[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 10:07:24 +0100
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: obstructions-again
In message <199704041947_MC2-13A0-2CF3@compuserve.com>
Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com> writes:
> I have sent a letter to CC legal dept this time,
> after explaining my intentions, and the obstructions:-
[ truncated by list-digester (was 17 lines)]
> concerned that a blind eye has been turned to the illegal blocking of this
> road to date.
> Would you be good enough to confirm in writing that my intended use of this
> way is lawful, and to inform the owner of Magna Castra Farm that the way
> has public vehicular rights over it.
Good letter Chris.
I wonder if it might be of benefit to mention "a programme I saw on
Channel 4 about rights of way", and to "suggest" that you're sending a
copy of all the info/paperwork on the route and the avenues you have
explored to them for a follow up programme (which if they get enough
info they will almost certainly do....). The councils portrayed in the
original programme were mostly portrayed as failing in their
responsibilities, as it might appear were the police. It may be that the
CC might want to act on the road prior to it being investigated by the
TV company??
It might also help if we as individuals wrote to CH4 commending them on
the program about footpaths, and for highlighting a problem which is too
often misrepresented by some parts of the media. Particularly when the
same problems exist for vehicular users where higher rights exist on a
route. There's nothing a TV company likes more than unsolicited praise....
Also, I take it this road couldn't have been walked either?? If so, why
not wait until its blocked again (which it surely will be), then contact
your local RA members. Point out that this road is blocked even for
pedestrians, and (mentioning the TV programme again) allow them
to unite with you over this access issue (the issue here needn't be
vehicular rights - simply access for users of all types). Get them to
come with you, and clear the route if possible. I know its possible
that they'll turn down your offer...but you've made the first move,
and if you do it by letter, you've got something else to show at PI's
to demonstrate how reasonable and open to compromise 4x4
drivers are if nothing else....
Just some thoughts.
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 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 10:20:57 +0100
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Case Law.
In message <3344EB22.58FC@virgin.net>
USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net> writes:
> Vanderpant v Mayfair Hotel Co (1930) 1 Ch. 138 at 152 it was said,
> "An encroachment on a highway is by common law a public nuisance. It is
> no defence that the obstrustion is made on a part of a highway which is
<snipped>
> Good reading I think and potentialy useful as quote to CC's.
Good stuff John...thank Andy for us would you??
I'm not certain what benifit it has for Scotland, however it does
demonstrate precedent in the rest of the UK, and as such is
well worth holding on to.
Ta.
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 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 10:17:55 +0100
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Council Vans and Tractors
Great idea about tractors...but why stop there?
What about Combine Harvesters - they'll pass for
agricultural vehicles, dig the obligatory 2 foot ruts
that all 4x4 drivers love to come across...and the
papers say we dig anyway, and as a bonus, with
its huge width, will clear all that pesky undergrowth
out of the way for a good 12 foot width.
As a bonus you can detach the cutter assembly,
and tow it behind your Landy so you get to drive
the route "conventionally" as well.
Reading your post I suddenly realised why my mate
Raymond used to be able to drive all those forestry
commision and estate tracks without getting stopped.
Dark Green Series III SWB with a reeky diesel and
"once too often" re-cut rangemasters.
I'll need to go now, and put my V8 110 CSW in the Auto
Trader...........
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 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 22:54:29 +0100
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BC414B.276033A0" ]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Oldbury Hill Byway MR412
Recently KCC have threatened a TRO on this old road in Kent. Part of it has
narrowed due to a fallen bank which KCC refuse to repair. Because of this
it is only passable to trail bikes. However, this is not the only reason.
At the Oldbury Village end a resident living at the end of the byway
(probably a GLEAM member) has built a garden wall. This narrows the byway
from the 10 feet set out in the definitive statement to about 4 feet.
KCC ignore my requests toi do anything about it. They only dropped the TRO
proposal due to lack of funds. I have scanned an image. As an experiment
there is a .TIF image attached to this email. Lets see if it works across
ROW@playground.sun.com
Steve Neville
TRF
------=_NextPart_000_01BC414B.276033A0
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Oldbury1.tif" ]
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 97 21:15 BST-1
From: srawlings@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Rawlings)
Subject: GLEAM et al.
I am a little concerned with the large number of correspondence appearing
in the Ag. Press in the last two or three weeks, prime case being Mrs
Masters getting a half page spread in Farming News followed a week later
with a follow up article stating that "Mrs "asters had received a large
number of replies on the subject"! Also there have been a number of
letters in Farmers Weekly on the subject of how to prevent a dedication
being made on farm lanes. This, predictably, has led to a rash of badly
informed follow up letters. The levels that are being seen make me wonder
if our friends in GLEAM are mounting a concerted campaign to garner
support from the Ag community. Now I have seen the posts here concerning
Mrs Masters and the real history behind "her" lane and also, the DW film,
I feel a letter coming on.....
Steve Rawlings
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:08:06 -0500
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: obstructions-again
Owen,
> Good letter Chris.
I must admit it, it was the ace Geoff Brookes that dictated it. (he said
it was the worst case of obstruction he has seen in 20+ years of RoW work).
We discussed the next step, the Feds did not want to know, the HA
assistant Dir passed it down to his Div engr, no joy. I await to see if
the chief constable has any intention of dealing with the matter, or if he
really wants me to go to the PCA. So we were left with legal dept as next
best untried option
a) would they say my act of driving was unlawful?
b) will they inform landowner it is a vehicular UCR?
c) do they maintain it?
d) would they confirm it is obstructed illegally?
e) will they get landowner to remove, or to pay for removal of bollards.?
f) will they prosecute him?
g) if not will they prosecute me if I drive a road not on the map, or a
TROd road?
We did a & b only as the first step.
As the (MOD) police said they think landowner is a (parish?) councillor, we
could write to them so that they are in no doubt supporting obstructions is
illegal.
My first concern is that they may try to keep it obstructed until they
either TRO or 116 it. So if they write to L/O and we then de-bollard it
again, hopefully it will not be re obstructed. But I bet he has been out
today re-doing it.
> I wonder if it might be of benefit to mention "a programme I saw on
> Channel 4 about rights of way", and to "suggest" that you're sending a
[ truncated by list-digester (was 9 lines)]
> CC might want to act on the road prior to it being investigated by the
> TV company??
The bad news is that the last Ch4 way at Rock *is* in H&W, so they are
already "as featured on TV".
It seems to be par for the course. I am attending a RoW forum with CC
next Thursday, I might just say that to the PROW manager. We will not be
able to discuss obstructed UCRs as they are not RoWs. This is the hub of
the problem, UCRs are unknown, and they can close them down as they are
unused because of it.
> Also, I take it this road couldn't have been walked either??
Yes it was pefectly OK for walkers, the bollards etc. were a technical
obstruction only
One of the things that is so interesting about RoW work is that each
problem is so different, they all need tackling differently, what works in
one place may not in another, certainly enlisting RA or BHS or BDS etc is
an important area where appropriate. Especially for establishing RoW on
Inclosure award roads. If RA is battling for a Public Carriage Road that
is missing from the map completely, it should be nice to have them help to
secure a Byway.
Are there Inclosure Awards that are helpful in Scotland? What came from D.
Walks was the benefit of the def map system, for all its faults and loss of
ways, (mainly vehicular), it seemed pretty gloomy for the public when a
Scottish L/O blocks a way. I will not be moving N of the border till you
have some RoWs ;-)
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:11:56 -0500
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Oldbury
Oldbury Hill Byway MR412
>(probably a GLEAM member) has built a garden wall. This narrows the byway
>from the 10 feet set out in the definitive statement to about 4 feet.
>KCC ignore my requests to do anything about it.
Steve,
The Tif file did not come out for me, but that may be Compuserve.
Here we have the real problem. Clear obstructions to legal routes that the
HA do not intend to abide by HA80 S130. What can we do?
I have examples in Hereford, Worcester & Shropshire, and I guess most other
people also have examples.
S56 is one possible option, The blue book cautions against the pitfalls of
a private action for obstruction, should we put a collection of bad
examples to the DoE and say the laws are good enough, but the CCs refuse to
apply them? We clearly do not have the funds / time / experience to go to
court on one, let alone all cases.
Help, anyone, what can be done????
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:11:52 -0500
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: GLEAM et al.
Steve:
> I feel a letter coming on.....
What was the tone of the Masters article? She has been thoroughly
discredited as a sane, reasonable person, so that should be corrected. If
you have an address I could say to the editor what nonesense it is and I am
only to pleased to allow legitimate access to all the foot, and Vehicluar
RoWs on my land, as I am sure the vast majority of the farming community
is.......
That *is* my opinion, it is only a vociferous minority that object.
(I wont say too much about the vehicular RoWs being a private RoW, even
though some wag has put a BOAT sign on it.)
Or alternatively, go along with it and say all RoW should be stopped etc.
and ridicule the antis. Then the RA would have a field day and come to our
aid :-))
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 00:28:05 +0000
From: Peter Bradley <hm50@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Tiffs
Stephen
> Oldbury Hill Byway MR412
> As an experiment
> there is a .TIF image attached to this email. Lets see if it works across
> ROW@playground.sun.com
I got the tif OK, via Netscape and Paint Shop Pro.
One question: Why tif ? Netscape will read jpeg and gif straight into
the mail message. For this sort of thing you want jpeg at 50-60% comp-
ression ......... fine for catching the jist.
Apart from that, yes, I see the problem - a picture tells a thousand
words.
I don't have a problem with pictures coming down off RoW. But some
might. After all, it's BT time.
Before this becomes accepted practise I think we should take a vote.
Comments ?
Peter B
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 08:52:20 +0100
From: Mike Cattell <Mike@mikecat.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Dangerous walks
On last nights Right to Reply (Channel 4's feedback programe) there was
a brief mention of the undercover countryside programe.
They mentioned that the series had generated lots of feedback, in
particular they mentioned the one on animal testing and last weeks on
footpaths.
The programe said that most of the callers were asking about what has
happened since, and in fact had a filmed report on the follow up to the
animal series showing that action had taken place.
At the end of the piece it was said that Channel 4 have commisioned an
extra programe to show what has happened to each of the programes
since thay were broadcast. No doubt the animals will get more time than
the footpaths but lobbying Channel 4 seems like a good idea.
regards
Mike Cattell, West Cheshire.
http://www.mikecat.demon.co.uk
LandRover series 3, SWB, Diesel, 1975
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 10 lines 4575 [forwarded 49 whitespace 103]
Output: lines 435 [content 249 forwarded 31 (cut 18) whitespace 102]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970406 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]