Answer to Twitter query about Treworgan Common

We looked into a query from one of our followers on Twitter and, as is sometimes the case, the information is a bit long for a tweet so we’ve posted here.

Rob from our legal team has said that as the common is not owned by the council, it’s unlikely that we will take any enforcement action at this stage:

He says:

“In respect of the fencing erected around the eastern side of the common which prevents members having public access onto the common, we believe that the fencing does not interfere with any public right of way in the area, and we’ve consulted with planning enforcement colleagues who are of the view that planning enforcement action is not necessary in the circumstances.

Under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006, the consent of the Welsh Ministers (heard through an application to the Planning Inspectorate Wales) is required for “restricted works”, defined as those works that prevent or impede public access to the common. Under section 41, any person can take enforcement action through the county court, so in theory, members of the local community could take action. However the most likely person who will take enforcement action is the estate of Lord Raglan, as it is the land-owner. I believe that the estate has written to Mr Parry.”

Posted by Hel

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. I tried to enter comment but cant see anything posted.

    I am not a legal expert but I believe Mr Parry does not have any grazing rights on Treworgan Common. As the owner of Kilfrew Farm I have grazing rights but with the erection of this barbed wire fence I am being prevented for accessing the common.

    On a second but related point, I am astounded that MCC feel that the erection of 2 lines of barbed wire fencing does not interfere with any public right of way in the area? Would you like to climb over a barbed wire fence to access common land?

    Regards
    Steve Jones

  2. Treworgan Common allows access to all. How can you say that “we believe that the fencing does not interfere with any public right of way in the area”. A footpath is shown across the common leading to the existing post box (not a coincidence, I suspect). While the footpath is not registered as a “public right of way”, it doesn’t need to be, since the whole common is for public use. Please explain your logic?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s