility that a statutory route may be granted.” I note also the rather whitewashed version about the matter of the ‘no horse riding’ signs. However, I am pleased to see that BW46 will be cleared; it would be the first time since 1992 after the Public Inquiry made it one of the conditions for granting the bridleway diversion. Assuming it would be done as predicted, it would not be cleared again until 2022.
   2006 Nov letter KT to MC 

Next time: to be continued.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

One of the claimed paths

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 117

1. My quote from Christopher Rodgers book, ‘Contested Common Lands’, in the last episode needs to be remembered to see how some of our laws and EU rules and regulations are either being ignored or misused.
   As far as I am aware none of the Broxhead Commoners were engaged in farming so would not have applied for any grants under the EU CAP Scheme. The same could not be said for either Hampshire County Council or the Conservation Bodies who of course are not farmers.
2. The next objector to my claim for bridleways to replace the 23 tracks now long obstructed by the unlawful fencing, came from Natural England’s Hamshire and Isle of Wight Group.
3. 7th Febraury 2005 the letter emphasises the importance of the SSSI and Wealden Heaths phase 2 Special Protection Area. The example of BW46 is ridiculous as the vegetation is growing across the path making it almost unusable rather than as stated. Also not declared is that horses do not impact the sandy surface but keep it friable for the ground nesting wasps and other small insects.
   2005 English Nature OBJECTION LETTER04022021
4. To jeopardise the safety of horse riders by refusing my claim for bridleways on Broxhead Common with such a statement as: “It is English Nature’s opinion that the proposed instatement of these bridleways is likely to cause significant harm at Broxhead and Kingsley Commons SSSI.
   In the circumstances, if Hampshire County Council sought assent for the instatement of these public bridleways, English Nature would not be in a position to assent to the proposals” seemed to me to be a rather strong statement coming from an Assistant Conservation Officer from Natural England’s local office.
5. So, I penned a quick line to the Chief Executive of English Nature, Dr Andy Brown.
6. 18th August 2005 his reply was very interesting because he says that HCC have told him that ‘the officer’s recommendation is to refuse on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence about use of the paths. We understand that the nature conservation issues are effectively irrelevant’!
   EN Andy Brown

Another of the claimed paths

Next time: the third Objector.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 116

1. The objections to my claims for bridleways, made to ameliorate the loss of 23 tracks used by horse riders before the unlawful fencing obstructed most of them, came from the same three sources. They were the purported landowner, English Nature, with Hampshire County Council concurring to the Regulatory Committee, where the decision to support it or not would be made. It felt like a brick wall.
2. 18th January 2005 the first of the objections came, as you might expect, from the purported landowner. It would have been amusing if it had not been so irrational because it is stressing the importance of the common as an SSSI. It says: “… and is vitally important to wildlife and contains habitats and features that cannot be recreated, it is in unfavourable condition and declining.” This is the same person that has repeatedly objected to the registration of Broxhead as common land and has refused to seek the assent of the Secretary of State for the unlawful fencing. It continues:
   “But I strongly object to the notion that this narrow corridor of Hampshire be subjected to any further heavy equine traffic just to satisfy the whims of a handful of local jockeys. Indeed, English Nature objected to proposals for new bridleways back in 1999, I feel confident that their views will not have changed on the basis that this proposal is in direct conflict with the management principles for conservation of this SSSI.” So, the heavy equine traffic is composed of a handful of local jockeys!?
   2005 Objection letter from Whitfield05022021
3. 20th December 2005 brought a short, sharp repeat from the same source.
   2005 Objection letters from Whitfield05022021
4. The conflict of interest between the conservationists and access interests had arisen because the registration provisions of the Commons Registration Act 1965 and the Commons Act 2006 had been drafted without reference to the particular requirements of environmental management. (Rodgers).
5. Of interest also, is that the “legal characterisation of the land use permitted by a common property right will also impact upon the utility of Agri-environment schemes as a tool for promoting the environmental management of common land. Measures under the EC Rural Development Policy are only available for applicants engaged in ‘farming’ and are therefore inapplicable if a common is not put to an agricultural use. The determining factor is the economic use to which commoners put their rights, rather than the nature of the rights themselves – only common rights holders who are registered as farmers for the receipt of European Community subsidies can claim Agri-environment payments under schemes such as ESA, ELS or HLS. It follows that Agri-environment schemes such as HLS have no potential application for the management of ‘recreational’ commons or those whose primary features is (paradoxically) their high nature value rather than their value as an agricultural resource.’” (Rodgers et al – Contested Common Land [2011]). Hampshire County Council and the Conservation Groups, should note.

Broxhead Common

Next time: Next objection – Natural England

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW47 Linsted Lane, Broxhead Common looking back to Headley Wood Farm

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 115

1. It had always seemed strange to me that Hampshire County Council were leasing part of Broxhead Common. They had been sharing the legal costs 50/50 with the Commoners in opposing the appeals by the purported landowner against the decision of the Chief Commons Commissioner which stated that the whole of Broxhead Common should be registered; there had also been consultation at the time with the local parish councils which had confirmed their hostility to any fencing on the common, so how and why had a lease come about and why had the unlawfully fenced 80 acres been excluded from it? There had certainly been no further consultation even with the commoners. They had just been presented with a copy of the lease dated from June 1978 and the Consent Order from the Court of Appeal, albeit with a page missing and told the CA had ordered it.
2. To better understand the peculiar outcome, I emailed the County Council’s Senior Solicitor and asked what the terms of the lease were.
3. 9th November 2005 the reply says the terms of the lease are as follows, “not to use or permit to be used the Common or any part thereof other than for a nature reserve within the meaning of section 15 of the [National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949] and for incidental use by the public for air and exercise”.
   2005 EMAIL from HCC Senior Solicitor re terms of lease04022021_0001
4. This reply only increased my curiosity because when objecting to my applications to improve access to Broxhead Common for horse riders, the officers of the Council had stated that the reason for their objection was that:
   2005 HCC C.Piper report to Reg Comm
5. “The settlement in the Court of Appeal in 1978, and the subsequent Lease Agreement between the landowner and the County Council, does not give horse riders a right of access on Broxhead Common. Although Broxhead Common is a registered common and therefore access land as defined by the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000, this status does not convey a right of access to horse riders. There is a right of open access for walkers only. Horse riders have a right of access for air and exercise to Metropolitan Commons but not to commons in rural districts as at Broxhead.”
6. So, the recent decision of Mark Yates was addressing the conundrum.

2018 Strictly Private gate on Broxhead Common with the 80 acres beyond

Next time: The questions continue.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

to be or not to be a bridleway

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 114

1. Well, I suppose I had managed to get rid of the Terminator gate and the rails beside it, so at least one end of that section of BW4 is now open at the Lindford side of the field, and the gate at the other end had been re-arranged, but what needs to be known is that at this time I was still dealing with the aftermath of the Public Inquiry decision by Planning Inspector, Mark Yates.
2. On 8th January 1999, I had claimed bridleway routes of 20-year user around the edge of the unlawfully enclosed 80 acres and across the unenclosed parts of the common now leased by HCC from Mr Whitfield. These can still be seen on the older OS maps. They would join with the existing bridleways to make a circular route so that the common could be accessed on all sides by horse riders.
3. The application was made to HCC but did not make it to the Regulatory Committee until 1st November 2005 where, as I had come to expect, it was refused. That necessitated an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and eventually the decision of Planning Inspector Mark Yates.
4. The decision dated 23rd April 2007 stated that he could not order the tracks be designated bridleways because he said:
   2007 PI Mark Yates for Broxhead claim for BW’s08122020
5. “In particular, a lease has operated for the whole of the relevant period which provides for public access for air and exercise. There is no apparent limitation in terms of use by horse riders; however, I consider that the lease would constitute a permissive right of access in relation to use of the claimed routes.”
   2006 email to County Cllr. re signs on common17022021
6. The sting in this story is that as soon as I had made that claim stumps were placed on every available track on Broxhead Common forbidding horse riders’ access, where they probably remain to this day.
7. Nonetheless, Inspector Yates had made a good point in asserting the rights of horse riders to access that area of Broxhead common land and I lost no time in asking HCC when the paths would be cleared to make them available.
8. It seemed to me that the objectors to the application were overreaching themselves and in doing so discriminating against horse riders.

BW46 BROXHEAD COMMON (3).jpg sign after application for bw’s

04-09-08_1201Stump sign just visible

Next time: the background to this application.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW4 a rearranged gate

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 113

1. My email serving notice on them to remove the fencing brought forth a suggestion of a site visit.
2. At last, I was able to explain the dangers of having the fence wire on the wrong side of the posts. As any farmer will tell you, they always fence against their own stock so that if or when they push against it the wire is pushed on to the posts rather than off them.
3. I showed them how the gate they had erected could not work and how the gate handle on the post was much too low.
4. I suggested that all these structures formed obstructions to the bridleway because it was now outside the curtilage of the field and by law the whole width of the path must be available and unobstructed.
5. I asked why rails had been placed across most of the path with a gap beside them at the other side of the field. I also showed how the fencing had cut across the Definitive line used by the public, as the pictures show.
6. In the end it was agreed to remove the rails at one end of the path which at least put an end to the possibility of the Terminator’s return, but the gate at the other side must remain because of moving the sheep. I said that was probably only a couple of times a year and it would be easy to place a hurdle across it when this happened.
7. But they insisted that the gate remained but would be kept open permanently unless the sheep were being moved.
8. In the interest of being reasonable I was forced to agree to this but knew it would never work because the public can be very good at closing gates.
9. Just as I had guessed would be the case, I was to find the gate open only once shortly after that meeting, the fence wire remained on the wrong side of the posts.
   The obstruction to BW4 remains to this day.

Gates on BW’s Broxhead Common with the 80 acres in the background

2019 BW4

Next time: While all of this was taking place a different problem had arisen.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

the whole of the path should be unobstructed

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 112

1. My email of 10/11/07 brought a response from the HCC Countryside Department. I was told that any landowner can enclose a right of way providing the path was not obstructed. However, this one now had been because the gate that had replaced the Terminator had been moved to the other side of the unlawfully enclosed field where it was unusable. Not only was the handle invisible from the Lindford side but it was positioned too low to reach from horseback. Also, it was hung on the wrong side.
   2007 Rob Thompson
2. As for being advised to claim the extra width by a 20- year user claim which normally took six to ten years to first assessment, was not only unhelpful but quite unacceptable.
3. It also brought to my attention that Hampshire’s Countryside Department had a priority list for its Statutory Duties of maintenance and care of rights of way. It showed how behind they are in performing their Statutory Duties of maintenance to Rights of Way probably because the funding for this from Central Government was not ring fenced and therefore being used for other more favoured projects.
4. Notwithstanding, a Statutory Duty is just that and if Parliament wished it to have been only a power it was up to Parliament so to provide. There should not be one rule for the Council and another for the taxpayer. Imagine the furore that would arise if we prioritised the payment of our taxes which are also a Statutory Duty.
5. I emailed by return the same morning serving notice on them to remove the fencing with the same alacrity as it had been erected, because not only was the wire on the wrong side of the fence but the re-erected gate had been hung on the wrong side constraining the opening while the handle was set so low it could not be reached from the back of a horse.
   2007 Rob Thompson to MC

handle too low and cannot be seen on approach from south

the bw gate half open. note position of the new field gate c

Next time: A site visit by Countryside

The Battle for Broxhead Common

the-whole-width-of-the-path-should-be-available

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 111

1. I must admit that I was dismayed to find these alterations taking place without any consultation whatsoever. Any alteration to a definitive right of way must be open for comment at least.
2. Although the path they were enclosing had the minimum statutory width of three metres it had cut across the route we had all been using, and had been used since time immemorial. Paths over open common land are seldom straight as people tend to wander to the left or to the right.
3. However, in the reply to my first email I was being told that they did know about the alteration to the path, and it had been assumed there would be no problem and he would look at it in the next few weeks! Ignorance was pleaded about the opening paragraph of my email.
4. 8th November 2007. The first paragraph of that email was about a 20-year user claim I had submitted for bridleways on Broxhead Common. The claim described the paths which we had often used some of which had become too overgrown with gorse for continued use. Mark Yates the Planning Inspector for the claim of 20-year user, had concluded that he could see nothing in Hampshire County Council’s lease which prevented us from accessing the common in any case.
5. After this decision Hampshire County Council wrote to say they would seek to improve access for horse riders to the common, but as you can guess, nothing changed.
   I emailed a reply with a detailed explanation of my concerns.
   2007 MC to Rob Thompson

2007-The-statutory-path-from-the-gateway-now-obstructed-by-new-fence

Next time: to be continued.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

no gate so why the rails

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 110

1. The workmen putting up the fence were of course just following orders, so I immediately wrote to the Senior Rights of way Officer in Hampshire County Council. Surely he was not condoning and helping this change of the definitive description without publishing the intention?
2. Most of the Rights of Way Officers in Hampshire County Council knew me by now because I had first been a volunteer for the Headley & District Bridleways Group, then the British Horse Society. Their aim was and still is to try and get more off-road routes for horses because the traffic was getting, faster, larger, and more numerous by the day.
   BW4 email dated 8th November 2007 to Rob Thompson re enclosure of headland path
3. Horses have been short-changed as far as bridleways go because the single-track country lanes were once their bridleways, but these were tarmaced during the first world war for ease of troop movements. Since then, they have since been consumed by motor vehicles complete with 60 mph speed limit on them, with no replacements offered!
4. I also became a Parish Councillor for Kingsley and their Chairman for eight of the fifteen years, and lastly a District Councillor. I naively thought the latter might be of help to my voluntary work which in some respects it was.
5. I received a prompt reply to my email which said he had been working with the Landowner and had known about their intentions. As there would be no obstructions, he thought it must be acceptable, and as for the definitive map, he would check the alignment!
6. Checking the Definitive Map alignment for a fence that hadn’t existed before seemed to be somewhat futile. As for the gates, he said if I knew who owned them it might help to speed up any action from their end. Now as they are all on Broxhead Common and the owner of the fence would be the same as the owner of the gates then the answer to that question should have been obvious?

you can see the usual meandering route to the right of the f

Next time: to be continued.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

the bw gate half open. note position of the new field gate compared with previous gate posts to which the rails have now been attached

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 109

1. About 50 yards further along from the ‘three ways’, where BW 4 forms a junction with BW47, there is another large field gate through which one must pass before BW4 continues along the headland of an open field. At least this one would swing but if you couldn’t keep hold of it, usually too far back. This meant it needed to be retrieved by turning the horse 1800 and pulling or pushing it shut depending on which side the approach was.
2. Once through this gate, the path was a wide headland path across part of the unauthorised enclosure of the the 80 acres whereupon it reached another 5-foot metal field gate. This one was a terminator. Although only five foot wide it was yet another weighty iron monster that when opened, would drop off its catch. It meant that riders would inevitably have to dismount to open and close it, a heavy and painful task.
3. We would have to wait until the 1992 Public Inquiry into the diversions or BW’s 4 and 46 for Brigadier D. A. Barker-Wyatt C.B.E. to leave instructions for a more modern replacement.
   PI Feb 1992 Broxhead, Barker-Wyatt06072019
4. What we could not understand was why the Hampshire County Council could not be more helpful with these rather basic rights of way problems and why it seemed as if whatever the purported landowner wanted, he got.
5. That situation hadn’t changed in the intervening years until in 2007 when out riding one day, I found it was getting worse. To my concern this section of BW4 was being enclosed.

BW4 Broxhead Common

Next time: to be continued:

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW54 meets BW4 & 46

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 108

1. The gates at the junction between the three bridleways numbered 54, 4, and 46, were both unnecessary and difficult.
2. The large iron monster just sat there perennially obstructing two thirds of the bridleway where it eventually became covered in brambles, while the small gate beside it was hung so low that it was inevitably stuck on the ground, or the bottom rung was buried in the sand especially after any rainfall.
3. We complained about it on several occasions, and the Farm Manager would promise to keep it clear, but it didn’t take much rain to wash the sand over the bottom rail of the gate, so unless he checked it daily there would be no chance of stopping the problem. Sometimes I would wonder if I could get through anyway as quite often it only opened halfway and that was not enough to get a horse through. What it really needed was either taking away altogether as it served no purpose, or re-hanging.
4. It began to seem as if the horrible gate obstructions on the bridleways were meant to act as a deterrent to the lawful users of it.
5. If you look closely at the pictures the newly planted hedge around the fenced 80 acres can be seen.

The gate at BW4 & 54 (002)

The Gate, Broxhead Common junction BW46 & BW4

Next time: The next pair of gates about 100 yards away, have a slightly longer story.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW54 MIDDLE

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 107

1. The path from here through the woods is reasonably wide and pleasant if a little worn in the middle. Until 2007 there was no dead hedging or wire fences to either side. It was open woodland.
2. It is the path which makes the link between the bridleways on the common to the C102 Picketts Hill. It had been downgraded to a footpath in the 1965 Quinquennial Review of the Definitive Map because, it is said, the Forestry Commission had objected to it passing their tree nursery as a bridleway.
3. We eventually got it back after a pertinent decision by Planning Inspector D. T. Bryant for a Creation Order in 1997. It had taken more than twenty years!
4. After a couple of hundred yards, it takes a sharp bend to the right. Water has eroded the path here, where it meets a section of the old highway to Lindford and FP3.
5. From this point the path is wide and sandy with mossy sides but in 2007 they started fencing off the paths as can be seen in the pictures. Even the old highway to Lindford has not been spared. It has completely changed the feeling of open countryside.
6. About 100 or so yards further along, the bridleway is obstructed by yet more gates. At this point they form a junction between the three bridleways numbered 54, 4, and 46, where they proved to be both unnecessary and difficult.

Broxhead 077

Broxhead 082

Next time: the next set of obstructions to the bridleway.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW54 Gate now removed.

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 106

1. So, starting from where BW54 leaves the C102 opposite to the Trottsford FP and going towards Broxhead Common east, the first gate encountered, used to be until recent years, near the Forestry Commission entrance gates. It hung between the solid iron five barred gate shown in the picture and the FC nursery fence. It was treacherous because it did not stay open and when pushed harder to keep it open long enough to get through, used to bounce back off the fence. This caused bruised and/or scraped knees for the rider and a slap on the horses’ backside most times. However, sometimes this would startle the horse and cause serious injury to a rider’s leg when evasive action was taken, squashing it hard on to the gatepost.
   in recent years it has been removed which maybe because of a claim I made in 2009 to have all gates removed on this north/south alignment. But then it may not because in fact it turned out to be the only gate removed to date while the other three are still waiting investigation!
2. The machinations concerning Broxhead Common have been many and various over the years and can be clearly seen from this point onwards. The large heavy iron gate permits a knee damaging width more suitable for walking than horse riding and as stated above, the rebound from the fence is punishing for everyone.
3. This part of the common used to be open until about 2008 when it appeared a decision had been made to fence and enclose the open woodland opposite the Forestry Commission fence.
4. No consultation would take place either with the commoners or local interest groups. We would just find these things happening and one of the problems with the enclosure was that the paths would inevitably become much narrower due to encroaching vegetation. This then became unlawful as the whole width of a Public Right of Way (PROW) must remain clear and available.
5. The problem is clearly demonstrated in the second of this week’s pictures where the gorse can clearly be seen to have grown on half of the statutory width.

BW54 gorse obstructing half the width of the BW

Next week: the gates on Broxhead Common to be continued.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

FP48 Broxhead

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 105

1. Common land is not usually fenced and should be open and accessible from all points of view. However, at the Picketts Hill end of BW54 the path across the road continues as a Footpath through a gap in a fence that used to protect the quarry workings. The fencing has long been redundant in this respect but is still there despite repeated requests in 2000 from Jim Colbourne to have it removed.
2. Jim is a highly respected member and volunteer for the Rambler’s Association. He was successful in obtaining a decision by the Local Government Ombudsman against Hampshire County Council and East Hampshire District Council in 2000.
   East Hampshire was the only district council in Hampshire to claim under section 42 of the Highways Act, the right to exercise the highway authority’s responsibilities for maintenance for rights of way in the whole of its area.
   Jim complained that they had failed clearly to agree, formalise, and allocate responsibility for that work. I will leave you to imagine the confusion, quite often convenient on their part, in lieu of any positive response on the public’s behalf from either of them.
3. In 2001 Jim complained about the fencing which remained on the edge of the common at Trottsford and through which BW54 should continue. He probably got much the same answer as I did when following it up in 2009, that the local authority had no obligation to take enforcement action under Section 38 CA 2006.
   2009 July from HCC Alex lewis
4. It begs the question as to where protection for our common lands lie since Natural England appears not to have that responsibility either?
   2014 Feb. from Natural England

BW54 near Trottsford

Next time: The gates on Broxhead Common to be continued.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Gate to path between unauthorised fence and FC

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 104

1. As any horse rider will confirm gates of any type are an unavoidable nuisance, simply because not only do they obstruct the way but because even if they are hung properly in the first instance, they too often do not stay like it for very long.
2. Either the fastenings are too low to reach or when the gate drops, they stick on the catch, or sometimes they are hung so low there is insufficient ground clearance. Some are self-closing which means they very often slap the horse’s backside as it passes through if it hasn’t already been the cause of bumped or scraped knees of the riders on the gate posts as they try and avoid the problem. Others used to be so heavy that one would have to dismount to move them and then only with great difficulty as they were relics made in the days of iron.
   Not easy at the best of times becomes almost impossible when using only one hand with reins in the other.
3. As you will have read, five gates had to be negotiated on Broxhead Common BW47, after the 1973 diversion and have proved to be a perennial problem ever since as recorded from time to time in the Headley Parish Council minutes. (Part 69 of this series).
   1977 Headley PC 27.7.77 4 GATES ON BW47
   30.10.78 BW 47 gates
4. Apart from those there were the gates at either end of the path around the Free Piece. These fell into the twelve-foot wide, too heavy and badly hung category. More often than not they would be left open because the path was fenced on either side however, these were permanently locked in 1988. (Part 102 this series)
5. But apart from these there were another four. One at each end of BW4 or BW 54 as the northern end was to become and two in the middle.

The gate locked in 1988 from BW54

Next time: Continuing the gates on Broxhead Common.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Heathland BW 46 on the second and final time it was cleared during the last 45 years.

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 103

1. In June 1964 the Estate Manager for Headley Wood Farm wrote a letter to the Clerk of Headley Parish Council. In this he says he has taken from the public rights of way map at Alton RDC, the public paths which people should use. One of these is the path around the Free Piece which is rented by the Forestry Commission.
   1964 Porter re paths14112020_0001
2. However, twenty-four years later towards the end of 1988, the large heavy iron gates at each end of that path, the only one available for horse riders to get to BW46 from Picketts Hill, were locked.
   1962 map shows path around the woodland07012022
3. 3rd January 1989 I wrote to Mr Whitfield in my capacity of Chairman of Kingsley Parish Council. It is the only time I have contacted him directly. I asked if he could see his way to permitting a link from BW46 across the common so that horse riders would have a direct crossing of the A325 near Sleaford. This could be incorporated during the expected road refurbishment.
   1989 MC to Whitfield
4. 25th January 1989 I receive a reply. The answer is negative.
   Whitfield to MC
5. On 27th January 1989 I received another letter from the Headley Wood Farm Manager. It said the gates to the path around the Free Piece were to be locked permanently.
   1989 letter Headley Wood closure of the only access to BW46 Broxhead Common19092018
6. No reasons were given.
7. It meant that horse riders coming from the Alice Holt Forest area would only be able to gain access to the common by using about 2/3 miles of the local road network, perfectly described by The Planning Inspector D. T. Bryant at the Public Inquiry 1997 as a ‘Tolkien’ like area of narrow, twisty country lanes (which are unsuitable for joint user) …’.
8. Considering it had been stated that this was a public path shown on the Alton RDC rights-of-way map, the question needs to be asked as to why Hampshire County Council did not do their duty under s.130 Highways Act 1980 concerning obstructed public rights of way?

Broxhead Heathland BW 46 on the second and final time it was cleared during the last 45 years.

Next time: Correspondence.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Heathland BW 46 on the second and final time it was cleared during the last 45 years.

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 102

1. It transpired that Hampshire County Council, despite HPC’s request for clarity, had already made an application for the diversions of BW4 and BW 46 in 1982. However, it was refused in December 1984 by the Planning Inspectorate. The. reason was because they had made a mistake by showing part of one of the proposed bridleways as footpath on the Order plan.
   Broxhead BW 4 and 46 1984
2. 7th December 1984. Clerk to Kingsley Parish Council wrote to HCC requesting a copy of the rejected plan but unfortunately there were none.
3. This exposes a lack of transparency and openness and accountability within Hampshire County Council (HCC) because they had not notified the neighbouring parish councils or consulted widely before making the Order?
4. Hampshire County Council tried again by making another Order for the diversions of BW4 and BW46 in 1987. Again, we had asked for FP54 to be upgraded to bridleway to provide legal access to Broxhead Common from Picketts Hill. The path had originally been a bridleway but was downgraded during the 1965 Quinquennial revue of the Definitive Map in 1965 because, it was said, of objection by the Forestry Commission. As it turned out there were no records to support this at either HCC or the Forestry Commission although reference can be found in the HPC minutes.
   11.11.65 FC oppose upgrade
5. Again, the Planning Inspector refused on the grounds that he does not have the power to make good Orders which would otherwise be incapable of confirmation because they are defective in a matter of substance.
   1989 Planning Inspectorate 198830082020.pdf LASLETT
6. Hampshire County Council made a third Order to divert the bridleways in 1990. (see Parts 1- 23 this series).
7. But by then the so-called landowner had fenced horse riders out of the common by locking a gate to the only access we had on a path around the edge of the FREEPIECE adjacent to the Forestry Commission nursery.

Broxhead Heathland BW 46 on the second and final time it was cleared during the last 45 years.

Next time: The Gates on Broxhead Common

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common showing BW4 & 5 and new entrance to Broxhead Farm

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 101

1. 1980 minutes of Headley Parish Council show how John Ellis’s well-intentioned efforts with regard to re-establishing the many existing bridleways over Broxhead Common, fell into the black hole of Hampshire County Council. They told him that all matters relating to the review of the definitive footpaths and bridleways was awaiting the passage of a Bill through Parliament which could have a considerable effect on the laws governing Rights of Way and no action could be taken by the County Council until this matter was resolved.
   1. 1980 Headley PC John Ellis re paths on Broxhead
2. One must assume that the Countryside Act 1981 was the Bill referred to but whatever it was seemed to make no difference to Hampshire County Council because it can be seen from the minutes of Headley Parish Council 1982 that they were now formerly proposing to divert BW4 and BW42. In the meantime, HCC had avoided serious consultation via the escape route of a prospective Bill in Parliament.
3. 22nd November 1982, the Chairman of Headley and District Bridleways Group, Guy Robinson, writes to HCC’s Principal Rights of Way Officer. He says, “this is an attempt to obtain retrospective consent for the unpermitted diversion of a bridleway which was effected by the fencing of a large area of Broxhead Common.”
   3. 1980 HPC minutes proposal from HCC to reroute BW
   3. Guy to Bill Bide Principal ROW Officer HCC Nov. 198215072019
4. Headley Parish Council decided to put the matter on hold in an effort to pursue transparency, accountability and openness, until their next meeting on 10th January 1983.
   4. 1983 Headley PC proposed diversion of BW’s on Broxhead Common
5. 10th January 1983, at that meeting they decided to write to HCC and say any decision should not be made until the confusing matters had been clarified.
   5. 1983 January HPC minutes
6. 30th June 1983 at Headley Parish Council’s Footpath and Open Spaces Committee meeting, minutes reveal that Hampshire County Council are going ahead with their diversion Order on Mr Whitfield’s behalf but have withdrawn their own proposal to divert the end of BW4.
   6. 1983 Headley PC path diversions on Broxhead

Broxhead Common

Next time: 1984!

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 100

1. As you have seen there was total dissent from the local community for proposals to fence any part of Broxhead Common. But after all the fund raising and gathering of information, expensive lawyers, plus the confirmation that it was common land from two of the highest Courts in the Land, nothing changed.
2. Mr Whitfield’s cause was allowed to succeed by the dereliction of duty by Hampshire County Council as the Registration Authority, to have the fencing removed. They appeared to have acted in complete contempt of court let alone the Community.
3. If that was not bad enough, aggravation would continue over the coming years as Hampshire County Council did their best to accommodate Mr Whitfield’s every wish.
4. As already detailed in Parts 69-78 of this series, in 1973 there was the diversion of BW47 from the ancient lane which could probably be seen from Headley Wood Farmhouse but otherwise would not interfere with the use of the land! Apart from the broken promise by Hampshire County Council that legal access would be restored from Picketts Hill C102 if no objections were received, no indication was given that it also included five more gates to negotiate within a relatively short length of the eventual diversion.
5. Then came the requests to divert two more bridleways on Broxhead Common. BW4 and BW46. The diversions required by Mr Whitfield were considered necessary because the unauthorised fencing had obstructed the traditional routes horse riders and others used. There had been at least 23 of these across the 404 acres of the common land, as documented by John Ellis.
   Broxhead, letter from John Ellis 28th Feb. 196527092018
6. In 1965 there had been a quinquennial review of the Definitive Map which was by 1980 apparently still not completed. So, John Ellis called for a special meeting to try and resolve the outstanding issues over Broxhead Common.

Broxhead Common

Next time: The aggravations continue.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

2018 Strictly Private gate on Broxhead Common with the 80 acres beyond

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 99

1. Mrs Patricia Elphinstone Barnard, the widow of G. W. McAndrew had sold Headley Wood Farm in 1962 to Sefton Siegfried Myers. She had no pre-registration title deeds or any other documentation that would pass the legal estate for ownership of Broxhead Common, nothing that is except her belief that the McAndrews had always owned it. Nevertheless, she had been persuaded to sell it with Headley Wood Farm by making a Statutory Declaration to the fact.
2. However, when Mr Myers started fencing in large sections of the common land the following year, no one was more offended than she.
3. This can be seen from a letter she wrote to one of the commoner’s, a Mr Nicholson. He must have written to her as the previous owner of the land, in the hope that she could shed some light on the grievous situation they now believed themselves to be in.
4. It is clear from her reply that not only was there confusion but misunderstanding also. For example, she opens by saying that she has no rights on the East side of the common but only on the West. It is strange that people are being misinformed that the Common can be split in two with all the rights being on the West side and only two on the East!
   1978 Patricia Barnard letter to Nicholson_000041
5. Her criticism of Mr Squibb’s decision in which she says “…politically and ethically goes against the amenities and health of Headley, Whitehill parishes,” should have been reserved for Hampshire County Council rather than the unfortunate Chief Commons Commissioner who had decided that the whole of Broxhead Common should be registered as common land.
6. Indeed, there may no longer be small holdings on the edge of the common, but they are well documented in the Finance Act 1910, including Headley Wood Farm itself which can be seen to have been copyhold.
   1910 Headley Wood Farm Finance Act12112021

FP48 Broxhead continues across the common land

Next time: What do Hampshire County Council want now?

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Gate, Broxhead Common junction BW46 & BW4 

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 98

1. Absolutely no-one was happy with either the explanation or the settlement made between Hampshire County Council and Mr Whitfield because it flew in the face of everything the commoners had fought for and won.
   The minutes of the Headley Parish Council reveal the continuing discontent.
2. 26th September 1977, Headley Parish Council minutes record that they do not agree with any fencing on Broxhead Common and asks for the unauthorised fencing to be removed.
   26.9.77 say no to fencing proposal
3. 27th September 1977 Headley Parish Council write a letter to the County Secretary objecting to any fencing on Broxhead Common and would like the existing fencing removed.
   1977 Headley Parish Council to HCC 197713082020
4. 29th September 1977 Kingsley Parish Council write to Hampshire County Council objecting to Mr Whitfield’s proposals.
   Kingsley Parish Council to HCC 197713082020-1
5. 30th October 1977 Letter from the County Secretary to Kingsley Parish Council soothing their fears.
   1977 October HCC to KPC 20th October 197721072020 (1)
6. 12th January 1978 the report of the County Recreation Officer to HCC’s Rights of Way Committee advises against any fencing.
   1978 January HCC Jim White report24082020 Pages 1-5 _OCR
7. 21st January 1980 Headley Parish Council minutes show they were still objecting to the proposal for a sports ground on Broxhead Common.
   1980 6.5.80 Headley PC object to playing fields on Broxhead Common
8. 6th May 1980 Headley Parish Council write to the Department of the Environment objecting to the proposed recreation ground.
   Kingsley Parish Council to HCC 197713082020-1
9. 5th March 1980. This was all happening at the same time as Hampshire County Council signed away the public and commoners’ rights on the 80 acres of Broxhead Common.
   1980 LEASE Whitfield to HCC Broxhead Common21082021
   It appears that Democracy was already in decline.

The Gate is showing the newly planted hedge around part of the 80 acres

Next time: Mrs Barnard writes a letter.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common from BW54

The Case for Hampshire County Council –
Two notices advertising my claims for pockets of Broxhead Common.

I did ask the Planning Inspectorate to move it closer to the claimed land because Winchester is 30 miles away and the cost of fuel may prohibit local interest from attending. Also of course the net zero goal, saving the environment etc.

They said it was too late to rearrange and anyway the Planning Inspectorate tried to arrange venues with all the necessary technology these days

Baigents Hill Pre Hearing Note 25

Picketts Hill Pre Hearing Note with amended Annex A plan 29-03-23

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common from BW54

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 97

1. We can only speculate as to the reasons for Hampshire County Council’s volte face, but whatever they were we can say that it was not a compromise but criminal. This is because their ‘settlement’ was totally contrary to the judgement of Brightman J. in the High Court and the stated intention of the Court of Appeal.
2. The Appeal Court may not allow anything perverse or against the public interest and yet all that could be seen was that the hard-won battles against Mr Whitfield’s ‘cause’, to possess as much of Broxhead Common as he could, had not even resulted in the removal of the unauthorised fencing. So why had the Appeal Court granted the dismissal on the terms of the Schedule?
3. In fact, in the terms of the Schedule, the Court of Appeal had made certain that if the intention had been to keep the fencing around the 80 acres, then application from the Secretary of State under Sec. 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, was a requirement. The expectation would have been that Hampshire County Council as the Commons Registration Authority would insist on its prompt removal otherwise.
   Broxhead Consent Order CA 197802072017.pdf with page 3
4. On page 3, paragraph 2 of the Schedule, it also required Mr Whitfield to consent to all proceedings in the Aldershot County Court being dismissed with no Order. This meant the decision of the Chief Commons Commissioner must stand, as already confirmed on the first page of the Consent Order. Therefore, and without question, all fencing must be removed. [see part 70 of this series).
5. So, the Appeal Court had not heard the case but dismissed it on the terms of the Schedule, just as Brightman J. had warned.
6. Because of the way it had been presented by HCC, these facts would not be known for another 30 years and one of the main reasons it had not been picked up in the meantime was that page 3 of the Consent Order had been removed! This was the page that states that the case was dismissed from out of the Court of Appeal and was therefore not heard. It could not be seen that no evidence had been considered and therefore no Orders made.

Broxhead Common. No horse riding signs erected 1997

Next time: Extracts from the minutes of Headley Parish Council

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common at Picketts Hill

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 96

1. Both Commoners and locals, were told by Hampshire County Council, that to save further expensive legal action they had come to a settlement with Mr Whitfield which was now an Order by the Court of Appeal.
   This varied from time to time to being an order of the High Court or if one checks their Land registration sheet, as being an order by the Chief Commons Commissioner. (see Part 88 Question 1 this series).
2. The problem was that HCC carried out the terms of the Schedule EXCEPT for the application for the fencing around the 80 acres. They then said that as there were only two commoners with rights registered on the east side of the Sleaford-Lindford Road and one of those had been denied at the High Court hearing, it left Mr Connell as the only commoner on the east side. He had then sold his rights over the 80 acres to Mr Whitfield for a considerable sum of money meaning the enclosed land was no longer common land!!
3. This was profoundly false information but, in those days, we were encouraged to think that the professional opinions of the Local Authority were reliable. Even so, this outcome was not adding up and questions would for evermore continue to be asked. The Commoner’s themselves were among the first to interrogate.
4. 19th October 1978, Mr and Mrs Nicholson were very distressed that their ancient manorial rights appeared to have been curtailed by confining them to the west of the Sleaford/Lindford Road. They sought an explanation from the Prime Minister of the day Mrs Margaret Thatcher.
   1978 October Nicholson to Prime Minister_000040
5. 18th January 1980, as expected, the correspondence was passed to the Department of Environment for clarification. Much correspondence ensued until eventually the DOE realised what the problem really was and on the 31st January 1980, they sent a reassuring letter to the Nicholson’s explaining how the common was protected in law and how of course their rights extended over the whole of it.
   1979 Broxhead reg to Mrs Nicholson24022020
   1980 DOE to Nicholson 31st Jan. 1980

The heather on Broxhead Common

Next time: Criminal

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common near southern end BW46

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 95

1. By 1978 the legal proceedings induced by Mr Whitfield had rumbled on for 15 years. In the circumstances described, it is not therefore, unreasonable to wonder if some of the officers dealing with the commons registration in Hampshire County Council had come to feel pressurised by someone of wealth not only claiming ownership of Broxhead Common but Lord of the Manor as well. It may not have occurred to them to question either of those concepts?
2. On 28th January 1980 a letter from John Ellis had been published in the local Herald on behalf of the Broxhead Commoners Association. He said he wished to correct any misunderstanding connected with Mr P. Whitfield’s quoted remarks to an article the previous week. They were to the effect that Mr Whitfield had spent £50,000 to turn Broxhead Common into a Nature Reserve! Setting the record straight, John says: “Mr Whitfield spent his money in an attempt to eliminate Commoners Rights over the East side of the common in order to turn it into valuable agricultural land. The Broxhead Commoners Association’s successful opposition to Mr Whitfield before the Chief Commons Commissioner in London and again at the Appeal Court (High Court) 1974/5 has enabled Hampshire County Council to preserve the Common in its natural state, and as a Nature Reserve.” However,
   1980 BCA INTERESTING LETTER23012016
3. 21/4/1983 the Minutes of Lindford Parish Council record that
   The District Council proposed to build 158 houses in Lindford. This required at least 5 acres of playing fields to enable it, so Cllr K. Jones reminded the meeting that the Chief Planning Officer, had suggested that the playing fields at Broxhead Common went some way towards meeting the village needs in this direction. He said that in 1971 the Lindford Cricket Club had asked for the use of the land at Broxhead Common East as the owner would not be allowed to use it for agricultural purposes!!
   1983 Lindford PC Minutes
4. So perhaps it is not facetious to wonder if this is what had brought about the unexpected ‘about turn’ by Hampshire County Council after which Mr Whitfield’s ‘cause’ had ultimately succeeded?

Broxhead Common Playing fields for Lindford at Broxhead Common

Next time: Hampshire County Council explains!

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Finance Act 1910 Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 94

1. 1948. At the same time as G. A. McAndrew sold off the 15.9 acres of common land, he also sold the Headley Park mansion house and grounds to the Crusaders School. These deeds show public rights of way which no longer seem to be accessible!!??
   Seven years later in 1955 they sold to Lithuanian House Ltd.
2. 25th October 1962. The widow of G. W. McAndrew, now a Mrs Patricia Margaret Elphinstone Barnard, sold Headley Wood Farm by Assent and conveyance plus a Statutory Declaration for ownership of Broxhead Common, to Siegfried Sefton Myers. The following year he fenced without authority large areas of it before the estate was sold to Anthony Gary Peter Whitfield in 1970. He would have been very aware of the complaints over the unauthorised fencing.
3. The Headley Parish Council minutes of 6th November 1969, show how misinformation can be spread. It may be because of genuine belief or just delusions of grandeur or even intimidatory purposes. Whatever the reason, in those days it was far harder to check it out so, the benefit of doubt was usually given.
4. At that Parish Council meeting, John Ellis had been speaking about the unauthorised fencing and how it had been erected on Broxhead Common by the Lord of the Manor. It was he said, a serious interference with the rights of Commoners and if nothing was done about it, those rights would disappear forever.
   1968 Headley PC Annual Parish Meeting Willis misinformation
5. Then Mr Willis intervenes and says he thinks it is important to clear up misconceptions about the problem. There is, he says no doubt whatsoever that the land belonged to the Lord of the Manor and that he had a whole file on it!? However, beyond seeing that the public footpaths and bridleways were not obstructed, the Parish Council had no standing in the matter!
6. In fact, there was no Lord of the Manor and had not been since 1637 when the manor was partitioned. Also, the Parish Council must have had at least an interest, if only to see the common land was preserved as open space according to local custom and complied with the spirit of the 1955 Royal Commission on common land! As for ownership, well that was questionable to say the least!

Finance Act 1910 Broxhead Common

Next time: How to steal a common with the help of your County Council!

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Part of the 80 acres

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 93

1. The Tithe Apportionment Act 1847, for Headley states, “there are no proprietors for Broxhead Common and it is used by sundry people” However, ownership of the two twelfths of the Fauntleroy holding can be traced since 1870.
2. William Langrish, who owned the Fauntleroy two twelfths in 1870, sold one of those two twelfths with a quantity of land known collectively as the Headley Park Estate, to Sir Henry Keating, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. He died in 1888, having mortgaged his estate to his brother judge, Sir Robert Wright. Wright J. died in 1904 and on 4th January 1906 his executors sold the property to C. W. McAndrew containing “all estate and interest” of and in that part of the common.
   1780 Headley Park 1780 Rights of common
   1895 Mr Justice Wright at Home, Headley Park05032021
3. Langrish’s other twelfth part of the manor in the southwest corner was sold to George Trimmer after which it ended up by virtue of conveyances in the hands of the Secretary of State for War in 1902-3!!
4. Under the Finance Act 1910, C. W. McAndrew applied for tax relief as an owner of the WHOLE common. He was awarded a considerable sum for rights of common £655 and for rights of way and user £635.
   1910 FA Record Book for McAndrew Broxhead Pages 22 Sep 2021
5. He may not have been aware that his purchase was only for one twelfth of the common or that the major part on the east side was not a part of it, but in any case, his claim of ownership was not a problem to local people.
6. That was because as G. D Gadsden says of ownership of common land “The practical reality, however, is that their scope today is strictly circumscribed by a number of statutory measures and on the majority of the commons the owner is a passive bystander.” (Gadsden Page 197).
7. 1929/30 Headley Wood Farm was added to the estate.
8. On 29th December 1947 G.A. McAndrew Inherited his father’s estate by assent and the following year sold 15.9 acres of his part of the common to Mr Sotnick. He sold to Mr Day, who in turn sold part to Mr Hadfield and the other part to Amey Gravel Ltd. These are to the north west side of the C102, Picketts Hill road.

Next time: Headley P C minutes show how mistaken local beliefs are perpetuated.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Gate, Broxhead Common junction BW46 & BW4

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 92

1. Another important point seems to have been missed by HCC
   BROXHEAD COMMON – WHITEHILL AND HEADLEY NO.CL.147.pdf FINAL 1974 RIGHTS.
   • In his lengthy Rights Decision, there is an interesting note from the Chief Commons Commissioner concerning ownership of Broxhead Common. (Page 5 paragraph 1). In detailing the historical conveyancing of the Manor, he tells of the division of the common into twelfths. Two of which went to Fauntleroy which he identifies as being to the northeast and southwest of the original common and ten twelfths to Thomas Brocas, then goes on to say:
2. “How the ownership of the part of the Common to the east of the road came to be separated from the Brocas ten twelfths of the manor does not appear, but such division of the ownership could not have affected the rights of the tenants over the land on both sides of the road. Lord Sherbourne’s part of the Common was sub-divided in 1890, but the sub-division became reunited in the hands of the Secretary of State for War by virtue of conveyances made in 1902 and 1903.”
3. This is important, because it shows that Broxhead Common on the east side of the road was not part of the Fauntleroy two twelfths and supports Dr Tavener’s 1955 survey which states that it was requisitioned by the War Department. This perhaps explains the MOD interest expressed by Dick Stillwell on 30th March 1979. (Part 7 of this series). To which there seems to be no further correspondence.
4. Hampshire County Council however, appeared to be more focused on finding the modern rights of common, as the other superfluous Public Inquiries they initiated show. CL 304 and CL330 to name but two.
5. Perhaps, in vindication it is well to remember that before the Internet and the wealth of knowledge that has enabled, it was no easy task and very time consuming to find the facts of any matter and local beliefs were difficult or even impossible to check with the Land Registry as to whether they were fact or fiction.

Broxhead Common west of A325 Oxney Lane

Next time: Ownership

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Part of the unauthorised enclosed 80 acres

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 91

1. It begs the question as to why Hampshire County Council, who had been supporting the Broxhead Commoners by sharing the court costs with them, had now about turned to support Mr Whitfield’s cause. This was to possess not only the fenced 80 acres of Broxhead Common but the whole common.
2. HCC said that the Chief Commons Commissioner had split the Common into east and west, which after the High Court Appeal left just the Rights of Mr Connell on the East side. He had not of course and certainly had no jurisdiction to do so.
3. During his assessment of the modern common rights claims, for ease of reference only, he identified the common as being east or west of the B3004, a road which runs between Sleaford and Lindford. West of this road the Common was vested with the MOD. They had withdrawn their objection to rights of common because of the historical evidence produced. East of the road Mr Whitfield now claimed to own, and he had objected to the registration of the Common land and the rights over that part of it.
4. The Judge in the High Court would do much the same as the Chief Commons Commissioner, by labelling the common A, B, C, D. Sadly, this identification process seems to have led to the belief by some, that the common could be split in two based on ownership. That was certainly not the case as is made clear in the Rights Decision
5. That mistake led on to another, which was to assume that the Rights applied only to the West side. Such assumption suited Mr Whitfield’s cause well because if he could dispose of Rights of Common, he thought he could reclaim all the land he claimed to own, for his own use.
6. However, the judgement of Brightman J should have resolved that anomaly as right from the start he makes it clear that he is hearing a case about the recent Common Rights claims and the common is already registered on the documented ancient manorial rights.

Next time: the mistakes keep coming

The Battle for Broxhead Common

2020 Burnt to a cinder

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 90

1. But remember Mr Whitfield had a cause. Knowing his ownership of the common was tenuous to say the least. He was determined to secure it for himself at all costs. Something the Chief Commons Commissioner recognised on Page 14 of his final Rights Decision.
2. After losing his High Court case, he could not appeal the common Land Decision again, because there was no point of law on which it could be appealed. (Referenced in the Brightman Judgement), so his Counsel asked the Judge to allow him to appeal generally so that he could raise the issue of costs. As they were considered quite hefty the Judge agreed while at the same time commenting that the Court of Appeal would make short work of it, if he chose to go there!
3. However, Mr Whitfield had a plan. Having totally missed the point that the Rights of Mrs Cooke were merely peripheral because of the existing Manorial Rights, he thought it would leave just Mr Connell’s and a deal could be done with him. He imagined that if he bought those Rights, it would extinguish all the common rights over the 80 acres and the land registration along with it!!! That was the plan and HCC, very strangely, appear to have endorsed it!!
4. However, the Appeal Court did make short work of it as Brightman J had predicted, because the case was not heard but dismissed, albeit on the terms of the Schedule.
5. If Hampshire County Council had made sure that the terms of the Schedule had been followed to the letter, they would have soon found out that Mr Connell was not the only commoner and anyway the common was already registered so the fences must now be removed, or application made to the Secretary of State if the intention had been to keep them.
   Broxhead report of 22.6.78 COMPLETION OF LEASE
6. Instead, when questions were asked how it was that the fences remained even though two appeals had been lost by Mr Whitfield, in the High Court and then dismissed in the Court of Appeal, the answer given was this…..

FP48 Broxhead

Next time: The start of the story that confused just about everybody.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead CL147 BW46

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 89

1. 22nd June 1978. The County Secretary of Hampshire County Council gave a report to the Land-Sub Committee endorsing the terms of a settlement of dispute, in which the County Council have been involved as Commons Registration Authority under the 1965 Act. I have attached the report with my comments but of note is that none of the Respondents realised that it was ultra vires because:
   1978 HCC Report of County Sec. 22.06.78 WITH MY NOTES 16082020_0001
2. The matter of the registration of Broxhead Common became FINAL after the appeal in the High Court by Mr Whitfield as per (Sec. 6,7,10 CRA 1965). See below and Part 3 and Part 90 of this series.)
3. 6 Disposal of disputed claims
   Broxhead Registration Sheet LAND 22082020
   
   1. (1) The Commons Commissioner to whom any matter has been referred under section 5 of this Act shall inquire into it and shall either confirm the registration, with or without modifications, or refuse to confirm it; and the registration shall, if it is confirmed, become final, and, if the confirmation is refused, become void—
   2. (a) if no appeal is brought against the confirmation or refusal, at the end of the period during which such an appeal could have been brought.
   3. (b) if such an appeal is brought, when it is finally disposed of.
   4. (2) On being informed in the prescribed manner that a registration has become final (with or without modifications) or has become void a registration authority shall indicate that fact in the prescribed manner in the register and, if it has become void, cancel the registration.
      (3) Where the registration of any land as common land or as a town or village green is cancelled (whether under this section or under section 5(5) of this Act) the registration authority shall also cancel the registration of any person as the owner thereof.
   5. 7 Finality of undisputed registrations
   6. (1) If no objection is made to a registration under section 4 of this Act or if all objections made to such a registration are withdrawn the registration shall become final at the end of the period during which such objections could have been made under section 5 of this Act or, if an objection made during that period is withdrawn after the end thereof, at the date of the withdrawal.
   7. (2) Whereby virtue of this section a registration has become final the registration authority shall indicate that fact in the prescribed manner in the register.
   8. 10Effect of registration
   9. The registration under this Act of any land as common land or as a town or village green, or of any rights of common over any such land, shall be conclusive evidence of the matters registered, as at the date of registration, except where the registration is provisional only.

Next time: Possession of the common land at all costs especially the fenced 80 acres

Question Answered
The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – QUESTION 1

To answer the $64,000 question as to why Hampshire County Council, as the Registration Authority did not insist on application to the Secretary of State for the retention of the unauthorised fencing around the 80 acres, we must turn to the evidence again.

Over the years the question has been asked many times and received different answers. Here are just a few:

1. 1982 The unauthorised fencing had obstructed the bridleways on Broxhead Common as this letter from Guy Robinson, Chair of Headley and District Bridleways Group describes.
   Guy to Bill Bide Principal ROW Officer HCC Nov. 198215072019
2. 1989 The Report of the County Recreation Officer, Bill Bide to a Public Inquiry regarding the obstructed bridleways on Broxhead Common. Paragraph 8 says
   “At that time Hampshire County Council, as lessees of 100 acres of
   Broxhead Common, were in the process of implementing part of an Order
   from the Court of Appeal dated May 24th, 1978.”
   So here we can see the reference to a Court of Appeal Order. This report is interesting as it shows what was happening and what we were being told at that time.
   Bill Bide Principal ROW Officer HCC March 89 PI15072019 copy
3. 1989-1990, British Horse Society County Bridleways Officer, Liz Potter wrote to Hampshire County Council objecting to the obstructions
   A year later her successor Grace Ritchie supported her predecessor, and it appears had several telephone conversations with the Assistant County Secretary, Edward Mason who in his reply says, “It seems probable that Mr. Whitfield did not apply to the Secretary of State, because the fences enclose land which is not common land.”
   So, the explanation has changed. However, the Planning Inspector for the 1989 PI, Captain Laslett was having none of it and refused to confirm the Order. I have attached his decision as it also throws light on what we were dealing with.
   1989 Planning Inspectorate 198830082020
   Mason to Potter 1989
4. 2012 it took a long time but at last I got an explanation from Hampshire County Council and now it seems it was the Chief Commons Commissioner who ordered them to extract the 80 acres!!
   So now it’s the Chief Commons Commissioner
   HCC RESPONSE BROXHEAD.pdf 30th October 2012 copy
   
5. 2013 an article in the Bordon Herald states, “In its role as the Commons Registration Authority, Hampshire County Council was instructed by way of a High Court decision in the 1970’s not to register 80 acres as common land and, as a result, not to obstruct the owner in fencing the area.”
   So, this time it is the High Court.
   Broxhead Bordon Herald 201315072019

It is notable that each time Hampshire County Council are stating that someone else ordered them to do what they did
All these explanations are not only misleading, but they are also now proved to be false information, as you will have seen.

Thanks for the question, Linda Delve

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 88

24th May 1978 continuing to scrutinise the Schedule to the Consent Order:

1. The instruction for all proceedings in the Aldershot County Court to be dismissed is a vital component of this Schedule. On its own it would ensure the removal of all the fencing around the 80 acres. This was because the Judge had issued an Interim Decision in Mr Whitfield’s favour which was temporary and subject to the Final Decision of the Chief Common’s Commissioner. That had subsequently been confirmed by the High Court the previous year and affirmed again in the Court of Appeal. Therefore 400+ acres of Broxhead Common is already registered common land, so the fencing must now be removed. (Parts 69-70 this series).
   Broxhead Consent Order CA 197802072017.pdf with page 3
2. “Each of the parties to pay their own costs of the Appeal without prejudice to the Order made by the Court below with respect to the costs of the proceedings in that Court.”! As the Court had not heard the case, the costs could not be appealed. Mr Whitfield was therefore still obliged to pay two thirds of the respondents as well as his own costs from the High Court.
3. As sec. b.
4. It is said that Mr Connell received thousands of pounds for the release of his rights over the 80 acres. This introduced the FALSE information that as the land was now devoid of his common rights it was no longer common land. As for Hampshire County Council not pursuing “the said area as common land” and “withdrawing its provisional registrations pending before the Commons Commissioner of the said area to exclude all reference to the said area on the Commons Register”, begs the question why is there such contempt for the Final Decision of the Chief Commons Commissioner and/or the High Court? The registration had become final and could no longer be pending. Also, the case would have been closed at this point so no further meetings with the Chief Commons Commissioner could have transpired!!
5. Although, Hampshire County Council consents to and supports any application
   by Mr Whitfield or his successors in title to an application to the Secretary of State regarding the said fences, no application has ever been made. The fencing is therefore still unauthorized, and a retrospective application is unobtainable under the legislation! So, the question remains as to why HCC as the Registration Authority, did not insist on such application being made?

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Next time: The Report of the County Secretary is flawed also.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

2018 BW46

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 87

1. 24th May 1978 continuing to examine the Schedule to the Consent Order from the Court of Appeal.
   g     Hampshire County Council will further consent to and support any application by the said A. G. P Whitfield or his successors in title to the Secretary of State regarding said fences under Sec. 194 LPA 1925.
2. These were the conditions which the Court of Appeal had signed off for enabling the dismissal of the case from that Court.
   Broxhead Consent Order CA 197802072017.pdf with page 3
3. Knowing that the Appeal Court cannot agree to permit anything perverse or against the public interest, it was only with the benefit of years of eminent Counsel’s opinions and consultation with the reference books, that it could be seen how the public interest was in fact protected.
   So, let’s take another look to see how the Court of Appeal made sure their prerogative was maintained. Taken in the same order as previously:
   • Having formerly agreed to support the Broxhead Commoner’s, HCC now make themselves ‘a respondent to the said appeal’?? The Commoner’s, weary from 15 years of fighting for their common land, agreed that they did not need to engage in further expensive court proceedings by attending this latest court hearing! They therefore did not witness the regrettable U-turn in HCC’s course of action.
   • The lease to Hampshire County Council was in breach of the numerous and continuous times that Headley Parish Council had objected to the fencing and the sports field. The detail of the agreement in the Schedule had not been consulted upon with the Parish Councils, Broxhead Commoner’s or advertised previously. Also of course, there was still the outstanding action under Sec.194 LPA 1925, to protect the now registered common land; why was this not being addressed?

2018 BW 46 Broxhead Common

Next time: continuing to expose the numerous mistakes made by the Registration Authority, Hampshire County Council.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 86

24th May 1978. Let’s have a good look at the terms of the Schedule or Agreement for the dismissal of the case from the Court of Appeal. The Court cannot permit anything which is perverse or against the public interest, therefore they will expect the agreement to be complied with in its entirety.
Broxhead Consent Order CA 197802072017.pdf with page 3

The parties’ consent to:

1. the addition of the Hampshire County Council as third-named respondent to this appeal.
2. A lease to Hampshire County Council from the date of the Order of this Court, for 5 acres for a cricket pitch and associated recreational purposes. The lease to contain a right for the Hampshire County Council to sub-let the whole or part to other bodies approved by A. G. P. Whitfield. If not sub-let, then Hampshire County Council will be responsible for the upkeep.
3. All proceedings in the Aldershot County Court to be dismissed.
4. No Order as to costs, each to pay his own.
5. the balance of part of the common owned by the said Anthony Gary Peter Whitfield amounting to 101 acres shall be let to Hampshire County Council renewing every 20 years. They shall be responsible for preserving its scientific and landscape qualities, access for the public and confirmation of the registration.
6. Mr Connell to release his Rights to the 80 acres presently enclosed by fencing. After which the County Council will not pursue its provisional registration of said area as common land and will exclude all reference to the said area in the Commons Register.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Next time: to be continued with exposure of the mistakes and false information arising as a result of this peculiar situation.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 85

1. 20th April 1978, the minutes of the Rights of Way Sub-Committee of Hampshire County Council record that; the County Secretary reported that negotiations were now in hand to secure a 20-year lease for the unfarmed parts of Broxhead Common!!!??? This comes out of the blue one month before the Appeal Court hearing. There are no documents which show consultation with the BCA, or Parish Councils. Most importantly there is no reference to the fact that the Chief Commons Commissioner’s Final Decision has already been confirmed in the High Court.!!?? Broxhead is now registered common land.
   1978 Broxhead Common ROW Comm 20.4.78
2. 24th May 1978 is the date of Mr Whitfield’s next appeal, to the Court of Appeal. This time regarding the costs of his lost High Court case and the rights of one commoner by the name of Mr Connell.
3. The hearing resulted in the Consent Order for the dismissal of the case from that Court just as Brightman J. had predicted, but ever since the document has been presented by Hampshire County Council as an Order of that Court!!
4. Whereas Hampshire County Council had not attended the previous High Court proceedings, stating a lack of interest and leaving it to their representative Mr Mills QC, they now made themselves a respondent to the appeal.
5. It must be presumed that this was so their agreement with Mr Whitfield could be incorporated into the proceedings as part of the Schedule to the dismissal from out of that Court.
6. As the Court of Appeal had not heard the case, it could not order anything other than the dismissal of the Appeal from out of that Court, albeit on the terms for the settlement of the Appeal set forth in the Schedule.

Next time: to be continued. The Schedule to the Consent Order. The agreement.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 84

1. 20th October 1977, further to his letter of 13th September 1977, another letter arrives from Hampshire’s County Secretary to Kingsley Parish Council. It says that as there are no detailed proposals and no assurance of public access which would produce a distinct benefit to the neighbourhood, they wish to consider detailed proposals in the light of further information on environmental, agricultural and ecological implications…. he will keep them informed of the continued progress of this matter.
   1977 October HCC to KPC 20th October 197721072020 (1)
2. As a Parish Councillor for Kingsley at this time I can confirm that there are no records of further information from Hampshire County Council concerning the matter of Broxhead Common.
   1978 January HCC Jim White report24082020
3. Another Christmas comes and goes. It is now thirteen years since the Open Spaces Committee of Hampshire County Council resolved “to take such steps as may be necessary to protect Broxhead Common against unlawful encroachments including the institution of proceedings under section 194 Law of Property Act 1925”
4. Now, because of Mr Whitfield’s objections to the Final Decision of the Chief Commons Commissioner, there had been a twelve-day hearing by the Chief Commons Commissioner after which his decision in regard of the registration of the whole common remained unchanged.
   Mr Whitfield appealed again, this time to the High Court. He lost.
   Mr Whitfield then appealed to the Court of Appeal regarding the rights awarded by the Chief Commons Commissioner to Mr Connell and of course the costs issue. It is scheduled for May 1978.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Next time: Hampshire County Council make what must be their biggest blunder ever.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 83

1. 27th July 1977, in the meantime Headley Parish Council minutes record that the gates of BW47 were causing problems as predicted.
   1977 Headley PC 27.7.77 4 GATES ON BW47
2. 13th September 1977 is the date of a letter from Hampshire County Council to Kingsley Parish Council. It says that although a commoner’s rights have been upheld Mr Whitfield has lodged another appeal against the rights of this commoner pending negotiations to settle the continuing dispute. To avoid further substantial legal costs Hampshire County Council and Mr Whitfield are negotiating to settle the continuing dispute.
   1977 September HCC to Kingsley PC_000037
   • The County Council has been requested by Mr Whitfield to consider a suggestion he should apply to the Secretary of State for the Environment for consent to fence a part or parts of Broxhead that he owns. However, at this time no definitive proposal exists.
   • He goes on to give more background to the case because he is seeking the view of the Parish Council.
   • The letter shows that Hampshire County Council are fully aware of the need for the fences to be authorised by the Secretary of State.
3. 26th September 1977 minutes of the Headley Parish Council show that Mr Whitfield has approached the Hampshire County Council with his proposals for Broxhead Common which has been forwarded to Headley Parish Council.
4. 27th September 1977, Headley Parish Council remain hostile to the proposals and again the request the removal of the unauthorised fencing.
   1977 HPC 26.9.77 say no to fencing proposal
5. 29th September 1977 Kingsley Parish Council write to Hampshire’s County Secretary in response to the above letter by saying that the Parish Council is opposed to any type of fencing as it keeps the commoners off.
   Kingsley Parish Council to HCC 197713082020
6. 18th October 1977 Headley Parish Council consider the proposals in the letter from Hampshire County Council and resolve that they would not lend their support to the proposal and would like to see the existing fences removed as they are still unauthorised.
   1977 Headley Parish Council to HCC 197713082020

Next time: A reply from the County Secretary to Kingsley Parish Council.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW54 Nr Trottsford Farm

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 82

To continue to look at the crucial points in the Brightman judgement:

1. PAGE 22, paragraph A & B, state Brightman has no jurisdiction to alter the register.
   Hampshire County Council as Registration Authority are not present. They say they are not interested in the case stated and are represented by Mr Mills.
   1977 High Court Judgement Brightman J 1977 Pages 10-25 23012016
   • Paragraph E explains the matter goes back to the Commissioner to either confirm the registration or not.
   • Paragraph F, Judge makes no order to alter the register.
2. PAGE 23, paragraph A. Costs are awarded with Mr Whitfield having to pay his own and two thirds to the appellant.
   • Paragraph D, discussion on application for leave to appeal on costs.
3. PAGE 24, paragraph B. In order to address the costs, one would have to raise other issues.
   • Paragraph H – Brightman gives leave to appeal generally but advises that the Appeal Court would make very short work of it if they chose to go there
4. So that is how the matter landed with the Court of Appeal who as predicted did make very short work of it. A matter we shall return to shortly.

BW54 Nr Trottsford Farm

Next time: The Parish Councils are not happy.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 81

To continue looking at the Judgement by the High Court from Brightman J on 24th March 1977.

1. Page 13 paragraphs G, H, dismisses Mr Whitfield’s appeal so far as Mr Connell of Lindford Bridge House, is concerned.
   1977 High Court Judgement Brightman J 1977 Pages 10-25 23012016
2. Page 14 paragraph A. begins examination of Mrs Cooke
3. Page 18 paragraph F-H Brightman “the Commissioner erred in law in finding in her favour.”
4. Page 19 paragraph A, the Appeal is dismissed. The failure of Mrs Cooke to make her case was, according to the Judge “rather ancillary and peripheral.
   The reason for this is explained on the next page.
5. Page 20 paragraph A. Brightman “There was no appeal on the manorial part of the Cooke case,” to which Sir Frederick Corfield replies “That is correct.”
6. Costs now become the issue.
7. Page 21 paragraph F, the appellant to pay two thirds of the respondents costs.
   Paragraph H states it is more appropriate for the Commons Commissioner to make any alteration to the register.

Broxhead Common

Next time: to be continued:

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 80

1. 24th March 1980 is the date of the judgement from the High Court by Brightman J.
   It must be remembered that this is an appeal by Mr A. G. P. Whitfield regarding the rights of common recorded in the Chief Commons Commissioner’s FINAL DETERMINATION and the consequent registration of them under the Commons Registration Act 1965. There is no point of law on which the Land registration can be appealed. See the first two pages of the judgement.
   (find notice of appeal part 76 this series)
2. I have attached the judgement but the main points are listed below:
   • Page 2 Paragraph B – “I am not concerned with the registration of Part C as common land but only with the claims of rights of common thereover.” The explanation comes in Paragraph D – “An appeal lies only on a point of law.”
   • Page 6, paragraph C – “The Chief Commons Commissioner found as a fact that there was a right of common of the pasture over the whole of the common attached to each of the tenements whether customary, freehold, copyhold or leasehold, mentioned in the survey of the unpartitioned manor 1636.”
   • Paragraph E – “The Notice of Appeal attacks these findings as unsupported by any evidence. The notice also asserts there was no evidence that any rights of common were granted or enjoyed by or under the 1678, 1778, and 1876 leases.”
   • Pages 7/8, paragraph H – “There are no sufficient grounds for challenging the finding of the Chief Commons Commissioner that in ancient days, the manorial tenants enjoyed rights of common both before and after partition. There is in my judgement, plenty of documentary evidence to justify that finding of fact.”
     1977 High Court Judgement Brightman J 1977 Pages 1-9 23012016
3. Having dealt very quickly with the Land Registration he then went on to deal with the contemporary claims for common rights.
   1977 High Court Judgement Brightman J 1977 Pages 10-25 23012016

Broxhead Common 2021

Next time: to be continued, and how the issue of costs complicated the situation.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common 2021

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 79

1. June 1976, John Ellis contacts the members of Broxhead Commoners Association. He tells them that the 404 acres of Broxhead Common is now registered as common land and will remain so for all time (subject to appeal on points of law). However, following his objection to the Chief Commons Commissioner’s FINAL decision, which had initiated twelve days of Hearings in Winchester and London, Mr Whitfield had appealed again, this time to the High Court. BCA had chosen to continue the fight for their commoners rights.
   1976, June JE to BCA re funding_000030
2. 16th July 1976, two of the commoners, Captain B. Nicholson and Mrs G.B.E. Nicholson write a note to John Ellis to say that they note that Mr Whitfield is to appeal against the Chief Commons Commissioner’s decision regarding the register of Broxhead Common, but wondering why Broxhead Commoner’s have to incur further financial liability in trying to preserve their ancient rights when their potential gain is nil?
   They obviously recognised that the Chief Commons Commissioner’s Land Decision could not be disturbed.
   1976 July, Letter from Nicholson to JE_000027
3. 30th October 1976. John Ellis writes a short note to the BCA telling them that Mr Whitfield’s hearing in the High Court, against the Chief Commons Commissioner’s decision is imminent and that Hampshire County Council is again to share the funding of the case. He also says that BCA, have paid off the deficit on their account entirely.
   1976 October, JE to BCA re funding_000029
4. 22nd November 1976 John Ellis writes to BCA members again to say that having started on 11th November 1976 and lasting three days, the case was postponed until 1977.
   1976 Appeal at High Court postponed_000035

Broxhead Common 2021

Next time: The Judgement in the High Court

The Battle for Broxhead Common

Broxhead Common taken 2021

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 78

1. Continuing to look at the Final Determination of the Chief Commons Commissioner, Mr G, D, Squibb QC:
   Page 15 second paragraph confirms two properties with rights over the eastern side and the west side of the common which currently belong to Mr Connell and Mrs Cooke. He specifically notes her grazing rights over the land owned by Mr Whitfield!
   1974 November CCC’s FINAL DECISION BROXHEAD COMMON – WHITEHILL AND HEADLEY NO.CL.147
2. Mr Squibb then considers the leases of the accepted commoners to assess how many animals they may graze etc. On page 17 he sets it out beginning with Mr Connell where he notes the undisputed rights on the west side and then those on the ‘said land’ which Mr Whitfield as the said owner, disputes.
3. Mrs Cooke, entry no. 12 comes at the bottom of the page and just over the page on Page 18 specifically “and over the land owned by Mr Whitfield.”
4. Over the next two pages the property owners have their rights recorded on the West side because it was undisputed but now, also over the ‘said land’, that being the land which was disputed by Mr Whitfield on the east side of the Sleaford to Lindford road.
5. Page 20. The last paragraph should underline the definitive decision about rights on Broxhead Common because he points out that John Ellis could have supported registration in the Land section by assembling such evidence as he could of the existence of rights of common without persuading those he believed to be entitled to such rights to apply to have them registered.
   This was because the documented, existing ancient manorial rights over the whole of Broxhead Common make the common land status indisputable.
6. John Ellis had merely done what Hampshire County Council had advised him to do. ‘Proof of common land are the commoners so find them’ they said. Except that it appears to have seriously confused the situation as we shall see.
   1968, HCC to John Ellis12092021

Broxhead Common taken 2021

Next time: The 10 day Hearing in London had confirmed the Chief Commons Commissioner’s Decision but Mr Whitfield appealed again . This time to the High Court.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW47. Linsted Lane used to be the start until 1973

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 77

1. It is important to note the terms used in the Appeal document.
   Reference is to the land owned by the said Mr Whitfield lying to the east of the Sleaford/Lindford road.
   1975 Appeal by AGP Whitfield July 197504072017_0001
   
2. Thereafter, such land is referred to as the ‘said land’. Even the last paragraph refers to “the Apellant’s said land is not subject to rights of common and is wrongly included in the register of common land.”
3. Whatever, Mr Whitfield single handedly embarked on an expensive lawsuit against the carefully considered decision of the Chief Commons Commissioner, Mr G. D. Squibb QC.
4. 8th January 1976. Help for the commoners was at hand as the minutes of Hampshire County Council’s Rights of Way Sub-Committee and the Headley Parish Council show.
   It had been decided to share the court costs 50/50 with the Broxhead Commoners.
   Headley PC minutes
   1976 HCC Rights of Way Sub Comm. refers to HRO12092021
   
5. 9th January 1976, the shared costs issue, is confirmed by a report from the County Secretary to the Rights of Way Sub-Committee. The troubling thing is that in referring to the Final Decision of the Commons Commissioner he omits to point out that the Land is registered whatever the outcome of the modern applications for common rights, because of the ancient manorial rights attached to it.
   1975 January HCC Report of the County Secretary re Broxhead Common
6. That had been plainly stated by Mr Squibb in his Final Rights Decision. (part 74 this series). In which see Page 2 last paragraph and Page 3 first paragraph. He then makes it clear that it is the applicants for common rights that are the subjects of this dispute. Page 5 first paragraph confirms the common rights on both sides of the road. Page 6, last paragraph again confirms rights of common in the soil and pasture over the whole common. Page 14 first paragraph is very revealing and confirmation yet again that in fact he is considering one common albeit there are roads across it. Page 15 second paragraph again confirming rights over the common east and west of the Sleaford/Lindford road.

BW47 path from the wood enters Frensham Lane

Next time: more mistakes, to be continued.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW47 path from the wood

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 76

1. 15th March 1975 is the date of a letter from one of the commoners saying how delighted he is at the result of the Chief Commons Commissioner’s decision “which confirms the ancient rights” and appreciation for John Ellis’s “considerable efforts as Chairman.” However, he goes on to say he “is distressed and concerned that the Commissioner has apparently not advised that the very substantial legal costs of the Association should be recoverable…Only one landowner has opposed and obstructed the ancient commoners rights and had it not been for this stand by this landowner our legal costs might well have been minimal.”
   1975 March 15th Nicholson to Ellis_000047
2. 25th June 1975 , the Broxhead Commoners Association distributes news of Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls who says that if Parliament did not legislate soon he would be tempted to infer that all land registered as ‘common land’ would be open to the public at large.
   This made it even more important to save Broxhead not just for commoners but for public access.
   1975 June, John Ellis Newsflash_000025
3. 22nd July 1975. The High Court of Justice gives notice that Mr Whitfield has launched an appeal against the Chief Commons Commissioner’s carefully considered decision. Naturally if it had not been registered then there would have been nothing to appeal against, but in 2020 at the High Court, HCC would falsely state that Broxhead Common had only ever been preliminarily registered!! This false information prevented me from getting a Judicial Review.
   1975 Appeal by AGP Whitfield July 197504072017_0001 (1)
4. Mr Whitfield’s appeal states the Chief Commons Commissioner
   • Erred in law in confirming the registration of rights of common so far as they effected the land owned by him.
   • The decision was unreasonable as there was no evidence to support it.
   • That “in the premises the appellant’s ‘said land’ is not subject to rights of common and is wrongly included in the register of common land.”
   He is seeking a Court Order that the register of common land be amended accordingly by deleting the said land and by amending the rights of common as registered to exclude any reference to the said land.

BW47 near Frensham Lane

Next time: This is going to be expensive but help is at hand.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW47 after the viaduct the BW enters woodland

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 75

1. At this point we need to remember the statement on Page 3, first paragraph, of the Interim and FINAL Decision. It states that at some time in the past tenants of the manor were entitled to rights of common over the common, but that did not ensure the success of any, of the applicants, the subject of these disputes.
2. The point being made here is that there was never any doubt that Broxhead Common is ancient common land and had been subject to manorial rights of common over its entirety. There was therefore no doubt about its qualification for registration in the Commons Register under the 1965 Commons Registration Act. However, Hampshire County Council had advised John Ellis to find the commoners and this is why the Chief Commons Commissioner had now, in addition, been asked to consider claims by individuals.
   1968, HCC to John Ellis12092021
3. Common rights are attached to properties, so the question being asked was if the claimants property entitled the present occupant to commoners rights either by deed of grant or prescription. The Commissioner had for the purpose of identification labelled three parts of the common A, B, C to distinguish the three owners in which the common was vested.
4. The recently claimed rights would therefore be in addition to the fifteen already acknowledged on the land owned by the WD/MOD, they having withdrawn their objection. These now applied to the whole of Broxhead Common, in accordance with the FINAL Decision of the Chief Commons Commissioner.
5. However, the Solicitor’s letter dated 3rd December 1974, notes that those rights had been registered on that part of the common lying to the west of the Sleaford/Lindford road. (Part 74 this series). This was misleading as after Mr Squibb’s FINAL Decision rights applied to the whole common. “the whole of the common has been established as a common in law.” It had now become registered, although subject to appeal.
   1974 September Bradley Trimmer confirmation of land_000022
6. It may be that there was confusion over the hearing into the modern individual claims and the existing established historical manorial rights. Not that it should have mattered as two of the modern claimants had succeeded with their claims for rights of common also, which on its own should have drawn a line under the whole matter.

BW47 the gateway out of the wood

Next time: An Appeal is announced.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW47 the viaduct

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 74

1. 4th September 1974 Bradley Trimmer, Solicitors for the Broxhead Commoners, convey verification of the rights of two individuals. Mr Connell is found to have rights over the whole common. Mrs Cooke has grazing rights over the land owned by Mr Whitfield.
   1974 September Bradley Trimmer confirmation of rights_000021
2. 22nd November 1974 The Chief Commons Commissioner publishes his FINAL Decision. It is six pages longer than the Interim Decision as it sets out the rights of those found to have rights of common over the ‘said land’ that being the land disputed by Mr Whitfield, the ‘said owner’. These are in addition to the Manorial Rights already existing.
   BROXHEAD COMMON – WHITEHILL AND HEADLEY NO.CL.147.pdf FINAL 1974 RIGHTS
   Broxhead Final LAND Decision 197417072020 (2)
3. 3rd December 1974. A letter from the BCA’s Solicitor to a commoner confirms her rights over the west side of the common. He also confirms that there is now no danger of the applicants having to pay costs for Mr Whitfield.
   The Commoner, Mrs Nicholson will hotly contest her rights exist only to the west side of the common and eventually has them confirmed over the whole, by the Office of the Commons Commissioner
   1974 September Bradley Trimmer confirmation of land_000022
4. 3rd November 1974. John Ellis contacts members of the Broxhead Commoners Association to say the common now has ‘the full status of a common’. However the decision is subject to appeal.
   1974 December, John Ellis contacts BCA_000023
5. 9th January 1975 is the date of a report from Hampshire County Council’s County Secretary to the Rights of Way Sub-Committee. Paragraph 3 is fundamentally incorrect because the FINAL DETERMINATION of the Chief Commons Commissioner showed that rights exist over the whole of the common land rather than fifteen on the west side of the B3004 Sleaford – Lindford Road. The repetition of this mistake is troublesome.
   1975 January HCC Report of the County Secretary re Broxhead Common
6. 1st March 1975 John Ellis writes to Mr Nicholson, thanking him for his support and pointing out that the costs were considerably higher than expected.
   1975 March, John Ellis contacts one of the commoners_000024

BW47 an unofficial diversion to the viaduct

Next time: More mistakes or misunderstandings.

The Battle for Broxhead Common

BW47 the remains of treefall obstructs the definitive line of the BW

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 73

1. The hearing before the Chief Commons Commissioner, G. D. Squibb QC, moved, after a couple of days, from Winchester to London where it continued on and off for another ten days until 19th June 1974.
   1974 The Interim Decision of the CCC_000020
2. 26th August 1974 an interim decision is published. Let us take a look at some of the pertinent points therein.
   • Page 2, last paragraph confirms the extent of the common land BOTH sides of the B3004 Sleaford – Lindford road.
   • Page 3, first paragraph makes clear that he is addressing the claimed rights of individuals. The general rights that at some time in the past tenants or the manor were entitled to rights of common does not ensure success for the individual claimants of rights of common.
   • Page 4, fourth paragraph, ‘Free Pieces’ probably means they were free of Forest rights.
   • Page 5, 1st paragraph, “How the ownership of part of the common to the east of the road came to be separated from the Brocas ten twelveths of the manor does not appear, but such division of ownership could not have affected the rights of the tenants over the land on both sides of the road.”
   • Page 6 third paragraph, the MOD admit the rights of common.
   • Page 6/7, states the whole of the registered area as common land.
   • Page 9 paragraph 2, confirms ownership of the common had extinguished any claim to rights.
   • Page 10 last paragraph, confirms rights of common for Trottsford Farm.
   • Page 11 third paragraph. States the conveyance of a farm , by the owner of the farm and a common, which does not in terms convey any right of grazing on the common, will carry with it a right to graze the number of animals which the tenant had been entitled to graze under the tenancy agreement.
   • Page 14 first paragraph. Mr Squibb makes a note that he is aware of Mr Whitfield’s cause!!
   • Page 15. Mr Connell and Mrs Cooke are confirmed as rights holders.

BW47 looking back up to the field crossing

Next time: The Verdict and the Costs