From: "Hugh Craddock (BHS/EWD)" Date: 12 January 2011 20:09:43 GMT To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Alex Stewart Subject: Hatched area Dear Andrew The consultative committee, at its meeting on 1 November, discussed the use of the hatched area.  This followed officers' report to the conservators' board meeting on 25 October. The report explained some of the background to the annotation of the hatched area on the signed map.  It explains an undertaking given in the context of the Bill which became the 1984 Act: “That hack riding on the south part of Walton Downs delineated on the signed map will be permitted after noon from time to time if in the opinion of the Epsom and Walton Downs Training Grounds Management Board ◦ the state of the ground permits it; and ◦ the maintenance and use of the training gallops is not thereby prejudiced.” Whatever the terms of the undertaking, it was given effect by the following rubric on the statutory map: “Part of Walton Downs on which riding is permitted after noon if in the opinion of the Training Grounds Management Board conditions allow." It does not explain, but perhaps should have explained, that the undertaking was given by the interests comprised in the TGMB in order to secure the withdrawal of an outstanding objection to the Bill by the Epsom Downs Riders' Protection Society (EDRPS).  So the undertaking is in effect quasi-contractual: the TGMB agreed to provide additional land for hack riding on the downs, in return for the EDRPS ceasing to press for the retention of hack riders' rights elsewhere.  I need hardly add that, in the following 25 years since the Act came into force, the TGMB has never consented to riding on the hatched area, and one suspects that it may have entered into the undertaking not intending to fulfil it. At the meeting, and previously, you observed that part of the hatched area, west of Walton Road, was used each winter from January to March for training use.  It follows that, if that part of the hatched area is fit for use for training purposes in the depths of winter, it must be fit for hack riders' use then and throughout the year: in other words, having regard to the rubric on the signed map, 'conditions allow'. In summer 2009, we exchange emails about the use of the hatched area.  I asked how the TGMB perceived that conditions had changed since the undertaking was given in 1983, such that it might conclude that conditions no longer were conducive to use of the hatched area by hack riders.  You replied that: "I am I believe the longest serving current member of TGMB, dating back to 1993. Certainly since that time I cannot recall the hatched ground ever being opened to hack riders, and I suspect you are right that since 1984 it never has been. In terms of the physical “conditions” of the area I suspect the rough area is as bad as it ever has been. The area to the left (as you look up from Ebbisham Lane) is maintained by the groundstaff for use by racehorses in the winter. In answer to the later point in your e-mail we have never said that the entire hatched area is considered unfit by virtue of its condition, just the right hand section. Our view is that we cannot open up the left hand section as its condition (if we did) would as a result not be fit for racehorse usage when required. In other words the maintenance and use of the training gallops would be prejudiced."  If that view were correct, it is impossible to see how the TGMB could ever have formed a different opinion of the capacity of the western hatched area to accommodate hack riding, and one must question whether the undertaking were given in good faith.  Nevertheless, if we assume that it was not the intention of the TGMB to enter into the agreement in bad faith, how does the TGMB reconcile the terms of the undertaking with its view reported above? This leads us to the questions which we posed at the meeting, and which it was agreed we would put to you in writing.  I would be grateful if the TGMB would discuss these questions before you respond. 1. a) What 'conditions' — i.e. those relating to the state of the ground and the vegetation — would be sufficient to enable the TGMB to authorise use of the western half of the hatched area (setting aside any consideration of responsibility for securement of those conditions)?
b) What 'conditions' — i.e. those relating to the state of the ground and the vegetation — would be sufficient to enable the TGMB to authorise use of the eastern half of the hatched area (setting aside any consideration of responsibility for securement of those conditions)? 2. Irrespective of responsibility for delivery, how might those conditions be secured — for example, what works or management might be necessary? 3. What level of use (and at what times or seasons) of the western half of the hatched area by hack riders is considered incompatible with its use for training, and for what reason?  By way of comparison, the southern half of Middle Hill (i.e. north of Downs House and south of the designated training area) is a hack area.  Does the TGMB consider that the Middle Hill hack area would be unfit for training use? Could you please also let me know when you will respond to Mr Mclean-Anderson about his offer to control rabbits on the hatched area (my email to you of 28 May 2010)? regards Hugh Hugh Craddock BHS Area Access & Bridleways Officer, Epsom and Walton Downs 01372 729793 ewd@craddocks.co.uk