[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 05:34:29 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: New ford on Wye
An interesting result of the research for downgrading roads in Hereford has
shown much information as to the existence of connected routes, higher
status of bridleways etc.
An interesting proposed road to be 116'd was dropped when they discovered
it would have caused access problems for an old cottage. Their research
was not distributed for this route. I saw this in the file at the HA
yesterday, complete with a line drawing of a cart crossing the Wye at
Byford, in 1849. The Estate plans and Inclosure award confirms that the
road in fact went to the river on both sides, and the course of the road
into the ford, along the centre line of the river, and then out the other
side is clearly shown as well as the ferry. This is almost certainly the
last ford across the Wye, at quite a wide spot, and thus may be restorable
as a through route.
NGR SO 400 425. Anyone interested in exploring this, please give me a
call.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 07:20:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: For info
Hi
RUPP RECLASSIFICATION
The Inspectorate have come up with another classic at Weston Patrick
(Hampshire) The inspector modified the Order as made to bridleway in all
four cases and even modified the route on one (or was that two)
Despite the routes being shown on commercial maps for a couple of hundred
years the Inspector accepted the view expressed by one old fellow who claimed
the main route was buldozed in the 50's.
He has confirmed his modifications following a second Inquiry, where he
dismissed the evidence of an octiginairian ex Parish Councillor, who had
ridden the lanes from his youth on a Scott ...
No EVIDENCE was produced to counter the Authority's BOAT Order - just the
usual opinion.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 13:05:25 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: For info
Tilbo@aol.com wrote:
> Hi
> RUPP RECLASSIFICATION
[ truncated by list-digester (was 20 lines)]
> usual opinion.
> DT
Hi All
This is outrageous.
If an inspector who is susspossed to be neutral makes a decision and not
evidence, can we not appeal to the Secertary of State to have the
inspector struck off.
Cheers John.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 13:38:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: ratione tenurae vehicular?
In a message dated 08/05/97 09:35:40, you write:
<< nteresting that no-one has tried to put any of the RT roads on the DM as
bridleways or footpaths (unless you know different)... >>
Some years ago Bill Riley succeeded in upgrading a fp in east Wilts on the
grounds that it was an RT road.
Are there enough playground members to chip in for a PC for Bill (with modem)
as he would have a lot to contribute - no offence to Tim & Alan & ....
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 13:39:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Take the piss - me?
Hi
Have claimed a byway in Hants froma a footpath. This footpath is tarmac
surfaced, hedge lined lane (for the most part) just like any other country
lane. Since making the application the landowner (or probably more
accurately his wife) has sent several letters quoting Robinson v Adair and
sect 34 HA 80. I replied as follows but will she think me serious:
"....... I feel I can do no more than I have done in dealing with your
correspondence. I cannot agree with your application of statute or case law
which can clearly be distinguished from the current matter. Even the overtly
mixed metaphor passed you by. This referred to the illegal obstruction at
the southern end of Weston Corbett 1. Again my response to your invitation
to meet with you and a policeman on the lane whistled past like a 747 on a
cloudy day.
I have no fear of encountering a policeman on the lane in question because I
am not committing an offence. But, to save you embarrassment, I must decline
your invitation to use the route at an appointed hour. Regardless of the
status of a way if a landowner agrees a date, time and place for a rendezvous
on land under his/her control how can the other party be classed as a
trespasser or law breaker by attending that meeting?
I have sought information from your good self and the Parishes and no fact
has been forthcoming to suggest that vehicular rights do not exist. To the
contrary an ex-Parish Councillor claims that the way in question was used as
a contiguous route with Upton Grey 18 (byway). Until such time as I am
furnished with fact to disabuse my belief in the status of this lane I shall
continue to use. ...."
The mixed metaphor was:
"I am not breaking the law although it would appear, with regard to this
lane, that someone is. The situation calls for a mixed metaphor that
involves casting the first stone - whilst abiding in a glass residence."
This is a woman who travells Hampshire objecting to RUPPs being reclassified
as byways and then locks a gate across the end of a Definitive RoW. A
deserving nomination for the 'Masters' award.
In retrospect I should have made the appointment, pushed my luck with plod to
get as ticket and then used her letter as a defence.
Hay Ho
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 9 May 97 18:52 BST-1
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: Vicarage Lane Bagshot
I spoke to Mr. Price today, he tells me that Surrey Heath are one of 4
local authorities who have a reciprocal arrangement with SCC to manage
Highway matters. The Crown Estate and 'one bagshot resident' are the
prime movers behind it.
Mr. Fishwick (01276-686252) is therefore the man to pester - I'll be
rereading my local history to see if any veh. rights might have existed.
:-) Mick Dyer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 9 May 97 22:20 BST-1
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: Vicarage Lane Bagshot...
I spoke to Mr. Price today, he tells me that Surrey Heath are one of 4
local authorities who have a reciprocal arrangement with SCC to manage
Highway matters. The Crown Estate and 'one bagshot resident' are the
prime movers behind it.
Mr. Fishwick (01276-686252) is therefore the man to pester - I'll be
rereading my local history to see if any veh. rights might have existed.
:-) Mick Dyer
:-) Mick Dyer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 17:27:04 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Unadopted roads.
I have been going through the "assesion maps" and lists.
Handover maps I says? Never heard them called that, says he!
But I think thats what they are.
Unfortunately after giving me coffee and shortbread, he had to go out with
his assistant engineer at 2.00 pm, so, quick as a flash I says can I copy
this map?
So 250 copies later, I have quite a good map library. There were several
roads left off the current map, but not many. As Alan said no malevolent
intent was apparent.
Some maps were 6" 1904 and were good for determining precise routing of
some queried lanes, some were handrawn maps, all dated 1929 or earlier.
Lots of Public carriage roads left off or shown as FP if they were not
being used for anything else.
One file he said I wouldn't need, was the Agricultural improvement schemes
of the early 60s. I am sure that will be interesting, I says. Some were
not approved, so those roads stayed unadopted. But what is the status of
those unadopted roads? They put in applications for Gov money, drew up the
plans for improvement, but if rejected, does that mean they are private, or
just non maintained public roads?
All of these historic docs should be in the records office. The roads have
been given four different sets of numbers. One, the 1/4/1936 list, never
had a map. Identification is therefore time consumming.
This list was published in the Local Newspapers, to make an order for no
ribbon development, so it may be difficult for them to argue they are not
public roads.
Perhaps those who are having aggro from the RoW or HA's might be able to
speak with the divisional engineers direct?
Transport Supplementary Grant
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Tim) I asked him about transport grant. He said up to 1968 they had MoT
funding for Trunk roads + an agency fee, giving 110% and 80% of costs of A
roads, 75% of B, 60% of C, and 50% of unclass. Nothing for footpaths. After
1968 they had block grant, which covered Social Services & Highways and
Education(?). It was up to County Councillors how much was spent on what.
Then eventually the MoT decided the trunk roads were not being properly
funded, so re-introduced central funding for them.
He worked in Dorset for a while. They all measured roads in Chains for the
MoT. However there are Engineers chains, 100ft, and Chain Chains of 22 yds.
Dorset were found to be overclaiming by 50% for a small matter of 30
years. There was a certain relief when they said it was an innocent
mistook and they did not have to pay it back.
Let there be a Road from Village to Village
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Alan queried who said it) He thinks it was in the Magna Carta, and so
thinks it was King John. Anybody got a spare original copy? He said right
up to the 30s they used to take main roads from City to City. Now they
just build them round them.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Subject: Shere
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 21:52:12 +0100
Gavin
The situation here is very difficult. It seems to me that the main problem
was the lack of evidence pre 1929 when the common was dedicated under the
Law of Property Act 1925. I checked this out in the library (Halsteads
Statutes, I think) and the bit about not dedicating vehicular rights over
the common is true. What we need to show was that there was a public road
over the common. Unfortunately the researcher would have been careful to
avoid mention of anything to our advantage.
It annoyed me that the strong user was rubbished but user evidence has to
be built upon something that was there first. I think Robinson vs Adair has
been misquoted and will look into that as well.
We could use the fact that its still a UCR but the problem there is that we
are not 100% confident that all UCRs are vehicular. I believe that the
default is that UCRs are vehicular unless the entry on the list of streets
says the route is only a path e.g. an alleyway. We need to look into this.
If we are to appeal we need to pick up an error or omission.
If anyone has any other comments please let me know.
Steve N
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 18:02:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PC for Bill Riley.
An ace idea! I'm prepared to donate.
It might be worth considering who else it might be poor and deserving, and of
use to our cause.
Regards
Charlie Morriss
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 18:02:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: On behalf of Dave Vatcher
I can name couple of UCRs with fords, on the North side of the Brecon
Beacons, that have been 'improved' by the NRA in the same fashion. The one
SE of Brecon I mentioned in my 'Direct Action Dreams' e-mail last month, and
there's another one SW of Llandovery that's had the same treatment.
Regards
Charlie Morriss
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 20:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: N. Yorks UCRs
While digging through a file of old press-cutting, looking for sommat else, I
came across an old " On The Trail " page from Trials and Motocross News
(dated 11.8.89) by Pete Plummer on which was a short article entitled ' Road
Ban in Yorkshire ' which contained the following extracts: ' We learn that in
order to deter use by 4WD vehicles North Yorkshire County Council have
declared that the 350 Unclassified roads in the county are non vehicular.'
' It appears that there are also some 15 lanes which are permanently
blocked by farmers. These are not likely to be re-opened...'
' North Yorks County Council also follow the Ramblers Association line in
that evidence of use after 1930 is invalid. Brian Thompson tells me that
Queens Council (sic) David Braham said in a 1987 Law Report that such a view
did not bear critical analysis which to you and I must mean that they're
sailing close to the wind and getting away with it.'
This article infers that NYCC's present attitude to their UCRs dates from not
long before it was written - would that be true?
Charlie Morriss
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 01:56:02 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Take the piss - me?
> I have no fear of encountering a policeman on the lane in question
because I
> am not committing an offence. But, to save you embarrassment, I must
decline
> your invitation to use the route at an appointed hour. Regardless of the
> status of a way if a landowner agrees a date, time and place for a
rendezvous
> on land under his/her control how can the other party be classed as a
> trespasser or law breaker by attending that meeting?
What does 80 S34 have to do with it? "a street may become a highway by a
declaration....."
What is the Adair case? It is a recent one I feel I should know.
I doubt very much if they or you would see Mr Plod on such an earth
shattering case.
Is it a criminal offence anyway? If she dislikes your face (or machine)
that much she should go for an injunction. But a good piece of logic
anyway, Dave.
I await the next thrilling installment.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 13 lines 502 [forwarded 34 whitespace 118]
Output: lines 439 [content 252 forwarded 18 (cut 16) whitespace 109]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970510 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]