- It shows how ineffectual the BHS has been in dealing with these matters since my excommunication by HCC

- By refusing to accept any communication from my self on behalf of the BHS and from another person who rides on the common they have negated all real opposition to this scheme.

- The BHS should also use its influence if any exists and an inspector is minded to grant enclosure to require 6ft hydraulic gates at all definitive and usual access points

Says Bob Milton

This just goes to show the connivance of the rights of way and grazing fraternity in HCC. I was correct in my assessment from the beginning. It also shows how ineffectual the BHS has been in dealing with these matters since my excommunication by HCC regarding my s130 enforcement notice for BW7Heckfield and the legal notice regarding the Court Order of 1988 for the registration of part of Blackbush Common. By refusing to accept any communication from my self on behalf of the BHS and from another person who rides on the common they have negated all real opposition to this scheme.

We must make it clear to all the councillors that the BHS does not wholly support the diversion plans on the grounds that this is a maintenance issue for HCC in respect to their statutory duty towards highways and as you rightly say the non definitive routes on the ground are already by right for pedestrians and equestrians and use by cyclists is criminal [s193(4)LPA1925].

The diversion plan will also need to go to PI as I hope that the BHS and all the locals will object. The only reason given for the diversion plan is that it is too expensive to maintain the definitive routes. It cannot be of public benefit to divert onto routes which already have rights of access or which in terms of cyclists could if they so wished be claimed as highways by deemed dedication. I cannot see that the s38 application can go ahead with out the diversion plan being approved as it will mean that any s147 approval for gates can only be on the definitive line.

The issue of s147 licence is as usual with HCC a done deal as it is the same department as the diversion and the grazing.

The BHS should also use its influence if any exists and an inspector is minded to grant enclosure to require 6ft hydraulic gates at all definitive and usual access points. That gates are tied back when not used and at all times a circular route is made available for equestrians.

There was a meeting with the Commoners early in 2012 where most if not all were against the fencing but those objections seem to have been ignored nor does it seem that any compensation plan has been agreed

There is also the issue of animal welfare given the amount of bracken and ragwort on the common the latter is the cause of much infection of the adjacent grazing land and which NE will not allow treatment under the Ragwort Act.

See also www.oss.org.uk/common-land-a-manifesto-for-horse-riders/