1. 24th May 1978 continuing to examine the Schedule to the Consent Order from the Court of Appeal.
   g     Hampshire County Council will further consent to and support any application by the said A. G. P Whitfield or his successors in title to the Secretary of State regarding said fences under Sec. 194 LPA 1925.

2. These were the conditions which the Court of Appeal had signed off for enabling the dismissal of the case from that Court.
   Broxhead Consent Order CA 197802072017.pdf with page 3

3. Knowing that the Appeal Court cannot agree to permit anything perverse or against the public interest, it was only with the benefit of years of eminent Counsel’s opinions and consultation with the reference books, that it could be seen how the public interest was in fact protected.
   So, let’s take another look to see how the Court of Appeal made sure their prerogative was maintained. Taken in the same order as previously:

   • Having formerly agreed to support the Broxhead Commoner’s, HCC now make themselves ‘a respondent to the said appeal’?? The Commoner’s, weary from 15 years of fighting for their common land, agreed that they did not need to engage in further expensive court proceedings by attending this latest court hearing! They therefore did not witness the regrettable U-turn in HCC’s course of action.

   • The lease to Hampshire County Council was in breach of the numerous and continuous times that Headley Parish Council had objected to the fencing and the sports field. The detail of the agreement in the Schedule had not been consulted upon with the Parish Councils, Broxhead Commoner’s or advertised previously. Also of course, there was still the outstanding action under Sec.194 LPA 1925, to protect the now registered common land; why was this not being addressed?

Next time: continuing to expose the numerous mistakes made by the Registration Authority, Hampshire County Council.

All 'TCHCC' Parts so far