msg	Sender	lines	Subject
1	Tilbo@aol.com	20	Maps
2	TimLARA@aol.com	11	Re: Disputed route questionaire.
3	TimLARA@aol.com	33	Re: Maps
4	Tilbo@aol.com	19	Tilbo replies
5	Brian Lewis [brian@limb.	211	Re: UCRs
6	srawlings@cix.compulink.	20	== No Subject ==
7	TimLARA@aol.com	17	Re: Exaggerated claims
8	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	52	Obstructed UCR
	Majordomo		About the digest

------------------------------ [ Message 1 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 970410 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 08:30:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Maps

The sun being out and there being a lot to do around the house I thought I'd
go for a ride (road).  Wandered into Laurence Oxley's in Alresford and came
out with a number of '50s Bartholomew's Maps.  There were a lot of maps but
these were the only Hampshire ones.  Being skint I couldn't justify the 1903
Cornwall or the slightly later Mid Wales.

If anyone wants something I'm happy to obtain and will forward on receipt of
the #1.50 or #2.00 dependant on cost.

I inherited a couple from my Father - Exmore C1935 and a much earlier one for
Kent (Blue Revised Half inch to Mile, sheet 31, for Motorists & Cyclists 3/-)
 I will not part with these but am happy to have photocopied.

DT

------------------------------

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Disputed route questionaire.

LARA is always keen to back up anything that is done to promote what we do
sensibly. If you, any of you, have ideas for documents (or anything else)
that might become better for some sort of recognition, do let me see them.

Cheers, tim stevens - LARA information officer

------------------------------

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:06:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Maps

As some of you know already, I have an extensive collection of old maps
(starting with a Duckhams reprint of Ogilby's Britannia 1675) mainly of the
Yorks Lancs Lakes area but others as well. I would be interested to add
examples for the mid-Wales, Shropshire Herefordshire patch. In my experience
the cost of a tidy 1900ish Cyclists map can be from 1.50 to 4 quid, with
genuine 1800 models from respectable cartographers running up to 30 quid but
sometimes more if very decorative and in a nice frame. Sometimes a collection
of bits held together (once) with sellotape can contain just the evidence we
need to defeat the claim - 'My dad built this road in 1960'.

I will also pay sensible prices for old road and county atlases (pre 1900 for
preference, as they show more roads), and road books (Patterson, Cary, Senex,
Kitchen, are good names). If in doubt, make a note of the exact title and
date, the price, and the shop fax number, and I will do the rest. The best
place to buy maps of anywhere is somehere else, ie buy maps of Dorset in
Durham and vice versa. Local maps always carry a premium. Something to do
with the inexorable laws of supply and demand.

Anyone seeking map evidence for a PI is invited to send a clear map showing
the route in question at Landranger or similar scale, and if I can I will see
what there is in the pile. No promises, but if you want to call and see for
yourself, please do. You will find our rates for B&B very reasonable.

Cheers, tim stevens
99 Cheshire Street, Market Drayton TF9 1AE
Tel: 01630 657627 9am to 9pm
Fax: 01630 658928 anytime

------------------------------

From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:22:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Tilbo replies

Hi

Chris - Farmer Palmer form - good idea.  Don't get caught in the AWDC trap of
making it so long and involved that no one will use it.

Bradders dear boy - yes it was the kind and user friendly Mr Jervios.  The
man most likely to tell the truth at Public Inquiry  "my Grand father ws
turning vehicles off the lane on the '40s"

Have mailed C4 on the same lines as you fine fellows.

cyl
DT

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 19:21:00 +0100
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: UCRs

In message <199704091148_MC2-1403-D178@compuserve.com>, Andy Bush <andy_bush@compuserve.com>
writes
>Hi Brian,
>What do you want to do about the UCRs now you have that ace letter from the
	 [ truncated by list-digester (was 17 lines)]
>your DoE letter.
>Richard is on richard.marshall@bae.co.uk
>Andy Bush
Hi Anmdy
I have sent a letter to the NYCC and to the YDNP authority sub committee I posted a copy to
you yopu may not have opened it yet so here it is:-

Juno

Richmond Road

Ingleton

Via Carnforth

Lancs 

LA6 3AN

31st March 1997         

Dear Sir,

Vehicular Rights of Way on Unclassified County Roads

With reference to my letter dated 9th March 1997, which I can only assume you have not 
received because of the lack of any reply, and the statement you said your lawyers made 
with regards to vehicular rights of way on Unclassified County Roads (UCRs), if your 
lawyers say that there are not vehicular rights of way on some of these UCRs, I would 
construe from this that most UCRs do have vehicular rights (see attached letter from the 
Department of the Environment [DoE] dated 26 March 1997) and I feel that it is not 
unreasonable under EEC legislation Freedom of Access to Environmental Information 
to request a list of the ones they say  may not have vehicular rights, therefore will you 
please supply me with a copy of this list? 
I do accept that some mistakes will have been made when the list of streets was first 
compiled (but not about all 100 UCRs in the Yorkshire  Dales National Park [YDNP] 
area), which would lead to your lawyers statement, but because they are now classed as 
UCRs they do have vehicular  rights until a review has been done to prove a mistake has 
been made and the rights then removed, a copy of this list would help users not to go 
where it might cause aggravation to landowners and farmers until these mistakes have 
been sorted out.

Why will the County Council not accept that the public do have rights on these roads and 
set up some sort of group of users, the YDNP and the NYCC, to manage them in a 
similar way to the one in Cumbria? I have enclosed some information on the system used 
there.
 
With regards to what your lawyers say I would like to ask the following questions.:-

1. Since the County Council did not deem it necessary to add these UCRs to the 
definitive map over the last thirty seven years or so, you must have satisfied yourselves in 
the past that the principal traffic on these roads was vehicular (section 33 of the 1949  
National Parks and Access to the Countryside act and later revisions), or the Council did 
not wish to advertise the fact that these roads had any public rights of way.  Do you agree 
this does indicate that you have deemed these roads to have vehicular rights of way?  

2. Do you agree a UCR is of higher status than a Byway Open To All Traffic (BOAT)?  
Even when unnecessarily  reclassified as a BOAT the original rights remain on the UCR, 
as in the case of the UCR classified as a Bridleway or Footpath.  I should also like to 
point out that even if a UCR is reclassified to a BOAT then the extent of any 
maintenance levels on the road remain unchanged. 

3. The Council has shown that it is aware of the classification of Road Used as Public 
Path (RUPP) for roads where there is some doubt about the vehicular rights, because you 
have classified two or three roads in the county as RUPPs.  Also these UCRs are kept in 
the same section of the List of Streets as minor roads and rural roads, not in the section 
of the List of Streets held in the rights of way office which contains the RUPPs, 
Bridleways and Footpaths, which would also indicate that at some time it was deemed 
that these roads were vehicular.  Are UCRs removed from the List of Highways 
Maintained at Public Expense when they are reclassified as BOATs, (as in the case of 
Busk Lane, Bainbridge which is a UCR with a definitive classification of a BOAT,) if so 
why? (i.e. do you treat the List of Streets as being mutually exclusive?) 

4. Has the Council been claiming the mileage for these UCRs on the R199b form for any 
allocation of funds for their maintenance, if you do not know what rights the public have 
over them?  

5. In the attached letter from the DoE, it is stated that  If a way was recorded as a UCR, 
or equivalent, then in the Departments opinion it would not be appropriate to record it as 
a BOAT and place it on the definitive map.  Do you agree with this statement?  
If you dont agree then please give your reasons for the sanctioning of the expense to 
classify these roads as BOATs.

6. Is it correct that any classification and rights of way  that are in place stay in place 
until any order has been signed and put in place to change them?

7. I have been informed by the Yorkshire Dales National Park that the County Council is 
the Highway Authority for the UCRs (see attached letter from the YDNP).  Is this correct 
and do I send any correspondence relating to the Highways Act 1980 section 56 regarding  
maintenance and removal of obstructions from UCRs to the County Council?
This is contrary to what you told me on the telephone.

8. Why has it taken so long to start to classify these UCRs?  Is it because of the cost of  
their maintenance, and the Council thinks it has found a loophole that if they are BOATs 
you do not have to maintain them to the same standard, also from April this year do they 
not become under the control of the YDNP? 

9. Is there a legal requirement to classify them? (Obviously not according to the letter 
from the DoE). 

10. What was the total cost of the Inquiry, gathering of evidence, preparation of  the 
application  to the DoE, wasted time at the DoE offices etc., for the failed bid to classify 
Mastiles Lane as a BOAT, just to confirm that there are vehicular rights and  to try to cut 
the cost of maintenance?  These costs would have been reduced if voluntary groups were 
used to help with the repairs as recommended by the Secretary of State in circular 2/93, I 
would think the cost has not been very much over the past 30 years anyway.

11. Why has it taken so long to classify just three possibly four BOATs in the whole of 
the National Park and what is the estimated date for completion of the outstanding roads?  
As this date for their classification goes back it means more unnecessary capital 
expenditure.  

Im sure if it became public knowledge, how all this money is being spent just to allow 
more control of access by the National Park and try to cut the maintenance costs on a few 
un-surfaced roads, which would probably reduce the budget allocation anyway, because 
of the reduction in the total length of roads to be maintained claimed for on the form 
R199b, there would be a lot more questions asked, especially when people are being told 
to take a cut in services, repairs to main roads (I believe your cuts are of the order of
6.6 
million), schools and community centres etc. If you say that the money for this work is 
coming out of the National Park budget it only means they are spending our money, not 
your department, because of  the NYCCs portion of the 600.000 grant made to the 
YDNP by the NYCC  and Cumbria County Council in 1995/96 and another 600,000 
again this financial year.

I believe the estimated cost of a Traffic Restraining Order is in the order of 4,000 and 
from this I can make a very conservative estimate that the cost to unnecessarily change 
the classification of a UCR to a BOAT would be in the order of 10,000 to 15,000, and 
by the figures given in the YDNP The Condition of Green Lanes report of Survey 1988 
they estimated there are around 100 lanes in the YDNP area that may require to be 
reclassified, this would give a grand total of unnecessary expense of 1 to 1.5 million, I 
wonder what the actual costs will be?  What a price to pay to give away our roads to the 
YDNP.  This cost is simply to reclassify the UCRs, even if these roads are reclassified as 
BOATs they still have to be maintained to the same level at public expense, whether it is 
the NYCC or the YDNP (by way of the grants) that does it.

My concern about the restriction of use and probable removal of vehicular rights is 
because of the statements made by the YDNP in their publications, this is also why I feel 
that they will not act impartially on the placing of evidence etc. to any inquiry, and I 
believe the  main reason for all this work is in order to allow the YDNP to apply the 
implications of section 54(7) of the 1981 W&C Act, but because these roads  are UCRs 
they still require the same level of maintenance, i.e. to repair and keep in repair  so as
to 
be safe and fit for ordinary traffic.  I have enclosed copies of these statements.  
Is it not the duty of the highway authority under s130 of  the Highways Act 1980 ,        
(1)that they must protect and assert the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of 
the highways for which they are the highway authority, (3) they must prevent as far as 
possible the stopping up or obstruction of those highways?
 
It is obvious that some members of the County Council do not agree with the use of 
UCRs by Vehicular traffic, but please act impartially and accept that the public do have 
rights on these roads and try to work with them to manage the UCRs, and use voluntary 
help to cut the cost of their maintenance.

Will you please sign and send by return of post the enclosed acknowledgement and I 
hope you will at least offer some reply to these reasonable questions. Also will you 
please supply the details of the Local Government Monitoring Officer and the County 
Council Auditors for use should I need to progress this matter further.

Your faithfully

B W Lewis

Mr A Burns 
Environmental Management                              
North Yorkshire  County  Council            
County Hall                                               
Race Course Lane
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL7 8AD

Enc.

I Think I hit the nerve!!!!
I posted the letter on the on tuesday Register and AoD so they got it on wednesday, 
rang up at 16.00 hrs on thurday to ask to see the list of streets on Friday morning, I said
I wanted to check if the BOATs were staill on the List of streets, last time I went in I
could not find them, but there they were on friday.
I also found out that there is a records office in northallerton and most of the inclosure
awards are on micro film there for viewing. they let me in on friday afternoon and I got
acopy of the awards for the ares I am interested in.
any way got a letter Staurday to say he would look into my questions when he could fit it in
his programme or somthing like that, and gave me a contact to ring (Mrs Spence, his
assistent I have found out). so to set the ball rolling I sent a copy off the letter to a
member of the YDNP authority, who is on the RoW committee. 
I dont have a cpoy on disk of that letter but will send you a copy later.

also part of the YDNP ic in the Cumbrian County Council area, and I am just writting a
letter to the Bev Parker asking if they are going to classify all the UCRs in that area as
difinative BOATs because the CCC say all UCRs are vehicalur!!! be interesting to see what
they say.

cc Mr I Ross       (NYCC)
     Mr B Gill       (NYCC Skipton)
     Mrs B Parker (YDNP Grassington)
     Mr T Stevens (LARA)
     Mr A Bush     (National RoW Officer, All Wheel Drive Club)

Bye For now
Brian Lewis

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 97 21:36 BST-1
From: srawlings@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Rawlings)
Subject: == No Subject ==              

Dam'n, hit the del button too many times and lost some mails, so here is 
the contact details for TRF Mag (TRAIL) Editor, for whoever wanted it!!

Mike Pedley
Nettlebed
Newsholme
Gisburn
Clitheroe
Lancs
BB7 4JF
Tel/Fax 01200 445657

No email AFAIK, Tony Sleep or Steve Neville may have more details

Steve Rawlings

------------------------------

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 18:40:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Exaggerated claims

How about this -

'To my personal knowledge, no-one has used this lane in the past two hundred
years.'

Actually said to me, straightfaced (he was, anyway, it is difficult to be
straight faced and gobsmacked simultaneously) in Somerset.

Can anyone top this for an outrageous claim?

Tim

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 03:27:57 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Obstructed UCR

Hi all
Update:-

To Chief Constable, West Mercia Police
9/4/97

Dear Sir,

I have again today used Roman Road Hereford, and since my report last
Friday to PC Bradbury, Leominster Police Station,  of threatening behavior
from the owner of Magna Castra Farm, and his deliberate obstruction of me,
and three other people,  preventing the lawful use of the Queens Highway, I
wish to report a further obstruction of this same road at a third location.
 A gate, hitherto unlocked was chained and padlocked at NGR 457 426.  I had
to smash the padlock to be able to proceed.

Further obstructions of concrete, steel  and dung  near Magna Castra Farm
have been placed on this road since Friday 4/4/97, i.e. in the last 5 days.

Will you please confirm my use of this road, in a fully licenced road legal
vehicle  is lawful, and that the obstructions repeatedly placed on the
highway are illegal.

Would you please confirm whether you have informed the owner of Magna
Castra farm that this is a public highway, and that to obstruct the Queens
Highway is a serious offence?

This is clearly escalating and an ugly incident is a possible result in the
near future if the illegal activities continue by the persons obstructing
the highway.  

I have received your letter stating it is your opinion this should be dealt
with by the council, however as previousy stated to you, and will be in my
complaint to the Police Complaints Authority, I hold you fully responsible
for upholding the law, and that if any incident does occur,  your lack of
actions may be considered in court.

Please do not ask for further restraint on use of this road, I did agree
for a week, and this turned to 2 1/2 weeks, but with no solution being
affected.

YS

c.c.
HA
Superintendant Adams, Hereford
PCA

------------------------------

  END OF * LIST DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 8 lines 494 [forwarded 19 whitespace 115]
 Output: lines 472 [content 302  forwarded 6 (cut  13) whitespace 110]