[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:11:39 -0500
Subject: dunlop's fiction - lets get the facts.
RoW list cc Glass. (May be published in Bulletin if desired)
dunlop 'said':-
contact with in regard to green lanes complains of 'off- road'
> motoring abuse and state that they have had to take action to prevent
further damage.
By "I" he presumably means his anti-access club called gleam.
Does this mean he has ONLY been in contact with those Authorities that he
knows have (or think they have) a problem with off-road abuse?
What is off-road abuse? Have we found out whether he means 'off-road' or
is using the non road legal scramble bikes and car torching on green lanes
as an excuse to feather the nest of his wealthy L/O chums by closing
Byways?
If I thought that using vehicles on lanes really did cause a problem I
would be very concerned. I am not. If he can contact them to be told
there IS a problem, yet MBB which he contributed to says there (generally)
is not, is it not possible for LARA, GLASS, TRF or BBT either individually
or better jointly to write to ALL NP's and CC's (& HA's?) to see if there
IS a problem, if so is it gleam, illegal off-road use, undesirable RoW use,
(are events such as Moonraker undesirable in their view?) normal RoW
leisure use, or the multitude of "essential users" encountered on RoW?
The same opportunity could be taken to ask out of how many BOATs UCR RUPPs
they have, how many are damaged by both user types (if known), how many
obstructed deliberately and how many by natural causes. How much have they
spent on 'leisure user' repairs during the past 5 years? How many
outstanding obstructed Bridleways and Byways do they currently have - does
that co-incide with what we know?
If a CC says there IS a problem, they should be asked to identify say the
worst 10 damaged roads, we could then hopefully inspect all of them and
draw a real conclusion as to the main user, the size and cause of any
problem, and whether VR or other controls in the worst cases, IF leisure
user, would VR or even a valid TRO remove the random TROs and 116's now
for local councillors/residents benefit, as so often seems the case.
Please DO support, oppose, or improve on this suggestion. Our future
still has to be fought for with CoCo (soon CA) when advising Parliament for
legislating on F2R. This information will not only show our concern, but
show the facts truthfully, and allow us to formulate a better policy where
there might be problems.
Clearly much thought needs to go into any questions, and the response will
certainly vary whether answered by a politician or a RoW officer for
example. If such a survey was carried out every 5 years, wouldn't that
show trends?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:12:59 -0000
Subject: BBC Online report ramblers feud
Wednesday, January 6, 1999 Published at 10:14 GMT
UK
Ramblers challenge millionaire landowner
Ramblers want to see a statutory law allowing freedom to roam
Scores of ramblers will hold a demonstration on the boundary of a private
estate in East Sussex on Wednesday.
The protest is the culmination of a 10-year campaign against a millionaire
landowner who has blocked access to a footpath by building a nine-foot high
fence across it.
The Ramblers' Association decided to take legal action against landowner
Nicholas Van Hoogstraten last December for denying them access after the
local authority said it could not afford to take him to court.
Local members have contacted Mr Van Hoogstraten to ask him to unlock the
gate used to block the footpath.
Mr Van Hoogstraten: Ramblers "are scum"
Last month, Mr Van Hoogstraten told the BBC the ramblers were "the scum of
the earth" and had no right of way across his land.
The Labour MP Andrew Bennett is calling on the government to act and provide
a statutory right of way for walkers. Mr Bennett, who is president of the
Ramblers' Association and joint chairman of the Commons environment select
committee, told BBC News Online he does not want Mr Van Hoogstraten to set a
precedent.
Andrew Bennett: "This abuse must stop"
Obviously if one landowner is to be allowed to break the law and close
footpaths which are registered rights of way, the others will follow," he
said.
"The whole aim of the both the Ramblers' Association and myself is to see
this abuse is stopped, that landowners do not break the law by closing
rights of way, that councils enforce the law an in an increasingly crowded
island, people can get out into the country to enjoy peace of mind to look
at flowers and wildlife."
Flexible approach
The Environment Minister Michael Meacher is looking at a "flexible" approach
to opening up thousands of acres of countryside to ramblers.
A keen walker, Mr Meacher told a Countryside Commission conference in London
last month he was examining a mix of voluntary and legally binding deals to
resolve the problem.
The government has published a consultation paper called the Right to Roam
following its manifesto pledge to give people more freedom to explore the UK
countryside.
But landowners are complaining that allowing more rights of way will lead to
expensive security measures to protect livestock from dogs. Ramblers argue
that voluntary arrangements with farmers have never worked in the past.
The Country Landowners' Association is strongly opposed to any new law,
saying it would lead to the biggest erosion of its members' rights this
century. It says voluntary agreements are adequate and has published a
handbook for landowners to "review and improve access on their land".
'Not a class war'
The Conservatives say the government should take a broader view and not look
at it as an issue of "class war". A spokesperson for the Countryside Rights
Association, representing small farmers and landowners, hit out at
"bullying" trespassers, who walk all over other people's land.
"There are many people who own land and gardens who are extremely worried by
this interference. What about the bullying ramblers who trespass and
frighten landowners and make false claims about public rights of way across
their land?" she said.
Peter B
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 18:40:06 +0000
Subject: Cambs byways&bridleways
Has anyone found a proven way of dealing with gypsies? For the last 3 or
4 years I've been trying to persuade the Council to act on removing
horses tethered by gypsies. But they won't. County say its a District
Council problem because of the social needs of the gypsies in the
adjacent permanent site. The DC say no, its a highway problem. The
police dont want to know. Meanwhile no-one (walker, rider, driver,
or farmer,) can get past because the chains extend across the ways which
have either hedges or ditches at the sides, so no way round. Yesterday,
County Council put up signs saying they would remover any tethered
horses, today County Council phoned me to say a local resident had taken
the signs home to study the info in greater detail!
Any thoughts? its byways as well as bridleways, Willingham in Sth Cambs.
Thanks
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:48:56 EST
Subject: Re: BBC Online report ramblers feud
In a message dated 06 : 01 : 99 02:17 GMT, you write:
<< The Environment Minister Michael Meacher is looking at a "flexible"
approach
to opening up thousands of acres of countryside to ramblers.
A keen walker, Mr Meacher ... >>
Surely, on the Pinochet Principle, Meacher (and Bennet) should back out of
this matter and leave it to those who are not tainted by potential conflict of
interest? Or is it one law for the Trampler on Human Rights, and another for
the Trampler on Highway Rights?
Ho hum.
Cheers, tim LARA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:48:51 EST
Subject: Re: GLASS: dunlop's fiction - lets get the facts.
In a message dated 06 : 01 : 99 12:12 GMT, you write:
<< What is off-road abuse? >>
Dunlop is clearly a Boy Scout leader, and therefore an expert on off-road
abuse. Out standing in his field, you could say.
Mr Dunlop, the self appointed abuse expert, yes, that has a ring to it.
The facts have already been investigated, by the HoC Environment Committee*,
and by the DETR, and by the CLA.
* chaired by Andrew Bennet, MP, as mentioned in the BBC report about Ramblers
and nice Mr Van Hognasty. I wonder if he is a 4x4 Van?
And, all the county councils I have spoken to this week have said there is no
problem with laning in their counties, so far as they know. Dunlop and I do
not keep the same company, of course.
I am sure any survey by us might backfire, as if you keep getting asked about
a problem there must be one, surely?
Cheers, tim LARA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:54:41 -0500
Subject: Occupation Roads
A road is going to PI next Thursday.
Awarded 1828 as Private Occupation Road, 18 ft wide, to be maintained
forever hereafter at the expense of those occupying land adjacent etc.
What rights exist? Several footpaths terminate on it. (FP4s don't help.)
Proposed by CC as FP, but at 1st PI CC accepted that Bridleway may be the
correct status, so it had to be advertised again. This is second PI. They
do not seem to have any evidence to show bridleway rights, other than the
occupation road.
A cottage that was used as PO exists a little way down lane, so the public
have used vehicles to that point, no one objected.
Neither the 1801Gen Act nor the 1819 local Act (as far as we know) gave
commissioners the power to say who could NOT use the road, the maintenance
was clearly not to be a burden on the parish, but who says it could not be
set out under 1801 s8 as an 18ft wide privately maintained road?
Any ideas?
FA map not available locally, Kew has not been consulted. The road may
not be usable by vehicles due to it's steepness, but that is not a reason
as it was set out as a road not bridleway in the award.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 14:54:39 -0500
Subject: Upper lye & Roman Road 3866 4442
Other letters to CC I have been told about:-
Is Leysfield Road a highway? (their s56 says it is)
Is it obstructed? (Ruddy great locked gates)
What are you doing about it?
Simple enough for them to find it hard to wriggle out of a direct answer?
&
Letter received today:
"I refer to your complaint of 28th Dec. It is being investigated, by
instructing department." (Highways)
Reply:- "My complaint of 28th was that you had not answered my letter of
the 9/12/98. That asked where are the Roman Remains located along the Roman
Road. You stated in the TRO it was to protect the remains. Were you aware
of the remains at that time, If so where are they?"
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:14:40 EST
Subject: Re: Cambs byways&bridleways
In a message dated 06 : 01 : 99 06:41 GMT, you write:
<< Has anyone found a proven way of dealing with gypsies? >>
I suspect that any attempt to talk to the said minority will reveal the
effects of 1000 years of prejudice and bigotry. Under the same circumstances
(totally unheard of in motoring circles, you understand) I would probably come
back with a four-letter response, too. So, it is not clear what other options
are open to the CC or DC.
Let this be a lesson to all those who believe that the best way to deal with
minorities is to demonise them.
Sorry if this sounds a bit negative, but I deal with the results of such
attitudes for a living.
And thanks, Sue, for the Countryman copy, I will return it shortly. I have
responded to the editor (but don't hold your breath - see above).
Cheers, tim LARA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:34:46 EST
Subject: Re: Occupation Roads
In a message dated 06 : 01 : 99 07:57 GMT, you write:
<< FA map not available locally, Kew has not been consulted. >>
Then an objector could reasonably point out that the HA had not considered all
the evidence available to it (see O'Keefe case no 1), and therefore suggest
that the Inquiry be adjourned until the job had been done properly.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:34:44 EST
Subject: Re: Upper lye & Roman Road 3866 4442
In a message dated 06 : 01 : 99 07:57 GMT, you write:
<< It is being investigated, by
instructing department." (Highways) >>
Is this connected with the Obstructing Department?
I think we should be told.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:03:24 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Warks 116
Tim,
The Wooton Wawen to Aston Cantlow UCR has probably been
used fairly regularly by MROC (Midland Rover Owners Club) who use a
site near there for caravanning and trialling. I have it marked up on
my map copied from Eddie Barnet of MROC.
Is there anyone from MROC out there?
Cheers,
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 11 lines 517 [forwarded 9 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 440 [content 360 forwarded 9 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990107 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]