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
COMMONS ACT 2006 – SECTION 38
PROPOSED WORKS ON YATELEY COMMON, HAMPSHIRE
APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER COM/3176468
Tony Barnett writes to Richard Holland,
Commons Casework Team, 3F Hawk, Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Bristol, BS1 6PN
"I have pursued every avenue for pre-registration of titles and conveyance documents, there are non, I have pursued land registry, they have no record, but the Yateley Town Council Clerk Jane Biscombe has tried to fool the locals that there is two land registry documents,"
Says Tony Barnett
I have before me correspondence from yourself and one entitled Inspectors Requirements for The Hearing, I wish to respond to both, although Naoual does have emails from me objecting to any and all applications for works on registered common land CL 24 Yateley Common.
Evidence to show that non of Yateley Common is subject to Freehold status, this was made very clear by Mr Commissioner Baden Fuller, the commons commissioner in 1974 when hearing objections by those that had agendas not supported by documentation, Baden Fuller QC's decision was that the registration in 1965 had been correctly registered and also stated that there was no Blackbushe part, all of the area is Yateley Common.
The whole of Yateley Common was de-requisitioned in 1960 and as de-requisition means that the subject must be returned back to it's original state, that was the order of the Minister of Works order in 1960, although work did start but in 1962 it stopped and the unlawful occupation began, various claims to ownership rights began to emerge, but as the 1965 CRA and the decision by the Commons Commissioner in 1974 showed that claims were not accepted due to there being no evidence to support the claims, it is shown in the decision that only verbal evidence was given.
The buildings and other developments have no legal status, no public liability certificate so no compensation for accidents etc, those making false statements will be held responsible.
My knowledge and expertise on common law legislation is well accepted as being correct this has shown in the many court cases I have been involved with also support my experience because no court or solicitor will engage with me on common land laws, subject to that whether by litigation or mitigation there is no trial only a courts judgement in favor of councils or charities, this is because those afore mentioned have received from PINS consent.
We all know that consent does not in itself give permission to develop and that the supplement attached must be for the applicants to ensure no breaches of enactments or bye-laws are broken, but that does not happen, so claims through false representation and failure to disclose (2006 fraud Act) go unpunished because the consent given by PINS, even though it has no legal qualities are accepted.
You and I Richard have had many a talk over such matters of false representations and I have enclosed to you that the applications are such, it is the same with Yateley, I have pursued every avenue for pre-registration of titles and conveyance documents, there are non, I have pursued land registry, they have no record, but the Yateley Town Council Clerk Jane Biscombe has tried to fool the locals that there is two land registry documents, all I can say is Richard she didn't try to fool me, HCC and them other types of councils have copies of the commons commissioners decision, there are no owners ever found with documentation to show ownership, as you will well be informed that such common lands in 1965 were registered as section 9's and vested into the protection of local authorities, however, you will also be aware that the vesting gives no jurisdiction because there is no ownership in the soil.
In conclusion Richard the applicants have no ownership or occupation rights on Yateley common CL 24 and the application for BCA by Shane Robinson must be rejected, the rights of the commoners and general public is to access from all points of view, commoners grazing is by way of prairie grazing and for eastovers, the whole area as all common lands survive through Natural Phenomena, Natural England has no jurisdiction as other charities do not and should have no impact on this hearing.
Maritsa Singer writes to Naoual Margoum,
Commons Casework Team, 3F Hawk, Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Bristol, BS1 6PN
"I am unable to unearth evidence that details actual legal owners of the Common Land in question – putting into doubt of any documentation actually existing to support legal ownership. In light of this matter, and from a legitimate point of view, any documented evidence of ownership by BCA or any other party needs to be proved and made to the public before any such application can be considered. "
Says Maritsa Singer
With regard to your email of 10th October, 2017, whereby you confirm that the site visit scheduled to take place on 8th November, has now been cancelled and that a hearing will be held instead, I would like to make it known that I would like to be present at the hearing and comment. This hearing is to hear the application by BCA Shane Robinson's application to carry out works, as specified in his application, " works/de-registration" of parts of Yateley Common.
Any application that involves de-registering of the common land, as I understand it, would have to go to the Secretary of State and in so doing there would be a public meeting. As I also understand it you can only make an application to de-register if you are a leaseholder or a proprietor of that common land and that having searched for some time to uncover this information, I am, still to this day, unable to locate any evidence to support British Car Auction/Blackbushe Airport/M&G Investments Ltd who all appear to claim ownership of the common land. (I believe some directors are directors of both BCA and the Airport).
I am also in receipt of the Commons Register from Hampshire County Council and this only shows evidence of ownership as being held by two local councils – therefore confirming that it is common land and that there are no legal owners – leaseholders/proprietors, etc. I am also aware of information of two registration plan numbers given to me that would show ownership of the common land, if correct, but again I am unable to unearth evidence that details actual legal owners of the Common Land in question – putting into doubt of any documentation actually existing to support legal ownership. In light of this matter, and from a legitimate point of view, any documented evidence of ownership by BCA or any other party needs to be proved and made to the public before any such application can be considered.
If there is no evidence to show legal ownership of the common land in question, then I would like to ask why, when taking unlawful occupation of Yateley Common - CL24, the Minister for Works Order to demolish the site and return it to its natural state has not been actioned and remains outstanding to this date. With no legal owners, then businesses on this land are no doubt squatting and I therefore object to any proposed works and requests for the common land in question to be de-registered.
The Planning Inspectorate clearly needs to examine what is being claimed by the applicant/s and also ensure that the information is put out there in the public domain for all to see. As the information is in the public domain, and as a member of the general public, then I too have a right to access to such documentation in order to examine ownership rights as claimed by the applicants – so let the public see it.
Commons Commissioner Baden-Fuller made a decision that the registration of the Common Land CL24 – Yateley Common in 1965 was indeed correct and that any dispute/s were overruled in favour of the land being Common Land and not freehold, and that the land was vested into the protection of Hampshire County Council. However, the vesting gives no jurisdiction to regulate or to allow unlawful occupations. Clearly any occupation on the land in question must be deemed unlawful.
This area of common land is of outstanding natural beauty and used daily by the community and the general public from far and wide. Enjoyed for all manner of reasons by the people of the village of Yateley for their pleasure – with the freedom to roam around Yateley Common as they wish. Common lands are already becoming a scarce resource and Yateley Common must not become that – something that disappears by being overused and not available to the community. Yateley Common is at the heart of the village of Yateley and must remain that. Maintaining sufficient amounts of our common land is vital to the survival of our environment. Yateley Common needs to continue to promote healthier and active lifestyles, continue to protect our wildlife habitat for plant and animal species and provide nesting and breeding places for birds - this can only continue if it stays common land.
Much of the common is a Special Protection Area for Wild Birds designated under European Law. How wonderful is that to have in Yateley.
The move to maintain Yateley Common as Common Land is supported by the wider community and by Yateley Town Council.
Finally, I believe that a number of local residents may wish to attend and would ask therefore that the location of the hearing be within the vicinity of Yateley for residents to attend.
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