[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970531 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 08:40:18 +0100
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Corrieyairick - problem brewing I think
In message <199705291739_MC2-1785-A147@compuserve.com>, Andy Bush
>Hi Owen,
> Under Scottish Law the biggest problem you have is if a permanent
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
>way by using it again.
>From Alan Kind:
This closure by lack of use in Scotland is a difficult area. It isn't
"automatic" as such - on an established RoW it would be up to the
landowner to prove no use for the required period - and that would be a
rather difficult burden to discharge. I also think that the period would
have to be "next before" any such challenge. So, for example, if the CP
had been unused for over 20 years, and the landowner(s) sought a
declaration that it was closed by disuse (desuetude, i think, in English
law) it wouldn't do you much good suddenly to start driving over.
But - if you started driving over today and, three years down the line a
closure declaration was sought, then I think the landowners might have
an almost impossible job.
But - the CP is not disused - it is obstructed. Hundreds of people use
it as far as they can, and express a wish to use the rest. That is not
disuse - it is prevention from use - two rather different things.
Also - a TRO doesn't demonstrate disuse. It is merely an administrative
order that imposes a statutory penalty if use rights are exercised.
The CP thing is now locked into an angels dancing on pinheads scenario -
endless, pointless arguments about possible-but-remote scenarios, and
idiot "solutions", instead of focussing on shifting the unlawful
obstruction across a robust public road.
>Hi Owen,
Regards
--
Alan kind
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970531 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Adrian Pickersgill <user@rsltd.softnet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Stockton Ride, Kimbolton
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 13:43:31 +0100
Hi Chris
I spoke today to Andy Turner at HWCC regarding the Stockton Ride, he informed me that
new gates have now been installed which are wide enough for vehicle's although no work
has been done on the lane i.e. cutting back vegetation. Doubtful they ever would anyway.
Apparently some of the locals are a bit dismayed that the CC went ahead with fitting
new gates before any PI, however AT doesn't think a PI will now be required, unless
there's a lot of complaints from the already p*ssed off local residents ;-)
I asked him what my rights were in using the Stockton Ride to which he said he could see
no problem with me driving the lane as although its a footpath on the definitive map its
without prejudice to higher rights i.e. vehicle's. So AT is quite happy for vehicles to us the
lane :-)
Would I be right to think you already know this and have driven the lane?
Adrian
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970531 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:37:44 +0100
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Corrieyairick - use recently
In message <jPLE8GCiRojzEwI7@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In message <199705291739_MC2-1785-A147@compuserve.com>, Andy Bush
> <andy_bush@compuserve.com> writes
[ truncated by list-digester (was 22 lines)]
> closure declaration was sought, then I think the landowners might have
> an almost impossible job.
I agree. Closure is not automatic in the sense that the rights are
lost without further procedure. It means rather that if a road is in
dispute, and a LO can prove the road has not been used for a period -
20 years is often stated, but another stated case used 40 years -
then the rights can be deemed to be lost. Yes its desuetude in Scotland too.
> But - the CP is not disused - it is obstructed. Hundreds of people use
> it as far as they can, and express a wish to use the rest. That is not
> disuse - it is prevention from use - two rather different things.
Ahh, in fact the obstruction is less successful than it might have
appeared given that 12 4x4's crossed the CP on Saturday. They managed
to drive past the single pole at the end without damage to
themselves, the pole or the surrounding strucutres. They were
accosted during this time by an abusive gent who took all their
registration numbers, told them the road was now officially closed,
and a scheduled ancient monument and that they were damaging part of
Scotland's heritage. He wouldn't identify himself, but is known to 2
of the drivers as (young) Mr Biggs, the protagonist in the whole matter.
As this group passed the obstruction, they met 3 motorcyclists who
were going the other way. So the route _is_ being used.
I have a copy of their user forms, and they are sending copies of
forms to Alan Kidd at LRW and Tim at LARA, as well as forms and a
letter regarding the qwhole incident to the Highland council and the
Highland Constabulary CC.
The group camped at Fort Augustus that night, having pre-booked their
pitches (if you can't make a passage it carries more weight if your
letter highlights that you lost accommodation and monies by the
placing of an illegal obstruction on a public road). They were
approached 4 times that night, twice in the morning, and stopped once
in the street by people asking if they were the ones who had driven
the CP. When they confirmed that they had (expecting a barrage of
complaints) in each case the locals complimented them on their
actions, and tlld them that no-one except the LO locally wanted the
route closed. 2 even alleged that the LO was operating a permissive
route through his land (bypassing the CP obstruction) to allow some
people onto the CP for grouse shooting, and other purposes. However,
I would stress that these were simply allegations made by persons who
did not wish to be named and as a result these comments and those
concerning the supposed pecuniary gain that the LO was making from
the practice should be treated with the relevant amount of caution.
> Also - a TRO doesn't demonstrate disuse. It is merely an administrative
> order that imposes a statutory penalty if use rights are exercised.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 6 lines)]
> idiot "solutions", instead of focussing on shifting the unlawful
> obstruction across a robust public road.
Agreed, the CP and other military roads are quite possibly the most
robust unsurfaced roads to be found anywhere in the country. Built as
they are on the same principles as the main roman roads, but some
1800 years younger.
The continual reference to QC's opinion has reduced this matter to
one of interpretation with each side concerning themselves less and
less with the issue at hand, and more with discrediting the previous
interpretations of the other parties.
Can anyone give me guidance on the removal of obstructions found on a
public road. I have written to the Highland Council asking them if
the obstruction is their doing. I have similarly written to the LO
and asked if the obstruction is his work. Both sent recorded
delivery. I have requested a reply from both letters within 28 days.
I expect bith replies (if sent) to be in the negative. If that is the
case, what then is stopping me from removing the obstruction myself?
With no complainer, there cannot be a charge of criminal damage (mal.
mischief) in Scotland. I think it extremely unlikely that either
party will admit that the ostruction is their doing. If so, they
would be subject to criminal proceedings in any event...
Feeling like a golfer who's just started his round.
Owen
--
=========================================================
Central 4x4 Outdoor Leisure Off-Road Driving Centre
3 Clover Place, Bo'ness, West Lothian, EH51 0QW, Scotland
Tel: (+44) 01506 616448 / 0370 471 277
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/central4x4/
=========================================================
=============== End of forwarded message ===================
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970531 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 17:58:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: FA1910 Research.
I have now firmed up the date when I will next be visiting the PRO at Kew to
do research on the FA1910 records. It is week 29 (14-18.7.97). If anyone
wants me to check or get anything photocopied, please let me know. It would
be a great help if anyone making such a request gives me the number(s) of the
County Series 25"/mile (or 6"/mile, if only that is available) map(s),
Parish, and/or Parcel or Herediment Number they want to know more about.
Please don't expect me to research a whole area for you - that is up to you
to find the time or gumption to do - and expect to pay any costs I incur in
helping out (ie photocopying and postage).
My main project will be fully checking the maps for South Glos. area (the new
CC) but I already have a couple of other things to check as well.
Charlie Morriss
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970531 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 17:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Stockton Ride, Kimbolton
Adrian,
I've used it several times by motorcycle, including leading a
group of TRF on a run down it.
Regards
Charlie Morriss.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970531 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 00:54:20 +0100
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Corrieyairick - abatement of obstruction
In message <970530112300_-1028447206@emout06.mail.aol.com>
TimLARA@aol.com writes:
> In English law, any highway user who comes across an obstruction in the
> course of *1 a legitimate journey is entitled to *2 abate the nuisance.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 19 lines)]
> then their reaction mighht be less unhelpful when the obstructor rings up and
> decries you.)
> Do let us know, if you can, whether similar rules apply in Scotland.
I'll need to check out the statutory points, but generally the worst
that could happen would be a charge of Maliscious (sp.) Mischief
(common law variant of Vandalism). I believe that things are
generally the same, the only difficulty is that the proof of a RoW up
here is not so legally clear cut as it might be in England and Wales
with their system of Definitive Maps, etc.
Providing any removed article was left at the scene it is unlikely
that a charge of theft could apply, however, it _might_ since in
Scotland theft is "the felonious appropriation of the property of
another or the intent to deprive the owner of the use of the
property" If you cut a chain, you could, I suppose be depriving the
owner of the uses of the chain? Stretching it a bit perhaps, but then
they do nowadays, don't they.
I'd just like to point out for future reference and potential court
cases, I always go laning equipped with oxy-acetylene bottles and a
12volt angle grinder ;-)
Owen
--
=========================================================
Central 4x4 Outdoor Leisure Off-Road Driving Centre
3 Clover Place, Bo'ness, West Lothian, EH51 0QW, Scotland
Tel: (+44) 01506 616448 / 0370 471 277
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/central4x4/
=========================================================
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970531 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 00:45:36 +0100
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Corrieyairick - problem brewing I think
In message <970530110846_316898331@emout01.mail.aol.com>
TimLARA@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 28-5-97 10:18:16, you write:
> >Also Tim....can you give me your phone number at LARA?? I think that
> >the time has come for other interested parties to make their presence
> >felt in this and other RoW matters in Scotland. Want a Scottish LARA rep?
> Phone = 01630 657627 from 9 am to 9 pm (usually - ansaphone if not)
> Fax = 01630 658928
[ truncated by list-digester (was 18 lines)]
> If you need some LARA notepaper to help validate a letter etc, please let me
> know.
Hi Tim,
I'll phone you after the weekend, but I'll act as a respondent
gladly... my only concern in that area would be that as a commercial
4x4 driving centre operator it might be percieved that I have fiscal
interests in the routes which as you know I don't - I don't do
commercial lane trips, and don't ever intend to. However, at the
moment, since I've put feelers out with 4x4 folks up here with no
success, I'll respond to the CP problem in the manner above (after
clearing letters etc with you first of course) and inform you of any
other problems I hear of.
Owen
--
=========================================================
Central 4x4 Outdoor Leisure Off-Road Driving Centre
3 Clover Place, Bo'ness, West Lothian, EH51 0QW, Scotland
Tel: (+44) 01506 616448 / 0370 471 277
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/central4x4/
=========================================================
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970531 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 7 lines 440 [forwarded 87 whitespace 83]
Output: lines 363 [content 242 forwarded 32 (cut 55) whitespace 76]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970531 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]