Says Tony Barnett

RE- PADWORTH COMMON BERKSHIRE.

SIR MIKE PITT.

I WRITE TO AGAIN BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION FURTHER, FALSE REPRESENTATIONS, BY PERSONS CLAIMING OWNERSHIP RIGHTS TO COMMON LAND IN ENGLAND.

PADWORTH COMMON IS SITTUATED IN BERKSHIRE AND IS THEREFORE UNDER THE “PROTECTION” FROM UNLAWFUL INTERFERRANCE TO THE GEOLOGY, NATURAL PHENOMENA AND OPEN UNIMPEDED ACCESS.

THERE IS ALSO COMMONERS RIGHTS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, WHERE SUCH RIGHTS HAVE BEEN REGISTERED.

I AM PRIVILAGED TO INFORMATION FROM BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILS WEB SITE THAT PADWORTH COMMON IS A REGISTERED COMMON AND THAT COMMONERS RIGHTS ARE ALSO RECORDED.

SECTION 9 OF 1965 ACT AND SUBSIQUENT REPEAL OF THAT ACT, TO SECTION 45 OF THE 2006 COMMONS, ALSO REQUIRES THAT A COMMON OWNERS REGISTER IS ALSO TO BE COMPILED, I WISH TO AVAIL TO YOU THE LEGISLATION THAT REQUIRES SUCH A REGISTER TO BE COMPILED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES, HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

MY RESEARCH INTO COMMON LANDS IN ENGLAND AND WALES HAS BEEN THOROUGH, AND SO I WILL CONFIRM TO YOU THAT PADWORTH COMMON IS NOT FREEHOLD, BUT IS IN FACT NOW A SECTION 45.

AS WITH SECTION 9 OF THE 1965 COMMONS REGISTRATION ACT (CRA) WHERE COMMON LANDS WERE RECORDED BY THE COMMONS COMMISSIONER AS SUCH (WHERE AN OWNER COULD NOT BE TRACED)

SECTION 45 OF THE 2006 COMMONS ACT, SUBTANTIALLY RE-ENACTED THE 1965 LEGISLATION, PADWORTH COMMON IS A SECTION 45 OF THE 2006 COMMONS ACT.

THE LEGISLATION ALSO IDENTIFIED THE PROCEEDURE FOR “UN-OWNED” COMMON LAND, WHICH THE COMMONS COMMISSIONER ADOPTED IN HIS JUDGEMENT BY VESTING SUCH COMMON LANDS INTO THE PROTECTION OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY.

THERE IS THEN NO VALID EXCUSE FOR BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL TO ADOPT FRAUDULENT CLAIMS TO OWNERSHIP OF PADWORTH COMMON, AND TO APPLY TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE FOR CONSENT FOR WORKS, CLAIMING TO “OWN” PADWORTH COMMON.

THE APPLICATION AS OWNERS IS FALSE REPRESENTATION, IT IS ALSO FAILING TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION THAT WOULD NEGATE THEIR CLAIMS TO OWNERSHIP, AND THIS CLAIM IS ALSO ABUSE OF OFFICE, ALL IN ALL FRAUD AS IS SHOWN IN THE 2006 FRAUD ACT.

THE WORKS APPLIED FOR WHICH IS ENCLOSURE/APPROVEMENT, WAS REPEALED BY THE 2006 COMMONS ACT, SECTION 47-1 AND PROHIBITED UNDER SECTION 47-2.

THE UNLAWFUL WORKS ARE ALSO CRIMINAL, CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971-1, WHICH RECKLESS CONSENT, IF GIVEN, WILL BE VISITED UPON A CONSERVATION AREA OF NATURAL BEAUTY.

MAY I AGAIN REMIND YOU THAT THE 2006 COMMON LANDS LEGISLATION BILL WAS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT, AND ALSO RECEIVED THE ROYAL ASSENT, THIS THEN ARE THE LAWS OF THIS KINGDOM, OF BRITAIN.

IN CONCLUSION, MAY I THEREFORE ASK YOU TO HAVE ALL SUCH APPLICATIONS FOR WORKS ON COMMON LAND REFUSED, AND ALL FALSE REPRESENTATIONS DEALT WITH UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW ACTS.