McCarron, if you had a clue to what you were on about you'd see that the law also states that, under that act, if no owner could be found the land would be refered to the commons commisioner 'shall direct the registration authority to register as the owner of the land the local authority' - the local authority being 'if the land is in a parish or community where there is a parish or community council, that council...' or 'if the land is in a London borough, the council of that borough' OR 'in any other case, the council of the district in which the land is situated'.
So it doesn't matter a damn whether the church couldn't be proven owners or if the paperwork rumoured to exist wasn't enough to prove ownership, because of the 1965 act, Stourport Urban District council were awarded ownership of the common as an urban common by the commission.

#1697: -

If I had a clue, insults, insults, insults......

 

No wonder you lot have never left a real name to asign yourself, you ought to get your facts right before putting them to paper! The issue of ownership, or not of the common could not be more simple and yet your INTERPRETATION of reality still is short on facts that would stand scrutiny in a high court.

 

Subsequent to the 1965 commons registration act, Hartlebury common was vested to the local authority as a rural common, or should have been for guardianship puposes only. To maintain the commons ancient and lawful protections. NOT as owners, the local authority had no more rights than anybody else. The commissionars direction was as such. They had the authority to COMPELL a local authority to do this , I think this is where you are getting mixed up.

GUARDIANSHIP, not OWNERSHIP.

Subsequent claims such as yours are based on hearsay with no evidence. You can say what you want about the defra archive but you cannot deny it is a register of unowned commons. Hartlebury is a RURAL common, the only regulated one being Clent in worcestershire.

 

I say again, the claim to OWNERSHIP by WCC is nothing but a lie based on hearsay and deception. There is not a single document anywhere to support such a claim including the laughable land registry registration, or the 1968 conveyance document. Both claims have more holes than a colander, which is compounded, when the travelling comunity are told that their claims to freehold, are in some cases bogus as the church NEVER had ANY AUTHORITY at Hartlebury Common.

 

I don't know who you are but I wish I did, We put our colours to the mast, you know where we are. Up and down the country these schemes are universaly hated and despised. All the objections are the same, the sham public meetings, the sham enquiries, the sham conservation and unsuprisingly, the public are very aware of this.

 

All this, is about securing funding from europe and job creation, it has nothing to do with our NATURAL england.

Steve McCarron