[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Subject: RoW Training Days
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:00:29 +0100
About 4 years ago the TRF ran a training day at the BR Training Centre in
Rugby. We had various speakers and a mock public inquiry with a real live
;-> (yes really) Inspector from the PI. We had a lovely time being
reactionary ramblers, nimby parish councillors and the GLEAM type who lives
at the end of what he thought was his private driveway. It was mostly aimed
at the TRF but there were also AWDC, BHS as well.
I have some of the papers about it in the TRF archive. It would be a good
idea to organise another one. It's a lot of effort; venues to organise with
catering and accomodation, letters to write, fees to collect, speakers to
find; documents to copy; conference papers etc. etc. Any volunteers?
Steve Neville
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Subject: TRF Web site RoW
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:10:55 +0100
Just for info I have put up a page on RoW matters on our web site
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/trf/rownews.htm
Steve Neville
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 05:35:11 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Shere
I have received the decision letter this morning.
The evidence really is far short of convincing that a mistake was made.
The matter of it still being a UCR is not addressed and so I presume until
that time it is still a UCR.
I would assume a 116 application will now be made if it has not already,
but it is not available to correct a mistake, just if "necessary".
Possible negotiations with the estate/CC to suggest V R to restrict use to
a level/times and speed the estate and users could accept, as it is not a
certainty that a 116 will be successful given the use shown, despite the
illegal obstructions to it both as a bridleway and whilst it was (still is
until the order takes effect) a BOAT.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 05:35:17 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Sphere
> Hi Chaps,
> Dale says that the Sphere 513 or whatever went to bridleway
status.
> That seems to be invalid because it seems that it is also a UCR.
> We have evidence from the DoE that UCRs are indisputably posses vehicular
[ truncated by list-digester (was 8 lines)]
> Therefore the Sphere exercise was a blatant waste of public funds. We can
> instigate charges of misplaced pylantropy (Richard McD what is your
advice
> and recommendation)
> The council cannot obstruct the vehicular route. It cannot justify
[ truncated by list-digester (was 9 lines)]
> what do you think).
> I propose we tell the county that the route remains a UCR and therefore
it
> is a road for vehicles. Any attempt to obstruct the road in support of
the
> bridleway status will be met by accusation of illegally obstructing a
road.
> We can also tell them that any attempt to prosecute drivers will be
> resisted because they will not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
> Once we have the figure we can set about the surcharges.
> Maybe we should involve the ombudsman also.
Andy, Dale
Shere 513 - you need to read decision letter carefuly first.
If they found that the UCR was put on the map incorrectly, then it may no
longer be a UCR? Have they prooved a mistake was actually made, not
probably?
If it genuinly was a mistake and never dedicated as a full road then it
should be left a bridleway.
If the BOAT has gone to BD status, then what do they propose about the UCR,
that still remains? They may now go for a 116?
That should be contested *if it is used*, or there is an alternative route.
Remember a 116 *must not* be used for the landowners benefit (as I think
you said to me!) BB p155 line1
An illegal barrier in no excuse for causing lack of use. If it is barrier'd
and is not being used, it is not necessary, and can be 116d. (As at
Bridgenorth last Dec.) So folks make sure it *is* used.
Yes try to go for misuse of public funds etc. if you can.
Remember the RoW dept were quietly in favour of the BOAT status, it is
probably the councillors and the estate that you are fighting.
Chris
PS if anyone wants some more background info on Shere, I can forward the
letter I sent to the Inspector.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 07:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Nat Lottery funding - what for?
Chris asks what we could usefully claim for.
One thing would be to equip enough people to run the survey and record the
results coherently. This might involve computers or at least programs and
training to use them - especially a GIS system to record what was surveyed,
and simplify future research, etc. The ability to print out results in map
form would be valuable, not only to us who want to know what is where, but to
validate the process, showing that there is a real benefit and it is
available to the public.
A national data-base of recreational routes not shown on the DM or not shown
at the proper status, would surely be worth support from SpoCo & CoCo?
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 07:32:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Obstructions - police letter
This letter raises two points:
1. I have always regarded the 'Falling down of banks or any other cause' as
presenting us with a problem -
The law says (if I remember correctly) that when there is in an Act of
Parliament a list of things follwed by 'or anything else' what that means is
restricted to the things that the list has in common. For instance, if it
says cow, horse, sheep, or any other animal, it would not extend to mice. But
I have not looked it up again, mainly because I am not sure where to look it
up. I thought the rule was called 'sui generis' but apparently not, so can
anyone remind me?
So, if I am right, anything natural that fell into the road might be covered,
but not things put there deliberately. The police seem to think differently,
and they are more likely to be right than me. If so, hurrah, cos we need it,
and ought to try one of these cases.
2. The police may have a point, in that
i. they always have a discretion as to which cases they pursue or not, and
one factor might be the chances of getting a successful prosecution (ie
proving exactly who put what where when).
ii. Even if they did act, they might get a conviction, but that would not
achieve what you seek (apart from the inner glow from having nailed the sod),
ie the clearance of the obstruction.
I told the IPRoW conference yesterday that obstruction seemed to be moving up
our agenda. We had discussed Heseltine's glib comments to the CLA conference
that 75% of the network was open and that was pretty good. When the
announcement was made that the M6 M5 and M1 were closed, I was able to say
that they would be pleased to know that there was still at least 75% of the
main roads open...
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 07:32:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Burns replies ......
In a message dated 25-4-97 16:20:08, you write:
> We are losing our Yorkshire UCR's wholesale.
>Apart from writing some angry letters, what can we do about
>it ?
Are you sure that you really are 'losing' them?
Please investigate this in relation to the newly recoded BOATs that you
mention. Are they still on the List of Streets? (Ask at County Hall or the
District Office to see the LoS, as you have a right to do in HA80 s36(7).
They have no right to remove a road following its recording as a BOAT, but it
may be that they have, and we need to challenge this.
Certainly they have removed from the UCR list some of those routes which were
recorded as Bridleway. As a clear example, Arncliffe Cote is UCR, bridleway,
UCR, bridleway, UCR, as it passes in and out of Bordley Parish twice. Bordley
claimed bridleway, the others did not, and for sure the middle bit is
difficult to explian in any other way than originally it was all UCR, and
tippex rules OK.
If they have removed such routes (and we know that the routes were on, with
evidence of this, eg as given to the Public Inquiry or mentioned in the YDNP
evidence), then perhaps Judicial Review is what we need. But I am not sure if
there is a time limit for this. So it will also be useful to check the
situation for the next lane to come under the hammer, too.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 07:32:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Burns replies (etc)
In a message dated 25-4-97 23:48:51, Chris writes:
>PS am I mad or bad?
Neither madness nor badness seemed to be a failing which held back many of
history's heroes. Most of them were one or both.
Of course, you may not wish to be a hero, but we are all guided by the
examples put before us at school, aren't we?
Wicked womanising Nelson got a statue on a column as well as Mrs H, but what
did he do? He turned a blind eye to the rules...
Go to it
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 08:19:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Ooooh my ****in' head
Hi
I've spent a frustrating hour (or so) uploading the Hants lanes stuff. It
can currently be found at:
http://members.aol.com/Tilbo/HomePage.htm
Unfortunately some of the links are not working and some piccys don't show
although they did on my machine - I'll work on that after lunch (probably
down to my dyslexia).
Have a look and comment / help please.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:19:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: RoW Training Days
Yes, I remember, and everyone seemed to enjoy it.
As organiser of the event, I am obviously biassed, but I have been thinking
of suggesting such a scheme for next years LARA Conference.
This year we had a conference that was three seminar-workshops, on planning
for motorsport, so it could be argued that we should do a similar thing
again, same format but different topic, and its the turn of RoW.
The message might not fall on such deaf ears (not that it will but it might)
if all the relevant organisations in LARA were lobbying for it. So, all you
members, get onto Richard Marshall, Andy Bush, Tony Kempster, etc as
appropriate.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 13:02:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Obstructions - further info
I have now had a moment to think further about this use of HA80s150(2) to
enforce removal of obstruction.
The rule I was groping for is in fact called EIUSDEM GENERIS, (latin should
always be in capital letters, cos the romans only had them. Pedantic sod.).
Lawyers use ejusdem generis as well, and I think it is pronounced ayusdem
generis (with a latin soft i rather than J as in Jam, but not with a proper
latin hard g as in gun but soft as in general).
And lo and behold it covers exactly the case here:
Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary: The rule that where particular words are
followed by general words, the general words are limited to the same kind as
the particular words.
But would this stop a magistrate from doing the business? (I won't tell him
if you don't).
I suspect not, particularly as there is now a letter from the police saying
what you should do. We know how much the magistrates are inclined to listen
to the police.
The business of costs is a conundrum, always. As far as I am aware, the rules
say that anyone who takes someone else to court generally has to bear the
risk of paying costs if he loses. In this case there are two factors which
are helpful:
i. the facts of the matter are that Roman Road Hereford is a highway, the
highway is obstructed, and that is an offence. None of your correspondence
with the police or the county has thrown any doubt on any of these facts.
Proceeding on that basis is not unreasonable.
ii. there is (if I remember correctly) a presumption that someone taking an
action on behalf of the public, in which he has no special interest, should
not be penalised for it unless he has acted unreasonably. (Or if there is no
such presumption, it would not be out of order to argue this way to the court
in mitigation.)
Before proceeding I recommend that you read all of section 150, and note the
ifs and buts allowed for in (3). Then consider writing to the HA, attention
Chief Executive, copy to County Surveyor, consulting them for their views on
your proposal to refer this matter to the magistrates. Ask in particular if
they feel that the case would not succeed to give his reasons (is it not a
highway, not obstructed, etc). Then ask what is the policy of the authority
in cases such as this, regarding costs. It might even be possible to get some
sort of agreement that neither side will ask for costs, if you think that is
a reasonable gambit. (But such deals are sometimes outlawed by the courts, so
we need proper advice on this, too). Your costs might not be high if you were
prepared to put your own case or get some twerp from LARA to help you out. A
solicitor is not vital before magistrates.
Anyone else out there with any thoughts on this? It really would be useful to
have some muscle regarding obstructions. Anyone want to offer to underwrite
some or all of any costs that might accrue?
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 18:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Sphere = Shene
I am sorry, whoever said we have, but we have not got
<< evidence from the DoE that UCRs are indisputably posses vehicular right.
What the DoE said was
i. advice only, as only the courts can give a 'definitive' answer on legal
matters,
ii. stated to be that, so there can be no doubt,
iii. that in most cases UCRs were vehicular.
There are clear reasons why UCRs might not be roads in the modern vehicular
sense. These follow from the Act that set up the List of Streets, and the
records from which it was compiled. In urban areas the list was concerned
with where the water pipes and sewers were, as much as what rights might
exist, and not all mains run under vehicular roads. Then there is the casual
way it has been treated over the years, with little if any checks on what
went on or came off. So it is not surprising that mistakes could have been
made, too.
Of course, it is quite proper that rights for everyone, on which the commerce
and recreation of the nation depends, should be less well recorded than
rights for a limited number on which the bobble hat industry relies.
And it is quite proper for an Inspector faced with a difficult decision to
ask himself - < Which side is likely to appeal if I go against them? How do I
know, well let me think... Did one side have a QC and the other not? Was one
sided funded by a millionaire and the other by a mere user-group? >
Please, everyone, do not let your enthusiasm run away with you. It is too
easy to read into a statement what you want it to say, add a bit for luck,
and get going on the wrong foot completely. Then when you find out that you
are working on ill-founded assumptions, it is easy to blame the source of the
information, etc, for your own failings, and fall out with those who might be
able to help. Or, worse, if you do not find out that you are skating on
non-existant ice, the opposition will glory in proving you wrong, in as
public a way as possible. Silly quotes in Gleam's rag do us no favours at
all. And I know, mea culpa, too. Too often.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 02:52:20 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Obstructions - police letter
Tim wrote:
> 1. I have always regarded the 'Falling down of banks or any other cause'
as
> presenting us with a problem -
> The law says (if I remember correctly) that when there is in an Act of
> Parliament a list of things follwed by 'or anything else' what that means
is
> restricted to the things that the list has in common. For instance, if it
> says cow, horse, sheep, or any other animal, it would not extend to mice.
But
> I have not looked it up again, mainly because I am not sure where to look
it
> up. I thought the rule was called 'sui generis' but apparently not, so
can
> anyone remind me?
The Act quotes "accumulation of snow or ... of banks, or anything else".
They are not similar, they are so diverse I would expect "anything else"
would give a clue that it would cover a wider category of events? But yes
they are both natural.
I have just rung Peter Newman, as he is well versed with obstructions,
Worcester CC and the High Court. His view is that man-made obstructions are
down to the landowner, and it is up to the CC to ensure it is removed. If
it is not removed, he feels S150 is not applicable, and it would entail an
application to the High Court. He suggested the ombudsman might be able to
help.
I pointed out ombudsman could not get involved when there was a legal
redress. He said that is so for magistartes court, but probably not so for
High Court as that would proclude effective access for the ordinary person
on such a matter.
SolicitorCounty has today acknowleged the letter (Geoff dictated) asking
him "to write to L/Owner saying it IS a UCR, and how should I go about
removing an obstruction?"
You wrote in Feb to H&W. Did you get a meaningful and well intentioned
reply? :-)
"Hereford & Worcester CC
Divisional Engineers Office, Bath Street Hereford
By Fax 01432 352627
8.2.97
Dear Sirs
Unclassified Road 73019 - Roman Road, Hereford
I understand that there is a locked gate across this public highway, and
that
bollards have been erected across it. I believe that both these are
obstructions of the highway, and are accordingly contary to law. Can you
please state whether or not this is the case?
Should either be authorised by any enactment after the proper procedure has
been followed by the highway authority, please indicate where I can see
documentary evidence of these facts.
Can you advise who erected the gate, and who holds keys for it?
Can you please advise who erected the bollards?
Should a bona-fide user abate these nuisances, to whom should any materials
be returned?
Finally, can you please tell me when these obstructions will be removed
otherwise, and what action will be taken against any wrongdoers by the
highway authority?
Thank you for your attention to this problem.
Yours faithfully
[Sent today, Tim] "
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 02:52:21 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Burns replies (etc)
>He turned a blind eye to the rules...
Rules is for poor law abiding charge paying horsless carriage users to
obey.
Rules is for the Highways Authorities to bend, and if they dont bend,
break.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 14 lines 612 [forwarded 51 whitespace 128]
Output: lines 539 [content 329 forwarded 33 (cut 18) whitespace 115]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970427 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]