[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 04:19:56 -0500
Subject: s116 PS
Added to the letter to Warks s116 letter, anyone got their fax no? I prefer
fax easier, cheaper. quicker, and instills a sense of urgency, and I don't
even bother to print it out. :-) (clutters their office up, not mine)
Cj
P.S. Do you have:
a) any other s116 applications in the pipeline?
b) if so are they also on ‘green lanes’, and thus clearly contrary to DETR
advice?
c) are they also in lieu of performing your statutory duties?
P.P.S. If there is any danger in you failing to meet your performance
standard for a substantive reply to this letter, what is your standard?
P.P.P.S. What are the terms of the payment by the s116 applicant? Do they
for example pay for all officer time in answering correspondence such as
this, whether or not they are successful?
May I wish you all a very happy new year.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 99 10:17 GMT0
Subject: Re: Fire wood
We were thinking of laning on Sunday, does said fallen tree _really_
require a chainsaw or will half a dozen bowsaws cope?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 99 10:51 GMT0
Subject: Re: Wilts attitudes
Chris says
<<<I detect a change in attitude by Wilts CC to laning. >>>>
Me too, from conversations, but the change seems to have been a a level
higher than RoW Officers...so we still have some common sense at a
practical level.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:56:39 -0000
Subject: Re: Wilts attitudes
Following John Rogers resignation things changed. the new guy gives not a
toss for us, I'm told. You will have seen the letters from Jones on the
Fovant 14 matter.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:54:54 -0000
Subject: Re: Fire wood
Probably around 40cm but will have to be cut into handleable sized lumps as
it is across a sunken lane.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:38:37 EST
Subject: Re: s116 PS
Fax number for Warwickshire CC -
01926 412326
All part of the LARA service
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:36:58 -0000
Subject: Re: Warks Lane 116 E5221
As of course we all do - await a reply with interest.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Warks Lane 116 E5221
> Date: 05 January 1999 01:04
> > Well happy new year to you too Warwickshire County scoundrels.
> > Cheers,Mike.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 30 lines)]
> 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
> Date: 05 January 1999 01:04
you
> have failed in your duty to assert and protect the publics 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 its 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)
> belonging, I understand to the person who has requested the stopping up,
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
> those who enjoy the highway or should be enjoying the right of way and
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. DMMOs 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
> public of byways such as this following MBoB by means of an HA80 s116.
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
> > Cheers,Mike.
of
> ALL landowners along the road, and other people disadvantaged by this
> action?
> I await your reply with interest.
> Yours faithfully
> section of road objected. Can I assume you have the wholehearted support
> > Cheers,Mike.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 15 lines)]
> likelihood of costs being awarded against the council for wasting the
> court's time. Would the applicant be prepared to pay for this
eventuality?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:50:07 -0000
Subject: RE: Night Moonraker ?
Tim, do you know if the dates collate with those you have for the 'problem'
we were discussing before Christmas?
The thought of a few dozen vehicles in 'competition mode' thundering through
some of the lanes in Wilts puts the willies up me - just think of the other
nocturnal users :-))
What ever happened to 'tread lightly' - small groups, low speed,
consideration for other users, low damage; large masses, 'high speed', win
at all costs, lots of damage...
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:50:04 -0000
Subject: RE: HELP Warks Lane Details[multipart mime alternative 6 lines
deleted.]
I thought that the 'no hardship' rules went out with the discredited '68
Act. I can't see anything in the later acts that allows 'hardship', or
other economic considerations to be made, other than in payment of
compensation for new highways, or re-alignment of existing ones. Thus the
situation reverted to it previous state - use for pass & re-pass.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:52:01 EST
Subject: Re: Night Moonraker ?
In a message dated 05 : 01 : 99 06:53 GMT, you write:
<< What ever happened to 'tread lightly' - small groups, low speed,
consideration for other users, low damage; large masses, 'high speed', win
at all costs, lots of damage...
>>
But you must realise, we are talking of motorsport. Who ever said tread-
lightly was anything to do with competition?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:17:36 -0000
Subject: Re: Night Moonraker ?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (dub-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.206.140])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id UAA24239
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:10:47 -0500
Subject: Not only Byways
Our RoW dept seem real pleased to get obstruction reports. So to show
there's absolutely no bias towards byways or bridleways.....
By Fax To:
Mr M Eastwood, RoW Dept
Herefordshire Council
Bath Street
Hereford
HR1 2HQ
4/1/99
Dear Mr Eastwood,
I walked several footpaths around Orleton yesterday and would like to
report some which were very difficult to walk. I do not have FP numbers,
but the NGRs are (all approximate, as taken from 1:50,000 and in SO):-
479 678 - 479 682 field edge, cropped to edge, difficult to walk through
mud.
489 677 - 490 674 Cropped cross field, not re-instated, very difficult to
follow. Good wooden footbridges wasted if cross-field path is unusable.
494 666 - 495 660 Fly-tipping of 4 mounds of rubble, about 3ft high, 12
foot wide, scraps of 32mm yellow gas pipe, concrete, tarmac broken slabs,
some with yellow paint, which appears very similar to an ex-road surface.
Is this your council’s rubbish? Road not shown in ownership. FP highway
should extend to full width of road. Hurdles are placed across road at old
canal bridge, no waymarking to verify direction, next field cropped and no
waymarking or re-instatement.
At the end of last year I noted the following FP was not usable:-
499 638 - 501 640. Ploughed, not re-instated or marking through crops.
Appears to go through garden, but no confirmation signs, and then through
hedge with no apparent way through to lane (which was itself overgrown).
516 640 - 520 630 Today I rode along Stockton Ride. (Eye to Hawthorns) It
was not possible to avoid going onto the crops due to overgrowth at
Northern end. The headland width may be less than is correct. This is a
Roman Road where ploughing is encroaching into the carriageway. Gates were
tied with string. (These were not replaced). I did not see (although I may
have missed) the start of footpath to 522 639.
As in most Parishes, residents are often not inclined to report local
obstructions, I likewise would therefore ask you not to make my name known.
Yours sincerely,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 13 lines 650 [forwarded 129 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 396 [content 276 forwarded 100 (cut 29) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990106 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]