header-logo header-logo

30 November 2012 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7540 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

On common ground

Alec Samuels examines the arguments for and against fencing common land

The common may not be fenced without the consent of the secretary of state (Commons Act 2006 (CA 2006), s 38). Other consents may be required from eg, the owner and planning authority. The prohibition covers “restricted works” which prevent or impede access, such as fencing or ditches. Resurfacing with certain material is also prohibited, except for repair/maintenance of an existing surface.

Works for the installation of electronic communications apparatus for the purposes of an electronic communications code network are permitted under s 38(b)(d) (above ground masts would require planning permission).

Land is common land if it is registered or otherwise protected, eg, under a scheme of management under the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 or the Commons Act 1899.

The New Forest is governed by its own traditional and statutory regime, responsibility being vested in the Verderers and the New Forest National Park Authority. Ponies stray onto roads and into villages. The A31 and the A35 are busy roads traversing the New Forest,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll