[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 03:45:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Obstructions - police letter
Tim
In a message dated 26/04/97 17:50:34, you write:
says cow, horse, sheep, or any other animal, it would not extend to mice >>
This is about how a judge can interpret the law:
I think you are right in that the above comes under Eiusdem generis however
this rule gives way to the mischief rule so that the intentions of Parliament
can be followed.
As to rights of way I think it fair to say that it has been the intention of
Parilament - from the time of the Norman invasion - to protect the public's
rights of passage so you can bin your Noscitur a sociis and Expressio unitus
est exclusio alterius.
You could always ask plod what action they would take if you gated the B????
then ask what the difference is between the B???? and the U???
And then leave your car at home for the next two years cause the buggers will
be waiting at the end of the road for you when ever you come home.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 03:45:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Surrey
Hi
I heard that Surrey charge for DMMO aplications from the public. True/false
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Survey
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 10:04:39 +0100
The TRF already has a system of map controllers and a number marking
system. I am buiolding a database of who runs which map for the TRF. The
catch for all you four wheel boys is that some are not suitable for 4WD
(aargh! the "S" word) by virtue of width, surface condition, gradient etc.
What it would need is an extra field for 4WD comments.
Andy Bush has a huge pile of user evidence forms which he has been
inputting into a database? I think ....?
Steve Neville
----------
> From: Glenn M. Jones <Glenn@andromeda-park.demon.co.uk>
> To: row@playground.sun.com
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
> >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
> >It will show what needs to be done to bring routes into a usable state.
accept
> our findings.
> Count me in (depending on the date).
[ truncated by list-digester (was 7 lines)]
> Count me in (depending on the date).
> Glenn
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:56:06 +0100
UCRs
Two thoughts on UCRs. In Kent we only have a few "green lane" UCRs but as
far as I've been told by KCC officers they think that they ARE vehicular.
Somewhere out there (Alan Kind maybe?) there is a list of who thinks that
their UCRs are vehicular and those that are not.
A piece of inverse logic is needed here. It might be worth asking if there
are any tarred UCRs that NYCC think are not vehicular. If they think some
UCRs are only FP then they had better go and check that ALL their tarred
minor roads really ARE carriageways.
We have short memories but I guess that even 50 years ago people in
Yorkshire would have though it insane to suggest that the only roads that
were vehicular were the ones with tarmac. Look in any museum and you'll see
that the cars and motorcycles of yesteryear had high ground clearance. This
was not because they could not build low cars, as much as the state of the
roads in those days. Look at the clothing the average motorist of
yesteryear wore for protection against dust and the elements.
The crux of the matter is what is the default status of a UCR; a footpath
that may have higher rights or a carriageway that may not have carriage
rights? Where is the burden of proof needed? Do we need to get legal advice
(sometimes just a waste of dosh though)?
Steve Neville
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 05:54:43 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Obstructions - further info
> Subject: Re: Obstructions - further info
> Pedantic sod.
Ooops, sorry highlighted wrong bit.
> The rule I was groping for is in fact called EIUSDEM GENERIS,
Eyeee Lad an' I eiusedem too - before they were obstructed with a
generis helping of manure!
> And lo and behold ............
> 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.
My own cost without representation are low, so thats not the problem.
The Blue book warns of starting action in a magistrates court, where there
would normally be no costs (i.e. for reasonable behaviuor - the reason
Bucks told me they Bucked down from the 116s as they feared costs against
them with 70 objectors) which could lead to an appeal and thence both high
and low court costs by the initiator.
Is "laying a complaint" the same? A question that should be answerable if
not here, via CAB or CC legal dept.
It is 150(3a) that concerns me most. I am the only one that has used it,
once I had three others including Geoff, in the car with me. They may
decline to make any order - a TRO without signs effectively.
More user or attempted user is perhaps a prerequisite before any further
action?
Very interesting comments, thanks. I will get a letter off to H&W CC
leagal beagles, after reading any other advice on the list.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 05:54:49 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: CS: car ban]
This is a posting to the LRO-UK by Neil Fagan, sorry for duplication for
those also on that list,
Chris
:-
> Hi all, this comes from another, moderated, list I belong to, it is
reproduced
> here in the relavent part's only, for those that also subscribe to CS
sorry
> for the duplication of information.
> > Another couple of titbits; there is apparently a Home Office plan afoot
to
> > restrict motor vehicles in future, perhaps to one per family. A classic
> > cars collector of NAME DELETED acquaintance has taken the rumour that a
> > forthcoming change to the law would take old cars off the road
seriously
> > enough to be liquidating his collection. There are few really old cars
> > around and the law was changed in the 1960s to exempt them from the MOT
> > standard so that they could be used on the roads such as in the
Brighton
> > rally. A ban on the oldest ones first woudl attract little noise, then
> > they could take bigger bites out of the motoring sector as ti suits
them.
> > Four star petrol sales end this year, and that would squeeze some cars
off
> > the road as well.
> Moderators comments.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 21 lines)]
> > environment.
> > There will definitely be a crackdown on kit cars - don't doubt it.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 11:09:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Surrey charging for DMMOs
An authority is encouraged to charge for diversions and closures in the
landowners interest, at least - perhaps others too.
But I would have thought it would be difficult to claim it was fair to charge
Joe Public for a claim to add, or change status, or divert in the public
interest. But it would not surprise me if they could.
Perhaps you have heard from that rara avis, a disgruntled subsidy-farmer.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 11:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Obstructions - jokette
The moral of this story is;
Eiusdem generis-ly or liusdem unfairly
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 18:12:54 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Commons
Fame at last. CC footpaths officer suggested a chap contact me about
establishing if a lane was private or not, that a rogue farmer had fenced
into his land.
I visited him today. The road is one of about eight that went up to the
common.
They all stop at the un-enclosed area.
Some are UCRs. this one is not, but was on the 1910 Finance Act map.
It was not shown on the estate plans either side when sold 1912 & 1919.
Has its own lot no.
No braces linking to or across the route.
Spot heights along it (irrelelevent or not?)
A bench mark just after where it leaves the end of the lane and goes onto
the common.
1903 OS has an unfenced track going from end of the lane, over Offas Dyke
linking up to some of the roads on the other side.
A track joining this is marked "BR" for bridle road, but not this.
Not checked the Inclosure award yet, but it is not shown as far as I can
know.
Not checked other old maps yet.
Current L/R indicates nothing, 1950 OS 1" shows it as double hedged to
common.
1832 1" os shows a feint track continuing over common. Part of this
continuation route of this is now a F/P
Quite deep sunken overgrown lane. Tree rootes dramatically run either side
of old trees along the line of the lane, but not at all into the lane,
suggesting cutting or use kept these trimmed back, more so than any
reasonable person could imagine just horse or footpath use could cause.
Rough fenced at the end. Rebecca'd on strength of 1910 and estate plans.
What should I advise him to do?
F/P or Bridleway claim as more chance of local support & less opposition?
Or BOAT application so he can negotiate down and end up with FP or BD?
or stick with BOAT application in giving greater protection to full width
etc?
But what really interests me is how did some commons end up having roads
over them, and other end up with UCR dead ends going to them and stopping?
Isn't it most probable that these double hedged lanes went up and
travellers would head across common to the appropriate down road? Can new
all purpose routes across commons ever be proven?
Chris
Ref 3059
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 18:13:02 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Surrey
> I heard that Surrey charge for DMMO aplications from the public.
True/false
> I heard that Surrey charge for DMMO aplications from the public.
's funny you should mention that I was reading BB136 5.2.11 this morning in
the 80/s150 matter. that mentions costs. But for an adding a BOAT I would
think not. Ask them, and under what section? A path diversion or a 117,
yes it is normal / mandatory.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 18:12:59 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Survey
> I am building a database of who runs which map for the TRF. The
> catch for all you four wheel boys is that some are not suitable for 4WD
> (aargh! the "S" word) by virtue of width, surface condition, gradient
etc.
> What it would need is an extra field for 4WD comments.
> catch for all you four wheel boys is that some are not suitable for 4WD
> (aargh! the "S" word) by virtue of width, surface condition, gradient
Fair enough, what is too narrow is. It is what makes life interesting. I do
object to 5ft gates on UCRs and BOATs though.
My data base does record any serious limitations.
The starting point for any large survey is where are we now, who has what
area mapped already, a sort of database of data bases. I have 85% of this
county, and bits of others. There is no need to duplicate.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 18:12:50 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Burns replies ......
Tim wrote:
> 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.
Surely once a highway always... etc?
So where does the time limit come from?
We are proposing to get back many in Radnorshire from Jeremy Atkinsons's
work on early LoS, and supported by what Brian & I found on early mileage
claims and Incl awards.
Also one or two fallen off H&W LoS over the years. Hope there is no Jud
Rev or time limit?
If it was never UCR in some parishes, is it usable without challenge or
obstruction? Is so, my reaction would be to leave well alone, if not as I
guess it isnt, wouldnt the proper course be to put in a BOAT application?
Could it be that it was only ever a bridleway, and one parish incorrectly
claimed it for road grant?, or didnt parishes ever get that?
Isnt judicial review always expensive?
How are thay actually being "lost"? I thought the only way to lose a UCR
from the LoS was by 116? How will they get rid of the Shere UCR?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 12 lines 501 [forwarded 86 whitespace 126]
Output: lines 438 [content 226 forwarded 57 (cut 29) whitespace 108]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970428 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]