[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:34:42 -0000
Subject: Re: Action please - Jpegs/mime
On this, my dear Mr Smith, I could not possibly comment.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:21:02 -0000
Subject: Country File
Did anyone see CF on Sunday. Dealt with RoW without bias. IMV
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:41:33 -0000
Subject: Re: Bartholomew's 1900 Motoring Atlas Row & Glass
Hi
The good Mr Hannigan came by several copies of Pigot & Co's British Atlas
of 1840 and I have one. (repro you understand) I could probably scan small
areas for research purposes if required.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:20:03 +0000
Subject: Re: Country File
In message <bulk.9682.19990111003815@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Seymour, Gareth" <gareth.seymour@sihe.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:17:44 -0000
Subject: Sarn Helen
Had a good little drive yesterday around the Brecon Beacons NP area.
Started at the Coelbren end of Sarn Helen. We had briefly stopped on the
main road at Coelbren and one of the local farmers pulled up in his red
Diahatsu. Seeing as he had a moan last time we saw him whilst checking
out another lane nearby we expected him to have a moan. He just wanted
to know if there was a hunt on. Its obvious that 2 of the vehicle were
"laners/triallers" ie cages etc..
We also saw the farmer on the last section of Sarn just before you drop
down the hill to the stream. He even did not seemed bothered and gave a
wave.The drop down to the Nature reserve is rough now due to a stream
running down it and causing gullies upto 18" deep in places and its
going to get worse with more rain. I took some photos and will scan them
in when they have been developed.
We joined the last bit before the mountain centre and the farm at the
road junction is up for sale. Again we saw the farmer by the gate and he
waved as we went by.
Next lane was the UCR at Trallong heading north. We got to the start and
the farmer was feeding the sheep so we had to wait for him. He then led
the way to the main fields and stopped to tell us to leave the gate open
for him. This was the second time I had driven this lane but some how we
took the wrong turn as its across open moorland. The farmer appeared on
his way back and after a quick chat he pointed us in the right
direction.
So 4 farmers in the NP and not one had a moan.....whats going on ???
Bye for now,
Gareth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-11.compuserve.com (dub-img-11.compuserve.com [149.174.206.141])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-11.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id FAA26062
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 05:52:43 -0500
Subject: Gloucester UCR 50512
I was sent this recently:
> PS Do you know anything about Glos. UCR 50512 dual status with RUPP
> according to my OS map but signed as bridleway unlike other RUPPs nearby?
I
> was sufficiently confident of its VR to break the padlock off in order to
> drive it today.... ( map ref of abated gate: SP084329)
I do not know about any Gloucestershire ones. I will re-post to RoW list.
(I will get there as soon as I have someone to go with!)
Some kind soul has put some red arrows on many byways with VR (mainly UCRs)
in this area. (Peter Newman uses the plastic ones) others are painted on.
If anyone saw one of those, even if there was a bridleway sign as well,
they should feel much easier about using and removing a padlock if
necessary. If there are no valid TRO signs, and with a red arrow it must
be OK to use.
(As we know many counties like Hereford seem to think padlocks and byways
are synonymous)
As Bob Kinghorn said, RoW have a duty to sign. We (highways) do not. There
are lots of dual status roads in Powys.
Used Black Yatt yesterday. It is well waymarked with Red tape on gates
besides the yellow (CC?) tape. Lasts well!
If a dual status road is reclassified to determine the minimum legal
evidence for the DM&S, unless it has been stopped up, those rights still
exist, in my view. Any hardware deposited is an illegal obstruction IMV.
Not sure what would happen if a stile on a County road, admitted vehicular,
but shown as footpath is described on statement with stile? (Hypothetical
only, but Whitton or Lowes Hall might be examples)
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 05:52:50 -0500
Subject: Hereford, anyone there?
Todays and tomorrows letters:-
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
Ms. M Rosenthal
County Secretary and Solicitor
Brockington
35 Hafod Road
Hereford
HR1 1SH
11/1/99
Fax 01 432 260206
Tel 01 432 260000
Dear Ms. Rosenthal,
Re: Roman Road Proposed TRO.
On 6/11/98 I asked if Hereford Council was a signatory to the County
Surveyors Society. That appears to have been ignored, or you have not
bothered to reply. I wonder if you could forward the address of that
society to me so that I might ask them directly. I believe their rules on
consultation may have been ignored, if so they may wish to be aware of the
situation.
‘Making the Best of Byways’ shows there is a better way of managing byways.
If the Council wish to discuss practical, lawful methods, as recommended
by the DETR, please call.
A response within your stated target of 10 working days would be
appreciated to avoid further complaints.
Yours sincerely,
Chris J Marsden.
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
Ms. M Rosenthal
County Secretary and Solicitor
Brockington
35 Hafod Road
Hereford
HR1 1SH
12/1/99
Fax 01 432 260206
Tel 01 432 260000
Dear Ms. Rosenthal,
Re: Roman Road Proposed TRO.
On 23/10/98 I asked for your agreement to familiarise the Countryside
Commission with the problem of the large number of under-recorded byways in
Herefordshire. (Ex CRF’s and CRB’s). As you did not suggest I did not
contact CoCo, I think this might be advantageous now. I suspect you would
agree that Hereford may well be one of their Star ‘Under-performing Highway
Authorities’ described in CoCo’s ‘RoW in the 21st Century’ document. As
there is such gross dereliction of minor highways, (gated, fenced,
ploughed, obstructed, out of repair, under recorded, under used, under
publicised, etc.) in the county, with your cavalier approach to Roman
Road, and the ducking and diving over the Upper Lye obstruction, I am
cautious of any cut in funding sanctions from CoCo. Are any RoW posts, or
other projects currently being funded or partially funded by CoCo?
‘Making the Best of Byways’ shows there is a better way of managing byways.
If the Council wish to discuss practical, lawful methods, as recommended
by the DETR, please call.
A response within your stated target of 10 working days would be
appreciated to avoid further complaints.
Yours sincerely,
Chris J Marsden.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:50:05 -0000
Subject: Re: IT question
Thanks for that Ian - something more than a floppy will be used to back it
up!!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:41:07 -0000
Subject: Re: Fire wood
At least the wood would be home produced!!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:54:52 EST
Subject: Re: MIM
In a message dated 09 : 01 : 99 08:43 GMT, you write:
<< AOL encodes all the attachments (like a zip but different )
and forwards them to you. >>
You would think, wouldn't you, that the Worlds Biggest Suppier of such
nonsense, would include a way of decoding such stuff automatically, if they
code it automatically.
[spamkill: marketing\. input: %s] But that is applying logic to a)
computers, and b) marketing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:54:51 EST
Subject: Re: Warks 116
In a message dated 09 : 01 : 99 08:20 GMT, you write:
<< 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 :-) >>
Please do not assume that the Blue Book is anything to do with HMG. It is
written by tramplers for tramplers, and published by tramplers. (and out of
print)
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:54:54 EST
Subject: Re: Warks 116
In a message dated 10 : 01 : 99 05:01 GMT, you write:
<< 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). >>
The map I have been sent by WCC shows a fairly wide section parallel with the
old Rly line, turning N and a bit W away from it around a wide sweeping RH
curve, (15 metres wide according to the scale of 1:3000 and 5mm wide) with
something (the bank?) then running along the E bank to a tributary junction.
The road follows (runs in) the river Alne for the whole of its NS section in
this area (40mm = 120 metres), then continues N and a bit E narrower, then
fairly wide, to Grey Mill Cottage which it passes to the W of. The fairly wide
sections scale at 2 - 3mm = 6 - 9 metres.
As the railway boundaries are shown as 5 - 6 mm apart (ie 15 - 18 metres wide)
this might help anyone wondering (like I do) if the scale is correct.
I can send a JPG of the map if anyone would like it. For personal research
only, of course, it would not do to send it with this...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:54:48 EST
Subject: Re: Rupp 13 in herts
In a message dated 09 : 01 : 99 04:37 GMT, you write:
<< Regarding RUPP 13. The guy who was taking legal action against the AWDC for
trespass has just dropped it. Excellent News.
Can Tim Stevens please telephone John at home regarding the TRF Side of
things. >>
I understand that the case was dropped for the reason that the person against
whom the case was taken could prove that he was elsewhere at the time. And not
because the LO has lost interest or changed his tack.
And, that the later TRF riders about whom there is no doubt are now in the
front line and will be victimised. I hope that the AWDC will display
solidarity in this case, and co-operate with the TRF in both their interests.
I understand that AWDC solicitors costs were paid by the LO, so perhaps some
of the funding AWDC set aside for this could be shared?
I have rung J O'R at home with no response, and left a message on the mobile
number I have. I am not sure what else I can do, except ring again in the
evening, which of course I shall do.
Cheers, tim
ps It is always useful when passing on messages like this, to indicate the
limitations (time etc) and give the relevant number(s).
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:54:57 EST
Subject: Re: Warks 116
In a message dated 10 : 01 : 99 07:35 GMT, you write:
<< They could put locked gates on a BOAT with a
permanent TRO? >>
They could, but only if the TRO was for all traffic, including horses and
walkers. And horses are not mentioned in TRO legislation, so this all traffic
TRO might be challenged on those grounds as ultra vires.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:05:57 -0500
Subject: EPA90 (was: Re: Cambs byways&bridleways)
> 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.
Gerry Pearlman of RA is no doubt considering that very carefully as he has
used it successfully on 2 or 3 occasions. It does not seem ideally suited
for RoW applications in general.
Westley was a result of deliberate cultivation in respect of a planning
consent. (From memory) It may still be possible that a locked gate etc
could be regarded as a statutory nuisance. Might be worth asking the CC if
they regard it as statutory nuisance or otherwise, and how there would
prefer it actioned. Then they can not ask for costs. ?.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:43:14 -0000
Subject: Re: Hereford, anyone there?
It would seem, dear boy, that the buggers don't have a clue as to what they
are about, which is why they do not respond - they know not how to!
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: Hereford, anyone there?
> Date: 11 January 1999 10:52
> Todays and tomorrows letters:-
> Orleton Manor
[ truncated by list-digester (was 34 lines)]
> bothered to reply. I wonder if you could forward the address of that
> society to me so that I might ask them directly. I believe their rules
on
> consultation may have been ignored, if so they may wish to be aware of
the
> situation.
> Making the Best of Byways shows there is a better way of managing byways.
> If the Council wish to discuss practical, lawful methods, as recommended
> by the DETR, please call.
> A response within your stated target of 10 working days would be
> appreciated to avoid further complaints.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 38 lines)]
> On 23/10/98 I asked for your agreement to familiarise the Countryside
> Commission with the problem of the large number of under-recorded byways
in
> Herefordshire. (Ex CRFs and CRBs). As you did not suggest I did not
> contact CoCo, I think this might be advantageous now. I suspect you
would
> agree that Hereford may well be one of their Star Under-performing
Highway
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:58:04 -0000
Subject: RE: Warks 116
Just now a boat would be essential to navigate this ucr.
As for application for BOAT status, my previous posting might be of use,
there may be TWO RoW crossing the river, not the one everyone is thinking,
the 'ucr' and another, much older and wider 'drove road' - the latter would
need to be investigated with great care. If the LO to the north of the
river has 'lost' the line of the ucr in his garden, then I wander how he
would react to it being declared a BOAT, and the legal ramifications of him
finding that he has to remove a large lump of lawn, and borders because the
are obstructing said BOAT. Today I'm surprised he didn't have a 'NO
MOORING' sign posted, but that's a different story.
BTW there was some tree surgery in progress nearby - the tree surgeons were
quite happy to see a walker on the FP they were working alongside.
My understanding is that a TRO can define how the TRO is enforced, thus
gates would be OK, provided they were supported by the appropriate signage.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 99 19:32 GMT0
Subject: Re: Chapter and Verse on the Ridgeway please
In order to save me a phone call to OCC, is the weekend TRO on teh
Ridgeway compulsory or voluntary. One of my oppos (on this list, actually)
has an idea he has seen a notice which points to the latter.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Bill" <bill@trail.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:13:37 -0000
Subject: Re: Gloucester UCR 50512
>> PS Do you know anything about Glos. UCR 50512 dual status with RUPP
>> according to my OS map but signed as bridleway unlike other RUPPs nearby?
>>I was sufficiently confident of its VR to break the padlock off in order
to
>> drive it today.... ( map ref of abated gate: SP084329)
Noticed this last weekend, on the middle of 5 gates. Tell him good man, well
done etc. as far as I am aware this has VR. Local TRF have had no
notification from
Glos CC to say otherwise. Glos CC are only dubious about VR on (some) class
6 UCRS.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:55:26 EST
Subject: Re: Chapter and Verse on the Ridgeway please
In a message dated 11 : 01 : 99 07:34 GMT, you write:
<< In order to save me a phone call to OCC, is the weekend TRO on teh
Ridgeway compulsory or voluntary. One of my oppos (on this list, actually)
has an idea he has seen a notice which points to the latter. >>
There is no TRO on the Ridgeway. That was what the Public Inquiry was all
about, and that is what we achieved. No TRO, just sensible management.
If anyone sees anything different, I need to know.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Mel Mauger & Matthew Reeve" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:50:10 -0000
Subject: restricted width BOAT
Yesterday (Sunday) three of us drove a BOAT north of Newbury. (SU476808 - SU
484818). It was marked
BOAT on the OS, signed byway by the council. The width was dramatically reduced
by trees which
looked as if they were planted deliberately. The surface is firm and dry and it
looks as if it was
extensively used by motorbikes. At the northern end the width has been
sufficiently obstructed that
we couldn't get through and had to divert off the proper route for about
20metres right at the
northern end. Does anyone have any more details on this lane, i.e. what is the
proper width? is it
feasible to open up the northern end? it is otherwise a very nice lane which is
technically
interesting to drive, as well as being very dry and firm even after a lot of
rain.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:04:41 -0000
Subject: Dummer in Dorzet
11 January, 1999
Mr C Slade
Senior Rights of Way Officer
Dorset County Council
County Hall
Colliton Park
Dorchester DT1 1XJ
Dear Mr Slade
Thank you for your letter of 10 December 1998 regarding the gates erected
on Gussage All Saints 10 and 13. With Christmas, the flu and other
seasonal interruptions behind me I can turn again to this matter.
You state that the gates were erected following s147 authorisation. I do
not see how this can be as there are numerous ways in which animals could
enter or leave the two rights of way other than the gated points. The lane
to the north of the gates is, from memory, open along the majority of the
western boundary; has a number of intersections along it's route that are
not gated and the northern entrance to the lane is free bar a pole gate.
The situation is similar to the south, with a considerable acreage of
woodland unfenced to the east; un-gated field entrances and a pole gate at
the southern exit onto a sealed highway. These pole gates have been the
topic of past letters and are unquestionably illegal obstructions.
I would suggest that the landowner consider the option of securing the land
against the lane and not the lane against the legitimate user. When
weighing this matter please consider the following from the Send case:
"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."
Lane LJ in R-v-Surrey CC ex parte Send Parish Council
Unless you can supply good reason why these gates might still fall under
s147 I expect to find them gone when next I am in the area.
Yours sincerely
Dave Tilbury
~~~~~~~~~
There, and not one expletive!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: phil.wadey@WHICH.NET (phil.wadey@WHICH.NET)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 22:47:59 -0000
Subject: RE: Warks 116
Isn't this illegal? If you use the form of words in the regs then they can't
say they haven't been made in the prescribed form. I would note here that the
1993 regs changed the forms very slightly from those in the blue book, but I
would have thought that a court or the secretary of state would disregard the
differences as they are so minor.
After a year of having made the application and certifying that you've notified
landowners and occupiers, you can complain to the Sec of State that they
haven't made a decision. I think they'll look really stupid if they try to say
they didn't do it because of two words difference between the form used and the
one in regs.
Phil Wadey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: phil.wadey@WHICH.NET (phil.wadey@WHICH.NET)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 22:52:11 -0000
Subject: RE: EPA90 (was: Re: Cambs byways&bridleways)
Westley v Herts CC: There's a not very complete write up in The Times which I
found last week when doing a search, and a longer one (which could have been
better I'm sure) in B&B.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:39:23 -0500
Subject: Re: TRO & gates, was Warks 116
> They could, but only if the TRO was for all traffic, including horses and
> walkers. And horses are not mentioned in TRO legislation, so this all
traffic
> TRO might be challenged on those grounds as ultra vires.
> walkers. And horses are not mentioned in TRO legislation, so this all
As Mr C Tarrant would say "Are you sure, really sure, you don't want to
change your mind?"
TRO proposed includes cycles but excludes horse, ie all vehicles. So
leaving a 5 ft gap with a locked 10' gate isn't permissable? Still they
don't take any notice of rules. The just expect peasants like us to obey
rules.
Anything worth quoting to them now to increase their misery? They are
awaiting Police's view on a TRO which might be helpful to us. Especially if
they can not (legally) enforce it physically.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 26 lines 1328 [forwarded 201 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 760 [content 666 forwarded 145 (cut 56) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990112 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]