"The public have ancient rites of access on foot or on horse back
-   such rites are being denied unlawfully 
-   members of the public may enforce against such impediments on common lands."

Says Tony Barnett

The applicants that are unlawfully occupying Yateley common wish to use the following legislation, Schedule 2 section 6 2006 Commons Act when they do not have a clue how to go about understanding the legislation while at the same time failing to understand that the objectors are blessed with intelligence and are miles in front and on the moral ground.

The legislation the applicants wish to site comes under "buildings registered as Common land" Section 6 of the schedule states (1) if a commons registration authority is satisfied that any land registered is land  to which this paragraph applies the authority shall, subject to this paragraph remove that land from the register of common lands.

(2) This paragraph applies to lands where......(a) the land was provisionally registered as common lands under section 4 1965 CRA.......(b) on the date of the provisionally registration the land was covered by a building or was within the curtilage of a building, (c)... the provisional registration became final. (d)... since the date of the provisional registration the land was at all times, been, and still is, covered by a building or within a curtilage of a building.

(3).... a commons registration authority may only remove land under   sub paragraph (1) action (a).. applications of any persons before such date as regulations may specify or (b)... a proposal made   by the authority before such a date as regulations may specify.

Lets remind these parasites of the correct way to identify commons land, we have the freehold waste of a manor being waste lands of the demesne lands of his Lordship/ladyships manor, then we have Manorial waste of the manor ie  the untouched un occupied open un enclosed lands not being freehold not subject to fee simple, no one to make deeds of grant or grants of easement, land open access from all points of view land of natural phenomena, conservation areas, no nature reserves, ours to roam,that's common land, aye.

Mentioned in  schedule 2 section 6 is provisionally  registered common land,not Yateley though not part of  but one from end to end, not just my statement but that of Commons commissioner Baden Fuller in 1965 and after rubbishing the fraudulent claims some by noble men and others by chancers Baden Fuller was waiting for them.

The secretary of state fully aware of the manorial waste being  jumped on, stolen, he made the decision to register town and village greens, these were place into the care of local authorities and because the common land being no mans land but becoming any mans land sought to identify the land, for that he engaged the University of Aberystwyth to form a department within the University  split into groups and to travel through England and Wales seeking information from every council regarding the waste lands in that county, need was the size, shape, soil conditions the flora and fauna and if any ancient rites were being taken up, from such information the commissioners were able to make decisions for the 1965 CRA, you all need to note that the information came from the local authorities who now want to change their minds..

Yateley common was not provisionally registered, there is in the public domain the decision by Baden Fuller to state that the registration of the entire Yateley common was registered correctly in 1965 when again hearing the moans from others with personal agendas that disagreed with him, in 1974 when it was confirmed making it subject to section 10 and conclusive of the matters so registered.

When Yateley was requisitioned,all rights were suspended on the part being used, then any works on there were lawful under section 194 1925/1936 lands registry act, written into the requisition act was after de-requisition of Yateley in 1962 the land were to be returned back into the state in which they were before the works started, this was passed to the minister of works to make the order because the buildings and other works did not conform to section 194 meant that they were unlawful,work s did start but was quickly stopped and it was decided to object to the 1965 registration saying it was incorrect which meant another hearing in 1974,the objectors lost, as HCC holds the registration to show the registration why should they support this new bogus application?

The claims are that the buildings are registered as common land, round ones, they are still under the demolition order of 1962 in law they don't exist. Although the 194 act has been repealed section 193 has not, this act assures that the public have ancient rites of access on foot or on horse back,at the moment such rites are being denied unlawfully and as the works are unlawful members of the public may enforce against such impediments on common lands.

Support the ones fighting this injustice by the council and PINS