Says Maureen Comber

I am not quite sure what a multi-functional common is? I am going to assume that it means there are commoners and access for 'air and exercise' and possibly some recreational pursuits. No doubt you will enlighten me? But what puzzles me most is the question as to whether the open space should be primarily valued for bio-diversity or for multifuctional purposes!

I have to say I am quite outraged that some unelected someone somewhere thinks they can decide what my local common should be valued for. Why not ask the local people what they value it for?

I would say since the question has been asked, that as far as bio-diversity goes, wildlife will almost always adapt itself to the conditions prevailing and in fact there are symbiotic effects to be benefited from proximity rather than exclusion of people, such as the loosening of compacted sand by hooves for the sand wasp to burrow in, for example.

The problem seems to be, as far as I have observed over decades, that the management of common land has followed a strategy of doing nothing or as little as possible in order that 'wildlife' should not be disturbed. The land therefore declined becoming overgrown with gorse, fern and brambles. The 'wildlife' has not prospered in these circumstances as it was thought, and has in fact moved to other areas. Hitler himself did not succeed in doing more damage!

Now it appears the latest strategy is to fence in our open spaces so that cattle can clear up the mess created by this single minded approach.

There are many complaints about the way Natural England are facilitating the fencing of our common lands with apparent help from the Planning Inspectorate and no doubt something like glee from the Wildlife Management Trusts who make the applications. Please may I know how and why, when there are so many strong laws safeguarding Common lands from encroachment or works, that a balanced view as stated in Defra's own guidance, between:

(a) use of land by members of the public for the purposes of open-air recreation pursuant to any right of access; .

(b) the exercise of rights of common; .

(c) nature conservation; .

(d) the protection of archaeological remains or features of historic interest; .

(e) the use of the land for sporting or recreational purposes.

Is not apparently being adhered to, and our open spaces are suddenly and at the whim of a few ecologists being taken from us and in my view unlawfully enclosed? Is this the result of the co-ordination of competent authorities working under the Habitats Directory which I believe is European legislation, and which seems to be working autocratically and against the interest of a majority of UK citizens whose main priority will be the freedom to take 'air and exercise' without constraints as to how and where they can do it.

It conflicts with all the advice on healthy living

It conflicts with the Equalities Act

It conflicts with CROW and the right to roam

It conflicts with many of the stringent laws that protect our open spaces

So I must tell you as Mark Weston has asked it to be noted in para 34 of the minutes, and in answer to Naomi

1. " Naomi asked the Society for its help in telling Natural England what was a “good fence” for both the landowner and the horse-rider."

That no fence is a good fence where there needs to be none. Fencing the last of our open country will do nothing to help preserve it. It will alter the aspect of the landscape and if Natural England have anything to do with it, will inhibit the historical freedoms of access which we as UK citizens are used to enjoy.

I am also interested in the discussion by Julia Aglionby in which she says:

1. "Natural England seemingly was not adhering to, or understanding legal tenure however complex and inconvenient. She said that negotiations to reach an agreement were often legally difficult and could take time to conclude and proper governance issues needed to be strengthened. A different set of issues appeared to be relevant to lowland agreements as compared to those relating to upland common agreements."

Her statement does not surprise me. It seems to me that many of the discussions are taking place on the basis of consultations which are valueless in the first place, since they seem to ignore the first requirement of adherence to English law.

I would ask how it is that anyone can be considered an outright owner when there is only a conveyance but no title deeds for verification?

The land registry confirm that they require title deeds to confirm ownership of common land. Sadly the word 'vesting' seems to have dropped from the dictionary and LA's are wrongly, in my view, claiming to be owners when in fact the land is merely vested in them for protection.

This leads me on to my last question and that is how can the Wildlife Trustsinclude grazing schemes in management proposals when they have no legal right to graze themselves?

I shall be most interested to read the answers to my questions and hopethe Group find my comments useful for their further deliberations.

Finally I note at para 5 that Part 1 of the CA 2006 is to be nationally implemented which is indeed good news and well overdue. I have to ask how it would be if the citizens of this country decided that they would pay their taxes eventually but it may not be just yet because they are short of cash?

I don't think that would go down too well do you?

Thanks again and please could you answer my question as to where the Common Land Stakeholders Group stands as regards the fencing of commons in the light of all the applications being made by LA's via Natural England?

Commons Act 2006

Grant McPhee replied to Maureen Comber

If you want to make representations and challenge the way Defra/the Government is doing things, I strongly suggest you write to your MP.

- Local Authorities are making out they own land which has actually been vested in their care to prevent unlawful interference such as encroachment or fencing.

They are unable to produce pre-registration of title deeds for confirmation of ownership and depend on conveyances or epitomes of title. The Land Registry confirm that they would require title deeds to confirm ownership.

This is the single most despicable act by this government I have witnessed. To encourage inclosure of our traditionally natural 'open spaces', our common heritage, which not only changes the landscape but prevents access from any point, is bad enough, but to then make it almost pointless to challenge at Public Inquiry because the application is made by the partnership workings of various government quangos, is in my view quite lamentable

Says Maureen Comber

You will see from the email from Grant McPhee, that I am advised to write to you with my concerns over what appears to be the inclosure of our 'common lands' by stealth and force.

It also seems that this is a government initiative?

My questions as you will see, outline my concerns and I would like to assure you that they are not just peculiar to me, but in fact generic across the country.

The applications for inclosure are being made by the officers of LA's often with little or no consultation. Or sometimes with wide consultation when the commoners themselves have not been approached in the first instance. It is the owner or commoners that have a legal interest in the soil. Not the public.

Local Authorities are making out they own land which has actually been vested in their care to prevent unlawful interference such as encroachment or fencing.

They are unable to produce pre-registration of title deeds for confirmation of ownership and depend on conveyances or epitomes of title. The Land Registry confirm that they would require title deeds to confirm ownership.

This is the single most despicable act by this government I have witnessed. To encourage inclosure of our traditionally natural 'open spaces', our common heritage, which not only changes the landscape but prevents access from any point, is bad enough, but to then make it almost pointless to challenge at Public Inquiry because the application is made by the partnership workings of various government quangos, is in my view quite lamentable.

"How can the ordinary man maintain his rights in law if he is not supported by it and it is not enforced". So said my mentor the late Master of the Rolls Lord Denning.

He also taught that I should do my job as a Councillor without fear or favour.!!

How times have changed and not for the better.

Please will you ensure that my questions below receive clear and transparent answers and are not subject to the same treatment that Hampshire County Council hands out, which is to promise to reply and then never get around to it. There used to be a requirement that tax payers should get a response but that seems to have gone by the by as well.

The country now seems to be run by bureaucratic quangos encouraged by a government who promised a 'bonfire' of them. On this we have corresponded before but it seems

to me they will be the death of the coalition. The public expect their elected representatives to be making decisions and if that cannot be the case then they will not be re-elected

when the time comes. Of course it may be this detestable form of land grabbing is this government's intention. If that is the case please make it clear also.