msg	Sender	lines	Subject
1	TimLARA@aol.com	25	Help - Warks Lane details please
2	"Dave Tilbury" [Dave@han	14	Fire wood
3	TimLARA@aol.com	130	Get out of that, YDNPA
4	"Peter BRADLEY" [pbrad@d	31	Night Moonraker ?
5	Michael Taylor [mikeandc	7	Re: Fire wood
6	Michael Taylor [mikeandc	60	HELP Warks Lane Details
7	Michael Taylor [mikeandc	12	Time of the month
8	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	22	Night Moonraker ?
9	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	96	Warks Lane 116 E5221
	Majordomo		About the digest

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ Message 1 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990105 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:17:42 EST
Subject: Help - Warks Lane details please

Another lane in Warwickshire is now under threat - this time a proposed
stopping up (HA80 s116). This is the route recently mentioned in an e-mail
from Mike Cattell.

The Route is E 5221, Grey Mill Lane, Wooton Wawen - Aston Cantlow, Landranger
151, 143610-145619. It is not shown as a through route on this map, or the
1970s 1 inch version.
Please can someone report on the state of the route - it includes a ford, and
is partially obstructed - thanks.
Further, can someone let me knowe what the Pathfinder shows? I suspect it may
or may not show a through route.
Please, everyone, let WCC know that you object to this proposed closure. I
have a feeling that if enough objections are received the proposal will be
dropped.

Write to Warwickshire County Council
Shire Hall, Warwick CV34 4RR

cheers tim

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

From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:16:04 -0000
Subject: Fire wood

Hi

For those with chainsaw, there is a fallen tree across a lane near
Basingstoke at SU579548.

Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk

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

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:31:29 EST
Subject: Get out of that, YDNPA

Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
Colvend, Hebden Road
Grassington, Skipton
BD23 5LB

4.1.99

Dear Sirs
Proposed Downgrading of Bridleway 10, Malham Moor (857673-884692)
Please record my objection to this proposal. Examination of the case for
downgrading reveals nothing which seems to me to be the 'cogent evidence of a
mistake' that needs to be shown for such an application to succeed. I do not
believe that a case based on 'insufficient evidence available in 1951' is
sufficient to meet the required test. We simply do not know what the whole of
the evidence was in 1951.

While it is quite likely to be true that the stiles existed in 1951, and that
user at that time was only on foot, the relevant point is that other evidence
than that listed by the current applicant was available to the authority
(including copies of OS maps, and 18th century county maps, in the then County
Records at Wakefield). Along with this documentary evidence, there was also
evidence of use, and of reputation, based on reports from local people who
have long since passed on. It is in my view extraordinary that anyone can
claim, forty eight years after an open and public process of recording public
rights took place, and on the sole basis of a modern analysis of some of the
records remaining, that a mistake was made. 
Alternative views on the evidence now submitted are these:
- that the landowners at the time of the survey may well have been aware of
the history of this route, and were therefore very happy to have it recorded
as Bridleway, believing (as so many still do) that this would extinguish
historical vehicular rights;
- alternatively, they may have been ignorant of the history, and quite happy
that a bridleway should be recorded on a route at that time only used by
pedestrians. 
I can distinguish no difference between this latter case of acquiescence and
deemed dedication as bridleway. 

I have looked at the evidence I have for this route (much of which you list)
and I conclude that the route is a very ancient highway and should in fact be
a BOAT. A glance at Jefferys' map makes it clear that at that time this was
part of the direct road from Settle to Arncliffe, leaving the market place at
its north east corner, (and so being as old as the market) and branching from
the now-tarmac road at the end of Castlebergh Plantation on a road recorded
now as UCR. At the parish boundary this changes (for no apparent reason, and
in accord with the same apparent status-changes at parish boundaries on the
Arncliffe Cote route and elsewhere) to bridleway, and rejoining the tarmac
road above the very steep drop to Langcliffe. The tarmac continues to the
junction with Henside Road where it continues on the same alignment as the
'bridleway' in question. At the far end of Bridleway 10, the same alignment is
continued towards Darnbrooke House and Arncliffe. The route is entirely
consistent with an ancient cross-country minor road, which would have been
used by pack-horse traffic, pedestrians, and for driving cattle, with some use
(but perhaps not much) of carts and wagons. 

It is my belief that the walls crossing this bridleway were erected after the
recording of the ancient route by Jefferys (1775). When that was done, there
may have been proper gates, (there is evidence of gateways in some of the
walls) but at some time the highway was obstructed. (It may well have been the
local memories that the route had once been open to riders that influenced the
1951 decision, of course.) This obstruction was, in my view, illegal, and
accordingly it cannot be used as evidence in support of footpath status. 

A further problem arises in relation to the 'order of play' chosen by the
authority, and the potential for a DMMO leading to BOAT. As regards users
other than walkers, the route is currently unusable (although cycles and
motorcycles could undoubtedly be heaved over the walls). This means that the
route cannot meet the definitions for BOAT included in the Act (and following
the Nettlecombe case). It is not 'mainly used' by anyone, it is 'only used' by
walkers, and that will not do. Therefore, if you proceed with this order, and
there is (as is likely) an objection leading to an Inquiry, a possible outcome
is that the Inspector agrees that vehicle rights are proven. However, this
will not lead to a BOAT decision, and  a nonsense will be the result. The
Inspector cannot confirm the order as it is not a footpath, he cannot decline
to confirm as he has been shown that bridleway would not be correct, he cannot
modify to BOAT as this would fail the Nettlecombe test, and he cannot modify
to delete altogether as that requires the process to show that rights do not
exist. 

I am sure that parliament did not intend to put the Secretary of State in such
a position. The alternative approach, rejected by the authority in this case,
would have been to remove the obstructions when they were reported. At that
time, no-one suggested downgrading, and delaying this action has served only
to prompt one, leading not only to the possible expense of a DMMO and public
inquiry, but significant delay before the illegal obstructions are removed. It
cannot be argued in defence of the current 'order of play' that doubt raised
about status might create difficulties, as this has been anticipated by the
relevant Act - HA 80 s130 (7) 
Proceedings or steps taken by a council in relation to an alleged right of way
are not to be treated as unauthorised by reason only that the alleged right is
found not to exist.
I draw attention to the fact that this refers to an alleged RoW, whereas here
the RoW is not even alleged, it is conclusively shown on the DM&S. Therefore,
even now, and even if the current application should succeed, you are entitled
to remove the obstructions forthwith and should do so.

There is a further legal principle to which I draw your attention - predating
Nettlecombe and DETR advice based on it. In this case, the authority has taken
the view that the landowner must be allowed an opportunity to apply to remove
conclusive bridleway rights before any action is taken regarding the
obstruction. However, Lord Justice Lane's dictum in R v Surrey CC ex parte
Send PC, 1979) sets out the law as follows -
'The local authority must at all times act with the object of protecting the
highway and of preventing or removing any obstruction, and, more broadly
speaking, of promoting the interests of those who enjoy the highway or should
be enjoying the right of way and the county council must likewise operate
against the interests of those who seek to interrupt such enjoyment of the
highway'
Clearly, Lord Lane was not referring directly to a National Park Authority,
but I am sure that the same principle applies to all Highway Authorities,
whether County, NPA, or Unitary.

It may be that you have available to you guidance (etc) which supports the
position taken by YDNPA. It may also be that my amateur reading of the law is
flawed, and there are alternative dicta which make my views a nonsense. If
this is the case, I would be obliged if you could help me to prevent further
like mistakes by letting me know on what basis your alternative view is
founded.

Perhaps you could let me know (should I not have got it all wrong) whether the
NPA will revise their policy regarding obstructions in the light of this case.

Yours faithfully

Tim Stevens - motor recreation development officer, LARA

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

From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 22:34:41 -0000
Subject: Night Moonraker ?

I am reliably informed, (by a competitor and acquaintance), that the last
Moonraker, (end of Nov ?, I can find out), was deliberately held partly
during the hours of darkness.

I don't know what time it kicked off on the Saturday, but it seems it ran
through until 2:00am Sunday morning, re-commencing at 8:00 am the same
morning.

The reason for this, I am told, was to "save the re-building of the
overnight halt".  The idea being that there was no time to consume any
alcohol.

I am told that the normal daylight pace was maintained, "about 40mph", and
that all the marker boards were clustered around the checkpoints (to make
spotting easy).

I love my "off piste" motorsport but this doesn't seem right to me.  Imagine
dozens of keen but lost 4x4's clattering down village lanes in the dead of
night.

If it was a success will an ever later "extension" be granted?

Worrying.

PB

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

From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:12:40 +0000
Subject: Re: Fire wood

Dave Tilbury wrote:

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

[digester: Removing section of:  Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
boundary="------------7D556789C40" ]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:20:46 +0000
Subject: HELP Warks Lane Details

Hi Folks,
Well happy new year to you too Warwickshire County scoundrels. Attached
is a letter which anyone is free to use bits of if you do not think it
is too useless. Get writing!
Cheers,Mike.

Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Warks Grey Lane Objection.wps"

ÐÏࡱá΢š
                                                                                
  The Cottage
	Hollins Lane
	Marbury
	Whitchurch
	Shropshire
	SY13 4LU

	4th January 1999

Head of Legal Services
Warwickshire County Council
Shire Hall
Warwick
CV34 4RR

Dear Sir

Highways Act 1980 S116 Stopping Up Order, Grey Mill Lane, E5221.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed stopping up and extinguishment 
of the above highway between Aston Cantlow and Wooton Wawen which I believe is 
contrary to the provisions of Highways Act 1980, S116 (1) (a).

It is a fallacy that all highways are for the purpose, purely of serving an 
economic or communications need in the modern day to day sense of the 
expression.  
Highways serve many other purposes. The fundamental one of course is to pass 
and repass, but based upon that ancient right are many other secondary but no 
less 
valuable purposes such as a multitude of recreational purposes.  I would cite 
painting, sightseeing, fresh air and exercise, historical interest and natural 
history as only a few.

It is a rare occurrence in this modern world to find roads which are of the 
character of the highway in question, the presence of a ford adding to its 
qualities and this adds to the argument for retaining this road for all users 
whatever their reason for using the road.  In view of the above I would be 
aggrieved by the loss of this public highway which I regard as a valuable asset.

Yours Faithfully

M I Taylor.   
		
               	

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

From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:27:06 +0000
Subject: Time of the month

Hi folks,
Its that time of the month again,
Greenlane nerds collecting at the Red Fox, Tarporley, Cheshire for their
monthly imbibing of beer and blue book.
For the very nerdly OS grid 559 611 on sheet 117
Cheers,Mike.

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

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:04:53 -0500
Subject: Night Moonraker ?

> I love my "off piste" motorsport but this doesn't seem right to me. 

Imagine
> dozens of keen but lost 4x4's clattering down village lanes in the dead
of
> night.

I detect a change in attitude by Wilts CC to laning.  I have had all sorts
of horror stories quoted to wind up locals about what WILL happen, by
Dunlop Hallam Temple-Morris etc and the Battle for Brileways nutters, many
stories of which eminate from Wiltshire.

Having seen the event from the passenger seat, I feel on the whole it is
counter-productive to green laning.  I would like to hear other's views.

Chris.

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

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:04:56 -0500
Subject: Warks Lane 116 E5221

> Well happy new year to you too Warwickshire County scoundrels. 
> Cheers,Mike.

Lets try and make it reet 'appy for 'em.

Orleton Manor
Orleton,  Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811

Head of Legal Services
Warwickshire County Council
Shire Hall
Warwick
CV34 4RR

5th January 1999

Dear Sir

Re: Highways Act 1980 S116 Stopping Up Order, Grey Mill Lane, E5221.

I understand you really are contemplating the stopping up of a highway
under s116 of  the 1980 Highways Act?  As this is admitted by your council
to be at the behest of a landowner,  I am sure you will appreciate the
burden of proof you will be put to, to show that this road is un-necessary
FOR THE PUBLIC, and that it is NOT being done for the Landowners interest.
This of course would be Ultra Vires and consequently would lead to
surcharging, (as Ms Shirley Porter will be happy to testify).

I am sure you will be able to supply the court with cogent reasons why you
have failed in your duty to assert and protect the public’s enjoyment of
this obstructed highway.*   Perhaps you would be kind enough to rehearse
that argument to me now, so that I may consider my contra submission should
this ever find it’s way to court.  Would you state whether you are aware of
the obstructions, if so, when, and what your response has been to your
legal duty?  Further, as the road is obstructed by a garden fence,
belonging, I understand to the person who has requested the stopping up,
would it not create the possibility for embarrassment to the council
(following the ruling of Robinson v Adair) that a person should not benefit
by their illegal actions?

*(Lord Justice Lane's dictum in R v Surrey CC ex parte Send PC, 1979) sets
out the law as follows - 'The local authority must at all times act with
the object of protecting the highway and of preventing or removing any
obstruction, and, more broadly speaking, of promoting the interests of
those who enjoy the highway or should be enjoying the right of way and the
county council must likewise operate against the interests of those who
seek to interrupt such enjoyment of the highway')

Have you considered the possibility that this road may not be being used by
the public due to your lack of publicity of minor roads such as this? 
Would it not seem sensible to wait until such time as the obstructions have
been removed, signing has been carried out in accordance with Making the
Best of Byways, the road has been depicted as 'Public Access Information'
by the OS,  then, and only then following prolonged dis-use would it be
reasonable to infer that this road is no longer required by the public?  
Do you wish B.O.A.T. DMMO’s to be submitted on your own forms, or would the
pro-forma in the Blue Book be acceptable to your council?  Can you supply
details of all the landowners who you are aware of that should be notified
of such an application please.  (I will be suggesting to the magistrate's
court that any such BOAT application should be determined  BEFORE a
decision is made to give away this valuable public asset for ever more.) 
Personally I am surprised that any attempt should be made to deprive the
public of byways such as this following MBoB by means of an HA80 s116. Has
MBoB been accepted by your council?

I am sure you are aware of the embarrassing, failed attempts at the s116
procedure by Kent, Buckinghamshire* and Hereford & Worcestershire County
Councils?  Are you prepared to justify the expenditure of substantial sums
to justify such action, or is the applicant so desperate that they are
re-imbursing all direct and consequential costs of this action?

I am sure I do not need to remind you that at least in the abandoned H&W
exercise they were proposing not to proceed if any landowner along the
section of road objected. Can I assume you have the wholehearted support of
ALL landowners along the road, and other people disadvantaged by this
action?

I await your reply with interest.

Yours faithfully

C J Marsden

* Buckinghamshire’s legal department advised there was a very real
likelihood of costs being awarded against the council for wasting the
court's time. Would the applicant be prepared to pay for this eventuality? 
If not, would the council’s auditors tolerate such expenditure without
making a qualification to the accounts?

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

  END OF * LIST DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 9 lines 564 [forwarded 19 whitespace 0]
 Output: lines 479 [content 402  forwarded 19 (cut  0) whitespace 0]