[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 05:15:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Hampshire Lanes - sorry no pictures
Hi
Most of you know me - know me to be a p*** taker; tactless; arrogant; can't
spell ... etc
For those who don't know me please consider the above when dealing with
correspondence under my authorship.
As all that I have read so far centers on the north here is a little from the
south:-
HAMPSHIRE LANES
As you will have guessed not much is happening on the rights of way front
around Hampshire. The bulk of the reclassification Inquiries are behind us
with any further dealings with RUPPs being given a low priority. This has
given me some time to look at some of the hundreds of lanes that currently
have no definitive status, or one that is lower than should be. If anyone has
a lane that they believe should be recorded as a byway I am happy to advise
and maybe even do a little research.
Inquiry Matters
Having taken time out from my normal work to attend the second Public Inquiry
into RUPP reclassification in the Parish of East Woodhay one can imagine my
reaction when, at the earliest opportunity, a member of the local community
requested that the Inquiry be adjourned. The reason being twofold:
1- The Parish Council's chosen advocate was not available today because he
had more important matters to attend to.
2 - The Parish supported the Inspectors modifications but were disadvantaged
by lack of time to prepare their case.
After minimal consultation with the OMA the Inspector (Mr Coyne) granted an
adjournment, regardless of inconvenience to all other parties.
As far as I could ascertain those supporting the modified Order had no
additional evidence to adduce. Further, the local resident who made the
application for the adjournment appeared to be the intellectual equal of the
chosen advocate (Mr G Plumbe) and far more courteous - a man as capable as
any of us to put the Parish's view. As there can have been no appreciable
time difference between the Parish and other parties receiving the date of
this second Inquiry how can they have been disadvantaged? I received two
telephone calls prior to the Inquiry from representatives of 4x4 clubs (who
had been unable to attend the first Inquiry) to let me know that they were
unable to attend the second, due to work commitments. Would the Inspector
have adjourned the Inquiry because the date was not convenient to them?
Surely, those who objected to the Order as made in 1990 had five years to
acquaint themselves with the facts and the law that drives these Public
Inquiries. In June of 1995 these same people had the opportunity to see at
first hand the process in action and discover the salient points of the
Public Inquiry. Again, the objectors have had from August 1995 to digest to
content of the Inspector's decision letter, seek advice, carry out research
and prepare for this second Inquiry. In common with all other parties to the
Inquiry the objectors had the Inquiry date confirmed on 25 November 1996. On
top of this the objectors have access to their deeds, estate records and
Parish records that will not be available to the public at large, or even the
OMA. ( I often wonder why landowners that abut a right of way subject to an
Inquiry never produce their deeds or similar 'personal' documents. Could it
be that they might damage their case?)
In objecting to the Inspector's proposal to adjourn I pointed out that there
were four local residents at the Inquiry, who were not aware of the first
Inquiry but now wished to proved user evidence in support of the Order as
made. There were two other users from further afield in the same position.
I believe that the Inspector could easily have taken that evidence before
adjourning the Inquiry. Should it transpire that those users are unavailable
on the date of the third Inquiry the Inspector will have failed to hear all
the evidence available, as he is required to do. Under such circumstances
how could the Inspector publish a valid decision letter when knows that there
was evidence available from local people that he declined to hear?
During the application for the adjournment it became clear that the Planning
Inspectorate had prior knowledge of the possibility of such an adjournment.
The lack of the usual 'roving objectors' and locals fuels the suspicion that
the Inspectors decision to adjourn was know to one side before the event.
If you have used any of the lanes in question and wish to present evidence,
written or verbal, the next Inquiry is scheduled for 8 April 1997. (East
Woodhay is just south-west of Newbury-Berks))
Gates
Gates are becoming an increasing problem around the County. For about three
years I have been pestering the County to have either gates or posts removed
from a number of lanes around the County. An annoying aspect of this is that
I have usually discovered them whilst the soil is still freshly dug around
the posts. I strongly feel that if the landowners had been promptly informed
of the illegality of the situation the obstructions would have gone with
little fuss. Three years on and I am now faced with the prospect of making a
number of a schedule 14 applications to resolve the problem.
To my amazement one gate that has recently been erected close to the
Hampshire border, in Wiltshire, was been (unofficially) sanction by the area
RoW Officer. In consequence anyone following the BOAT southwest from Combe
now gets to the tarmac road to find the way barred by a locked gate.
Claims
Due to locked gates and steel posts I am preparing to serve notice on
landowners, and the County, for the following lanes:-
Bad Road - from SU537289 to 561269 and 563273. The hedges at the western end
of this route have been grubbed out.
Cowards Lane - SU502274 to 507283
Gypsy Lane and Golders Lane - SU504269 to 520287
Should anyone be aggrieved by there passage being blocked on these last two
routes I can supply the MoD land Agent's address so that you may make your
feelings known.
Littleton / Crawley - SU452335 to 427362
The continuation of Upton Grey 18 SU686487 to 682477
Breamore - SU 143183 to 145186. A claim was submitted following the
obstruction of this lane. Sir Edward Hulse, a previous landowner, got into a
spot of bother for doing a similar thing on this lane in 1864. Then the
Fordingbridge Highway Board pointed out "that the public may easily pass at
all times up and down the road with Horses, Carts and Carriages at their will
and pleasure....".
Should anyone have some user evidence or any other information I'd be pleased
to hear from you.
Chris Hill (SCOR) has done a wonderful spot of research on an old hollow way
that passes Durley Mill. Part is UCR and part is currently a definitive
footpath. The lane crosses the Botley to Bishops Waltham branch line
(closed) where there once was a crossing keepers cottage and Durley Halt. An
interesting lane - SU533149 to 525152.
A lane that I have had my eye on for some time, Heron Lane in Timsbury, has
been claimed as a bridleway. Again this is one of those routes that is half
tarred UCR and half 'footpath'.
Traffic Management
The County are seeking traffic management on Millhouse Lane in Long Parish at
SU440447. It is proposed to ban all vehicles to including horsedrawn.
Apparently the Order is to be made due to a weak bridge but, as I put it to
the County, if the way is not capable of sustained motorcycle use at about
200kg how can it stand up to equestrian use at up to a tonne? If you have a
view on this matter why not let the County know? Chief Exec's Dept. The
Castle, Winchester, SO23.8UJ.
Forthcoming meetings
Hampshire RoW Panel meeting - Thursday 13 March - The Castle, Winchester.
This is to be followed by the user/CLA/NFU/HCC laision meeting. I am happy
to take the comments of the vehicular users to that meeting.
East Woodhay - 8 April - the third convening
Owslebury Public Inquiry - 13 May - To divert or not to divert? That is the
Question.
Hope that was of some interest. There are about 100 lanes in Hampshire that
I currently believe should be byway (excluding UCRs). If anyone has another
for me to look at I'll be pleased to do so.
DT - phone 01703-618937
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 04 Mar 97 10:55:00 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Hampshire Lanes
Dave
PI
Is there any mileage, (or kilometerage) in asking for costs on the unreasonable
grounds quoted, both from OMA and DoE?
Gates
A similar instance of a new gate in Shrops, makes me intend to say something
like:-
Dear Sir,
As the Public Liability Insurers to Shropshire County Council, I would like to
draw to your attention a gate, across a public road known as Rowe Lane, in the
Parish of Munslow. This gate would appear to be illegal, has not been
authorised, nor is it required for stock control.
It is an inconvenience and a danger to users.
If a vehicle should drive into the gate, which has no lights or reflectors, or
if an equestrian should have an accident dismounting or re-mounting, a claim can
be anticipated on the basis of the gate being there illegally.
Are you aware of this situation, and do you accept this increased risk without
cost or excess to the County Council?
YF
This gate has been given a "low priority" by RoW. The real reason is that if the
enforcement officer is told by the occupier to fly his kite, they do not want to
(a) look impotent or (b) have to spend a few hundred quid on court action with
no hope of realistic costs awarded.
The PLI ins co might suggest I go forth & X, but if it works it could be a
usefull aid to ridding the countryside of gates where (a) it is the first step
in privatising a road, or (b) to put people off using it or (c) to avoid
maintaining hedges that should have been maintained "forever hereafter"
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 04 Mar 97 10:54:56 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Mailing List
Dave
> Thanks for the mailing list thing. I have mentioned it to Harvey Davis the
> Hampshire CC RoW Manager. He is interested; he is a 4x4 user; he is (in my
[ truncated by list-digester (was 7 lines)]
> We have a good working relationship and as such I wondered if it might be
> extending the circle too much by passing the mailing list address to him?
I hope you don't mind me replying via the list to a direct mail, but this is a
point worth wider discussion,
My initial reaction is No, for two reasons
1) It might inhibit free speech on the list - just in case anyone else in the CC
gets to see it, and many comments will be opinions on malpractices etc.
2) If another slightly less pro Byway RoW officer should ask at another CC, or
the job shifts to a new incumbent, we would have to decide how "green" the
person is.
I accept it is useful to have a direct input to CC's, and I did consider the
possibility at one time of having an open RoW mailing list as well as a closed
one. The open would be to offer advice, case law, good and bad practice etc. A
bit like the gleam newsletter in reverse, but this Alan Kind does now to a
large degree with BBT.
If he joins in his own name as an individual and is known to be in favour of
access, I am happy that he does, what do others think? We can't discriminate
against an individual just because they have a job we would all like to be doing
;-)
List Security.
The list is becoming a "closed" list, this is not to restrict new people, but to
keep track of all requests to join. A message will be sent back to anyone asking
to join to say "your request is being sent to the List owner for approval." This
will take a little longer, - but it will be worth it.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 04 Mar 97 11:17:59 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Victoria Society
Dale,
Am I to believe you are now lurking out there?
Should we go Public on the Victorial SW1 Laning Society next meeting?
Tues 11/3/97 @ 18.30.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Peter Dowson <ukpad@software-ag.de>
Subject: RE: Mailing List
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 16:29:16 -0000
Playing Devil's advocate to a certain extent, making the list closed =
seems to me to be a bit severe. How do you decide who to let in or not. =
For example, I personally know no one on this list but joined when =
joining uklro list as I have a distinct interest to the subjects =
discussed in this list. Nobody knows my job ( it isn't with a council or =
an anti organisation, as it happens ) so does this mean I need to be =
vetted ?
I feel that the open discussions on this list should be for anyone =
interested. Maybe the antis will get represented on the list ( this is =
possible anyway ), but surely if what is discussed is done so in an open =
manner, then we should not be doing ourselves any harm.
Or is it the intention for this list to become a weapon against the =
antis so that underhand planning can take place. Surely our best course =
of action is that adopted by most people already, ie the legal right to =
use a Right of Way. I know that this is a time consuming process, but in =
the long run must be the right one.
Peter Dowson
----------
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Subject: Re: Mailing List
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 13:10:50 -0500
From: William Caloccia <caloccia@OpenMarket.com>
In my (not so) humble opinion,
If you are persuing legitimate goals, via legitimate means, there is no
reason to have a list where you prevent people from joining, (eg. 'need
to vet new people'). You can have an open forum for discussion, occasionally
you'll get conflicting opinions, but an open forum for discussion with
officers of various districts, could be useful. If you get the anti-type
in office or on the list, at least you'll know where they stand, but
perhaps have the opportunity to communicate more with them.
Lurkers are of no harm (unless, perhaps some of your legitimate tactics are
best combined with subtlety and stealth (eg. you put in your applications
without drawing undue attention to them).)
If you have both goals, open discussion, and an agenda to reclassify lanes,
then it may be appropriate to have an open discussion (here), and more private
communictions regarding specific actions pending.
If there comes a point in time when certain individuals are disrupting the
list, then it would be possible to make subscriptions, or submissions
'approval-only', and thus cut them off, this capacity is always there,
but IMHO, it is not where you want to start from, unless the orientation
of the discussion is covert.
I do get the intention of the folks who requested this list is to further
marking/opening/use of byways to motors, and that should guide the content.
Cheers,
Bill Caloccia wpc@Caloccia.Net
http://www.Caloccia.Net/wpc/
R
http://www.Land-Rover.Team.Net/~majordom/lr/
R 1 3 2wd H D
+--|--| o | L 3 Land Rovers First
2 4 4wd L | 2 because
'63 SIIa RHD 88" H 1 Land Rovers Last
793-PTA '90 RR County
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Subject: Rights of Way and the Web
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 14:58:39 -0500
From: William Caloccia <caloccia@OpenMarket.com>
Well, my search of the web turned up very little except Chris's
notes on Green Lanes and a British Horse Society page on Rights of Way.
A write-up previously posted by myself to the UK-LRO list about a
trip with Richard and Chris is also now on the web with photos (as is
a trip of mine up on the Pennine Way).
These links and more are available from:
http://www2.land-rover.team.net/row/
The archives of the List can be viewed at
http://www.land-rover.team.net/RoW/
I haven't got the automation down yet, so the first archive contains
the messages of the last few days, it should be daily once it works.
Cheers,
-Bill
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:02:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Gates, removal of, by authority: See under Mythology
The authority are under a duty to act, and cannot justify delay. They should
give notice to remove, and if not complied with, get the work done and send
him the bill.
Or send in the Bill. If only they would.
<< The local authority must at all times act with the object of protecting
the highway and of prebventing or removing any obstructio, and, more braodly
speaking, of promoting the interests of those who enjoy the highway or should
be enjoying the right of way and the county council must likewise operate
against the interests of those who seek to interrupt such enjoyment of the
highway. >>
Lord Justice Lane, in R v Surrey CC ex parte Send Parish Council 1979
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:02:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Geography lesson
Just in case you are holding the map wrong, the Shetland Isles should be at
the top.
And Hereford & Worcester is more than half way down and well over to the left
Ergo, not in the north.
Call yourself a p*** taker?
Cheers, tim
PS should we suggest to DoE that they throw Coyne in a fountain?
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:02:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Whose highways, whose list?
Can I leap in with another point of view on the Who to let in debate?
I use RoW as a member of the public. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of,
and I do not support secret societies, cabals, cliques, or anyone with rolled
up trouser legs.
Anything I say can, I hope, stand scrutiny by the most rabid of antis, and
any argument I put can withstand being known about in advance, or it cannot
be a good argument.
Or, at least, taking the view that an ambush at a PI can be a useful ploy, I
would not dream of advertising the fact in a semi-open debate such as the RoW
listing.
Would you exclude Liz Hurley, ex AWDC RoW Officer with balls, but now working
for Wilts? There are those working in HAs that thoroughly support what we do
and how we do it, and we need their help just as they need ours. This forum
is a useful way they can contribute but not in office time or on office
notepaper with the anti boss looking... Who is to say, anyway, that an
applicant gives impeccable credentials, member of ARC club, TRF, etc, and you
do not know that he is also a landowner, or HA worker, or Gleam member, etc
Or all three.
No, I say we should be an open forum. Those who have messages not for any
eyes should send to the ones they really do know, only. If not, we risk being
frightened to say things in case they 'get out' and frightened to let people
in in case they are iffy. the worst of both worlds.
But I can be wrong of course. Please chip in, all and sundry. And mundry,
tuesdry ...
The old jokes are like series ones, not the best but well used.
Tim S
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:02:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Fwd: Master Masterbator on TV
It's on! Channel 4's Undercover Britain series is showing Dangerous
Walks at 9:00pm on 09 April.
The 30 minute programme has to be after the watershed because of the
aggressive and abusive language heaped on walkers and riders. The famous
Maperton RUPP of Mrs Masters (GLEAM) is featured as one of the routes.
Mr Masters jnr evidently obstructs the presenter and locals on the right
of way.
Please pass the word
--
Alan kind
Via Tim Stevens
PS Will Condom Man be on next week, I wonder?
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk (alan kind)
To: Timlara@aol.com
Date: 97-03-04 13:30:36 EST
It's on! Channel 4's Undercover Britain series is showing Dangerous
Walks at 9:00pm on 09 April.
The 30 minute programme has to be after the watershed because of the
aggressive and abusive language heaped on walkers and riders. The famous
Maperton RUPP of Mrs Masters (GLEAM) is featured as one of the routes.
Mr Masters jnr evidently obstructs the presenter and locals on the right
of way.
Please pass the word
--
Alan kind
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 97 21:22 GMT0
From: srawlings@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Rawlings)
Subject: == No Subject ==
>>Well, my search of the web turned up very little except Chris's
notes on Green Lanes and a British Horse Society page on Rights of Way.
The TRF has apparently had a another attempt at a web site. I will dig
out the URL and post it here.
Steve Rawlings
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 04 Mar 97 15:07:50 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Mailing List
> If you are persuing legitimate goals, via legitimate means, there is no
> reason to have a list where you prevent people from joining, (eg. 'need
[ truncated by list-digester (was 8 lines)]
> in office or on the list, at least you'll know where they stand, but
> perhaps have the opportunity to communicate more with them.
An interesting view, and I would not want to have a clandestine channel unless
there was good need. I would not be concerned about "the other view" - that I
welcome. There has been some lively discussion already, that is good.
But we do not want to wet the powder, there are times when there are several
courses open, and last night was an example. We had 9 people at a meeting coming
up with ideas on how to prevent Hereford & Worcester from closing down
unsurfaced roads. They want to stop-up 130 of them, virtually all, some of which
you & I used. We know it is in part at the request of the Landowners using a
Sect 116 of the 1980 Highways Act of parliament. This is not to be used for
the landowners benefit. Some of the ideas were not viable, but could not have
been discussed on an open channel.
We could appeal to the Parish councils to veto the idea, but they are unlikely
to if it was for the benefit of 4x4s. They are, if they realised it was the
ONLY way to stop ancient lanes being ploughed. We could make a Byway
modification claim, or a S56 (road out of repair), or a Bridleway claim, which
is unlikely to be opposed, then at a late stage prove it has vehicular rights
thus having it put on the definitive map as a Byway. All of these tactics are
quite legitimate, but if discussed in front of the County Councils or GLEAM,
they would take steps to counter all our moves beforehand.
They would have inside knowledge that would be used to restrict 4x4 use.
It would inhibit freedom to express ones self if Big Brother was listening.
Some items will perhaps be printed in BBT, if disclosed to a wide audience
first, it will not be news.
This is not just about reclassifying Lanes, it is about saving the rights we
have, and they are under threat, as well as getting lanes recorded at the
correct status.
I do not anticipate disruption to the list being a problem, it would just be
most effective if ALL (open minded) RoW officers from all users i.e.
Equestrians, cyclist, TRF etc joined, then we could have full discussions with
all users, but those that want "use up to my level and no more", will not be
welcome.
I.e.Some ramblers do not want horses on any paths, Horse riders do not want
carriages, carriage drivers do not want bikes, bikers do not want motorcyclists,
who do not want 4x4, who do not want tractors, who do not want anyone etc. The
2% of Rights of way that have the highest status should be revered the most, not
the least. My view is this list is to promote those higher rights, for any
sustainable use. In 500 years time they should look as they did 500 years ago,
some, a few, still do.
It also has a valuable part to play in ideas on managing traffic
I would welcome more views on this subject as it is up to the first people on
the list to make it what we want it to be. You cant stop-up a public List once
it is a public highway!
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:04:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: LARA response re s116: Comments please: TS
Green lanes are a valued resource for recreation, for wildlife, and for
conservation of countryside amenity. They are often the oldest man-made
features clearly visible in the landscape, and they have survived for many
years because of their use by the public, backed up by the protection offered
to them in law. Carriageways like these are protected by many laws applying
only to them; they cannot lawfully be ploughed or obstructed, and many
activities such as digging ditches, and lighting fires on or near them, are
subject to particular constraints (HA 80 s131). These rules do not apply
elsewhere, only on carriageways like these routes - and though highway
authorities and the police should ensure this protection, they do not always
act.
On the other hand, carriageways are the only ways along which any member of
the public may use any lawful means of transport. As highways, their
usefulness has varied from age to age, but just as old houses need to be
lived in, and mended from time to time, old roads need to be used and
maintained. Parliament has recognised this factor, too, and has accordingly
set out in the Highways Act 1980 the duties and powers of the highway
authority, including the maintenance of the surface (ss41, 99, 100, 104), for
obstructions to be removed (ss149, 150) and hedges cut back (ss136, 154), and
for the rights of the public to use and enjoy them to be asserted and
protected (s130). These are all requirements of the Act under which the rules
for stopping up are also set out; this Act also includes the requirement for
a List of Streets maintainable at public expense to be kept, and kept up to
date, by the authority, to be available for public inspection at County and
District offices. Parliament thus gives the authority the job of looking
after the rights of you and me to travel about, making sure those rights can
be exercised, and making it clear to us all exactly where these special
rights apply.
This is not the end of the story. Parliament has also given particular
attention to recreational routes which in its own words are `used by the
public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so
used'. Carriageways which meet this description are required - under the 1981
Wildlife & Countryside Act s53 (2)(c)(ii) - to be recorded on the `Definitive
Map' and published so that the public can be aware of their rights without
even needing to visit the authority offices.
It is clear from this that Parliament regards information about these
recreational facilities - rights of way - as particularly important for the
public. This is in addition to the importance shown by the protection
entrusted to public bodies, for the benefit of the public at large. It is
therefore important, should any attempt to remove public rights be
contemplated, to examine closely what benefits for the public might accrue
from any extinguishment.
Extinguishment under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 requires that it
must appear to the court that the highway is unnecessary. We submit that
green roads are necessary for the following reasons:
The Needs of Local History and Natural History
Old roads are an important part of the landscape, a record of the way travel
and transport have developed. Growing numbers of the public take pleasure
from such landscape features, the history of which they are part, and the
wildlife they support, as evidenced by the range of societies, publications
and television programmes devoted to British wildlife, local history, and
field archaeology. If carriageway rights are removed from old roads, the
protection from ploughing is also removed, and therefore the physical
features which many value, and which are vital for many species of flora and
fauna that they cherish - the hedges or walls as well as the surface between
- can be removed for ever.
The Needs of Recreation
Exercise and fresh air have long been valued. The highway network is, for all
members of the public, a special resource in this regard. They may use it
without charge, and it is thus available, unlike almost all other facilities,
to all regardless of income or status. No-one needs to ask permission to use
it, and it is available at all times throughout the year. This unique
combination of features makes old roads of particular benefit to those who
work odd hours, the less able, and those with language, social, and other
problems. In this regard, carriageways are of special worth because:
i. as they may not be ploughed, they should be easier than footpaths to find
and to follow, even without maps or waymarks;
ii. as they should not have gates or stiles, those with mobility problems
should find them easier to use;
iii. the extra width and the firmer surface compared with many footpaths or
bridleways are further benefits;
iv. they are the only ways open to all travellers, however they travel.
The Needs of the Highway Authority
The authorities have duties and powers relating to highways, but in addition,
with current constraints, they can have particular problems funding their
endeavours. Extinguishing highways, and particularly carriageways, can prove
to be counter-productive, resulting in a net financial loss for the authority
as well as a resource loss for the public.
Every year the authority is required to submit a statistical return to the
Department of Transport (Form R199b). This form has entries seeking (inter
alia) mileages of green lanes, unsurfaced roads, byways and back lanes. This
serves as the basis for the annual grant towards the maintenance of all
highways by the authority. There is therefore a direct benefit to the
authority in retaining as many routes as possible. Against this benefit must
be set the costs involved in carrying out their duties on the routes. Where
carriageways are proposed for extinguishment, it is the experience of users
that the routes involved are at the bottom of the list for any sort of
attention. Many will not have been maintained, and therefore will not have
involved a call on authority budgets, for 50 years or more (indeed the lack
of attention to this duty may have contributed to any lack of use by the
public). Left to themselves, these less-used routes will not be immune from
maintenance, but the fact that over many years they have needed none, future
calls are not likely to be high. Therefore such routes are very likely,
overall, to continue to be a net souce of income rather than expenditure.
However, if there is one factor that will disturb this balance, it is the
publicity generated by the s116 process, and its effects. When users or
potential users discover that routes are to be extinguished for ever as a
result of them not having been used very much for a few years, the inevitable
result is that use will increase. There may be publicity for the routes in
the user press, to find previous users, and encourage use to defend against
the closure. Along with such activity, users will naturally want their use
anywhere in the county to be noticed and recorded by the authority, and an
increase in complaints about obstruction, foundrousness, lack of signing, and
similar problems, is one of the inevitable consequences. The resulting
increase in spending by the authority - all at once - would not have occurred
had the spectre of stopping-up not been raised.
Additional adverse effects on authority expenditure are likely where
extinguishment is threatened:
i. Users in general, and vehicle users in particular, have a well founded
reputation for helping authorities with voluntary work, especially clearance
of under- and over-growth, collection of litter and rubbish, repair and
maintenance of drains and surfaces, and erection of signs. This work is
entirely voluntary and can lead to significant savings for authorities.
However, volunteers need to know that the resources they value are not under
threat. In circumstances where the authority seems to disregard the
reasonable needs of legitimate users, their co-operation will be less than
enthusiastic, and may fail altogether.
ii. Where it becomes necessary to manage use of recreational routes, there
are two major options for authorities - Voluntary Restraint and Traffic
Regulation Order. Without going into detail, TROs cost around -4,000 each to
carry through; Voluntary Restraint - which is recommended by government and
which can be just as effective as a TRO - involves only a letter and a phone
call or two. In this case too, the difficulty of getting threatened
volunteers to continue to co-operate stands in the way of progress.
iii. Users who feel threatened are likely to search about for other ways in
which their resources can be protected. They will write to their MPs, for
instance, or their County or District Councillors, or the DoE; all will
generate extra work for an already stretched authority.
iv. There may also be submitted claims for Byways open to all traffic to be
added to the Definitive Map, or for footpath or bridleway designations to be
so modified. While this may be a commendable outcome in terms of public
information and the reduction of potential for conflict, the effect on
authority budgets of a `rush' of such extra work can be considerable.
v. In the search to `do something' when under threat, there may also be
applications under HA 80 s 56, to put right routes which are `out of repair'.
This is clearly justifiable in circumstances where lack of maintenance has
led to a reduction in use, opening the door to extinguishment, but it can
take control of maintenance budgets out of the hands of the authority
altogether.
vi. In cases where bridleway or footpath rights are reserved, there is a
further effect on authority funds. Following this s116 `legal event' the
route will be marked on the Definitive Map, and thus more users will know
about it. Again, we believe all routes should be publicised in this way, but
we are considering whether the authority will benefit financially from s116.
Any `new' use generated by publication in this way will require the routes to
be kept clear. Where vehicular rights are in place, not only can vehicle
users be helpful in clearance works, the use of vehicles itself, especially
of cars, can materially assist in keeping routes open for equestrian, bicycle
and pedestrian use, too.
The Particular Needs of Vehicle Users
Responsible users, as has been indicated above, are thoroughly aware of the
need to look after the resources they need, and to spread the load, avoiding
over-use at all times and any use at all in difficult weather conditions, or
where particular problems await resolution. This is encouraged by their
Governing Bodies, and by the Sports Council and Countryside Commission, as
well as by LARA in its Code of Conduct. However, such sensible local
management cannot be expected to be applied in any circumstances where a
reduction in use might lead to the extinguishment of rights. When under
threat, efforts will be concentrated directly on this problem, and other
helpful initiatives will suffer. In particular, local users are encouraged to
draw into these processes those other users, even those who seem normally to
have no regard for authority, or rules, or codes of conduct. Peer-group
pressure can be the most effective tool available in such educational
processes, but it cannot work where there is no benefit seen to accrue from
working within contraints. The argument which goes: Why should I co-operate
if the Council are trying to ban us anyway? is difficult to answer. Putting
it bluntly, When bans come in the door, help flies out the window.
In the experience of LARA, user attitudes are often a reflection of the
attitudes we face from those we deal with, especially those who should be
looking after the resources we value. In this context, wherever there is
little done for recreational motorists, extinguishments are seen as
offensively overbearing, high-handed, and irreversible. Any authority that
uses extinguishment as a management tool is invited to consider whether it
would welcome overbearing attitudes from user groups.
Users in organisations such as LARA are well aware of the constraints facing
authorities, and being ourselves rate-payers and tax-payers, we wish to keep
down the costs to authorities of the resources we need. For this reason, we
offer assistance with maintenance and other works, and we agree to voluntary
restraint schemes and restrictions in codes of conduct. But it should always
be remembered that users are primarily interested in using the resources, not
having them made extinct. What vehicle (and other) users want is a reasonable
range of resources, sensibly managed, with the minumum of maintenance, the
minimum of fuss, and certainly not management that threatens to close rooutes
and which forces us to use up our holidays at court. We need a range of
resources to allow us to manage our own use sensibly. In return for
reasonable co-operative management from authorities, we will encourage our
members to use resources sensibly and sustainably, and to encourage others to
do the same. This co-operation will extend to assistance with maintenance and
repair works, and operation of voluntary restraint to manage use in the most
effective and economical way.
We need `little used lanes' so that there is somewhere to go when use of
lanes elsewhere creates problems - to allow us, for instance, to spread the
load. This is not just to cope with possible over-use elsewhere, but to deal
with natural disasters like the Great Storm that blocked so many green roads
in the south of England for so long, and to deal with floods, and outbreaks
of diseases like foot-and-mouth, which can turn normal use patterns into
chaos. Where else can users go if little-used roads are extinguished?
The Needs of the General Public, as set out by Government
Sustainability is the aim of Government, and for recreation this is supported
by the Sports Council, along with a recognition in government and other
documents that the cheapest and most effective way to manage recreational
resources is to involve users in that management. Sustainability cannot be
achieved by closing resources, it requires that we should be able to hand
things down to our grandchildren so that they can use them too. For
sustainability to be achievable, green roads are needed. This implies a clash
between what the government wants, and what the law says (in the Highways
Act). That the view of government is inclined to a change in the law is
clear; consultations by the DoT & DoE recently completed (late 1996) on
Traffic Management Law proposed changing the way this aspect of highway
management operated. It was suggested that extinguishment, and particularly
for recreational use, should no longer be dealt with under the s116 procedure
but under a new version of s118; the criteria for extinguishment should be
more flexible than `unnecessary' and the decision should be taken by an
Inspector following a Public Inquiry rather than by Magistrates in Court.
A separate consultation by DoE at the same time with the title Vehicles on
Byways followed suggestions to the Minister that the use of motor vehicles on
unsurfaced roads should itself be subject to many more constraints than at
present. The government view was stated not to be in support of this change,
but the consultation sought the views and evidence of all concerned. Whatever
the outcome of these consultations, it is clear that the value and use of
green roads, and the process of extinguishment itself, are currently under
close scrutiny. With a decision on these consultations imminent, it is the
firm view of LARA members that any proposals applying HA 80 s116 to green
roads is untimely, and should at the very least be suspended pending a
ministerial announcement.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Subject: Re: Mailing List
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 00:01:28 -0500
From: William Caloccia <caloccia@OpenMarket.com>
With regard to tatics discussions, etc.
I would think that the opponents, or the 'no heavier traffic than mine' lot,
if having resources (within their respective organizations of interest),
will soon cotton on to the tatics which defeated friends in neighboring
areas, and summilarily devise strategies to fight the step-wise refinement
of the widening scope.
Effectively, if you try to make the most useful material avaialble to the
widest audience possible that can use - to fight for the proper classifcation
of lanes in their back yard, so to speak, then the materials and methods will,
after some period, become available or obvious to the opposite side.
With regard to 'newsworthyness':
> Some items will perhaps be printed in BBT, if disclosed to a wide audience
> first, it will not be news.
It may be news if the circulation is sufficiently different. I've
yet to stumble over a paper-based organization where a majority of the
membership was on-line. Besides, publishing on paper still lends a certain
amount of credibility to things :-) (and it is easier to lend and photocopy)
> I would welcome more views on this subject as it is up to the first people
> on the list to make it what we want it to be. You cant stop-up a public List> once it is a public highway!
FYI:
Effectively, what happens in the life cycle of lists and news groups is that
factions will develop (say series vs. coil-spring land rover owners), and
then you get a new list and lots of folks jump ship. Certain acts of nature
(disk crashes, etc.) can effect large changes in membership.
With many lists about 20-30% of the readers 'carry' the list - they regularly
respond to queries and are involved in discussions. Another 40-50% of the
members contribute occasionally, and read it frequently, then the remainder
are signed up, read it occasionally, and contribute less often - 'the lurkers'.
They also might not participate, until the topic involves their back yard :-)
Cheers,
-Bill
------------------------------
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 05 Mar 97 04:36:53 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Open or closed list?
Opinion seems clear and points valid so far.
One further consideration, when discussing certain identified lanes, ie, as Dave
T posted in Hampshire lanes, IF there is a VERY wide audience, are we going to
risk overuse on what is possible sensitive routes.
Limited exposure to a responsible group who are frequently involved with the
monotoring and repair of lanes is fine, but could overuse result if possibly
hundreds of users had details of problem areas?
Could the nature of the list be altered to "OK so Ive recked the ones I had,
gimme some more to bog down in" ?
No axe to grind, I just want to see it right first time.
I do want to see all budding RoW workers and all other interested parties join
in - an education forum.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 05 Mar 97 04:37:01 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Gates, removal of, by authority: See under Mythology
> Lord Justice Lane, in R v Surrey CC ex parte Send Parish Council 1979
I sent that to Surrey re Shere! Coals to Newcastle.
Thanks for duty to act without delay. They do bill for f/p obstructions so they
are aware of the procedure.
I will have to ask IF they have billed for Roman Rd obstructions yet.
Even little things like removing the intimidating "Bull in field" sign in Dead
Womans Lane has taken 9 months to do zilch. I put my red byway tape over the
bull last week. (The signs silly, not the real one)
That lane is sporting (or was) a nice red painted arrow I saw last time I went
down it.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 17 lines 1075 [forwarded 27 whitespace 211]
Output: lines 999 [content 694 forwarded 20 (cut 7) whitespace 207]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970305 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]