Barrister Buffie's brief - unanswered questions

(a) Your reply compressed my original points 1 an 2 and ignored my concerns about hooked and drowned wildlife. This will continue as long as fishing is permitted and I ask, why does the Council, by its actions, condone this?

(b) Your answer does not show due regard to the dangers of injury occasioned by inadvertent hooking, totally predictable where anglers are mixed with passers by who are accompanied by children. In the event of legal action the Council would be at fault. Has this been considered /debated?

(c) I am familiar with the contents of the Open Spaces Act 1906, and for the present simply say that my raising of the question of Ultra Vires was to indicate that a whole load of case law over the past 100 years has bearings on several issues involved here.

(d) The bulk of your reply rests on the certainty of fishing being authorised. Have you and the present Council read GO FISH dated 21 Dec 2000 and the then Facilities Manager's sensible appraisal. I ask, can you please tell me when and why this was revoked? Could I have copies of the relevant Council minutes, please?

(e) You have already had my views on the validity of a meeting called by anglers for anglers. I ask, does the Council consider this a democratic meeting properly called, for the local residents, ratepayers, with the correct procedures of notice and conduct applied? Or do they consider it correct for salaried employees to dictate policy to the local population?

(f) Is the Council aware that neighbouring London Boroughs of Lambeth, Croydon, Wandsworth and Sutton, have withdrawn fishing rights? I recommend their websites to you. As part of our boro, Council is obviously aware that the Mitcham Common Conservators no longer allow fishing on the ponds there.

(g) Arising from point (f) is the Council aware that Environment Agency has been actively promoting Cannon Hill Common to the whole of the UK fishing fraternity?.vide Waterscape.com - Britain's official guide to canals,rivers and lakes. No wonder the influx of strangers, all on to a strip of water some 200 yards by 50 yards that is a bird sanctuary. You comment " The Environment Agency would not be happy with this solution ( e.g. prohibiting fishing ) as a large amount of E.A funding contributed to the improvement project." A case of he who pays the piper calls the tune? Hardly democratic.

(h) The PCSO's that you indicate have 'agreed' to make regular visits have been doing so throughout the year and off duty have no doubt been cheerful anglers there and, to boot, probably instigators and founder members of the new angling club.
They do not reassure the wild life.

(i) In the event that the Councils' outrageous proposals are implemented will technical drawings be first be put before the public showing size, number, and locations of platforms? Will planning permission be required?

(j) In the event of the Councils' outrageous proposals being implemented, whilst the urgently needed repairs to the bank are being carried out, will fishing be prohibited?

(k) In the event etc etc., after repairs, when presumably Environment will replant the foliage, will fishing be prohibited for a reasonable period of one year?

(l) In the event etc,etc., is the Council aware that Wandsworth, with several ponds, all larger than Cannon Hill pond, permits fishing on one only with a strictly enforced close season during the nesting season from February to June and is the Council prepared to write a similar clause into any contract?

(k) The Heritage Lottery Fund, Like you I have been involved with successful lottery funding, in SE London youth sporting facilities so know how hard one has to work. My contacts simply aver that the commission could not have been aware of the bird sanctuary.

If you would like the full dossier of the brief, with answers from the Council, please email fw24@dial.pipex.com or request it with the contact form below.