msg	Sender	lines	Subject
1	"Stephen Neville" [steve	25	Deemed dedication.
2	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	45	Bad news from Cheshire
	Majordomo		About the digest

------------------------------ [ Message 1 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 970421 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Subject: Deemed dedication. 
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 21:40:09 +0100

or
handcart or sledge or travois, or a horse-drawn vehicle, or an an animal of
draft or burden which is not a horse or pony, (but not necessary a flock or
herd) so it is possible to acheive deemed dedication on a footpath or
bridleway as long as the relevant use is not motorised.

Does this mean I can use my mountain bike on a footpath and I can't be
proscecuted? If so, no wonder the average MTBer thinks that a FP is a
"single track", a bridleway is a "single track" and anything wider than two
sets of handlebars is just a "track". Like the average Rambler, most MTBers
know sweet FA about RoW law (excepting a few like Colin Palmer). 

Also does not the Countryside Act 1968 s 30 get in the way by permitting
bicycles on bridleways. This undermines use as a "carriage". If I use a
trike or put stabilisers on then my bicycle becomes a carriage. Hmmm!

How useful is bicycle evidence at PIs?

Steve N

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

Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:43:00 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Bad news from Cheshire

 Mike  wrote:

> I have now located the tythe and apportionment maps, finance act 1909
> 1910 maps, and the quarter session records for Cheshire in the record
> office and a few of us are already trying to open up old roads not on the
> DM or LOS. Talking on the ground has proved quite useful to.

Let us know how you get on, Tithe & finance are just part of the jigsaw.

I am going to start recording Finance act roads, and start using any
non-contentious ones on the strength of it.

It depends to some extent on who the inpsector at a PI is, how much local
oppososition and if the Council decide to support it or not. None of these
should make any difference, but we live in the real world and fair is not
fair.   An Inspector has admitted he will not make a BOAT order unless the
evidence is overwhelming.  They know it is not likely to be challenged, and
once they have made up their minds, (probably whilst walking the routes
before the PI) they are masters at selecting just what they want to hear to
justify their decision.

One local experienced campainer is now withholding one piece of information
from a PI so that if it goes the wrong way he can put in another claim when
it is "discovered".  The CCs like 120% proof before going for Byway, if the
have inclosure award evidence, which is non contradictory and conplete for
the whole route it is likely to be a BOAT. Anything less is a lottery. The
fact part of it is public carriage road or it says To XYZ does not
necessarily mean it will be a BOAT.  

If the RoW had any reasonable evidence they should have asked for a BOAT,
and in Cheshire from what you said about Mike Taylor(?) it probably would
have been done right.  Some RUPPS just are not provable, and it is the law
that they do have to be prooved.  Ask to see the decision letter.

Despite what the decision is, it does not alter the status of the road. 
The def map is still w/o prej to higher rights. You just need one extra
piece of evidence to make a claim or use it if you feel confident it is
strong enough. (Bal. or prob.)

Chris

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

  END OF * LIST DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 2 lines 98 [forwarded 5 whitespace 20]
 Output: lines 127 [content 49  forwarded 5 (cut  0) whitespace 20]