[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970322 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 05:21:35 -0500
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: V rights on UCR's & 2/93
Hi,
1) Tim has rightly pointed out that there are useful references later in
Circular 2/93.
I will comb through it and extract parts from the Annex and post these
shortly. I will not have time before Green Lane Weekend.
In the meantime I have sent pages 1- 9 of the 45 total, to those who have
asked. (3) If preffered I will post to the List, (but it is 28Kb long -
anyone object/wish it posted?)
2) Has there been any further developements or acceptance that UCRs have
Veh. rights? If our 116's come to Court, and certainly at PI's Inspectors
may not accept that a UCR has Vehicular rights, and therefore may use that
as a reason to downgrade a RUPP which joins.
I therefore would like a legally acceptable reference to say UCRs are
Vehicular. (Although our County has accepted it). Unless this is
forthcoming I will ask the DoE for it, but I do not want to duplicate work.
It is also important for N Yorks so if you chaps up there can get it from
the horses mouth (DoE) please let me, and the RoW list have a copy. (I can
scan and post a copy if you get one)
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970322 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 97 20:15 GMT0
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: My apologies to all......
...for the multiple copies of the GLEAM document....*all* my uploads seem
to be getting onto the RoW Listing, however DAEMON keeps telling me its
returning my mail, host unknown. I'll investigate this. BTW Tilbo asks me
to tell you all that 'he's back'.....
:-) Mick Dyer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970322 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:28:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: St.Albans & Obstruction
One option you should not ignore is that of reporting the matter to the
police. Obstruction is a criminal offence in HA 80 s137 and is a nuisance in
common law; maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Anyone can arrest without a
warrant (but you should be very sure of your ground; I mention this only to
help you make it clear to the police that this is a serious offence).
An additional option is called Abatement, ie removing such part of the
obstruction as necessary to allow you to continue your journey. It is not
taking the law into your own hands, but merely self-help. Before you do this,
ensure that you have reported the matter to the police, as they are sure to
be called and they need to know about the illegality first. But, be prepared
to be arrested yourself if they do not understand. Two lads in Essex recently
were arrested on information given to the police by the CC. When they proved
that they had been in the right, they got #500 each as compensation...
Do let me know if you have other ideas, or if the proposal for a TRO becomes
serious. You also need Circular 2/93 to show the authorities what Govt advice
is about TROs on recreational routes. HMSO, #5.35.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970322 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:53:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: V rights on UCR's & 2/93
I have a collection of letters from a trawl for this info back in 1989. Most
counties have said Yes, UCRs have vehicular rights, but a significant number
including N Yorks have said nothing, or that they deny anything other than
footpath unless the opposite is proved (conclusively, in NY case, as you saw
in the recent quote).
Derbyshire have now said that what they said back then was a mistake, even
though the letter clearly said that registering UCRs as Byways was a
downgrading, and that they thought attempts to do this were not a good idea.
I can post a list of 'good' and 'bad' counties if you think it might help.
But first, I would like up-to-date feedback frm HAs to requests for info from
local people. Ie, not club members, just voters and community charge payers.
While you are feeling inquisitive, all of you, call in at your local county &
district offices and say the magic words:
I would like to see the list of streets maintainable at public expense,
please.
If you are met with the common response 'We don't have one of those' or 'I
have a street map in my handbag, is that what you want' or 'You will have to
go to County offices for that' just say further magic words:
You are obliged to provide this information by Highways Act 1980 section 36
subsection (6) and (7). Please can I speak to the County Surveyor?
Let me know how you get on.
Tim Stevens
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970322 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 19:17:00 -0500
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: V rights on UCR's
Tim said
> Subject: Re: V rights on UCR's & 2/93
> Derbyshire have now said that what they said back then was a mistake,
even
> though the letter clearly said that registering UCRs as Byways was a
> downgrading, and that they thought attempts to do this were not a good
idea.
Which is better, a UCR or a BOAT? (light blue touch paper & stand well
clear :-)
Unless anyone can provide a legal reference to this, I am asking H&W for a
copy of that DoE letter, "for the avoidance of doubt in court re. their
116s" (should drop a subtle hint)
H&W now want to remove red "Byways" signs from UCRs as it "prejuges the
review" Saw an old book today Driving Byways of Wales. They were not
talking BOATS. As there is no legal definition of byway (?) the sign can t
be wrong.
> I can post a list of 'good' and 'bad' counties if you think it might
> downgrading, and that they thought attempts to do this were not a good
help.
YES. I would also think it helpful if we posted a report of est, total
length (or No.) of unsurfaced UCRs, Obstructed UCRs, Byways and all RoW.
How about us listing say the worst 5 ways in each County to assess the
seriousness of the lane loss?
> But first, I would like up-to-date feedback frm HAs to requests for info
from
> local people. Ie, not club members, just voters and community charge
payers.
> While you are feeling inquisitive, all of you, call in at your local
> downgrading, and that they thought attempts to do this were not a good
county &
> district offices and say the magic words:
> downgrading, and that they thought attempts to do this were not a good
Shrops, blank looks when asked for LoS - we don't have one. finally offered
the County rd map.
H&W. Helpful. Bought map 15 GBP for the two sheets, and LoS printout 5 GBP
for each of 7 div (30 pages)
Powys helpful. Slight irritation at unsurfaced rd users, but offered
inspection of maps.
> I would like to see the list of streets maintainable at public expense,
I want to see the list of streets that is NOT maintainable - if only there
was one.
Chris
Q Difference between unlawful and illegal?
A One is against the law, other's a sick bird.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970322 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:58:29 +0000
From: Mike Cattell <Mike@mikecat.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: V rights on UCR's & 2/93
>I therefore would like a legally acceptable reference to say UCRs are
>Vehicular. (Although our County has accepted it). Unless this is
[ truncated by list-digester (was 8 lines)]
>scan and post a copy if you get one)
>Chris
At the danger of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, my copy of the
Countryside access Charter (CCP232) states and I quote:-
Your rights of way are:
Public footpaths - on foot only;
bridleways - on foot, horseback and pedal cycles
byways (usually ol roads), most 'roads used as public paths' and of
course, public roads - all traffic.
End quote
Elsewhere it states:-
The source of information about the existance of public roads, whether or
not they are surfaced, is the list of streets maintainable at public expense.
These are held by highway authorities, under section 36(6) of the
Highways Act 1980. They should show all public roads which are
publicly maintainable. In some cases the minor ('unclassified') public roads
shown on the list may no longer be visible on the ground. Such highways
are likely to carry vehicular rights. This applies regardless of their current
condition.
The phrase likley sounds like a right cop out clause.
regards
Mike Cattell, West Cheshire.
http://www.mikecat.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970322 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 6 lines 274 [forwarded 22 whitespace 71]
Output: lines 279 [content 137 forwarded 18 (cut 4) whitespace 66]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970322 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]