- I am stunned by the decision ... you even go out of your way to ignore representations by both the BHS [s193 applies] and the OSS as well as agreeing to gates and fencing that cannot by definition [kissing gates] be used by equestrians

- Your interpretation of temporary seems at odds with the dictionary definition. Since when and by whom was it ever decided that 20years is temporary ?

- Please advise if this is the Secretary of States true decision and that he does not want to reconsider it

Says Bob Milton

Further to my last email on statutory tests and balance which I believe also applies I have also just received a copy of you decision on fencing of Hednesford hills Common Staffordshire which you dealt with in house.

I am stunned by the decision not only as it repeats the weighting of any decision by you or your departments inspectors in favour of any Natural England stewardship scheme whether it has a detrimental effect on access or not but as can be seen from this decision letter you even go out of your way to ignore representations by both the BHS [s193 applies] and the OSS as well as agreeing to gates and fencing that cannot by definition [kissing gates] be used by equestrians.

On top of that your interpretation of temporary seems at odds with the dictionary definition. Since when and by whom was it ever decided that 20years is temporary. This decision based on these two conditions is perverse even more so considering there is no guarantee that the funding will last more than 10years.

I also note that no reference has been made to any equality or access impact assessment or any evidence that any other alternative scheme which did not have such a marked affect on the public’s access or acted to displace user had been assessed.

Please advise if this is the Secretary of States true decision and that he does not want to reconsider it