msg	Sender	lines	Subject
1	Charlietrf@aol.com	45	S116 on Byways @ Llandovery, Carm.
2	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	18	Re: N. Yorks UCRs
	Majordomo		About the digest

------------------------------ [ Message 1 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 970517 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 18:17:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: S116 on Byways @ Llandovery, Carm.

Well, I attended Llandovery Magistrates Court on my own yesterday to oppose
the CC's application to divert and stop up a couple of byways in grid square
SN8435. I didn't succeed but I don't count the exercise a serious failure as
I learnt alot and not too much was lost.
The Byways concerned that were stopped up formed a Y-shaped section to the N
and W of a house called Maes-y-Gwaelod, and the bit we got in exchange runs
NE from it. We have ended up with a net loss of about 150 metres, but we
still do have through route that is not unpleasant ( though a lot less
'technical' at the N end ) which runs from GR (SN) 838352 to 844360.
What were the gains?
 1. It was an education!
 2. Carm. CC will ( hopefully ) be rather more careful and professional next
time they stop up/divert a Byway. ( I caused a 6 week adjournment of the case
by spotting that they had failed to advertise properly - there was no on-site
notice at the middle of the 'Y', and I had case law to back this up. )
 3. They will ( again hopefully ) take better note of users wishes at the
consultation stage, and take me and other vehicular users somewhat more
seriously in any future contacts of any sort.
 4. S116 applications are 'all or nothing' - they cannot be 'cherry-picked' -
the magistrates have either to agree to the whole package or dismiss it.
During the hearing I worked hard at being helpful and friendly to the
County's solicitor and RoW officer ( I discussed other RoW matters with them
and harped on about the problems that lack of resources caused to us all,
among other things. ) on the principle that it's a bit harder for anyone to
be as nasty to someone who they've found to be a 'good egg'. I made it very
plain that I was a first-timer and got the Clerk to explain everything to me,
very obviously paid great attention to what she had to say and alway asked
about anything I wasn't totally clear about - this resulted in her giving my
several hints and tips along the way. I was abit nervous, but acted as if I
was rather more so  without, I hope, overdoing it ( well, it was worth a play
for sympathy! ) It all must have worked, because at the end the County
solicitor was very complimentary of my performance, as was the Clerk, and one
of the Magistrates stopped me in the car park to say how interesting they had
all found the case ( they took over an hour to reach their decision ) and
that it was a nice change from the usual things that came before them. They
all said that they had found it harder work than they had ever expected and
agreed with me about how educational it had all been.

                                            Charlie Morriss

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 02:57:04 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: N. Yorks UCRs

Brian,

I think this statement is absolutely outrageous.  How are those 15 lanes
permanently blocked?   Has research been done to show that they are
vehicular rather than footpaths which have been incorrectly included on t=
he
list of streets?  If so all of the user organisations In my view should b=
e
looking out for some of the worst instances  and start serious action to
rid the country of this plague.  Even if it means using Green lanes on
organised social events to make a fighting fund.

Chris

------------------------------

  END OF * LIST DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 2 lines 89 [forwarded 0 whitespace 11]
 Output: lines 119 [content 55  forwarded 0 (cut  0) whitespace 11]