- All the so called consultation is only a sham as the HLS agreement was signed BEFORE any consultation was started and WITHOUT any legal agreement with the commoners as required by their own published regulations

- The whole stewardship scheme as implemented is seriously flawed

Says Bob Milton

I await the call to a meeting with Hampshire CC which I have been trying to get for over a year.

It must be remembered that all the so called consultation is only a sham as the HLS agreement was signed before any consultation was started and without any legal agreement with the commoners as required by their own published regulations.

It is also a fact that the whole stewardship scheme as implemented is seriously flawed in that there is no requirement of the signing officers of NE to take into account existing public access rights or the effect that the stewardship agreement has on public access such as displacement of user.

It is also a fact that as part of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA implementation plans that access management – read control, is predicated on the removal of existing public access rights via primary legislation. There are no powers in the EU Habitat directive as incorporated into UK legislation to make any changes or restrictions to existing by right public access yet that is exactly the effect it has had especially for equestrians.

It is also a fact that the whole stewardship scheme as implemented is seriously flawed In this case it is for public recreation which for Yateley common includes equestrians under s193 LPA1925.

There are many aspects of concern in this case and most other lowland heath commons in the South but not exclusively where the pressures is on NE to meet its targets – now called objectives, and to spend its ever increasing pot of CAP Pillar II modulation now standing at 20% up from 14%.

Your reference to Professor Newton’s 2009 report is true but it seems that it is so easily dismissed by NE staff and the Planning Inspectorate as in the Chobham case last year. The effect of self closing gates and fencing on general equestrian access both physically and mentally for our horses is again so easily dismissed as not significant. Even the Health and Safety Executive advises that the public are separated from grazing animals [NT Petersham Meadows s193 Common 2010]. Whose liability is it? Well according to NE it is the landowners not theirs even though they are the driving force behind it – he who pays the piper calls the tune.

It also seems that equestrian access does not account for much when ‘balanced’ against NE’s insistence as can be seen from the Hednesford Decision [2011] despite the common being subject to s193 and having equestrian rights over all the Inspectorate granted fencing with pedestrian kissing gates on the pretext that there was not significant equestrian use; so much for rights.

The BHS published a report on the Health Benefits of Riding last year but it seems it is only relevant if you go round in circles and do not want to ride out in the country where NE want to enclose the open common lands.

One thing that must be kept in mind with all these enclosure schemes is the interpretation of ‘temporary’. Again it seems the Inspectorate believes that 20 years is temporary. HLS is only guaranteed for ten years.