[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 22:36:45 +0100
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Surrey
In message <970427034540_-165651641@emout10.mail.aol.com>, Tilbo@aol.com
writes
>I heard that Surrey charge for DMMO aplications from the public. True/false
>DT
I haven't heard of this. There is no statute which specifically permits
this. They can/must charge for Highways Act orders now. If by paying
someone can jump the DMMO queue i think the ombudsman might actually get
out of bed for once.
--
Alan kind
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 22:38:30 +0100
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re:
In message <199704270827.JAA12332@horza.ftech.net>, Stephen Neville
<steve@wcceh.gov.uk> writes
>UCRs
[ truncated by list-digester (was 8 lines)]
>Somewhere out there (Alan Kind maybe?) there is a list of who thinks that
>their UCRs are vehicular and those that are not.
This was a postal survey done for LARA in circa 1987. Only some replied,
but the list is extant. maybe it needs a re-survey, carefully worded?
>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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 20 lines)]
>(sometimes just a waste of dosh though)?
>Steve Neville
--
Alan kind
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 06:51:08 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Survey
Alan scribed
> This was a postal survey done for LARA in circa 1987. Only some replied,
> but the list is extant. maybe it needs a re-survey, carefully worded?
Sounds an excellent idea. That information coupled with a detailed user
survey as discussed, would give the clearest picture of the health of the
Nations green lanes.
Some possible questions might be along the lines:
QUANTITY (Total kms of) :-
1 Total RoW
2 How many RoW have proven Vehicular rights
3 How many UCRs (not included above)
AVAILABILITY
4 Do you consider UCRs in general do have Vehicular rights? (??? wording)
5 Do you keep a register of Non-Maintained public roads?
CONVENIENT TO USE
6 How many are difficult or impossible to pass for most of the year with a
2 metre wide vehicle?
7 Is this due to over use OR under use/obstructions/out of repair etc?
8 How many are substantially damaged by Agriculture, Forestry, Industrial
or similar use?
9 How many substantially damaged by leisure use?
MANAGEMENT
10 How many TROs are in force?
11 Are they achieving their stated objective?
12 What is your Policy on managing Green Lanes?
13 Do you consider leisure use IS a problem now?
14 or is LIKELY to become a problem in the near future?
15 Do you consider leisure use is perceived by residents as a problem now?
or in the near future?
16 What actions can users take to enhance the co-existence of different
users on those few RoW that have vehicular rights?
Two questions remain: who should conduct the survey LARA, or BBT or joint?
Who should receive the survey RoW or Highways or both?
Gleam could be asked for their findings. Put up or shut up :-)
This could show some very enlightening differences between counties, and
even negative or no replies tell a tale. Where no or elusive replies are
received, some RoW officers in those counties might pursue them.
Is the word "leisure" use or "recreational" use preferable?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 06:56:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Commons
In a message dated 27-4-97 22:15:35, Chris Byway writes:
>Can new all purpose routes across commons ever be proven?<
Yes, but not quite as easily as elsewhere. No, I'll re-phrase that. Even
harder than elsewhere. This is because it is illegal to use a motor vehicle
on a common (since 1930), so any user with motors since 1930 is ruled out.
This has always been the case, but Robinson v Adair has reminded everyone
recently. So, user as of right still counts, and only motors are ruled out,
meaning that you should use with horse-drawn carriage, bicycle, wheelbarrow,
handcart, etc.
This only applies to NEW routes, ie those for which there is no evidence of
existing vehicular status. If there is, you can use on the basis that what is
illegal is 'If without lawful authority ...' - thus an existing right, (or
being the landowner or having his permission) allows use not to be illegal.
Of course, use by Landowner or permission is no good for establishing rights.
Motor Sport users and organisers should always remember this and make it
absolutely clear when they really are asking permission (ie to use a footpath
or private land) and where they are informing the landowner so that he can
take steps (eg) to secure stock, and so he knows what all those bright lights
are in the wood at three in the morning.
Remember I am not qualified to say any of this; however it is in the various
books if you seek it out.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 06:56:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Survey
There has been talk of setting up databases and doing surveys ever since I
first joined the TRF in 1970. Everyone seems so worried about:
i. Compatibility problems with other schemes. This is a case of the perfect
being the enemy of the good, or more likely, the good being the enemy of
anything at all.
ii. Information falling into the 'wrong' hands eg TRF are scared of over-use
by 4x4 but have little evidence that this happens. There is lots of evidence
that lack of use creates more problems and loses us more lanes than over-use.
iii. Who should do all the work, and how any costs should be met. There are
cases where RoW officers have been severely pissed off by having no time to
use the routes they discover because of the problems caused by mates who
refer all their problems to him. I have even found that users carry my card
with them, and when challenged say 'Here is the bloke to talk to', and ride
off into the sunset. Others have become unemployed, with lots of time to do
the work, and no-one even willing to pay their phone bill or bus fares.
I think it is seriously time to set these fears behind us, get to grips with
attitudes, realise that in 20 years of worrying about it the situation has
got steadily worse, and that we need to get something, anything, going NOW.
Which LARA member can put this on the agenda for the next meeting?
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 07:14:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Survey details
Chris has suggested a raft of very relevant questions, BUT ...
The more you ask, the more the request is likely to be held up or ignored.
Councils have no reason to reply to LARA or BBT questionnaires, and will
anticipate some trap or other, so will probably decline. At the very least
they will not want to give information that makes them look worse than other
HAs, etc.
There is a need for us to contact the new UAs, and those where boundary
changes have occurred, about the arrangements in place for RoW Respondents
(per pro ACU). At the same time we could ask one or two questions, such as -
The previous authority always regarded their rural UCRs as having vehicular
rights; can you confirm that you have no intention, reason, evidence, to
change this view? But not much more than that.
It might be possible for a local volunteer to find some of the other answers
for us. They are voters and rate-payers, which gives them clout, and can go
to the offices armed with questions and wait for answers. Any that cannot be
answered on the day can be called back for. But there is still no obligation
to give most of the info - the LoS must be available, but you might have to
your own adding-up, etc. If you first of all write to the Chief Exec asking
for co-operation to allow you to help manage use, maintenance, etc with
sustainability and saving HA budgets in mind (and not planning routes with
TROs you don't know about, etc) they are likely to offer the co-operation of
their officers, and if not you can perhaps write to the ombudsman and-or the
local papers asking why not.
So, another item for the next LARA agenda. Andy, Richard, Tony, Geoff, Alan -
Is anybody there - said the traveller.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:03:31 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Survey details
Tim,
I am afraid I often type first, send, then think. But perhaps not such a
bad thing as I do then actually get it done that way, not just think that I
should. So what did I think afterwards?
There are several things that it would benefit users to get established.
Such as to have proof available to CoCo, DoE, HAs, gleam, fence ensconced
individuals etc, that:-
A - there is a high level of compliance of the rules by users
B - there is virtually no leisure damage.
C - Iresponsible recreational (?) damage is a social problem that will
persist through illegal use, (& harder to control if legal use is curtailed
in any way)
D - More lanes Lost through under use than over use (by leisure users)
E - Most HAs will (hopefully) admit when challenged *they* do not have a
problem, or can not produce the evidence.
F - if they do produce some evidence, we verify IF it was "likely" to be
leisure use, and we search for evidence in that county to show far more
lost through neglect obstructions agriculture etc.
We are now more organised(?), communicate better(?), but more threatened
than in the past. It is time we updated our information after 10 years.
If the DoE can find some encouraging stats for their reports, and as we DO
know where to look for evidence, if we have a target of where we need to
find it, I am certain we can.
I am willing to get involved with such a project, but as an individual I
would be ignored, and the results would be ignored and ridiculed more than
if carried out by respected national bodies. Proof of our claims is
paramount - gleam never publish anything to support their stories.
Ask for funding towards such a project - very modest cost, and that would
give added credibility to it. The intention is not so much to make a league
table, but to try to understand why some Counties claim (or gleam do for
them) more problems than others have. Estimations would be acceptable for
our survey IF made by the HA. If we feel it is wrong we can investigate it
on the ground. An estimated HAs reply would be better than none. They are
not going to over estimate damage it we turn round and ask them to prove
it, or we provide proof to the contrary. If they say "no damage" where does
that leave gleam? Certainly lets cut the less relevant and harder
questions.
Perhaps Andy is right, we do need a group like gleam to focus on, rather
than individuals.
I will ask CSMA to raise it for the next LARA agenda if you wish.
Chris
PS When the CLA hotline was started, didn't they expect to get more damage
reports than obstruction reports? isn't it the obverse. That seems to have
been a very good PR excercise by you!
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 12:31:16 +0100
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Commons
In message <199704271812_MC2-157B-A3DD@compuserve.com>, Chris Marsden
<Byway@compuserve.com> writes
>Fame at last. CC footpaths officer suggested a chap contact me about
[ truncated by list-digester (was 50 lines)]
>all purpose routes across commons ever be proven?
>Chris
>Ref 3059
>From ADK
Inclosures tended in remote areas to stop at the edge of many commons -
the more productive, lower, land was certainly first in line for
inclosure. Where a lane leads up to a common, with a known status from
the inclosure awards (eg public carriage road) and then the track itself
continues up and over, perhaps becoming another known-status lane at the
other side, then this is good evidence that a public road of the part-
accepted status ran right over. If not, why the "bits"? It's worth
reading Eyre v. New Forest Highway Board on this. But remember this is
all to do with pre-1930 document-based evidence. Recent motor user,
without a documentary sound basis on which to build, is dicey these
days.
--
Alan kind
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:33:07 +0100 (BST)
From: John Upham <J.E.Upham@reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Information offer
Hello,
Is there any information the motor rallying community
can provide to help with RoW legal battles etc?
I'm thinking mainly of public highway events such as
road rallies rather than stage rallies altough the
latter might be also be able to help.
For example I have the documented routes of many events
going back to 1989 using UCRs, RUPPs, BOATS and even
FPs (with section 33 RTA permission). I can probaly work
out how many cars used the RoW and when. I can probably do
it on a OS sheet by sheet basis.
John Upham
John Upham, Department of Construction Management,
University of Reading, Berks., RG6 6AW, UK.
Email: j.e.upham@reading.ac.uk,
WWW URL: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~kcsupham/
Voice: +44 1734 875123 x7179, Fax: +44 1734 313856
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: srawlings@cix.co.uk
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:36:10 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Rep: Re: Survey
"here has been talk of setting up databases and doing surveys ever since I......."
Funding is the real issue in my opinion, our hobby/interest needs more full and part time workers with a proper budget.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: srawlings@cix.co.uk
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:35:57 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Rep: Re: Survey
I would doubt if you will get many CC,s to reply. Shrops couldnt even be bothered to reply to semi-official requests when I was "active"!
Steve
lan scribed
> This was a postal survey done for LARA in circa 1987. Only some replied,
> but the list is extant. maybe it needs a re-survey, carefully worded?
Sounds an excellent idea. That information coupled with a detailed user
survey as discussed, would give the clearest picture of the health of the
Nations green lanes.
Some possible questions might be along the lines:
QUANTITY (Total kms of) :-
1 Total RoW
2 How many RoW have proven Vehicular rights
3 How many UCRs (not included above)
AVAILABILITY
4 Do you consider UCRs in general do have Vehicular rights? (??? wording)
5 Do you keep a register of Non-Maintained public roads?
CONVENIENT TO USE
6 How many are difficult or impossible to pass for most of the year with a
2 metre wide vehicle?
7 Is this due to over use OR under use/obstructions/out of repair etc?
8 How many are substantially damaged by Agriculture, Forestry, Industrial
or similar use?
9 How many substantially damaged by leisure use?
MANAGEMENT
10 How many TROs are in force?
11 Are they achieving their stated objective?
12 What is your Policy on managing Green Lanes?
13 Do you consider leisure use IS a problem now?
14 or is LIKELY to become a problem in the near future?
15 Do you consider leisure use is perceived by residents as a problem now?
or in the near future?
16 What actions can users take to enhance the co-existence of different
users on those few RoW that have vehicular rights?
Two questions remain: who should conduct the survey LARA, or BBT or joint?
Who should receive the survey RoW or Highways or both?
Gleam could be asked for their findings. Put up or shut up :-)
This could show some very enlightening differences between counties, and
even negative or no replies tell a tale. Where no or elusive replies are
received, some RoW officers in those counties might pursue them.
Is the word "leisure" use or "recreational" use preferable?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:35:04 +0100
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Sphere = Shene
In message <970426181209_-2069880013@emout04.mail.aol.com>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>I am sorry, whoever said we have, but we have not got
><< evidence from the DoE that UCRs are indisputably posses vehicular right.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 11 lines)]
>iii. that in most cases UCRs were vehicular.
>Cheers, tim
Hi Tim
I hear what you say and everyone should treat this letter with care, it
is usefull but not difinative, it is the opinion of the DoE department
and should not be quoted as law!!!! use it with care!!!!! do you agree?
bye for now
Brian Lewis
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 21:17:00 +0100
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Burns replies ......
In message <970426073209_1389357234@emout18.mail.aol.com>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 25-4-97 16:20:08, you write:
>> We are losing our Yorkshire UCR's wholesale.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 26 lines)]
>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
Tim
is it 42 days since the order was advertised It was when I went to that
meeting at the YDNP, by the way have you get a copy of the minutes for
that meeting?
What is a UCR? the term went defunkt at least thats what Burns says,
but I think I can use, OR ITS EQUIVALENT, ie a way recorded on the LIST
OF HIGHWAYS MAINTAINED AT PUBLIC COST AND ON WHICH VEHICULAR RIGHTS HAVE
BEEN CONFIRMED!!!!!
You will see what I am on about when I send you a copy of a letter I am
getting..
The next road to come up in Yorkshire Dales Park area ic CAM HIGH ROAD
it is the end that comes through the ford and joins the ribblehead road
near the Dent turnoff, Bev Parker Hass been off ILL and only came back
in last Friday, just as I was ringing to find out if I was to late to
object to this calssification, and see was not aware of the DoE letter.
I am not shour what to do because this section is an RT and my objection
might fail and spoil it for later, what do you think?
Oh! the posters will be put up in about two months time and she said I
had 42 days to put in my objection. The reason it would take so long was
due to her work load. ARRRRR.
You have not come back about the UCR ( sorry unclassified Road on the
list of streets with vehicular rights!!!) going through a permisive
access area. you owe this on to Fiona Charmers and Bev Parker who say
any evidence of vehicular use since 1995 when the access order was
signed would not count at an inquiry. (hows that for somthing new.)
So a word of advice check what access orders are being but in place,
they do not appear on any maps becuase they are for 10 years only, and
they can be revoked at any time, and booom goes you UCR, thats what they
think!!!!!
--
Brian
------------------------------
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:20:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Survey details
This survey/ PR thing is ok but there is one pressure group we continue to
ignore and that is the Parish Council. My comments are heard by County
Members but if I dare make the same comment to, for example, the Assn. of PCs
I am shouted down - "My members ... damage.. hooligans.." OK we know Parish
Councilors are not always on the ball -
"... could you give me more information: for example what is the Definitive
Map.." (Tichborne PC)
"I didn't know this path existed" (Monxton Parish C on a lane clearance day)
"Are you sure this is my area" (ex leader of HCC and PClr)
But they are the ones that object to RUPP reclass and speak up at PI.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:21:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Survey
In a message dated 28/04/97 10:57:50, you write:
<< and that we need to get something, anything, going NOW >>
Well here is a guy that has no work planned for the rest of his life (except
a PA job on May 8) with a PC with the software and the time. Wire the info
to me and I'll do it. Unless I get a job.
It is interesting to note that in Hants there are two new UAs - Portsmouth
and Southampton. This is a reversion to the SQ some 20 (?) years ago.
Unfortunately the Definitive map is virtually blank for those two cities and
I'm not yet sure who will have responsibility UA or HCC.
What happened to the calender idea? I am awaiting a price from the printers,
should be able to do all the art work (full frontal or just .....) .
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:23:41 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Rep: Re: Survey
> I would doubt if you will get many CC,s to reply. Shrops couldnt even be
bothered to reply to semi-official requests when I was "active"!
> I would doubt if you will get many CC,s to reply. Shrops couldnt even be
May not, but if it is simple enough, possibly followed with a recorded
(fax) letter, then if you still get no reply they will be in the category
of CC's "Who have not reported any problems" Or say to them "a nil return
will be taken to assume no problems"
Perhaps a 2 part questionaire, the dead easy 'get it out of the way
quick', and those that want to show how good they are to answer the more
helpful questions.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Geoff Smith <RoW@discosys.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:50:34 GMT
who RoW
------------------------------
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:14:49 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Commons & Rebecca
Dave
> but is it excluded from the hereditements?
What the f this mean?
> << Rebecca'd >> What the f this mean?
The unpopularity of the toll roads in South Wales led to an uprising called
the Rebecca Riots named after a verse in Genesis. Riots took place during
the 1840s including this incident at Glasbury gate in 1843, described by
H.T. Evans: 'The posts were sawn off about half a yard above the ground,
and the gate, after being sawn in two and otherwise mutilated, was thrown
into the River Wye. The old woman who collected the tolls saw only three
men employed, and they told her to keep quiet, as they would not injure
her. About fifty persons were secreted near the place, to be of assistance
if necessary.' Men disguised as women caused such havoc by continually
destroying gates and toll houses, resulting in at least one murder when 'A
woman pikekeeper who was rash enough to declare that she recognised the
assailants of her gate, was deliberately shot dead'. The government was
forced into holding an Inquiry in 1844 which formed the South Wales Trusts
into County Roads Boards.
Thank you Heather Hurley, The Old Roads of South Herefordshire.
Hence an ex 5Ft gate, as featured in GLASS newsletter Dec 96 p22 - 23, now
has the epithaph "Rebecca Rides Again, March 1997" written along the
top of it. Still sporting a dashing shade of red, Powys, BOAT sign on
it.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 18 lines 848 [forwarded 136 whitespace 184]
Output: lines 668 [content 474 forwarded 41 (cut 95) whitespace 156]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970429 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]