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:
- 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 - “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.
- As sec. b.
- 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!!
- 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.