[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:10:39 +0000
From: Peter Bradley <hm50@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Hambleton Drove Road
First, apologies for absence from discussions. I bought a new Pentium
200 MMX a week ago. It went like Linford Christie on steroids for three
days and then keeled over and pretended to be a poorly SX25. It goes
back tomorrow.
Anyway, I've been reading the mail .....
Rumours abounded that the Hambleton Drove Road had been reclassified as
a BOAT (from RUPP), so a few of us went up there yesterday to have a
look. Sure enough there is a notice and a map pinned to a post at the
southern end. We drove around on the tarmac to the northern end and
there again there is a notice proclaiming reclassification, and a map
showing the route. Both ends also have the obligatory "no motors except
for access" signs, but we thought they maybe hadn't got around to
removing them.
So, we bouled up to the gate at the northern end. Oh dear, big chain
and padlock. "Let's winch it off it's hinges", came the cry. "No, let's
not", says I, "not yet anyway". We then went back around to the
southern end, again by tarmac, and decided to drive as far as we could
to the junction with the track down Kepwick Bank. Being bone dry as it
is at the moment I figured we would do nil damage, and if challenged I
would rapidly try and think up something we needed to "access".
The "survey" was interesting. The road is enclosed between walls and is
massively wide, as you might expect from a principal drove road. The
first kilometre or so has a single track stone surface, as the access
track to a farm. At the farm the whole width of the road becomes green
with slight rutting. Then you reach the edge of a forest where there is
an unlocked gate. Through the forest for another kilometre or so the
road is "split into two", to the left an unmade green track with
pronounced rutting, to the right a beautifully surfaced and perfectly
flat footpath/cycle track, and in between a ridge of earth like a
central reservation on a motorway but covered in vegetation. I have
never seen anything like it. It's almost like it has been designed to
keep warring factions apart. Where the forest ends there is another
unlocked gate, then you are on wide green track across the moor, largely
enclosed, and with only slight rutting. We turned off at 490915 to
Kepwick.
This afternoon I rang NYCC Highways and spoke to Simon Evans. "Regarding
Hambleton Drove Road, was RUPP 11 and now BOAT...". He replied: "Er,
don't know what you're talking about. Can you give me the map
reference?"
How stupid of me, expecting him to know it by name, one of the most
important roads for miles around for many centuries. He improved
slightly with: "I'll have to put you onto Keith (Wadkins) in RoW. They
deal with this sort of thing". Wadkins was suddenly "with someone", (he
would be, I asked him an awkward question by letter weeks ago, and I
still await a reply), so I got "an assistant". "Regarding Hambleton
Drove Road, was RUPP 11 now BOAT ....." "Oh I don't know about that
.... I'll have to look it up .... do you want to hold?" "Don't bother,
I know it's a BOAT because you've put a sign at each end to say so."
"Oh, have we?" "Yes. Why is the gate locked at the northern end?"
"You'll have to speak to NYMNP about that. It's in the NP you see."
What a treasure. Where do they get them from?
Next call was to Carl Gerhardsen, NYMNP Helmsley. "Regarding ... etc etc
etc" Praise the Lord, he knew the road. "Who holds keys to the locked
gate?", says I. "Forest Enterprise and the Estate", says he. "Why is
it locked?" "Because it has a TRO on it." Ahh, silly me, I had assumed
that in going from RUPP to BOAT it had lost it's TRO. But no. "When does
the TRO come off?" "I would like to think that one day it could be
opened to vehicular traffic again. We have spent a fortune on it just
north of Black Hambleton, and there are plans to do more repairs around
there and ........ etc etc etc".
Actually, I had a good chat with C Gerhardsen and he seems OK. I think
we can work together.
Can anyone tell me, is it unusual for a RUPP to be reclassed as a BOAT
but still retain it's TRO throughout ?????". Doesn't seem logical to me,
but then few things do around here.
Bradders
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 07:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Deemed dedication.
In a message dated 20-4-97 19:58:42, you write:
>Does this mean I can use my mountain bike on a footpath and I can't be
>proscecuted?
In my view, yes it does. I have always suggested to TRF chaps wishing to
investigate a newly discovered route that they walk or if possible cycle to
investigate. While you cannot be prosecuted, you can be sued for trespass,
but only to the value of the damage you can be proved to have caused. And you
only need stop for a policemen in uniform or traffic warden, and you need say
nothing to anyone else. If they stop you, you can arrest them for obstructing
the highway. Honest!
Regarding your other point, about the CA68 bridleway concession weakening
evidential value, yes it does. I wonder if it was suggested deliberately
knowing that? But the concession only permits you to use BWs, and only then:
i with bicycles, not other numbers of wheels,
ii. on condition that you give way to horse or foot users.
So, use a tricycle or perhaps stabilisers, and always shout 'Get out of the
Way' when meeting others.
Any use by pedal cycle of any route not known to be a `bridleway only' counts
unarguably as evidence for presumed dedication for vehicles. This includes
RUPPs which by definition are not bridleways, as the law gives bicycles the
concession on bridleways, not on routes which even though they are not
bridleways have conclusive bridleway rights.
All pedal cycles are carriages, just as prams are. But the law makes
concessions for prams on footpaths (they are a 'normal accompaniment' but I
think this only applies to prams with babies in, not those used to collect
firewood, etc), and for bycicles on Bridleways with conditions as above. This
does not stop them from being carriages.
I am sure that if anyone was to introduce a proposal for a DM now, with
current rules, they would be laughed at.
Come the revolution, of course, it will all be different. All footpaths and
bridleways will have to be reclassified according to the rights that now can
be shown to have existed in 1952. And anyone wanting to walk on a tarred road
will have to prove that when the road was dedicated the landowner actually
was aware that they personally were going to use it.
And, of course, coin-operated pedestrian crossings, and road-fund for horses
and dogs.
Cheers, tim.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 07:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Bad news from Cheshire
Yes, we did contest the order and it was a fairly close run thing. CCC
officers intimated afterwards that we should have won all but one or two, but
the Inspector decided that there was after all not enough evidence. User
evidence was particularly tin on the ground, with none apart from TRF use.
Jeoff bostock, the Cheshire TRF RoW officer was fairly shot-away by the
processes, and disappointed that he got no support from other user groups,
however many wheels or drives they had.
It seems unfortunate that the use of the countryside by recreational vehicles
is quite enough to get everyone wound up about the destruction that is
occurring all over the place, and everyone has seen examples of it locally,
but when it comes to a PI very little user is produced, and no-one can ever
remember anyone using the routes in question. Funny, if it wasn't so sad.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 07:51:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Protection of Def map ways
In a message dated 19-4-97 23:30:12, you write:
>If its on D map as a (say f/p) vehicular use is illegal. so 20+ years use
>would not make it a byway, unless you had other proof or Veh rights, in
>which case the 20 years then is irrelevent.
Not true, exactly. If it is on the DM as fp or bw and it is certain that no
other rights exist, then it is true. But most routes on the DM got there
because of what was thought or wanted, not what was known for sure. Most
arose through deemed dedication, and we need to know what the landowner
deemed dedication for. Even if no vehicles used a route in the past, but the
landowner was minded to dedicate (the legal presumption) for all purposes,
and meanwhile the DM had recorded it as a fp or bw, and then vehicles started
to use it as of right, then I do not see how the recording which is without
prejudice can actually be allowed in law to prejudice the higher rights.
All DM routes are without prejudice to other rights, so if there is some
evidence that a route might have been regarded as vehicular (such as old maps
of roads), but no actual evidence above that presumption, and so perhaps not
enough, historically, (also because witnesses have died (like they do) etc)
then more recent user can help to confirm the landowners intentions by giving
him a clear notice that the route is being used, and clear opportunity to do
something about it. So user evidence of a route which we believe may probably
have veh rights helps to confirm that the landowner did mean to dedicate for
all traffic.
Do not take this a gospel, as the other side would argue differently, and the
courts have not yet considered this point in detail. If they did, we have no
fighting fund with which to put our point of view, so there is a message for
us all.
>If this was so, it would mean the D map is helping to supress higher rights
>being dedicated.
>i.e. circumstantial evidence, and everyone uses it as a vehicular route,
>but can never be put on through deemed dedication. Outrageous.
It would be outrageous if it did but I don't think it does, as explained
above.
Any other opinions out there?
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 20 Apr 97 17:40:56 EDT
From: Richard Brownlee <101360.3273@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: CLA
Hi all
>Offers of help all round, chaps? Come on, do your best!
>CLA North Wales (Anglesey, Carnarfon, Clwyd, Meirionnydd)
>Regional Sec Judith Matthews
Has anyone got CLA contact details for the Surrey area? - I'll get in touch.
Regards
Richard
Surrey AWDC RoW rep
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:37:58 +0100
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Deemed dedication.
In message <199704201958.UAA12426@horza.ftech.net>, Stephen Neville
<steve@wcceh.gov.uk> writes
reply from ADK@BBT
>>>It is not illegal to use a non-motor vehicle on a FP or BW, ie a bicycle
>or
not a criminal offence under current statute, but could be a public
nuisance or a civil trespass.
>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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 14 lines)]
>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!
CA68 only allows bicycles - not trikes or velocipedes.
>How useful is bicycle evidence at PIs?
>draft or burden which is not a horse or pony, (but not necessary a flock or
Mixed. It is beyond the wit of most inspectors, but one or two have
grasped the issues. Bung it in, but explain the issues clearly.
Regards
A
>Steve N
>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.
--
Alan kind
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 21:34 BST-1
From: srawlings@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Rawlings)
Subject: Cooperation
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<<
I wonder who?? :-)
I know that when I was doing the ROW for the Shropshire TRF, I instigated
a policy of deliberate non-cooperation with the CC as I was not satisfied
with the way in which they were dealing with our evidence when placing it
to Committee to make a decision as to what status to go for in the
Reclassification. I pointed out that we were perfectly in our right to
object to the Order and force an Inquiry and present our evidence then.
Like your mystery person :-) I also pointed out to the CC that we could
withold evidence to enable us to continue to ride a route after a
reclassification to BW or FP. AIR, there was a TRF proposal of a policy
of non cooperation being suggested some time ago also.
Steve Rawlings
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:53:08 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Aberystwith TRO
A reminder that the consultation responses were requested by 25/4/97.
Some thoughts on types of questions you may wish to pose if writing:-
Mr R G Jones
Ceredigion CC
County Hall,
Market Street
Aberaeron
SA46 0AT
Tel 01 545 570 382, Fax 571 089
If a TRO was applied, a Section 56 order could, and probably would be
applied for, on behalf of ramblers or equestrian users, thereafter removing
the reason for the TRO, and having gone full circle, spent a lot of money
unnecessarily in the process.
You are no doubt aware it is illegal to TRO a route in order to save
maintenance expenditure ?
1) Can you confirm if Voluntary restraint has been tried ?
2) Are you aware of, and have you complied with Welsh Office Circular 5/93
?
3) What expenditure has been incurred on these lanes in the past. ?
4) Will repair work be undertaken if a TRO is made ?
If Welsh Office Circular 5/93, (i.e. if other management methods have not
been tried) a complaint to the auditors and local government ombudsman can
be anticipated, and compliance may also be adversely affected.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:43:05 +0100
From: Mike Cattell <mike@mikecat.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Bad news from Cheshire
In message <970421075105_-998942607@emout06.mail.aol.com>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>Yes, we did contest the order and it was a fairly close run thing. CCC
>officers intimated afterwards that we should have won all but one or two, but
[ truncated by list-digester (was 14 lines)]
>remember anyone using the routes in question. Funny, if it wasn't so sad.
>Cheers, tim
Rest assured I shall ensure that I attempt and document driving all RUPPS
marked on the DM.
Actually there are so few, that a regular rota should be possible. Also
three of us who have met on this list are meeting locally on Wednesday
night for the first time and I'm sure this will be a topic for discussion.
regards
Mike Cattell, Christleton, Cheshire, U.K.
http://www.mikecat.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 22:07:48 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: CLA & the Disabled
Hi
Can anyone supply me me the HQ telephone and and a name for the CLA as a
representertive of DORA (Disabled Off-Road Access) it may be a good tie
in with what we are doing allready.
Cheers John
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 22:07:48 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: CLA & the Disabled
Hi
Can anyone supply me me the HQ telephone and and a name for the CLA as a
representertive of DORA (Disabled Off-Road Access) it may be a good tie
in with what we are doing allready.
Cheers John
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:08:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: CLA Surrey, Sussex, Kent
Surrey =
Donald Mitchell
The Old Vicarage
Privett
Alton
GU34 3PE
01730 828430
fax: 828338
South East =
John Biron
Roughfield Farm Office
London Road
Hurst Green
East Sussex
TN19 7QY
01580 879667
fax: 879668
This information comes to you from LARA, your friendly information service
Vote for LARA, you know it makes sense.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:08:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: CLA & the Disabled
CLA HQ =
16 Belgrave Square
London
SW1X 8PQ
0171 235 0511
fax: 4696
Contact = Dr Alan Woods,
or ask for the new access officer who is not known to me yet but should have
been appointed by now.
[This is the same address and phone number for reports under the LARA-CLA
Rapid Response Scheme, which technically expired on April 1 but LARA is keen
to continue (as it has revealed how few problems CLA members really do have
with vehicles on their land. I do not know yet if the CLA is as keen to
continue but I do not see why not.]
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:16:20 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Cooperation
Steve,
No names on who has withheld one scap for the next PI, but Geoff has also
stopped putting in Apps for BOATS as he reckons if gleam get their fanatic
way they cant TRO whites.
Sooner the DoE get their report out the better, - I hope.
Had a chat with a CPRE chap over hedges today. They had been approached by
the local anti lobby. They get everywhere. Where do they get the energy.
The local prediction has gone up from 6 Landrovers. It currently stands at
3,000 - 4,000 expected on a proposed byway. The twirps standing for
election actually believe it too. Reality is 3+ is exceed only twice in
past year. (that was to 4) (OK so once it was two groups of 3) Us users
deserve some better antis.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:16:18 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Weekend lanes.
Don.
Not had time to wrrite up UEF for each lane, but this is the weekends
lanes. all on SO sq.
19/4/97
4765 Status?
3360 3058
3054Obstructed, impassable. rpt to HA, Hereford 21/4/97
2767 ploughed fenced 5ft CC gate. Reported to Powys 21/4/97
2869.1
2869.2
3069
3370 clearance
3665
4765
20/4/97
3770
3370 more clearance
3070 - 1/4 byway. clearance
3069
2971.1
2971.2
2368.2
2368.1
2366
2167
1968
1767
1566.2 clearance - fallen tree
1566.2 Old Hall- 5Ft (abated) gate. Now has message "Rebecca Rides Again -
March 1997"
1465
1365 Suspect Eastern End from 145 65? Check with HA
1467.2 UCR ends 300 metres from BOAT. Challenged. Turned back. (amicable,
but firm)
1369.2
1472 cleared hedge trimmings. Spoke M/Cyclist Gt Cantel ok! (Complaint last
time from Edmond Markham Conservative PPC)
1573
2172 Hidden beautiful lane, What a find. Confirm exact route. poss 6 days
to clear?
2173 Glydws Way. No status on L/R. SP f/p. used by Vehs. OK.
Two days to travel and 2 weeks to sort out the problems that arise!
------------------------------
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 15 lines 693 [forwarded 52 whitespace 147]
Output: lines 609 [content 378 forwarded 32 (cut 20) whitespace 137]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970422 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]