RIDER RIGHTS
Says Naomi Smith
It is all too possible to round a corner on horseback
and come upon a group of cattle with no prior warning -this WILL result in
a horse being badly spooked at best, bolting at worst -it is only a matter of
time ........... read more
Yately Common, Hampshire
REJOICE. REJOICE. REJOICE. REJOICE. REJOICE. REJOICE.
ACCESS SUCCESS FOR TONY BARNETT AND MARITSA SINGER
"Council abandon anti-access plan to de-register Common Land
No proof they are the rightful owners/proprietors of the land.
Boost for all horse riders, dog walkers and others using common"
Says Tony Barnett
As I have been involved with the application for works on Yateley common, not only in an advisory capacity but also as an objector, I have been kept fully informed on progress by PINS where an exchange of procedure (legislative) has been conducted, the competence on debating the issues by Mrs Singer played a large part in forcing the abandonment by the applicant and should be praised by her colleagues.
It is now well known that the applicant-s have withdrawn their application, I believe because of the legislation procedure and not by guess work, today through dialogue with Naoual Margoum it was stated that no application for de-registration of the common land was disclosed to PINS by HCC, even if it had, then because of guidance on making such application to de-register common land was given by me, procedure could not be followed.
To apply for de-registration of common land, the applicant must be the proprietor or a lease holder, in either case the applicant was neither nor could ever be.
As the Minister for works, in 1960, de-requisitioned the land, and that the decision by commons Commissioner Baden Fuller was that the claimants to ownership were dismissed, then the whole of Yateley Common was not/is not freehold, the minister for works ordered that the site be cleared of all evidence of occupation and returned back to the state in which it was before the work started, as the local authority was the paid contractor to demolish the works, then it is required that the order be complied with.
It is intended to approach the courts for a ruling should the unlawful occupants are not ordered to vacate the common.
Maritsa Singer writes to Sylvia Seeliger, Hampshire County Council
Council does not have any jurisdiction on the common land
Council cannot de-register the common land or provide a land deal exchange conveyance, of land that is not rightfully theirs.
Says Maritsa Singer
My understanding from the Regulatory Committee Meeting held on Wednesday 15th November, 2017, was that the matter was being referred to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) and from there either PINS would deal with the matter of the application for de-registration of the Common Land at Yateley accordingly or it would be passed back to Hampshire County Council.
I do not recall from the Meeting that the representations to the advertisement of the application were with the applicant for their response post Regulatory Committee Meeting. When you refer to "the advertisement", I am assuming you mean here the notice of the application for de-registration of the common land which a deadline for objections or otherwise to be made by 8th October, 2017. If there is another advertisement that I am not aware of then please advise me accordingly? Following the deadline of 8th October, the next movement on this was as an agenda item up for discussion at the Regulatory Committee Meeting held on 15th November, 2017, which I attended and presented on.
It would now appear from your email below that Hampshire County Council are giving the applicants even more time outside of that permitted by regulation, to make any other representations on the matter, before you pass the matter to PINS!!!
Many of those who objected to the proposal were unaware of the legislation on Common Land but since discovering the laws, I've no doubt that the legislation will be used. Section 25 of the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2014 has no bearing on this matter. However, as you have used this legislation in your argument for coming back to me, I have looked into this section and have concerns on the process of this appication as follows.
Section 25 of the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2014 it states and I quote:
Section 25(1):
Any person may, by the date specified in a notice of an application or proposal, make written representations to the registration authority about the application or proposal.
Assuming this relates to the notice of application for de-registration of the Common Land at Yateley which was given a deadline of 8th October, 2017 for any representations to be made:
Section 25(2): - Representations under Paragraph (1)
(a)must state the name and postal address of the person making them, and the nature of that person's interest (if any) in any land affected by the application or proposal;
(b)may include an e-mail address of the person making them;
(c)must be signed by the person making them; and
(d)must state the grounds on which they are made.
Again, assuming this relates to the deadline of the notice for representations to the application to be made by 8th October 2017, for any representations to be made:
Section 25(3):
As soon as reasonably practicable after the expiry of the period allowed for making representations in respect of an application, the registration authority must
(a)notify the applicant that no representations have been made; or
(b)serve on the applicant a copy of all the representations it has received.
Note: Real meaning of this act – it does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland
Would one not assume that "as soon as reasonably practicable after the expiry of the period allowed" i.e. 8th October 2017.
Section 25(4):
The applicant may reply in writing to the registration authority within 21 days ;of being served with a copy of representations (or within such longer period as the registration authority may specify at the time when it serves the copy of representations), setting out the applicant's response to the representations.
Has the applicant been notified under Section 25(3) of either (a) or (b) "as soon as reasonably practicable after the expiry of the period" – i.e. 8th October, 2017?
If notified under Section 25(3) (b) as soon as reasonably practicable, then when was the applicant given instruction to reply in writing to the registration authority (i.e. HCC) within 21 days of being served with a copy of representations?
If under section 25(4), the registration authority (i.e. HCC) specified a longer period on serving the applicant a copy of the representations in order for the applicant to set out their response to the representations (Section 25 (3)(b), then what was the timeframe of that "such longer period"?
If the registration authority (i.e. HCC) specified a longer period for the applicant to respond in, then why was this not brought to the attention of all attendees/mentioned at the Regulatory Committee Meeting held on 15th November, 2017?
Whichever way you look at it, any response by the applicant to any representations made, in spite of the matter being an item on the agenda for a decision to be made or otherwise, at the Regulatory Committee Meeting, is long overdue?
Having looked this week online at the Draft Minutes of the Regulatory Committee Meeting – it clearly states:
28. APPLICATION FOR DEREGISTRATION OF COMMON LAND - BLACKBUSHE AIRPORT
Committee received an information report from the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services regarding land at Blackbushe Airport. The Chairman informed that the County Council had received an application to de-register Common Land, to which the County Council had received qualifying objections and was therefore obligated to refer the application to the Planning Inspector pursuant to the Commons Registration Act 2014. There would be no debate as no decision was required whilst the Planning Inspector was to decide the application, however in the event the planning inspector decided to return the application to the County Council members of the committee should not prejudice their position by debating prematurely. The Officer introduced the item and Committee was shown a location plan and aerial photograph from 2013 showing the area. The Committee had one deputy on the item from local resident Maritsa Singer who expressed her objection to the application for deregistration. RESOLVED: Committee noted the report and information therein. There was no vote on this item
What you are saying seems very contradictory to what was explained at the Regulatory Committee Meeting. The Minutes clearly state that the matter would be referred to PINS and that the Planning Inspector was to decide on the application.
It looks to me like in your response below that are actually trying to buy this applicant more time with their application, even though they cannot go ahead with the application as they are not the rightful owners/proprietors of the land. Surely this is wide of the mark. Therefore the applicants do not have any jurisdiction on the common land and therefore the application cannot be presented by those or anyone else under such circumstances. In fact it should have been made clear to the applicant/s, from the outset, that they have no way forward with the application to de-register common land or provide a land deal exchange conveyance, of land that is not rightfully theirs.
Now if my interpretation of this is all wrong and we are talking about two different notices of applications, then please advise accordingly.
Says Linda Wright
We moved to a Shropshire location a year ago having surveyed the local OS
map and noted the significant number of bridleways around the property.
Sadly the map appears a total fiction. Scarce any of the bridleways are
usable ........... read more