TCHCC – PART 24

The Battle for Broxhead Common

The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 24

1. 7th January 2002. A letter from the Headley Wood Estate Manager, Mr Michael Porter to Miss Walters of the Committee Division of the Chief Executive’s Department regarding the CROW Act 2000.
2. Read with the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to see how the malfeasance on Broxhead Common was perpetuated. Starting with paragraph 3 in the letter, it should have read:
   Letter Porter to HCC Chief Executives 15072019
   • “Part of the Common was enclosed many years ago” STOP.
     “After hearings before the Commons Commissioner in 1975 a final decision on the status of the enclosed land was given.” STOP. In fact, this is incorrect as the final decision of the Chief Commons Commissioner is dated 22nd November 1974. However, it goes on to say:
   • “by the Court of Appeal in May 1978.” STOP. This is totally FALSE because the CA had dismissed the case from out of that court.
   • “when Hampshire County Council were instructed to exclude the enclosed land from the Commons Register. See paragraph 3 of the enclosed copy of the decision.”
3. The paragraph 3 referred to is in fact part of the terms of agreement between the parties which enabled the case to be dismissed. The reference to “the County Council not pursuing its provisional registration pending before the commons commissioner of the said area so as to exclude all reference to the said area on the Commons Register” had in fact been overtaken by the affirmation of that decision stated on the first page of the Consent Order itself.
4. However, the inclusion of the necessity of the application for the said fences, “and shall further consent to and support any Application by the said Anthony Gary Peter Whitfield or his successors in title to the Secretary of State regarding the said fences under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925”, obviously secured the integrity of the 80 acres as common land.

Next time: to be continued, issues with the Consent Order.