1. As you have seen there was total dissent from the local community for proposals to fence any part of Broxhead Common. But after all the fund raising and gathering of information, expensive lawyers, plus the confirmation that it was common land from two of the highest Courts in the Land, nothing changed.

2. Mr Whitfield’s cause was allowed to succeed by the dereliction of duty by Hampshire County Council as the Registration Authority, to have the fencing removed. They appeared to have acted in complete contempt of court let alone the Community.

3. If that was not bad enough, aggravation would continue over the coming years as Hampshire County Council did their best to accommodate Mr Whitfield’s every wish.

4. As already detailed in Parts 69-78 of this series, in 1973 there was the diversion of BW47 from the ancient lane which could probably be seen from Headley Wood Farmhouse but otherwise would not interfere with the use of the land! Apart from the broken promise by Hampshire County Council that legal access would be restored from Picketts Hill C102 if no objections were received, no indication was given that it also included five more gates to negotiate within a relatively short length of the eventual diversion.

5. Then came the requests to divert two more bridleways on Broxhead Common. BW4 and BW46. The diversions required by Mr Whitfield were considered necessary because the unauthorised fencing had obstructed the traditional routes horse riders and others used. There had been at least 23 of these across the 404 acres of the common land, as documented by John Ellis.
   Broxhead, letter from John Ellis 28th Feb. 196527092018

6. In 1965 there had been a quinquennial review of the Definitive Map which was by 1980 apparently still not completed. So, John Ellis called for a special meeting to try and resolve the outstanding issues over Broxhead Common.

Next time: The aggravations continue.

All 'TCHCC' Parts so far