Says Tony Barnett

I HAVE IN MIND TO WRITE TO WBC, TO REQUIRE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO RE SUBMIT HIS APPLICATION TO DEFRA, AND TO WITHDRAW HIS APPLICATION FROM PINS.

AS HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO THE PUBLIC THAT NO TITLE DEEDS ARE HELD, AND A STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT HAS BEEN MADE THE "WE DON'T OWN THE COMMON" IS THE CORRECT ROUTE TO TAKE.

IS THERE ANY SUPPORT FOR THIS ACTION?

Says Maureen Comber

That is not only the right thing to do, it is the only thing to do.
The laws are there for the protection of these rare and valuable heathlands.

We should invoke it.

Says Steve Yandall

Agreed Maureen and Tony.

In that case do WBC pay for the wasted revenue thus far?

Writes Tony Barnett

CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

I HAVE TODAY SPOKEN TO PINS REGARDING THE HEARING OF YOUR APPLICATION TO ENCLOSE PADWORTH COMMON.

THE HEARING AS YOU WILL KNOW WAS POSTPONED UNTIL 2013, IT WILL BE AN OPPORTUNE TIME FOR ME TO ATTEND THAT HEARING.

MAY I THEREFORE REQUEST FROM YOU PROOF THAT YOU HAVE A HIGHER STATUS THAN THAT OF THE REGISTERED COMMONERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC?

CONFIRMATION THAT YOU, PERSONALLY AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF WBC, HAS CONSENTED AND APPROVED THE APPLICATION MADE BY S MC WILLIAM,TO PINS FOR THE WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY WBC STAFF?

WILL YOU ALSO CONFIRM THAT YOU, AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF WBC, HAS ACCEPTED FROM NATURAL ENGLAND, FUNDING, TO EFFECT THE ENCLOSURE AND OTHER WORKS ON PADWORTH COMMON,AS OWNERS OF THAT COMMON LAND?

WILL YOU AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF WBC CONFIRM, THAT THE DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT AND OTHER FLORA AND FAUNA, CONTRARY TO THE 2000 CROW ACT LEGISLATION AND THE 1971-1 CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT?

BRIDLE PATHS ON COMMON LAND ARE OF A NATURAL STATUS, AS ARE ALL ACCESS POINTS ON COMMON LAND, MAY I THEREFORE DRAW YOU ATTENTION TO THE 2006 ACT WITH REGARDS TO "NEW ROADWAYS ACCESS POINTS) ON OR OVER COMMON LAND? THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDLEWAY IS IN BREACH OF THAT ACT.

FOR THIS STRUCTURE/DEVELOPMENT, DO YOU HOLD AN INSURANCE POLICY TO COVER ANY ACCIDENT THAT CAN OCCUR ON UNLAWFUL WORKS, FOR WHICH DISCLOSURE IS/WILL BE NEEDED?

SUCH WORKS MAY ONLY BE APPLIED FOR AND CARRIED OUT BY A PERSON ABLE TO DISCLOSE PRE-REGISTRATION OF TITLE DEEDS.

AS YOUR COLLEAGUE PAUL HENDRY HAS STATED THAT YOU DO NOT OWN PADWORTH COMMON, AND ANOTHER COLLEAGUE HAS STATED THAT THE COMMON IS NOT SUBJECT TO SECTION 193 OF THE 1925 LPA, AND THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS DOUBTS THAT THE COMMON LAND MAY NOT BE A BOROUGH, URBAN OR METROPOLITAN COMMON,EVERYTHING IS SCREWED UP, IN OUR FAVOUR.

YOUR ATTEMPTS AT STEALING A PUBLIC AMENITY AND COMMONERS RIGHTS IS SUBJECT TO THE 2006 FRAUD ACT;- FALSE REPRESENTATION, FAILURE TO DISCLOSE AND ABUSE OF OFFICE/POSITION, THERE IS ALSO THE CONVEYANCE ACT OF MORTGAGE FRAUD;- USING LAND/PROPERTY AS COLLATERAL, NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE APPLICANT/LEGAL OWNER.

BECAUSE YOU HOLD A LAND REGISTRY DOCUMENT, AND I HAD CONFIRMED THROUGH MY RESEARCH THAT NO TITLE DEEDS WERE HELD BY YOU, PLUS THE STATEMENT FROM PAUL HENDRY, THE ONLY OTHER WAY WOULD BE THROUGH A "STATUTORY DECLARATION", MAY I/WE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DOCUMENT, YOU NEED TO BE GUIDED ON THE FALSE REPRESENTATION TO ANY LAND REGISTRY OF A PRISON SENTENCE OF 10 YEARS.

NO DOUBT YOU WILL BE PRUDENT AND RESIST ANY FURTHER ATTEMPTS AT OBTAINING FUNDING AND OR STEALING COMMON LAND.

THE 1965 CRA PROVIDES THAT WHERE A COMMON COMMISSIONER WAS/IS UNABLE TO TRACE AN OWNER WITH THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION, SUCH COMMON LANDS, UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE 65 ACT, VESTS THE COMMON LAND WITH THE AUTHORITY IN WHICH SUCH COMMON LANDS ARE HELD, HOWEVER THIS DOES NOT GIVE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ANY JURISDICTION ON COMMON LAND.

SECTION 9 WAS REPEALED UNDER THE 2006 COMMONS ACT, BUT THE LEGISLATION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY RE-ENACTED AND GIVEN THE PREFIX OF SECTION 45 COMMON LAND, YOUR CLAIM TO RIGHTS IS BY MIS-INTERPRETATION OF THAT ACT!!

THE ENCLOSURE ACT OF 1285 SECTION 219 WAS ALSO REPEALED.

Says Maureen Comber

I think the BHS should also apply for costs against WBC for wasting time and money unreasonably. WBC are the professionals and should know better. Proper consultation Is a must for councils and if this case had been challenged in the High Court at a later date WBC would have fallen at the first fence just as they have today.

Good for you. I guess a few more commons will have to run the gauntlet before it is realised that English law already protects them and much better than NE and LG.

Says Steve Yandall

The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology have taken up the reigns of the defunct Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in researching and collating information about our environment.In so doing,and after decades of research,husbandry techniques are available that achieve 100% biodiversity(Rob Rose CEH/ITE) without the requirement to graze/fence or exclude the public.

point 1---NE suppress/deny such husbandry thus denying their own expertise and veracity. point 2---the Common Land requirement for public exercise/recreation and air is achievable under alternative CEH/ITE research but NOT under the agenda driven HLS 'system'. point 3---the heritage of Common Land,going back 1000 years(pre 1189),is as important a piece of English heritage as any archaeology and as such remains intact under CEH/ITE research but not under NE 'factual misappropriation'.

In formulating the 'structure' of their initiative NE have forfeited 'expertise' as exemplified by my own communication(up to regional director with Helen Phillips copied in)regarding the existence of natural self sustaining heathland.Responses varied from "we doubt its existence" to " it does not exist".Jim Paice(agri minister)wrote stating that I was correct but HLS fails to make a distinction between man made and natural heathland thus risking degradation of the latter despite it being one of the rarest eco systems in the World.SB Chapman(ITE)stated that self sustaining natural heathland should never be grazed.

I make no claim that Padworth is anything but 'man made' however I do question NE's ability to claim 'expertise' at a local level.

A recent collation of research by Bournemouth University detracts from NE's claims of science in that NE 'science' was selectively adopted BEFORE Bournemouth collated research.The essence of grazing is skilled stewardship but the risk of biological degradation is high in that under or over grazing by uninformed graziers is related as a huge risk in research papers.Being mindful of that fact the exponential expansion of grazing,as a conservation tool,without the resources to educate,monitor and enforce represents a disaster in the making especially following the 30% NE resource cutbacks. In essence the much vaunted objectives voiced by NE are not only unguaranteed but are likely to degrade a local resource if they remain inflexible.To illustrate that I would draw your attention to Carnyorth Common(HLS 2008) in W.Penwith,Cornwall.Monitoring,by local residents(not NE),has resulted in £20,000 being withheld from the steward,serial damage to archaeology has occurred,injuries have resulted,no inroads on Bracken have been made and public use has dropped by 80%.

point 4.NE rely on anecdotal information regarding access thus,again,denying any claim to science.Without access to such information how can NE create pressure to exclude groups from an area based on erosion/degradation etc?In previous schemes NE have displaced causal effect by claiming public erosion as a key factor in degradation but 'overlooked' their own key role in an areas degradation.The W.Penwith ESA scheme was one such example whereby the input of stewards was unenforced resulting in degradation("a trajectory of downward change")but that failure helped justify HLS through misplaced blame.

PINS should be aware that the means exist to achieve the environmental needs of Padworth Common but that the narrower conservation objectives imposed through HLS deny the wider environmental demands made by NE's paymasters--the Padworth residents.

The reality of HLS creating a pecuniary interest in one management method is,in my humble opinion,a failure of best practice and an affront to our duty of care.

In this instance sustainability is being measured against financial reward which,in itself,is the denominator of global degradation.

To commit Padworth to changes never before experienced,with no guarantees,an erosion of accrued public 'rights' and on the basis of anecdote,misrepresentation and potentially unlawful activity to fit a conservation agenda that could be accommodated within an alternative system that would fulfill wider environmental objectives would,in my opinion be a failure of science and a failure to support our governments chief adviser who stated phat "the greatest threat to nature is divorcing the public from it".