[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 01:07:31 GMT
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Open or closed list?
halftone@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tony Sleep) writes:
> response to this particular message, but a general polemic against secrecy
> as a tactic...
> > I would suggest that only those routes which are already
> > well known and of a build quality able to handle moderate
(snipped)
> > are far more cagey nowadays in giving away locations or names
> > willy nilly - though it sometimes still happens.
> As a sometimes TRF member and trail rider, I have never been comfortable
> with this approach. AFAICS the best way to protect lanes is not to go into
[ truncated by list-digester (was 6 lines)]
> the OS anyway.
> Or to put it another way: whose lanes are they?
I understand what you're saying, and in an ideal world they would
be marked on OS maps - though probably still not in Scotland -
which is where I'm at.
> I know the argument runs that irresponsible use damages "our" interests -
> and so it does. But those irresponsible elements will just go ride/drive
[ truncated by list-digester (was 8 lines)]
> that we should accept any blame for their actions : they are our enemy as
> much as that of ramblers and landowners etc.
Again, I agree. However.... whether WE see them as seperate from
ourselves or not is surely not the point. It is the perception of others that
matters here (though caring what others think about what I do is basically
against my nature, it has to apply). Certainly we shouldn't accept
the blame for the actions of those who will misuse lanes, or ride/drive
wherever it suits them. BUT - and I'll accept that I'm talking with a
local bias here - if on this list we were to give a list of details as to
where legal lanes are, it would (in my area at least) cause huge
problems - even if only in overuse (30 or so lanes in a whole country....??)
> I am very unhappy with the Patrician position, so beloved of our political
> leaders, that people are idiot children who cannot be trusted to make
[ truncated by list-digester (was 9 lines)]
> responsibility, than hooliganism on tarmacced roads is the responsibility
> of the law-abiding user.
You're right, but the actions of the few, can and often do affect the
interests
of the many. I see little merit in giving the book of matches to the guy who's
trying to burn down your house. Hooliganism may not be our responsibility
- except if we're the hooligan - but the consequences of the actions of the
hooligan will affect our interests adversely. Think about insurance on hot
hatches....after an increase in accidents and thefts, the premiums rose so
high they effectively killed off the market for a couple of years...replace
hot hatches with lanes, accidents and thefts with misuse or illegal practices
and a couple of years for forever, and you'll see my point.
> They are our lanes, the peoples' lanes; no way should they be kept secret
> in pursuit of a political rapprochement with a bunch of selfish arseholes
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
> organised direct-action or sitting indoors watching TV documentaries about
> how the countryside was lost. We are probably going to lose anyhow, so why
> let them take the piss as well?
I can see why you feel this to be the case, and to a degree I agree with you.
Certainly I am sure that the Corrieyairack Pass situation is coming
to this point.
(Concrete and steel bollards have "appeared" at the end of this route, and
"freak/accidental" weather damage has destroyed some 500 metres at the
same point. Lawyers and counsel have been spending the last 3-4 years
discussing matters which by rights should have been resolved in a matter
of weeks. The local council and police have done nothing to remove these
illegal obstructions, which have also included an old L/Rover chained to
the posts. The situation is quite clear cut, and should have been addressed.
However there are rumblings from several people I know whom are ready to
take direct action to remove the obstacles themselves....)
Owen
--
--------------------------------------------------
Central 4x4 Outdoor Leisure Off-Road Driving Centre
3 Clover Place, Bo'ness, West Lothian, EH51 0QW
(+44) 01506 516448, (+44) 0370 471277
Web Page: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/central4x4/
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Richard Spencer <Richard.Spencer@easysoft.com>
Subject: subscribe
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 09:54:27 -0000
subscribe
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 08 Mar 97 05:00:15 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Meolfre City Proposed TRO
Hi All.
Some considerable success in stopping Powys forging ahead with the proposed TRO,
they are inviting comment on a TRO v VR v wait and see. You may have an opion
or two. This only arraived a few mins ago, I have not checked all the
references are copied correctly. If in doubt ask.
A map was included showin point A = SO 119 814, B = 120 756.
and problems areas at approx 127 765, 129 771, and 128 776
Chris.
________ ), _________
Powys
Adran Gwasanaethau Technegoll Neuadd y Sir/County Hall
Technical Services Department Liandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5L
Ian Blair M.Sc.1C.Eng.1M.l.C.E.,M.l.H.T.1M.I.Mgt
Syrfewr y Sir & Chyfarwyddwr Gwasanaethau Technegoll
County Surveyor & Director of Technical Services
Os yn gaIw gofynnwch am I
If calling please ask for: Lorraine Jenkin or Mark Chapman
Ffdn I Tel: 01597 - 826636
Ffacsl Fax: 01597-826244
Ff6n symudoll Mobile:
Llyehyru elecfronig I Email:
Eich cyf I Your ref:
Em cyf I Our ref :LJ115151 I
Dyddiadi Date: 6 March, 1997
Dear Sir I Madam,
Byway LB615, LB645 and LD713f Lianbister
Public Consultation Document on Future Management
1. Location and Status of the Route - (please refer to attached map)
The route is recorded on the Definitive Map as a Byway Open to all Traffic. The
byway extends northwards from Little Moelfre, Moelfre City (GR. 50120756) to a
point south of Dolfor at GR SQl 19814 for a distance of approximately 7.5
kilometres. At each of the grid references given the route joins the metalled
highway network (the Cl 077 and U1099 respectively).
Between these grid references the route crosses an area of open, unenclosed
upland, achieving a height of 528 metres where it crosses Gors Lydan. On the
section of the route north from GR SQl 32792, the track enters enclosed fields.
The open hill section does not join or cross any road and is joined only by
bridleways. The route is promoted in the British Horse Society "Powys on
Horseback" guide for use by equestrians and carriage drivers.
2. The Present Condition of the route
The majority of the route running across the open hill is on a stoned track.
However, there are a few locations where the surface is less substantial, and
these are where problems have occurred. The southern end of the route climbs a
steep hill and deep ruts have been formed in places. However the majority of
this damage is off the actual right of way because an alternative route has been
followed. In two other locations the track is waterlogged and this has caused
problems. Where the water
_____________________________________________
Cyngor Sir Powys County Council
General enquiries/Ymholiadau cyffredinol: 01597 826000~ Fax/Ffacs Ol 597 826230~
http://wvvw.powy~~~()v.L~k
The Council welcomes correspondence in ~ish or En9lish I Mo'e'r Cyngoryn
croesawu gohebloeth yn y Gyniraeg neu'rsoesneg
_____________________________________________
is too deep, vehicles have 'bypassed' the track and have caused deep ruts on the
ground at the side. This is exacerbated because a vehicular user is unable to
leave the route on another vehicular right of way at any point other than the
two grid references mentioned above, thus vulnerable areas cannot be avoided.
Other sections of the route have suffered from vehicular damage. The middle
section of the byway is crossed with wheel ruts and has been rendered difficult
to use - there is particular concern about the impact upon equestrians and
carriage drivers. This is of particular importance to carriage drivers who would
be unable to use the side of the track.
The northern end of the route passes through enclosed farm land and in places
this has also suffered from erosion. The Rights of Way Section have had to stone
two gateways following complaints from landowners because the ground has had
deep ruts cut into the surface, allowing sheep to escape under the gates.
In summary, the majority of the route appears able to sustain high levels of use
from all categories of user. However, the presence of at least three areas of
concern along the route - the lateral erosion of the two wet areas and the deep
ruts up the side of the hill - might be seen as grounds for taking action to
restrict certain categories of traffic as the route is in danger of being
rendered unusable to certain types of user.
3. The Puri)ose of this Consultation
A Traffic Regulation Order is being considered by Powys County Council Highways
Authority in order to prevent further damage to the track. However, it must be
strongly stressed that at present the reason for this consultation is to obtain
the views of user groups about the situation and to assess any ideas that may
arise as a result. We are also interested in receiving information about the
condition of the route - rights of way officers have only known the byways on
the ground for the past year or so and although it has deteriorated during this
time, we are aware that this may only be a seasonal change and that it is
possible that damage can be rectified during dry periods. It has been considered
by Powys County Council that because of the difficulties described above
relating to erosion, some form of restriction should be the subject of further
discussion. No particular view has yet been taken, but in order to obtain a more
accurate overview it is thought necessary to put suggestions "on the table".
Accordingly, the Council are requesting views on three possibilities atthis
stage:
3.1 That there should be a ban by means of a Traffic Regulation Order on all
motorised vehicles;
3.2 That there should be a ban, by means of a voluntary agreement, on all
motorised vehicles.
(In either case exceptions would be made for landowners, tenants and others with
business interests along the route and requiring access thereto.)
3.3 The route should be monitored for a further 12 months to observe surface
conditions over the year.
Issues which consultees and others might like to raise are:
- Whether any practical maintenance steps should be taken, if feasible, to halt
the deterioration caused by erosion. If these were possible, should a Traffic
Regulation Order be imposed to prevent further deterioration?
- Are there distinguishing features between use by motorcyclists and those
driving four-wheeled vehicles which should perhaps result in a distinction being
made in an Order?
- Is it necessary to restrict vehicular use in order to protect the route for
other users particularly equestrians and carriage drivers?
- If restrictions are to be applied, should these be of a seasonal nature
e.g. imposed during winter months only?
4. Traffic Regulation Orders - A Brief Summary for Information
County Councils have powers to make T.R.O 5 which may contain any provision
prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road, or any part of the
width of the road, by vehicular traffic or traffic of any class specified in the
Order. The Order can therefore be applied to all forms of traffic including
equestrians, cyclists and pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic. Orders may
be made:
4.1 For avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or
preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising;
4.2 for preventing damage to the road;
4.3 for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or
its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to
the existing character of the road or adjoining property;
4.4 for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially
suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot;
4.5 for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road
runs.
Please write with your views to:
Rights of Way Section
Highways & Property Directorate
Technical Services Department
Powys County Council
County Hall
Liandrindod Wells
Powys LD1 5LG
Please mark for the attention of: Mr M Chapman
Rights of Way Officer (Maintenance)
The deadline for receipt of responses is Friday 4 April 1997
Yours faithfully,
(M CHAPMAN)
Rights of Way Section
Highways & Property Directorate
2
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 11:44:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bucklebury 64
Hi
A couple of days ago I wrote asking why AWDC had not objected to TRO on
Burcklebury 64 and why other groups had not responded.
I would like to press my point (no smutty puns cause I aint in the mood) with
Babtie but before I do could 4x4 and TRF respond.
My humble thanks in advance
As an aside some may wish to know that the application to upgrade footpath 21
in Upton Grey and 1 in Weston Cobbett (hants) will be in the post Monday a.m.
'kin whoopie' I hear you cry. Said way passes the front door of Mrs Mills -
a chum of Mrs Masters, Plumbe, etc. Rotten person I hear all you gleam
supporters mutter. Well, I have waited until Mrs M recovered from a serious
car crash before heaping further merd upon the hapless woman.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 11:44:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Reclassification
Hi
Interesting to read in BBT the piece on statistics on PI results. On 14 Jan
97 I wrote in similar vein but to date have had no reply.
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 10/28
Tollgate House
Houlton Street
Bristol BS2 9DJ
Dear Sir or Madam
Over the last few years I have attended a fair number of Public Inquiries
that have arisen from irrelevant objection to RUPP Reclassification Orders.
Some time ago Dyson J, when ruling on the Lasham case, made it clear that it
was not within the OMA's jurisdiction to decide what was and what was not a
relevant objection. The Planning Inspectorate have the discretionary power
to weed out those objections that are not legally made and refuse to hold any
Inquiry. I am sure that in line with other cost conscious Government
departments statistics are kept for financial monitoring purposes. Could you
therefore supply me with answers to the following questions:-
How many RUPP Reclassification Orders emanating from the County of Hampshire
have Planning Inspectorate confirmed without holding an Inquiry?
How many RUPP Reclassification Inquiries in Hampshire have arisen through
legitimate objections?
How many RUPP Reclassification Inquiries in Hampshire have arisen through
irrelevant objection alone?
I look forward to your reply.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 14:31:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Reclassification - modification - etc
Frequently misunderstood question number 2:
The process of looking at a RUPP and trying to ignore all the vehicle
evidence in the hope that it goes down to bridleway is called
Reclassification. It is done under section 54 of the Wildlife & Countryside
Act 1981. This section deals only with RUPPs, and results in BOAT, bridleway
or footpath; no other outcome is possible.
All other changes, upgrading, downgrading, changes of route, etc, are called
Modifications, and go on under section 53, same Act.
If a change is because of (eg) extinguishment or diversion by HA 80 s116, the
DM (definitive map) is still modiified, but no PI (Public Inquiry) is held as
the change has happened anyway. This is called a Legal Event Order, still
under s53.
The terms Reclassification amd Modification are often confused by those who
are new to the system, and those who are not and on the other side take
delight in either deliberately misunderstanding, or correcting them whichever
winds up the process most.
Do not confuse the Wildlife and Countryside Act with Acts of a Wildwife and
Country-member. Yes, I remember.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 08 Mar 97 19:07:30 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Scraping
History again
Having been out today and yesterday, I have added to my previous findings that
lanes with apparent deep muddy sections, most of which have not seen vehicles
for dacades, have a firm metalled (stoned) base, still intact under 3-12" of
soil. I wonder if anyone could shed a little more light on the practice of
scraping. How was it carried out, what with, where did they deposit substantial
volume of mud etc. In the following extract of the County Surveyers report for
1927 there are two references to scraping.
I am minded to ask them when they last scraped the roads they are proposing to
downgrade! If they had scraped perhaps they would not have fallen into disuse.
Most of the lanes are improving with use as the displaced mud is exposing more
of the metalling.
The annual 3 page reports makes interesting reading to see how they dealt with
the increase in traffic between 1917 and 1930, and the options to tar.
This is an appendix to one of them.
A P P E N D I X.
HEREFORDSHIRE ROADS IN 1880.
It will be of interest if I give a few abridged extracts from a report on our
Main Roads prepared by Mr. Thos. Codrington just before the creation of the
County Councils.
GENERAL.-The subsoil being clay and the local stone inferior, Clee Hill Stone at
a high price is used. Lack of attention to the subsoil will result in waste of
valuable material.
SURFACE.-Water is retained on the surface or runs along the road instead of at
the sides or in hollow tracks worn by the wheels.
WATER TABLES. -There should be frequent outlets for the water from the road into
the ditches so that water may not hang about in puddles on the surface of the
road.
WIDTH.ThIn many places the width of metalling appears to be greater than
required for the accommodation of the traffic. The width may therefore be
reduced in places. Weak sides are always troublesome to keep in order and are
liable to be cut up by heavy loads.
SCRAPING. -Scraping off the mud from the surface is generally neglected though
there is nothing more essential to good road maintenance. On the naturally
muddy roads of the County I consider it one of the most effective steps towards
their improvement and economical maintenance. On some roads there is more mud
than stone, and fresh materials are put on only to be swallowed up and wasted.
LABOUR.-All experience shews that a certain proportion of manual labour on
surface work is necessary for true economy. 'I he use of high-priced stone
without adequate labour is particularly waste ful. ~ hose accustomed to road
maintenance need not be told that a road labourer's work requires as much skill
and knowledge as any other sort of work, but it is too often assumed that any
man, however inexperienced or old and feeble, is fit to work on the roads.
There can be no greater mistake. A Surveyor having charge of one or two hundred
miles of road can be but seldom at hand to give directions or super-intend, and
much must always be left to the judgment of his men, who, day by day have to
accommodate their work to the weather. A good roadman will keep his road better
with a far less quantity of materials than an inexperienced man, and when the
materials are costly, care in their use is especially necessary for economy.
LENGTHS. -1 he division of the roads into lengths each under the entire charge
of man paid by day wage is strongly recommended. M1aterial when spread by
contract is sure to be wastefully used, and not to have the after-attention it
requires. Siding is seldom so thoroughly done by contract as by a roadman in
charge of a length.
MATERIALS.-There is no doubt that the Clee Hill Stone or Dhu stone is one of the
best of road materials, and that it will be found in the long run the most
economical. Local stone should be used as far as possible for giving thickness
and making up low places; if an inferior stone is employed (for surfacing) a
much larger quantity will be required, and more labour and no real economy will
result. To obtain economical maintenance the roads must first be got into good
condition.
COUNTY SURVEYOR'S NOTES.
This report gives some idea of the improvement which has taken place on our
highways since 1880. When I was appointed in 1907 the mud scrapers were in full
operation in fact, the bulk of the complaints then received were to the effect
that the number of scrapers was far below what was necessary.
Happily there are now no main roads consisting of " more mud than stone," or
roads of such bad shape as to cause the surface water to" run in the hollow
tracks worn by the wheels."
It is interesting to note, however, that much of Mr. Codrington's advice is as
good to-day as it was 47 years ago, such as
1. Lack of attention to the subsoil (foundations) results in waste of material.
2. Weak sides are always troublesome. This matter is still one of our chief
troubles.
3. Roadmen's work requires as much skill as that of other sorts of work, and
that a good road-man will keep his road better with far less materials than an
inexperienced man.
4. Skilled men are necessary when cost of materials is high.
5. The system of lengthmen is to be recommended and contract work is condemned.
6. Clee Hill stone is one of the best materials. Local stone is sufficient for
foundations.
7. To obtain economical maintenance the roads must first be got into good
condition.
To sum up Mr. Codrington's experience and ours. In order to obtain good
results, sound materials and skilled labour are essential, and maintenance costs
will not become economical until we have smooth and waterproof roads on sound
foundations, which of course, includes strength at the sides.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 08 Mar 97 19:07:36 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: H&W review of UCRs
Next step ? :-
Mr R J Lloyd
Incorporated Engineer[Mtce Systems]
Hereford & Worcester County Council
County Hall,
Spetchley Road
Worcester,
WR5 2NP
10/3/97
Dear Bob,
REVIEW OF LITTLE USED RURAL ROADS.
Thank you for your letter of 27/2/97. The Council does have a primary duty to
be Effective, Efficient and Economical. The Three E^Rs. I did not see any
reference to cost implications of this review. I expect it is in the appendix,
but before visiting to inspect, would you confirm I will find:-
a) details of the gross costs (or the man-weeks expended to date), the
anticipated final costs including advertising, signing, administrative costs,
legal costs, and the solicitor or barrister fees anticipated, if each of the
Pilot review lanes are challenged, by several groups as seems probable.
b) The expenditure incurred in the past on the maintenance of each lane, to
make and keep repaired, suitable for vehicular passage, say in each of the last
10 years.
c) The calculated pay-back period, including finance charges.
Yours sincerely,
Let him cost justify it without admitting the 116 is done on cost grounds.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 8 lines 682 [forwarded 47 whitespace 186]
Output: lines 661 [content 396 forwarded 28 (cut 19) whitespace 186]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970309 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]