Horseytalk.net/Hoofbeat EXCLUSIVE
RIDER RIGHTS
s193 Chobham Common Fencing and Self-Closing Gates Inquiry
Read Bob Milton's observations on the Chobham Common Public
Inquiry and The Preservation Group closing submissions
"Professor Newton’s published paper was not included in the referencing evidence even though both Dr Day and Isabel Alonso were involved in the research. "
"Why was it consciously excluded. Neither of them has published any challenge or rebuttal of the findings yet both sought to rubbish the paper at the inquiry."
"They have had over 3 years to challenge but have chosen not to"
Click here to read
s193 Chobham Common Fencing and Self-Closing Gates Inquiry
Says Bob Milton
- "It is our contention that this application is primarily a means to gain funding, unfortunately, at the expense of public access. There is, we believe, inadequate scientific evidence and a lack of overwhelming evidence that the application is “reasonable’ [S28G] in respect to the function for which the land is held – public recreation and open space.
- "The application makes a substantial number of assumptions and guesses to support its approach whilst at the same time seeking to use the application as a PR exercise to ‘acclimatise’ users to the presence of grazing cattle [SWT 12.9]. In the terms of s28G this is not reasonable.
- "The monitoring as outlined is solely to prove the efficacy of the regime advocated and insisted upon by Natural England in pursuit of its own self imposed targets. The monitoring is not a scientific trial since there are no control or comparative methodology areas. Neither is there any cost benefit analysis proposed."
- "There is no intention to consider the effects on public access, which are by right both on the highway and under s193 Law of Property Act 1925. The issue of displacement of user is not covered in any of the application supporting documents."
- "We intend to show, through dealing with all the arguments set out in the application that, as made, it is seriously flawed and should be refused."
Read more:
I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW THE RIGHTS OF COMMON ATTACHED TO THE LAND, IF NOT REGISTERED FOR GRAZING THEN GRAZING WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE GROUND CONDITIONS
Says Tony Barnett
IT WAS GOOD DEFENDING BY THE QC FOR THE OBJECTIONS CROWD, BUT MAY I POINT OUT THE PROHIBITION TO ALL ENCLOSURE UNDER S 71-2.
I ALSO NOTICED THE BOARDING NOTICE IDENTIFYING THE LAND AS COMMON, THE UNLAWFUL PRESUMPTION THOUGH IS WHERE UNDERNEATH THE HEADING IS NATURE RESERVE.
COMMON LAND IS A CONSERVATION AREA, NATURE RESERVES ARE MAN MADE AND NOT OF NATURAL PHENOMENA/BIO DIVERSITY.
PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE NOTICE OF THE SPEECH BY THEIR QC BECAUSE THE AGENDA OF THE WILDLIFE TRUST AND NATURAL ENGLAND IS TO PRESENT A FATE ACCOMPLI.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW THE RIGHTS OF COMMON ATTACHED TO THE LAND, IF NOT REGISTERED FOR GRAZING THEN GRAZING WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE GROUND CONDITIONS (FLORA AND FAUNA).
IT IS ALSO WELL DOCUMENTED IN THE LEGISLATION THAT COMMONERS MAY NOT;LET,LEASE,SELL OR EXTINGUISH THE RIGHTS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY THEY ARE ATTACHED/REGISTERED.
