Hands Off Hartlebury Common

The theft of the publics property is reprehensible. All this "stuff" about the councils ownership, public consultation, public approval and every other bit of propoganda only pleases the naive or the corrupt but has no grounding in reality.

The common is eroding faster now than at any other time in it's recent history, the top terrace at the south is collapsing and is now changing on a daily basis as are other parts of the common.

I am not bothered by the few or the minority who support this miserable enterprise but am dissapointed by the many who do nothing.

As far as the continued removal of fencing is concerned, unfortunatley for our critics, we were not the first and no doubt will not be the last to do this. Our last excursion was preceded by calls to the police and WCC to let them know where and when in advance we would do this, any inference that we are respoisible for any other public spirited activity is simply wishful thinking on the part of our detractors who blindly choose to claim we are a one man objection group, however we do have 0ver 3000 hand written verifiable signatures in support of our objections, to put it simply, we are not a minority here.

As far as facts are concerned, we will meet any body, anywhere to debate these, however, if you are refering to the councils press re-leases as factsd, these would be a bit thin on the ground when it comes to the truth, which is why we were subject to mudslinging and childish abuse from the anonymous contributers to this forum.

In 1965, a royal commission found that Hartlebury Common was subject to section 9 of the commons registration act, meaning that there was no registered owner, no registration at the land registry, and that NO OWNER COULD BE FOUND. This would not have been the case had the church OWNED the common. It was recocgnised as being an UN-REGULATED, rural common.

This link is to the DEFRA web document which concurs with the above FACTS.
6209 is the index number for hartlebury common in the left hand common, registration number CL68 On a Google search, the listing below will be one of the top three results

[XLS]  Common land database - ARCHIVE: Defra archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/comm...

The page heading describes this list as a registry of section 9 commons, or, if you like, I have enclosed a snapshot of Hartlebury Commons inclusion in 1965 as an un-owned common...........

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/section9jpeg.jpg?t=1330701567...

The church commissioners may have been lords of the manor but as a common, the common was and always was a common and not included in any title, therwise it would have been called, "Bishops Wood" or "Churchfields etc etc.

This is a very simple FACT. Hartlebury Common was always exempt from fee simple because it has been disregarded as an estate as it has always been a common.

On the 1968 conveyance document, there is one significant ommission in the most crucial part of the document. For a fee simple document, it should say "As befeficial owners", meaning the church. It does not.

Also, a fee simple document refers to a blood line inheritance, or inheritance matters, hardly applicable in the context of a freehold sale of a peice of land to a council. It is an innacurate document at best and at worst fraudulent.

What I have written here are facts. Whilst members of our community seem to be happy with the theft of our last public heritages and the disregard for the ancient protections that they still have, I am not. This is OUR heritage and the publics rights that are being dis-regarded. This mammoth land grab is being done subsequent to the biggest bastardisation of good will in recent history in this country. It has nothing to do with the welfare of our enviroment but all to do with job creation and empire building paid for by the public. These mickey mouse schemes cannott support themselves finacially, it is simply not possible, as unsustainable as the landscapes being created.

Steve McCarron