The Battle for Broxhead Common
FP48 Broxhead
The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 105
- 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.
- 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. - 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 - 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.