msg	Sender	lines	Subject
1	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	114	Re: National Lottery
2	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	67	Obstructions
3	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	78	Re: OK to use?
4	"Glenn M. Jones" [Glenn@	28	Survey
5	Peter Bradley [hm50@dial	111	Burns replies ......
6	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	41	Survey
7	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	71	Burns replies ......
	Majordomo		About the digest

------------------------------ [ Message 1 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 970426 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 05:11:04 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: National Lottery

to
> get lottery funding for GLD or any other initiatives. In the past the
problem
> was that funding should not be used to pay for something which should be
done
> anyway, and this includes research, clearance, asserting & protecting
(no,
> don't laugh) and removing overgrowth & obstructions. But the rules are
now
> more flexible. Funding is now available for training for competition,
> especially if the sport brings in medals, but I am sure if someone were
> really to set their minds to it, a way could be found. How about it,
Julian?
> Anyone else out there with the necessary persistence, determination,
> pig-headedness, etc?
> really to set their minds to it, a way could be found. How about it,

Surely an area many of us have thought  "If only" but it would never
happen.
We don t know until we try.

What are our problems.  - Gap analysis: where are we, where do we want to
be?
What would funding be used for?  

With the apparent increasing opposition to our leisure pursuit,  there will
be strong concerted lobbying against any funding for promoting motor
vehicles in the countryside.

For public acceptance it must be seen for public benefit.
1)  Saving our historic heritage.  This may not be relevant so much in the
SE as in more remote areas where lack of use has led to the physical loss
of substantial numbers of routes.
2)  Greater public access of non Def ways for walkers pedal cycles horse
riders and carriage & motor veh. drivers.  There are more ways off the map
than on the map.
3)  Monitoring *Alleged*  damage
4)  ???

RUPP reclass is an ongoing problem exacerbated by bad publicity by gleams
underhand an irrational activities - apart from the self-interest element
of virtually all members.

BOATs apart from some unwarranted TROs seem to be well protected,
publicised and used routes, requiring no funding.

UCRs. (unsurfaced) They are not any use as a part of a transport system. 
The highways engineers should not have anything to do with them.  They are
IMHO a nuisance that they want to get rid of. They cant afford the cost of
BOAT conversions, DoE are against it, it would have slightly lower status,
they might be at risk if a BOAT application was made.
They seem to be at risk of 116 (& TRO),  yet BOATs do not seem to be
subject to 116s
They admit they have spent nothing on them and *will* spend nothing on
them.  So if there is refusal to spend money, and the Lottery rules are
changing, I think this is where there is the greatest justification for
spending any Lottery funding.

I do not see that vast sums are needed, given the enthusiasm for GLD.
(How much and for what - suggestions please???)

NON MAP routes, there are still very many routes in some areas that are not
on either map. Until the DoE policy has been published it might be better
to let this one lie doggo.

What is needed?

PR
Knowledge of  where the routes are.
Survey of the current state of the routes as it affects each class of user
Monitoring change of condition, objectively rather than subjectively as far
as possible
"Lane guardians" for every green lane.
If TROs work and are (still) necessary.   (By work I mean for the stated
and a valid reason, not if it has reduced traffic for the benefit of a
local resident(s))
Any others?

These 6 points can be achieved by one detailed survey in my view.  A
mammoth task, but by dividing the Country up by County, County up by a
number of 20 sq km sections (pathfinders) and giving to perhaps 4 - 10
people per county this is quite achievable.

It can show accurately how many green lanes there are, if they are usable,
used, predominantly by agriculture or leisure etc. The cause of any
"inconvenience" to users. How users recall changes in their memory,
(subsequent surveys can then be objective on this point)

It will show what needs to be done to bring routes into a usable state.  

It would  (I fully expect) virtually exonerate leisure users.  It will
quantify the "moorland problem"  (deliberate bogging).

Then we can prove to Antis, RA HA DoE that we have done the most exhaustive
and factual investigation ever carried out, and give credibility to (say)
LARA to manage, or have a big  say in managing these ways. Why shouldn t
LARA get Government or CoCo or Lottery money to employ several
advisors/consultants to assist HAs manage all Bridleways and Byways?  

Following RoW educational courses, of which I think at least some should be
ongoing forums for exchange of views on these types of problem,  we can put
forward an alternative to or implementation of DoE VoB aims. (This list
helps, but there are 10+ times more RoW workers not able to join in)  Draw
up plans for official action, user clearance action, further funding
requirements etc.

Could the survey obtain access to GIS data?

Chris

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:03:40 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Obstructions

Roman Road Hereford 4442

History recap:
Blocked by bollards locked gate dung etc. reported to CC & Police, + 3
further obstuctions / threats reported to Police.

I pointed out I hold them responsible and  their  inaction might be
examined in court if there are any more incidents, and have they told the
landowner it is a highway?

(CCs reaction was "Oh dear we wont be able to cut the grass will we")

Had a charming letter back from Police today:-

"Dear Mr MARSDEN

With reference to your letter dated 9th April 1997 to the Chief Constable
of the West Mercia Constabulary, the contents of which are noted.

I would respectfully draw your attention to my letter to you on 26th March
1997 in which I adequately set out the Police position on the matter to
which you refer. However, I will reinforce this communication by repeating
that the enforcement agency responsible for investigating this particular
obstruction is Hereford & Worcester County Council, in particular the
Highways Authority and not the West Mercia Constabulary.

Additionally I would draw your attention to Section 150(1) & (2) HIghways
Act 1980 which clearly sets out the procedures you should pursue to force
the Highways Authority to comply with your wishes."

The 198 HA says:-

150.-(1) If an obstruction arises in a highway from an accumulation of snow
or from the falling down of banks on the side of the highway, or from any
other cause, the highway authority shall remove the obstruction.

 (2) If a highway authority fail to remove an obstruction which it is their
duty under this section to remove, a magistrates' court may, on a complaint
made by any person, by order require the authority to remove the
obstruction within such period (not being less than 24 hours) from the
making of the order as the court thinks reasonable, having regard to all
the circumstances of the case.

Has anyone had any experience under this section?

How does one lay a complaint, are there any risks of costs if there is any
possibility the CC should appeal?  Is it discressionary on the road being
required by more than one person? Can they counter with a 116 or TRO?

Peter Newman found Worcester did not have a duty to remove overgrowth and
fences, Widgery said "should be confined to sudden and substantial
obstructions occurring without warning and required to be removed with
equal urgency"

These were re bollarded between 16 - 31/1/97. They are substantial but is
that sudden?  BB p172

If not, todays letter is plod clap trap. 

Chris

PS John, one for your scrap book?

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:03:43 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: OK to use?

I said on 18/4/97:-
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?   

4166

Tim said

> 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

I did and they predicatably said:-

"BALLSGATE - YATTON

I refer to your fax of 21 April 1997 which I have copied to Tom Davies for
his comments.

It would be useful if you could send me copies of the evidence you have
that this route is a public road for vehicles.

Yours sincerely,"

Tim,

I propose to say "The road was shown on OS 1832, thus it was acceptable as
a public road on 1 August 1835(?) without a certificate, it was shown on
the  tithe map,  1910 FA, and is shown on some of the following maps, {list
of all local historic evidence maps}, where it is shown in the same way as
many other minor public roads are shown. 

They do obviously carry a disclaimer that "The representation of a road is
no evidence of a right of way" on the road in question just as it does for
the A49(T), A4110, B4362 and all other unclassified county roads.

Y.S.

Am I going into too much detail?  

(In the absence of an outright denial of the probability that public Veh.
rights exist, and their supporting evidence, I propose to use it, and this
same method for other non-obstructed ways

Chris

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

From: "Glenn M. Jones" <Glenn@andromeda-park.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Survey
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:24:33 +0100

Chris writes:

>These 6 points can be achieved by one detailed survey in my view.  A
>mammoth task, but by dividing the Country up by County, County up by a
>number of 20 sq km sections (pathfinders) and giving to perhaps 4 - 10
>people per county this is quite achievable.

>It can show accurately how many green lanes there are, if they are usable,
>used, predominantly by agriculture or leisure etc. The cause of any
>"inconvenience" to users. How users recall changes in their memory,
>(subsequent surveys can then be objective on this point)

>It will show what needs to be done to bring routes into a usable state.  

Planning the above should be part of the agenda for the proposed
day/weekend workshop. This is something I have been suggesting for a long
time. The problem that I see, is getting the relevent authorities to accept
our findings.

Count me in (depending on the date).

Glenn

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:59:35 +0000
From: Peter Bradley <hm50@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Burns replies ......

Hi all.

Today I finally got a letter from Burns (NYCC Maintenance Manager)
in reply to my letter of 24/03/97.  Still nothing in from Wadkins
in RoW, who I think wants to play fair, but dare not step out of
line.

to recap ..... I sent to him (Burns).......

Dear Mr Burns

YOUR LETTER 6th MARCH 1997

With further reference to your letter, and in particular the 
third paragraph therein, perhaps you would be good enough to 
let me have your answer to the following question:

What general stance does the County Council take with regard 
to vehicular rights on Unclassified County Roads which remain
untarred ?

I look forward to receiving your reply shortly.

Yours sincerely

Peter D Bradley

.... and he has come back with this little gem .....

Dear Mr Bradley

GREEN LANE

Further to your letter dated 24 March 1997 and I apologise
for the delay in replying.

With the benefit of legal advice, it is the view that in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, vehicular rights of way
do NOT exist on unmade green lanes but they are highway
maintainable at public expense with at least pedestrian
rights over them.

I hope you find this information useful.

Yours sincerely

A W Burns

Maintenance Manager

Notice that although I specifically refer to unmade UCR's,
he constantly refers to "green lanes".  My opinion is this:
I think this bloke is deliberately giving out false and
misleading information.  If "green lane" has no meaning
in Law then he hasn't answered my question, and that took
him a month.  Comments ????

Brian Lewis is right.  There is something very funny going
on here, and especially in the Dales.  Somebody is trying
to work a flanker.  So far, three roads, and I'm talking
roads here, not RUPPS but UCR's, white roads on the map and
without bridleway dual status, three roads have been made
into BOATs.  Those three are Cam High Road, "Stake Pass",
and Busk Lane from Carperley Green.

How are they reasoning to do this ?  Is it indeed legal ?
Does the NP ring up Burns and say "what's such and such 
a track ?", and he replies "UCR so there's no vehicular
status unless proven", so the NP think "must be a mistake
then because vehicles have been using it, we'd better 
make it a BOAT". 

Some of YDNP own literature clearly shows the direction
they would like to go in:-

"... many fellside tracks come under the heading of UCR and
the public rights on these can be unclear.  Motor users often
claim a right to use them but classification as byway,
bridleway, or footpath can only be done once they have been
investigated fully to verify what rights historically exist
on these routes.

.... Mountain bikes can probably use most UCR's too, since
most will probably be designated as bridleways or byways
when their rights have been sorted out. "

Lots of "probably's" in that last comment.

All of this is in direct conflict with comments made by
the DoE in their letter of 26/3/97 to Brian.  "If a way
was recorded as a UCR, or its equivalent, then in the
Department's opinion it would not be appropriate to
record it as a BOAT and place it on the definitive map".
OK, so they say it must be tested in a court of law.
Well, it's high time it was.

As a RoW newbie sat in front of a dauntingly large heap of
correspondance, books, DoE Circulars etc, I make this plea
to Tim, Dave, Chris, and all other experienced campaigners
on this list:  We are losing our Yorkshire UCR's wholesale.
Apart from writing some angry letters, what can we do about
it ?

All comments and advice welcome.

Peter Bradley

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:35:47 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Survey

Glen,

> Planning the above should be part of the agenda for the proposed
> day/weekend workshop. This is something I have been suggesting for a long
> time. The problem that I see, is getting the relevent authorities to
accept
> our findings.
> day/weekend workshop. This is something I have been suggesting for a long

Maybe, but a letter today from the A/Director of highways said:-

"3
I admitted and admit that there has been a fear of damage which led us
to leave people like yourself having to interpret street lists for
themselves.   Speaking personally I am ready to be persuaded and have
hinted so to Tim Stevens.  Perhaps you might like to speak to Tim about
a demonstration project of some sort to help change perceptions.
4
We are now more active on byway signing and would welcome any suggestion on
locations where you know that byway signs would be of immediate help.
5
The view we have taken on the lanes being BOATS is that there is little
point in changing from UCRs to BOATS, as the difference does not justify
the procedures involved, whether you or we gather the evidence.  If you
made submissions I am afraid that this would have to take their turn. I am
also afraid that  I am not prepared to release the names of landowners we
have consulted. "

(Para 3 is not what he said " I may have been guilty of keeping the UCR
information secret in the past")

Some of may listen, if some do, others may be forced to, DoE may insist
they take note and other suers CLA / NFU may be interested,   you can take
a horse to water, but ......

C

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:35:44 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Burns replies ......

Peter

> As a RoW newbie sat in front of a dauntingly large heap of
> correspondence, books, DoE Circulars etc, I make this plea
	 [ truncated by list-digester (was 6 lines)]
> Apart from writing some angry letters, what can we do about
> it ?

Firstly I do not want to dissapoint you but it was only about 9 months ago,
when it was first explained to me what a RUPP was that I thought it only
had Public Path status, for certain.  It was on further questioning that it
finally sank in that is was a Public Road used *mainly* as a Public Path.

That might go to show I am learning, and it has to be quite fast as there
is so much clap trap spouted by the councils who I mistakenly thought were
supposed to be honest truthful and uphold the rule of law.  I am now no
wiser but much better informed.

So do not believe what they say. Read the Blue Book (Which they use)
remember it is written by an anti organisation, but by honorable men, so
far as I know.  Be prepared to stand up for you rights, and do what you
believe is right, drive it if it *IS* a UCR i e if its on the List of
streets, that is a  document they have to keep by law that show roads with
vehicular rights.   I will remove any obstruction on a non TROd UCR if I
can.   And I will write to CC and Police and tell them I have done so.  It
may not get me very far, but at least I am open about it. There are some
chinks of light.  

The laws are fine, it is the plonkers that think they are there to
administer the laws selectively. You pay them to do a job of asserting your
rights. It is sometimes easier to do it Rebecca style than waste money on
countless letters.

Report it, give them a reasonable time and then go for it.  By reasonable I
would think as little as three days might suffice, 10 if you are patient.

Burns talked about green lanes. Yes green lanes might not have vehicular
rights, unless they are also UCRs, in which case they do. The DoE know
better than an anti council does.   What is the nature of the impediment on
these ways?

My view is the greater the level of impediment one generally finds in an
area, the more normal it is to carry *as part of your every day
accompaniment* the tools to deal with it.  IE if you expect snow you carry
a shovel, if you expect sand you carry sand ladders.  If you expect fences
you carry wire cutters, if you expect padlocks you carry bolt cutters.  I
expect fallen trees, and undergrowth and occaisional overgrowth, I always
have my chainsaw with me.  It is used when necessary.  I would never put it
in the car to go out to deliberately clear unless I had prior permission. 
But this is my view, others may disagree.  However remember to remove
nothing, and it might be polite to say to the landowner if close by that
you are having difficulty passing his tree or locked gate, is he able to
remove it or would he like you to.  But not "can I cut it down?" - you do
not want to make it permissive use! 

Be careful about BOAT modifications. There is no need to re class, it has a
lower status so try not to unless there are good reasons to do so.  Having
said that I intend  to do some here, but only on ones they propose a 116 on
to stop just vehicular rights, and are impassable now anyway.  They are not
very happy and today refused to name landowners, even though they admit
they have consulted them.  I figure it will foul up the magistrates
decision if there is a boat application underway.

Chris

PS am I mad or bad?

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

  END OF * LIST DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 7 lines 599 [forwarded 53 whitespace 142]
 Output: lines 594 [content 341  forwarded 51 (cut  2) whitespace 140]