- Out of forty applications to fence, only one application had ever been refused,

- The assertion that rubber stamping is happening is indisputably correct

Says Sandra Smith

A few months back I analysed all the Commons Act 2006 Section 38 decisions for fencing which are published on the Planning Inspectorate web site, ie, starting in 2007.

At that time, out of forty applications to fence, only one application had ever been refused, which was Kingswood Common, specifically protected from enclosure by its own act of parliament.

Since that analysis last autumn eleven more fencing application have been granted and only one, Telscombe Tye, has been refused (as we know, that was very badly presented). So I think the assertion that rubber stamping is happening is indisputably correct and I wonder if you would consider challenging Defra on the basis of the numbers?

Maureen Comber writes to Richard Hepburn, Commons and Access Implementation Team Zone 109,Temple Quay House, Bristol

- This is beginning to feel more like vexatious malfeasance against a minority and must therefore be contra to the Human Rights Act.

- I would be grateful if you could explain these imbalances by Defra and or Natural England

Says Maureen Comber

Dear Richard,

I think Sandra is making a very valid point and in the light of her calculations I do indeed challenge Defra with regard to the rubber stamping of common land fencing applications.

I also understand that there are 600 Conservation officers within Natural England and only three access officers.

If that is correct that is neither balanced or fair especially when so much legislation including the Royal Commission on Common Land report 1955 - 1967, stated that all common land should be open to the public as of right.

Please may I know why Defra has ignored the needs and safety of horse riders to the extent that they now appear to be archived in favour of cycling and walking? This is beginning to feel more like vexatious malfeasance against a minority and must therefore be contra to the Human Rights Act.

I would be grateful if you could explain these imbalances by Defra and or Natural England as an ALB.

Richard Hepburn writes to Maureen Comber

I would stand by my earlier remark that “I am afraid that I do not agree with your assertion that the Planning Inspectorate are “rubber stamping” applications.

Says Richard Hepburn

The comment taken from Mrs Smith’s email that of 51 applications only two have been refused does not in my view mean that applications are “rubber stamped”, a term which means I believe basically “to approve without debate or significant thought.” Many decisions take some to be determined by Planning Inspectorate and many of these are considered at hearings/enquiries before decisions are made. So I would stand by my earlier remark that “I am afraid that I do not agree with your assertion that the Planning Inspectorate are “rubber stamping” applications'.

Says Maureen Comber

None so deaf as those who do not want to hear.

Tony Barnett comments

I STAND BY MY CLAIM THAT APPLICATIONS TO PINS(WHICH ARE REALLY MEANT FOR THE SOS) ARE RUBBER STAMPED.

Says Tony Barnett

I STAND BY MY CLAIM THAT APPLICATIONS TO PINS(WHICH ARE REALLY MEANT FOR THE SOS) ARE RUBBER STAMPED.

TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT PINS OR THE SOS ARE QUALIFIED IN THE PROFESSION OF ESTATES OR CONVEYANCE, THEIR DECISIONS TO GIVE CONSENT IS RUBBER STAMPING THE APPLICATIONS, IT IS ALSO WORTH TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY OR FROM PERSONS THAT PISS IN THE SAME POT.

ORDINARY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT BE GIVEN SUCH CONSIDERATION, AS THE SUPPLEMENTARY PROVIDES THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DOUBT AS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE APPLICANTS CLAIM TO RIGHTS, SO THIS IS WHY THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY AS TO WHETHER THE WORKS WILL BE IN BREACH OF ANY ENACTMENTS IS THE REMIT OF THE APPLICANTS THUS KEEPING CLEAN THE HANDS OF THE LIKES OF MR.HEPBURN AND COLLEAGUES (RUNNING WITH THE FOX AND HOUNDS).

SECTION 41 SHOULD NOW BE THE WAY FORWARD, THEN THE LIKES OF PINS AND DEFRA OFFICERS THAT RUBBER STAMP RECKLESSLY, APPLICATIONS FOR WORKS/ENCLOSURE OF OUR OPEN SPACES MAY BE ISSUED WITH WITNESS SUMMONSES TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES.