Challenging the Forestry Commission Byelaws

I have today emailed a Forestry Commission (FC) area manager with the following points on their assertion of the 1982 Forestry Byelaws, which supposedly prohibit the taking of any minerals or digging of gravels on land which is merely leased to the FC. I haven't included the first paragraph, as this refers to a named individual who claims to have paid the FC a licence fee of £55 per year to pan on the Afon Wen and Afon Mawddach. This doesn't appear to make sense in relation to the law on mineral rights in England and Wales. If my challenge is correct, this would demolish the last remaining (as yet unenforced) law which might possibly be used to stop panners who continue to pan on these two rivers.

'The Forestry Commission is not the registered mineral rights owner for gold or silver ores on any of its freehold lands, or, as far as I know, for any minerals on its leased lands. And it must be taken into account that native gold in rivers is not definitively claimed by the Crown Estate Commission. The Case of Mines 1568 only referred to ore from mines, and this Decision was amended by the Mines Royal Acts, the 1689 Bill of Rights and subsequent legislation which abolished entirely the Crown Estate's interest in gold and silver on non Crown Estate lands by 1969. The Land Registry Mineral rules remain confused due to the Crown Estate's Commission's failure to understand the limits of its powers regarding gold and silver. In addition, the law pertaining to adverse possession of minerals generally on private land, would apply to land leased by the Forestry Commission. It could be argued that the breaching of byelaws for many decades would constitute, if proven, adverse possession of mineral rights, if all of the requirements are met.

In this regard I believe that the 1982 byelaws are in error, as only the registered gold and silver mineral rights owner can consent to or control those relevant mineral operations. It makes no sense, in the absence of an understanding with the relevant mineral rights owner that the Forestry Commission could consent to or refuse any gold or silver exploration whatsoever on leased lands, such as the Afon Wen. In addition Forestry Commission lands are not Crown lands in respect of the Royal Prerogative principle that time does not run against the monarch (the latin eludes me), which only applies to land in the freehold ownership of the Crown Estate Commission. However, I need to research the thinking of those who drafted the byelaws, to determine whether they took any of these points into consideration.

Thank you for your valued assistance.

Brian Wright    Treasurer Gold Rivers Trust'



Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,26662.msg187668.html#msg187668

Thanks Ridge. I keep researching and probing, despite guys like **** who are spreading false rumours which are doing the authorities' job for them.
A senior Forestry official phoned me this morning and we discussed my freedom of information request. Firstly, he stated that he had seen photos of people using machinery; when I quizzed him on this he admitted, 'Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by machinery.' Calling a bucket and pump and small sluice machinery totally undermines their credibility. From the beginning they allowed their imaginations to run riot, and they depend almost entirely on scare stories which have no basis in the real world. Pine forestry is actually the biggest pollutor of the river system, which is therefore in breach of the very Euro legislation they have tried to enforce against panners! In effect, the Countryside Council for Wales has permitted the Forestry Commission to carry out actually ecologically damaging operations for decades. Their reasoning is that they have to take into account the economical benefits of pine forestry. Firstly, it is a heavily subsidised industry, secondly they are also obliged by law to take into account the economical and cultural/heritage benefits of any recreational activity before imposing restriction, including panning. The signs were put up without any consideration for what damage was being done to the local economy and the heritage associated with panning. In other words, they broke the law and this would come out in any trial. And they clearly don't understand their own byelaws sufficiently to enforce them in any way. There is no summary fine system in place anywhere in Wales or England, probably because it wouldn't be worth collecting the £25 for the first offence and 50p per day for further offences. Sounds almost like a cheap panning licence by default! They would have to take a case to the local magistrates court, my lawyer would challenge the interpretation of the minerals clause and it could become a full scale criminal trial in the crown court. The forestry could end up in the dock for permitting panning on a commercial scale by various individuals, including a few of their own employees! There is also the fact that one side of the lower Wen does not belong to the Forestry, they sold the land to a private individual, so the forestry officers were actually trespassing on private property when they last interupted me on the Wen. They also trespassed onto some private areas of the nearby Mawddach, to assert their non-existent authority. I keep pressing CCW and the Forestry to admit that their approach is totally inappropriate and even counter-productive. The BGA has entirely given up, so it is down to Gold Rivers Trust to stand up for the hobby. Your support and commonsense advice is of great assistance to me in this campaign.

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,26662.msg187773.html#msg187773