The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 160

My Barrister gave a detailed explanation of why the 80 acres qualified for consideration as described. 

(a) The provisional registration was referred to a Commons Commissioner under section 5 of the 1965 Act. 

(b) There was no consideration as to whether the land was waste land of a manor. The 80 acres of Broxhead Common appear to have been removed from the Land Section of the Register without consideration of whether the land was waste land of a manor.  (It was in fact such land, and so ought to have remained on the Register, notwithstanding the surrender of Mr Connell’s rights by virtue of section 22(1)(b)(rather than (a)), of the 1965 Act as follows:  

"(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, "common land" means

(a) land subject to rights of common (as defined in this Act), whether those rights are exercisable at all times or only during limited periods;

(b) waste land of a manor not subject to rights of common: but does not include a town or village green, or any land which forms part of a highway;"

“The Applicant raises these issues now and in detail to give the County Council an opportunity to clarify matters for the Inspector, if it is able to do so.  It would be particularly helpful for the Inspector to be clear as to whether objections were made at the outset by Mr Whitfield both to the Rights Section and the Land Section of the register, and the exact terms of the relevant ‘Final Disposal Notice’ (which appears to have been made on or about18th December 1978) of the CCC following the Court of Appeal’s Consent Order; and whether any application was ever made in respect of the fencing pursuant to section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Next time: to be continued

All 'TCHCC' Parts so far