[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 05:28:57 -0400
From: Don Scott <Donald_Scott@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: BOAT in Windlesham, Bagshot under threat
Richard,
Found 1 entry in database for this lane ( so far ! )
Ref 141107
Driven on 30 Dec 1992 by Dale Wyatt ( 1 vehicle) Fron SU907367 to SU894349
Nice dry frosty day
Surface hardcore and packed clay / chalk No ruts observed
Comments included Adequate width , Difficult lane, 2 vehicles recommended,
Attractive lane. with Place of Interest
Did not meet any other users
Hope this of use to you
Don
P.S. Dale did you keep a copy of the form before sending it in ?
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 06:35:01 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: ratione tenurae
Brian,
I would be interested in these. Are they in addition to those on the LoS?
I guess these do not have to be shown, as they are not publicly
maintainable. We do not have any - well not so far as any CCs round here
will admit to.
I wonder where they originated from?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 12:52:06 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: Bagshot, Downgrading
Hi All
I spoke to Surrey County Hall's ROW Dept today and they don't know
anything about this. They think it may still be at a very early stage at
the Districk Council which is Surrey Heath 01276 686252 EXT. 456 John
Curtis.
Mr Curtis was at lunch when I rang, he should be calling me back this
afternoon. I forward on his comments latter.
Cheers John
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 09:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: ratione tenurae
Yes, your description is right. There is no reason why they Landowner should
necessarily get a rate rebate, but poor chaps, we need to support them in
whatever way we can. They do so much to look after the countryside, even to
the extent of using up dead sheep by feeding them to cows. And how kind of
them to block old roads to stop problems from people using them.
Ratione = by reason of; tenurae = land-holding. There are roads in Inclosure
Awards that are to be maintained by the chap who got the benefit of a new
field or two, just as they had to look after hedges, walls, etc.
There are also Ratione Clausurae (= by reason of enclosure) roads, which
became the owner's liability because he fenced off a road which was open,
thus restricting traffic to a narrower line and increasing wear (and removing
the ability to 'spread the load'). In this case there certainly would not be
any justification in reducing rates in consequence.
Note that this enclosure is an owner putting a fence on his own land, which
anyone can do without problems except when it restricts highway users, and
the 'official' or Parliamentary Inclosure, which was a way of turning common
fields and/or 'waste' into individually owned fields (and doing the poor out
of much of their sustenance, but since when has the law of England been
concerned with the poor? - except of course when there is a war on, and they
make useful cannon-fodder).
Hope this helps
Cheers, tim
PS these comments are sponsored by the Cynicism Council, or CyCo for short.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 16:27:18 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: Bagshot Downgrading
Hi All
John Curtis from Surrey Heath called me back he confirms that Windlesham
Parish Council have applied to them to downgrade and the matter is due
to go before the committee sometime in September.
Mr Curtis also explained that the BOAT is only 25om long and then
becomes Bridleway.
Can someone in the area check to see if Vicarage Lane appears on the
list of Streets as thier is a chance that it may have dual status.
Mr Curtis has said he will ask the Chief Enginner to contact me as he is
the person that is tasked with handleing this matter.
Cheers John
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 16:46:58 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: Hixbury Lane TRO
Hi All
Jullian Thornton the ROW Officer from St.Albans District Council rang me
this afternoon with good news, The Chief Excutive Mr Hackford is
proposing to the members that the TRO application is droped due to the
objections they have recived from us.
They are proposing to apply for a modification order to change the
statement that accopanys the DM to show 2 'UNLOCKED GATES'. They assure
me that the gates will be left unlocked and in such a condition that if
any one chains them or as has happened once already welds them closed,
we will be able to lift the gate clear of the hinge posts.
My thanks to those who wrote to St.Albans the pen IS still a mighty
weapon.
Cheers John
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 19:12:03 +0100
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: ratione tenurae
In message <970507093559_1007472798@emout10.mail.aol.com>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>Yes, your description is right. There is no reason why they Landowner should
>necessarily get a rate rebate, but poor chaps, we need to support them in
[ truncated by list-digester (was 26 lines)]
>Cheers, tim
>PS these comments are sponsored by the Cynicism Council, or CyCo for short.
Hi Tim
Thanks for the info, would you think that all RT roads a vehicular then?
Brian
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:30:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: On behalf of Dave Vatcher
Hi gang
Dave V - the Dorset TRF RoW chap has a problem that he was prepared to share
with me.
There is a ford on a UCR that has enjoyed a little improvement - as far as
the Nat River Authority are concerned - and this has left the water too deep
to cross. DV has aproached the County and (reading between the lines) been
told to $iss off. How does one get the authority to assert and protect in
such unusual circumstances?
Come to think of it there is a potential byway in Hampshire that runs
diagonally across the upper reaches of the Itchen...... Yer an' pigs al fly.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:32:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: BOAT in Windlesham, Bagshot under threat
In a message dated 06/05/97 10:34:55, you write:
<< Do people from this group try and stop this kind of downgrading? >>
Yes.
Mr Paul Fishwick RoW Officer: 01276-686252 ex 461
There has been no application to stop up but the Parish have asked that the
possibility be looked at. PF has at this time not done so and so cannot
predict the Officers recomendation to Committee. MR = SU900635. Well that
is what I was told. The BOAT is a dead end but there is apossibility of
slumbering rights on the continuation. Over to you Mr Stater.
Is the evidence there for a through route - if so claim it and confound any
application.
DT
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 19:28:57 +0100
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: ratione tenurae
In message <199705070638_MC2-1614-BD6A@compuserve.com>, Chris Marsden
<Byway@compuserve.com> writes
>Brian,
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
>I wonder where they originated from?
>Chris
Hi Chris
You have probably seen Tims Email.
They are in the same book as the list of streets only because it is in
the land charge office, in the NYCC head office in Northallerton.
They have a set of maps marked up with all the roads for which they are
resposible(and charge 10 pounds to look at it HI), if an RT road falls
into disrepair, then the council can maintain it and charge the
landowner, this is what led be to beleave that all roads on these maps
were vehicular, as they are used by the highway deprtment. All
footpaths, bridleways and rupps are kept in a separate book and on
separate maps, but still part of the LOS, and held in the rights of way
office.
The council have got a bit twitchy with me now, because I found out that
the Yorkshire Dales National Park are working their way through the
green lanes in a survey they did in 1988, and in my last letter I listed
all the UCRs as vehicular and listed all the other ways as none
vehicular, so removing the general comments and getting down to spacific
'Unclassified Roads'. I then copied this to the DoE which will give
advanced warning when they want to reclassify a UCR. I have not had any
reply yet!
Hope this is of some help,
Brian
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 7 May 97 23:53 BST-1
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: Bagshot lane
John O'Reilly wrote...
<<< They think it may still be at a very early stage at
the Districk Council which is Surrey Heath 01276 686252 EXT. 456 John
Curtis. >>>>
I have dealt with Mr. Curtis in the past over pavement issues and found
him to be a very reasonable man.
:-) Mick Dyer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 19:09:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: ratione tenurae vehicular?
There is nothing to say that they necessarily are, but in this they are like
roads. There is very little reference in Inclosures etc to the maintenance of
bridleways, except those which are also private roads (when you would expect
that the 'private' use with vehicles would be more inclined to need
maintenance than any horse use (around 1800)). So, just as no roads are
vehicular in N Yorks unless you can prove it, RT roads ditto.
Interesting that no-one has tried to put any of the RT roads on the DM as
bridleways or footpaths (unless you know different)... You would have thought
that as all bridleways and footpaths on the DM are publicly maintainable, a
landowner would have been keen to get his RT routes on to save himself the
trouble. As they have not done this, I wonder what conclusion we can draw.
And as such RT roads are kept in the same record (in NY) as the UCRs, I
wonder what effect that might have on any claim that they are all merely
footpaths unless you can produce a signature from Telford or Macadam that
they were vehicular all along.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 12 lines 445 [forwarded 38 whitespace 98]
Output: lines 361 [content 211 forwarded 10 (cut 28) whitespace 93]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970508 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]