[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:34:18 +0000
Subject: Bartholomew's 1900 Motoring Atlas Row & Glass
While perusing the maps in W H Smiths yesterday I noticed a reprint of
Bartholomew's 1900 Motoring Road Atlas. It claims to be an accurate
representation of their first road atlas and sells for about twenty
quid. Before rushing of to the cash desk I decided to have a look at
some of the maps. Some of their cartographers must have been pretty far
sighted chaps as some of the roads represented weren't built until the
1930's! In the small print they do admit that the plates were updated
in the years after 1900. As far as I can see it should have been called
the 'Bartholomew's Approximately 1935ish Road Atlas'
Never the less the book is quite interesting although the scale of the
maps is rather small to show much detail.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: phil.wadey@WHICH.NET (phil.wadey@WHICH.NET)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:51:03 -0000
Subject: RE: Warks 116
Isn't there a draft of the boiler plate 'BOAT' form in the 'Blue Book'?
I agree there is nothing quite like using the CC's own paperwork, but if
they won't co-operate then use that provided by HMG :-)
[PDW] I always use my own forms. I find that local authorities put irrelevant
questions on their forms (i.e. not statutory ones) and give out 'advice to
applicants' which seriously mislead applicants, in my opinion. I had two
Eastern Region county access officers contact me in 98 to question thing their
local authorities had stated, which were grossly misleading. Needless to say,
they were appropriately advised.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 17:00:07 -0000
Subject: RE: Warks 116
I've just got back from walking this track!
The ucr is very visible to the south of the river, and is obstructed by
various fences and thorn bushes over the last few yards to the river. The
southern entry at this point is probably a bit boggy, but I can't vouch for
this myself as the river was in spate - something to do with all the rain
we've had?
There are two possible northern exits from the river!
(a) Straight across, and into the obstacles described by the District
Surveyor, and
(b) Down stream about 50 yards, and out on a well mad exit route, this is
obstructed by a nice new fence, with large posts sunk into the bank (and
bed).
This second exit would appear to be on the line of a much older track than
the ucr, possibly an old drovers trail some 20 or so yards wide, between two
ancient hedges to the north of the river, and as a broad depression in the
fields to the south (running parallel to the ucr).
As it stands today it is difficult to see where the line north of the river
goes, due to the gardens etc., until the farm is reached, whereupon the ucr
is the main road into the farm.
Looking at the lane on the land one can see quite clearly that the southern
section is almost certainly not in 'ownership', and the first section north
of the river may have been 'usurped' into someone's back garden. I very
much doubt if any owners can be found!
I was going to walk south to north, but decided that was going to be a bit
risky as gypsies are 'occupying' the grass verges where I would have parked,
with their horses grazing in the ucr!
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:33:43 -0500
Subject: RE: Warks 116
> Isn't there a draft of the boiler plate 'BOAT' form in the 'Blue Book'?
> I agree there is nothing quite like using the CC's own paperwork, but if
> they won't co-operate then use that provided by HMG :-)
As this is informal consultation only at this stage I would not consider a
BOAT application at the moment.
I was asked to submit a BOAT application by H&W director of H/W for a road
he considered they were conned into making up at the Rhydd S of Hereford. I
used the form from the blue book which he said was unacceptable. I refused
to submit it on their forms so it has not been made. They were going to
stop the next bit up, but they did not. So I had no need to make an
application.
Geoff B has made an application for BOAT on Roman Road HF, the UCR they
want to TRO. He says they will not be able to put gates on it if it is a
BOAT. Surely he is wrong? They could put locked gates on a BOAT with a
permanent TRO?
However it will cause an inconvenience, be a none sense to have one of the
very few BOATs on the Landranger Map in Hereford being unusable through
TRO. Shows what a bunch of incompetants they are to get into that
situation.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:33:41 -0500
Subject: Audit Commission next
After a nil response from the Councils Auditors, lets see if the Audit
commission have any balls:-
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
Complaints Monitoring Officer
The Audit Commission
Nicholson House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8SU
11/1/99
Dear Sir,
COMPLAINT: Lack of response to a letter.
On 3/12/98 I wrote to the auditors to Hereford Council c/o the Audit
Commission, at the address I was given by Hereford Council. I wonder if
you can help me understand why I have not had any acknowledgement or reply?
Would you have a record of receipt, and if so, was it passed to the
auditors? Do you perhaps have a fax number, telephone number and address
with a contact name so that I might write to them directly?
Since writing I have made a formal complaint direct to the Council on a
related matter. I would now like confirmation that correct procedures are
being followed to avoid the need for a complaint or objection to the
Council’s accounts at a later time, thus causing possible delay in the
approval of the accounts; some matters are "on all fours" (as lawyers
might say) with Price Waterhouse’s criticism of Hereford & Worcester County
Council.
For your information, I enclose a copy of that letter.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Marsden
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
To the Auditors to Hereford Council,
The Audit Commission
Nicholson House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8SU
03/12/98
Dear Sirs,
As Auditors to Hereford Council you may be able to assist in three items of
expenditure that cause me concern. I do not wish to make a formal
complaint at this time, although I reserve the right to do so should it
become clear that current actions by Hereford Council do not comply with
good practice or are outside their powers. Your answers to the following
questions will help me to know what is acceptable.
1) Price Waterhouse condemned public expenditure by H&WCC on RoW
furniture installed alongside field gates as being ‘unauthorised’, or more
properly an obstruction, unless such furniture was shown on the Statement
accompanying the Definitive Map. Would this practice be Ultra Vires for
all councils and specifically Hereford Council in following on from H&WCC?
On the assumption this is so, the particular example which concerns me is
at Yatton, Nr Aymestry, where a Council bridleway gate was installed
alongside a private 10ft (approx.) gate. There is substantive evidence that
this road enjoys higher rights, and the bridleway definition is without
prejudice to any higher rights. There are no gates shown on the Statement
to the Definitive Map on the bridleway, at or near this location.
This gate was apparently reported ‘stolen’ along with the 10ft gate, and
the posts cut off at about 2ft height. (This does not quite explain why
all three posts were vandalised, when at the most two, would have been
adequate to remove the two gates.) The gates have been replaced. The 10 ft
gate presumably privately, but the 5ft gate appears to be of a County
Council type, has council bridleway way-markers, and a gate label stating
"Hereford & Worcester Contracting" The 5ft gate however, is not new. If
this has indeed been replaced by the County Council, would you consider
that i) erecting ii) replacing such an unauthorised obstruction on a
highway is correct practice in view of Price Waterhouse?
2) A BOAT application was made about 10 years ago for a Public Carriage
Road depicted on an Inclosure Award at Upper Lye; a ‘legal event’. This
means the council was from that time aware of the ‘public’s rights’. The
County Council admits the road is a public highway. The owner of adjacent
land has erected locked gates at one end, and graciously allowed the other
end to be a ‘permissive’ footpath, part of the prestigious Mortimers Trail.
This owner of the land adjacent has been receiving payment from the Council
for a ‘Permissive Footpath’ routed over a public road, even though the
council was in possession of the Inclosure award evidence from the
applicant. I have difficulty in reconciling this payment with an effective
and efficient use of public money. Could you advise please.
3) A Traffic Regulation Order has been advertised for a road (U73019)
where there have been illegal obstructions for some long time. The Council
has a duty to remove these obstructions, yet failed in that duty. Advice
from the DETR is that alternative measures are used first, and
consultation with users can remove the need or reduce the costs of
implementing a TRO. This advice has not been followed, thus exposing the
Council to unnecessary expenditure. Examples of DETR advice to councils:-
Making the Best of Byways (MBoB). DETR, April 1998:-
6.2 States "Highway Authorities are advised to try and solve problems
through management measures based on co-operation and agreement. Only where
such measures have failed or are considered inappropriate should TROs be
used....."
"Despite the major change in the need to advertise in the London Gazette
saving £200/£300 per order.... the authority will still need to provide
evidence to support the reason(s) for making the TRO..."
An "experimental TRO under s9" may be appropriate. This could control use
to ensure any traffic is light, infrequent, non-damaging, and that this
special type of road remains special, never being drawn into the
conventional transport network.
Sect 8.1 "The Rights of Way Review Committee in PGNI outlines a code of
Practice on Consultation over Changes to RoW which it advises authorities
to follow. PGNI suggests that the time and cost involved in processing:...
TRO’s..... can be reduced if informal consultation is carried out with
interested parties prior to the orders being made."
Sect 6.1 of MBoB, refers to Government advice in Circular 2/93:-
7. Greater understanding of the statutory criteria which apply to the
making of creation, extinguishment and diversion orders, should further
reduce disagreement and conflict and secure beneficial changes at minimum
cost. Path users are also likely to be more receptive to changes where
existing rights of way are already open and available for use.
Traffic Regulation Orders
2/93 -13. Conflicts over the type of use may occur on some public rights of
way and authorities should look to solve these where possible by management
measures, based on co-operation and agreement. User groups will often agree
to measures involving voluntary restraint, which they themselves will help
monitor.
26. By virtue of section 130(1) of the Highways Act 1980 county,
metropolitan district and London borough councils have a duty, as highway
authorities, to assert and protect the rights of the public to use and
enjoy those public rights of way for which they are responsible. They also
have a similar duty under section 130(3) of the Act to prevent, as far as
possible, the stopping-up or obstruction of those public rights of way for
which they are responsible. Highway authorities are also empowered to
safeguard public enjoyment of those highways for which they are not
responsible, and to prevent the stopping up or obstruction of such highways
where this is considered to be prejudicial to the interests of their area.
It is also an offence under section 137 of the Act for a person to obstruct
a highway without lawful authority.
28. The most common problem that authorities are likely to encounter in
discharging these duties is the obstruction of public rights of way. Since
it is important that public rights of way should remain unobstructed and
open for public use the Secretaries of State look to authorities to ensure
that any obstructions they discover or have reported to them are removed
without undue delay. In this connection section 143 enables highway
authorities, or district councils acting on their behalf when maintaining
the highway, to secure the removal of structures on the highway by serving
notice on the person responsible and by removing the obstruction themselves
at the person's expense should that person fail to comply with the notice.
Section 149 also enables an authority to have any "thing" so deposited on a
highway as to constitute a nuisance or danger to users removed forthwith.
2/93 - 29. The public are entitled to expect that all rights of way will
be kept open and available for use. It is therefore important that
authorities act quickly to investigate any complaint made to them, and to
resolve the problem if the complaint is found to be justified. It will
often be possible to do so amicably with the co-operation of the person
concerned and, providing they do so quickly, this will normally be
sufficient. Where further action by the authority is necessary, however,
preference should be given to using whatever default powers the authority
has available to carry out the works itself and recover its costs. Legal
proceedings are invariably time consuming and should therefore be used only
where other means are not available or where the problem persistently
recurs.
This raises several points, which I have raised in the footnotes, on each
page.
These long standing obstructions, that the council admit to being aware of,
show a neglect of a duty, whilst implementing TRO’s, is only a power.
Neglect of a duty whilst pursuing a power due to the wishes of the Parish
Council, is not Economical, Efficient, Effective use of public funds,
especially in the face of such clear advice from the Government. This
suggests Maladministration; possibly also a conflict of interest; a
complaint has been submitted to the LGMO for investigation prior to
submission to the Ombudsman.
No ‘need’ has been demonstrated for a TRO, which is acknowledged to be
expensive; nor has any assessment of the need for a TRO been attempted;
nor can it be -objectively, whilst remaining illegally obstructed. Public
funds are now being expended in processing the TRO application for which
there can be no justification as the way has not be made open to the
public. (I have been informed by letter that an officer within the county
has requested the TRO. Yet I also have a letter from the assistant
Director, Highways, from the former administration saying he had suggested
the TRO some months earlier. I am at a loss to understand why Hereford
should pay for the ‘suggestions’ of the former administration that allowed
the illegal obstruction to persist, and who presided over such dereliction
of our minor highways.)
A BOAT Definitive Map Modification Order application for this road has
(quite properly) been made, I understand. This will almost certainly lead
to objections, usually on spurious grounds requiring a P.I., the cost of
which is typically likely to exceed £10,000, yet will then show on the
Ordnance Survey maps as a byway, but not usable even by cyclists. Whilst
satisfying the desires of one or two local landowners and hence the Parish
Council, this TRO will not benefit the wider public, including myself, who
have to pay for it.
I am sure that you are aware that the courts have recently held that a
highway authority must perform statutory duties in preference to statutory
powers [R v. East Sussex County Council, ex parte Tandy, The Times, 21 May
1998]. I am sure that you are also aware of s148 of the 1980 HA and
appreciate the words of Lord Justice Lane in R v. Surrey CC ex parte Send
Parish Council, 1979 :
"The local authority must at all times act with the object of protecting
the highway and of preventing and 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".
This is Maladministration, and the complaint so far rests with the Local
Government Monitoring Officer, awaiting referral to the Ombudsman if an
acceptable and legal compromise is not reached.
I have received a document confirming that the County Council is aware that
the implementation of a TRO would save a very substantial some of money.
This is a) not either of the stated reasons for the TRO
b) not a legally valid reason for making a TRO
c) not necessary, had Government advice been heeded.
This implies a) Ulterior Motives, b) Misplaced Philanthropy, c)
Unnecessary expenditure. Can you please explain to me the Liability to
Surcharge, and also if you consider necessary, to the Officers and
Committee of Hereford Council. What notices or warning is required to
ensure this does not happen unwittingly? I do seek compliance before the
event, rather than any avoidable incurring of surcharges after the event.
Yours faithfully
Chris J Marsden
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:18:54 -0000
Subject: RE: GLEAM Newbury (ROW & GLASS)
One could even sterilise the area to be operated on with some 'whiskeys'
I've met in the past, but they were c%%p to drink.
Now lets find the operating table and theatre staff ;-)
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Stuart Conner <sconner@tcp.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:12:13 -0000
Subject: RE: IT question
Dave,
If memory serves correct, the Windows Address Book is saved in a file with the
extension .wab. Search for this then back it up.
Regards,
Stuart.
On Saturday, January 09, 1999 12:39 PM, Dave Tilbury
[SMTP:Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk] wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:41:18 -0000
Subject: Faxes (was: Re: 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)
Just don't forget that some CCs (Bolton at least) don't accept notices
by fax!
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:35:10 -0000
Subject: Re: Fire wood
>For those with chainsaw, there is a fallen tree across a lane near
>Basingstoke at SU579548.
Much as firewood is always appreciated that sort of journey from
Manchester would make coal far more economical.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:50:44 -0000
Subject: Re: Cambs byways&bridleways
>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,
....
>Any thoughts? its byways as well as bridleways, Willingham in Sth
Cambs.
Although the police are not interested in a direct approach they
should be interested in ensuring your protection whilst asserting your
legal right to abate the obstruction (e.g. cut the tethers) in order
that you can exercise your right of passage along the highway.
However, expect to have to demonstrate that a real danger exists if
the police do not accompany you.
Also do not forget that chains and the like have a special section in
HA80 and as such they should be treated as being a bit of a special
case as a particular nuisance. (see section 162)
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:06:09 -0000
Subject: EPA90 (was: Re: Cambs byways&bridleways)
>Is the environmental protection Act of any use? probably not.
It would seem that the EPA90 is of very limited use on highways
matters. As far as I know there is only one case (Westley v.
Hertford CC) where the EPA90 applied to a highway has been considered
by the courts.
This case also involved HA80 s56 as well as EPA90 s82. Because it
is very recent I have not had a chance to study it in any detail
(especially as I have imminent exams) but it would seem at first
glance to suggest that EPA90 is not a very useful tool for dealing
with highway matters unless there is a public health aspect to
consider.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:26:56 -0000
Subject: Re: IT question
>Am I thick - or is microsoft? Using the MS internet mail package
that come
>with Windows. This uses Windows Address Book. Something tells me
that I
>should back up this now large store of info but where is it? The
extensive
>adress book help does not even cover backup.
It is contained within a big .pst file which is (usually) located in
the Application Data folder. It will need a little more than a
floppy to back it up!
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:16:21 -0000
Subject: Devation (was: Re: BBC Online report ramblers feud)
>Rather than breakdown the fence, they diverted around it on a track,
round
>the barn (which the LO gloats he built to prevent people using this
>established path), then back to the path and found their way out,
having
....
>From what I've heard it would appear that this course of action may
be
>'legal', in that they were taking a legitimate diversion around an
illegal
>obstruction.
Whilst there is no doubt that a deversion around an obstruction of a
highway is 'legal' it must be remembered that use of a highway is only
legal as of right for passing and repassing during a bona-fide
journey. It is clear that in this case, the purpose of the
journey was to deviate from the route and that must (in a strict legal
sense) call into question whether the deviation was 'legal'.
>This was covered in Stacey v Sherrin in 1913, and possibly in
>1781 by Lord Justice Mansfield (Taylor v Whitehead) "{Highways] are
for the
>public service, and if the usual track is impassable, it is for the
general
>good that people should be entitled to pass on another line"
.......
>In both these
>cases it appears to be specific that the deviation should be on land
>belonging to the same LO as the obstructed highway, and that minimum
damage
>should be caused by performing the deviation.
Minimum damage is a difficult one as minimum does not need to be the
least possible or indeed the least expensive to repair. But as for
land in the same ownership I can see no direct reference to that
anywhere. It is surely not reasonable for a court to expect a
person who is travelling along a highway which they find is
obstructed, to check the land ownership position before deviating.
However, if they knew that the adjoining land (onto which they were
deviating) had a different owner then that might count against them.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 13 lines 846 [forwarded 47 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 676 [content 563 forwarded 47 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990111 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]