The Battle for Broxhead Common
The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 31
- There followed an appeal by written representation which went on until October 2006.
- 23rd April 2007 Planning Inspector, Mark Yates decided not to make an order for the bridleway. The reason given in paragraph 38 is:
2007 PI Mark Yates for Broxhead claim for BW’s08122020 - “In my view, the reference in the lease to incidental use of the common (Clause 2 iii) does not appear to be limited only to pedestrians and it could equally relate to horse riders. Further, I can see nothing in the lease that prohibits use of the land by equestrians as is the case with use by vehicles (Clause 2 vi). In addition, I do not consider that horse riders using the land in question would necessarily constitute a nuisance, annoyance or damage to the landlord or his property (Clause 2 ix). However, the provision in the lease for incidental use of the land for the purposes of air and exercise, whether as a pedestrian or equestrian, would be a permissive right revocable on the expiry of the lease and as such I do not believe t hat it could lead to the acquisition of a public right of way over the land in question.
- In Paragraph 42 he goes on to say: “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.”
- So interestingly although we did not get the bridleways the right of horse riders’ access to the common land had been confirmed.
- However, it is now obvious that the illegal lease of the common land drawn up by Hampshire County Council and the ‘said landowner’, is obstructing normal rights of access to the registered common land, at least for horse riders.
Next time: The County Council totally disregard the Planning Inspector’s decision.