The Battle for Broxhead Common
The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 6
Hampshire County Council insist that the Schedule to the Order for the dismissalofthecasefromtheCourtofAppealisanorderperse. Infact,it is a commitment by the parties to adhere to the Schedule which is permitting the dismissal of the case from that Court. This means the Schedule must be complied with, in its entirety.
So, are HCC in contempt of Court?
27th June 1978, minutes of the Land Subcommittee show that HCC is pressing ahead with its ‘Settlement’, even though no consent has been sought from the Secretary of State.
Broxhead Registration RIGHTS COOKE22082020 (1)
18th December 1978, the Final Disposal Notices (FDN) are issued by HCC. When I made enquiries more recently as to why there appeared to be more than one Final Notice I was told that the first date, 24th May 1978 was the date of registration and the second, 18th December 1978 was the day it was sealed.
Broxhead report of 22.6.78 COMPLETION OF LEASE (2)
The links show the FDN for Connell in which it can be clearly seen that ‘the saidland’referstothewholecommon.3 TheRightsRegistrationSheetfor Mrs Cooke has not recorded her grazing rights over the land owned by Mr Whitfield? (for which see CCC’s Final Decision (2) Rights, page 17/18)?? 4
FDN CONNELL 19.12.1978 18
The CCC has made no alteration to his Decision other than dates, one for Land and two for Rights.
Broxhead Registration RIGHTS COOKE22082020 (1)
This is because Brightman}. left him to make any alterations, he thought necessary. However, none were needed because the very fact that common rights had been found on the east side of the common confirm that the whole of the common is subject to rights of common. Not that proof was needed, since rights of common existed before 1925 and therefore the land was protected by sec.193 and 194 LPA 1925.
Mr Whitfield has no Rights because he has claimed ownership. His Land FDN
simply refers to the five small pieces which have been omitted as stated in the Land Decision (1). They are outlined in red on a plan initialed GDSl & GDS2. I have never managed to find a copy of that plan. Instead there is a much larger plan, C, drawn by HCC to show the 80 acres extinguished.
The question must be asked how and why in the circumstances the still unauthorised fencing remains as if Mr Whitfield had won his case in the Court of Appeal when in fact it was never heard?
Pages from FDN WHITFIELD 1978
Next Time: Another FDN and the MOD asking questions