[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 06:44:12 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Opposing UCR 116s
I hope this is not all too tedious(let me know if it is), but I would
appreciate any suggestions on discouraging an HA from pursuing 116s. A
letter I am proposing sending to the HA follows.
Marches Historic Lane Preservation Group
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr. Ludlow
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 810
Mr R Lloyd,
Incorporated Engineer - Maintenance Systems.
Hereford & Worcester County Council
Spetchley Road
Worcester
WR5 2NP
By Fax to 01 905 76 6890
18/4/97
Review of Little Used Roads.
Dear Bob,
The Marches Historic Lane Preservation Group have cleared undergrowth,
minor obstructions and rubbish from more than 30 historically significant
lanes in the Welsh Marches. Others have been reported to your department as
obstructed or out of repair.
Since these were first reported, you have issued a document considering an
option of abandoning these historic lanes in favour of mere footpaths or
bridleways.
Some of these lanes have origins of well over a 1,000 years, it is simply
not an option to allow ploughing, de-hedging and diversions at will by
landowners, at low cost.
This is a certain consequence of downgrading.
On 11/4/97 I requested addresses of the landowners you have consulted in
your review. On 14/4/97 when you telephoned, you suggested it might be
prudent to await publication of the DoE/DoT report on Vehicles on Byways
before submitting BOAT applications. I am quite willing to comply with
that request, providing of course that the CC take no further action
towards downgrading any UCRs, prior to the publication of this report.
If you do decide to proceed, our group will submit BOAT Definitive Map
Modification Applications for some or all of the roads reviewed.
They would appear to fulfil the criteria of BOATs; they are little used,
unsurfaced roads, used predominantly on foot and horse, yet they have
vehicular rights. They are of the same nature and origin as many byways,
and maintenance to bridleway standard would seem appropriate. It is also
unusual to stop-up a BOAT even if it is little used by vehicles, so why not
use the same criteria for unsurfaced UCRs which qualify as BOATs?
A Definitive Map Modification Application is not a step to be undertaken
lightly. It does involve a not inconsiderable amount of work in making the
applications, in your processing of the same, and in all probability the
substantial cost of a PI on each one.
It will be argued that it will be presumptuous to lay a 116 application
before a magistrate prior to a PI decision.
Regardless of a PI decision on the merits of BOAT status, your quite
substantial task of showing that these roads are "not necessary" either
now, or at any time in the future, for enjoyment or any other purposes,
will still remain, before removal for ever of the rights of enjoyment and
protection afforded to roads, that are not available to other paths.
KCC v RA 1990: The magistrates "would have to bear in mind that the way had
to be unnecessary for the public; the convenience of the landowner was not
a relevant factor"…..Lord Justice Woolf said "where there was evidence of
use, it would be difficult for the magistrates properly to come to the
conclusion that a way was unnecessary unless the public were, or were going
to be, provided with a reasonably suitable alternative way." Mr Justice
Pill…. "that it was not open to the magistrates to decide that a way was
unnecessary because they held the view that it was in the public interest
that the highway should be closed"
It has already been held that a surfaced road may not offer the same
enjoyment as a rural unsurfaced road and therefore may not be regarded as a
"reasonably suitable alternative way"
Of the routes you say are not being used or are unusable, ALL are in fact
useable and used, (with the possible exception of Chapmans Hill) albeit in
some cases only by motorcycles. (In some cases due to illegal obstructions
by the CC, and lack of maintenance) The user groups all have a code of
conduct whereby numbers are limited and the aim is not to be visually
intrusive. It is gratifying to see how successful these policies have been
in this area - the users being both silent and invisible. [Ta Dave :-]
I am further mindful of the distress (i.e. planning blight), that could be
caused to landowners, owners of nearby properties, and of the greater
publicity caused to these routes by modification applications.
Would you confirm if the new legislation on the protection of hedges
outlaws the removal of hedges beside a road, and if so, if this protection
applies to other paths.
Could you help me with a point of law please? Whilst there is a procedure
in law laid down for an objector to withdraw an objection to a Map
Modification Order, is the any procedure described to allow a BOAT
modification application to be withdrawn?
As these Pilot roads are geographically widely spread the cost of separate
PI’s would run into many tens of thousands of pounds. This will be in
addition to the substantial cost of advertising, and pursuing the
contested HA 1980 S116 applications to magistrates courts.
Despite funding by the legal budget, charge payers would no doubt wish that
the overall potential savings through downgrading to have been fully cost
justified. To date you have been unable to furnish details of costs and
pay-back periods, when requested.
Would you therefore please be kind enough to confirm no further action will
be taken apropos the downgrading until the Vehicles on Byways study has
been made publicly available.
Yours sincerely
Chris Marsden.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 06:44:14 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Is the group still working
> I think its still working but it has been very quite fot the past couple
> of days.
> Chers John
Shhhhh! Dont say its quiet on the list, John,
or you will get the slow readers like Andy and Dale coming back on ;-))
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:46:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: CLA 4x4 helping the disabled
Offers of help all round, chaps? Come on, do your best!
CLA North Wales (Anglesey, Carnarfon, Clwyd, Meirionnydd)
Regional Sec Judith Matthews
Penrhyn Gwyn
Llanddaniel
Ynys Mon
Gwynnedd
LL60 6NN
tel: 01248 422006
fax: 01248421001
Cheers, tim
LARA Information Officer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:47:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Bucklebury 64
If no-one uses the bridge with vehicles, then there is no reason to spend
money on signs to prevent them doing so.
There is clap-trap and BABTIE, and sometimes you cannot see the difference.
This is a personal opinion, based on experience, and not the view of LARA or
any of its members.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:52:10 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: OK to use?
Question:-
If a double hedged green lane is unobstructed, and wide enough to use by
4w vehicles,
was shown as a 1910 Finance Act road,
also on the Tithe Maps as a road,
and as a "Major road (non-turnpike)" on the 1832 1st Ed OS map, (or even if
it was shown as a "Minor road") ,
BUT now only recorded as a footpath on the definitive, is it reasonable to
make use of this road?
(It does not appear to have been stopped up.)
Re Ballsgate SO4166
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:52:09 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: gleam's latest.
gleams Spring 97 newsletter:-
First two pages are a copy of LRWs article on gleams DoT VoB response.
Godalming and the Green Lane Maze - a Year on.
A year ago John Thorpe, Chairman of Godalming Town Centre Group, wrote in
the Spring 1996 Newsletter about the determined campaign being fought to
stop the re-classification by Surrey County Council of bridleways as BOATs
in his area. There have been many ups and downs, including appeals to the
Ombudsman. He now has some further advice to those engaged in similar
battles:-'~Godalming Town Centre Group, who won the fight to preserve three
green lanes in Surrey, offer a word of warning when facing the opposition'
at a Public Inquiry. They found that the leading four wheel drive
organisations based their case on the passage of often single motor cycles
over the green lanes during previous year in order to convince the
Inspector that the lanes had been regularly traversed by motor cycles It
was argued that, clearly, under the law, a motorbike, a motor car and a
lorry are all wheeled vehicles, whose use of a lane establishes rights to
classification as a Byway-Open-to-All Traffic
It is a lot easier for people to come forward to say that they have used a
narrow bridleway as a motor cyclist rather than in a four wheel drive
vehicle because:-
* A single motor cyclist can enter on to a narrow green lane or
bridleway for fun or sport without attracting a great deal of comment from
people on foot.
* The motor cyclist is less likely to leave a trail of damage that
would give rise to comment or concern by other users.
* When questioned, motor cycle users of the paths admitted that they
had only used the trails on occasions as a short cut without concerning
themselves as to their right to do this or not. They reckoned they could
get away with it.
It is important to recognise that in law there is no difference between 2
and 4 wheeled users. Any public vehicular use can create a motorised right
in certain circumstances. Lanes not recorded on the
definitive map are not protected in the same way as those that are. If an
unrecorded bridleway is being used by any sort of motor vehicle it may lead
to a claim of presumed dedication.
At the Godalming Inquiry the Town Centre Group said that the National
Trust, over whose land two of the paths passed, were not prepared at first
to declare their opposition to reclassification because they had been
advised of the threat of heavy legal cost. However, they gave valuable
support at the second Public Inquiry, as did the CPRE and the Ramblers. As
all three of these organisations are now aware of the threat to the
countryside they should be approached for moral support at least at all
Public Inquiries."
More Support from MPs.
On agreeing to become an honorary member of GLEAM, Paul Tyler MP writes:
"Damage to Green Lanes ...is a problem I have encountered in a number of
parts of the country in my capacity of Rural Affairs Spokesman for the
Liberal Democrats .... It can be found in every part of the country, and I
congratulate you on GLEAM's initiative to raise the profile of the
problem."
Several other sitting MPs have written to say that they will certainly
support GLEAM, if re-elected. Please, would members, particularly those in
rural constituencies, write to their new MP to tell them about GLEAM. Tell
the hon. secretary, too, so that we can send them all necessary information
News from the Counties.
WARWICKSHIRE: An attempt by Warwickshire County Council to classify a
lane as a Byway-Open40-All Traffic (BOAT) based on evidence from 1793 was
thrown out at a public inquiry when a GLEAM member was able to show that
the county's only evidence, an enclosure act was a fake and that no lawful
dedication or acceptance of the route had taken place.
BEDFORDSHIRE: Members of GLEAM
have won an important battle. The County Council was attempting to
reclassify a route as a BOAT despite the fact that its circumstances
exactly matched a recent High Court decision that "private" meant
"private". The county's "expert" tried in vain to persuade the Department
of the Environment that a High Court judge had been wrong. It means that
the 10 other footpaths and bridleways in Sandy, Bedfordshire, will not now
be re-designated as Byways. This was rather lucky for the council, as one
route, an ancient private road, would have run straight through the middle
of a school!
NORFOLK. The bird sanctuary on Halvergate Marshes was threatened with a 4
mile long Byway-Open-to-All Traffic although it is an internationally
recognised Site of Special Scientific Interest. GLEAM representatives,
supporting two parish councils, the RSPB, the Broads Authority and other
protesters, won the day by successfully arguing that, since there was no
evidence of pre-definitive map public vehicular rights, the only status
which the route could have had in 1951 was as a bridleway. As such, any use
by a wheeled vehicle (other than for access) was illegal and could not lead
to the creation of a public vehicular route (Road Traffic Acts 1930 and
1988, as per Robinson v Adair 1995).
The pity is that there is now the possibility of a second public inquiry
and that the wildlife has had to suffer for the last 26 years during which
time the Breckland Land Rover Club has insisted that they had a right to
drive the route.
A member has written to tell us that.....
The Executive Committee of the Open Spaces Society had the following Motion
remitted to them at last year's AGM:- Byways-Open- to All-Traffic should be
closed to motorised vehicles, except for access.
Members of the Society are asked to write in before 30 April 1997, giving
their views
Gleaned from a Magazine for Off-Roaders:-Andy Bush, Rights of Way Officer
of the
All Wheel Drive Club and LARA advises his members that:-
1. It is illegal to erect a barrier across a lane which has a
temporary TRO on it. NOT SO. A barrier can be legally erected across such a
route by, or with the permission of, the Highway Authority.
2. Case Law (of 1630) permits people to cut down and destroy a gate
across a route with a temporary TRO on it.
NOT SO. a) Even if a route is illegally obstructed, a person may only
remove the obstruction, but not to destroy it. (Criminal Damage Act 1971).
b) Case Law is of no consequence if it is superseded by later legislation.
3. In order to cut down and destroy a barrier, "Bring me my axe and my
bolt croppers?" Doubtless a jocular remark.
BUT surely Mr. Bush would not encourage anyone to go equipped to commit
criminal damage, an offence in itself.
Oh dear! More dangerous misinformation from the All Wheel Drive Club.
________________________________________________________
Byway.
NB This has not been checked for scanning errors. See also response to
dunlop letter by Andy Bush in May IOR.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: OK to use?
How about a different approach -
Write to the Highway Authority saying you have evidence that this route is
public for vehicles, but you have not been able to find evidence to claim it
as BOAT (because you cannot show that it is 'used by the public mainly for
the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used') and that you
intend to use it with a vehicle and give this information to any friends that
ask. Tell them that if they have information which shows that on the balance
of probability public vehicular rights do not exist, they are asked to let
you know where this evidence can be examined. Make it quite clear that you
are asking them to put their money where their mouth is (put up or shut up)
and that you are relying on them as HA for advice. Send the letter recorded,
and keep a copy and their reply. Then you have something to show the
policeman when he comes round asking what you were about.
Worth a try?
Or perhaps worth getting someone else to try, if the HA are already familiar
with your approaches?
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:42:55 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: CLA 4x4 helping the disabled
Now let me get this right.
CLA want people to help take disabled visitors Green Laning?
I will ring this evening.
C
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:42:57 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Bucklebury 64
> If no-one uses the bridge with vehicles, then there is no reason to spend
> money on signs to prevent them doing so.
> There is clap-trap and BABTIE, and sometimes you cannot see the
difference.
Bollocks And Balderdash To Infuriate Everyone?
Well this is my response then:-
No need for a TRO, just an advisory weight limit.
Anyone going over it at a higher weight only has themselves to blame, and
saves Babtie money - the cost of demolition!
C
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:45:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: gleam's latest.
Paul Tyler Esq CBE
MP for North Cornwall
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Tyler
Are you a GLEAM member?
I understand that the Green Lanes Environment Action Movement claims you as
an honorary member. Are you aware that this group has been established with
the declared aim of removing motors from sections of the Queen's highway? The
reduction of opportunities for sport and recreation in the countryside is not
the sort of activity that that LARA members, or the Sports Council, or the
Countryside Commission would endorse, and I wonder if your membership of this
anti-access group is based on Liberal Party policy, or is a personal view?
It is also claimed by GLEAM that you have evidence of problems `caused by'
recreational motoring. I would be obliged if you could let me have full
details of your examples. LARA is keen to investigate any claims of problems
relating in any way to members' activities, and I hope that I will be able to
report back to you the actions we have set in motion to resolve them.
I look forward to reassurances that our members' rights to legitimate
recreation, in accordance with the law, and balanced as ever by
responsibilities which we willingly shoulder, are not threatened by any
support they might consider giving to you or your party.
Yours sincerely
Tim Stevens
LARA Information Officer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:21:52 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Protection of Def map ways
gleam text:-
"Lanes not recorded on the definitive map are not protected in the same way
as those that are. If an unrecorded bridleway is being used by any sort of
motor vehicle it may lead to a claim of presumed dedication."
Does this equate to saying 20 years usage of a route NOT on the def map can
lead to presumed dedication, whereas if it is on the map, higher "presumed
dedication" can not occur?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:21:54 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: gleam's latest.
> Paul Tyler Esq CBE
Yes what a good letter.
I forgot to mention, on front page of gleam was an attractive leafy
undamaged lane. The sort any group would have been pleased to have
completed on GL day.
The catch - A caption saying repairs to this lane cost 8,000 for 1/2 mile.
*IF* it needed anything doing to it then I suspect someone had the sticky
fingers in the till if they put a claim in for 8,000 for a surface of
fallen leaves. The FC can make new near motorway standard roads for that!
Come on gleam are your readers so gullibly stupid even they can believe
that?
Let them substantiate their lies. Where? Who? Why?
Byway
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:44:58 +0100
From: Mike Cattell <Mike@mikecat.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: CLA 4x4 helping the disabled
In message <970418114606_548424819@emout11.mail.aol.com>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>Offers of help all round, chaps? Come on, do your best!
>CLA North Wales (Anglesey, Carnarfon, Clwyd, Meirionnydd)
[ truncated by list-digester (was 14 lines)]
>fax: 01248421001
>Cheers, tim
>LARA Information Officer
Excuse my ignorance but could you explain what sort of help is required,
Im quite new to this game but want to get involved. I live on the border of
Cheshie and Clwyd and regularly explore and drive ways in Clywd and
North Wales.
Thanks
Mike Cattell, West Cheshire.
http://www.mikecat.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 13 lines 644 [forwarded 25 whitespace 149]
Output: lines 596 [content 370 forwarded 15 (cut 10) whitespace 144]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970419 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]