[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99 09:11 GMT0
Subject: Re: Chapter and Verse on the Ridgeway please
OK, thanks Tim, so can 4x4s and 2x1s use the Ridgeway at the weekends
without _any_ restrictions, voluntary or no....?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99 09:40 GMT0
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
We'll investigate this again on Friday Matt if you like it could make a
good NGLD project if tackled intelligently
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:39:58 -0000
Subject: motors in the countryside - we're under attack, again.
Two letters in today's Guardian
>>"blah, blah, blah........Grant full access to walkers and the next thing
will be demand for 4-wheel drive liberties by the idle affluent and their
polluting effluent. .....blah, blah.
Tony Hills, Crediton, Devon"
and
"blah, blah, blah.......Cavers come every day of the year, motor bikes go
off-road and the farmer next door has had a demand to let four WD vehicles
down the lane he uses for moving sheep and tractors......blah, blah.
Hilary Fenten, Horton in Ribblesdale, N Yorks."
Given that responses went in for an article by Oliver Tickell a month or so
ago, and nothing was heard of that, can anyone be bothered to try to put our
side to this story? If so, e-mail the Guardian, giving your postal
address(even if you don't want it printed), at
letters@guardian.co.uk
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:28:33 -0000
Subject: Re: Chapter and Verse on the Ridgeway please
I think the real question which has arisen in the mind of your colleague, is
what to do to comply with the code of conduct which is displayed in many
places along the line of the Ridgeway.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:56:48 -0500
Subject: restricted width BOAT
> 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.
> interesting to drive, as well as being very dry and firm even after a lot
The answer must be look at the statement. But HA80 s142 covers planting
trees in the highway. You need a licence to do it, and it should I think
be for cosmetic reasons rather than to obstruct the use of the highway. A
quick fax to Rhoda Barnett or lizzy sthill maybe? *
If you dont get a reply in 10 wkg days send it rec del that they will be
abated in another 10 days, in so far as needed to use road as reqd.
para 5 says the HA can attach conditions to ensure the convenience of
passengers and to prevent delay, so s130 rules OK.
Cj
PS funny thing at Powys Occifers recomended cttee to allow skips for free
(to reduce fly tipping) and charge for trees. Ctee voted to charge for
skips and make tree planting licence free.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:57:02 -0500
Subject: TRO Roman Rd
This TRO was requested by D of env after "consultation" with loc memb. and
chair of H&T cttee. Under delegated powers, it is not proposed to be
considered by full cttee.
So how am I to get their trumped up evidence for a TRO out of them?
Lets start with Dir of Env
Mr. S James. M.Sc., C.Eng., M.I.C.E., F.I.H.T.,
Director, Environment.
Hereford Council
Brockington,
35 Hafod Road,
Hereford.
HR1 1SH
12/1/99
Dear Mr James,
I have been informed that you requested the TRO proposed for Roman Road
Hereford. Whilst not in any way opposed if necessary, it would indicate a
severe breakdown in the system if it is indeed required.
I can not quite picture you, sitting in the office, one day saying "Oh we
must have a TRO, where shall we put it?" So many other things to do
setting up a new authority after 24 years, or was it really trying out a
new power?
Was it the fictitious "hordes of wealthy owners racing high powered 4x4’s,
roaring back and forth all day" but surely you have better things to do
than read the Hereford Times rubbish? But if it was, I’m sure you will
have lots of evidence. Any chance of seeing it?
Was it perhaps that you tripped over a Roman Urn while walking long there,
and you exclaimed "we’re not having cyclists there, oh no!, we’ll just let
the bally great agricultural 4x4 tractors smash them up good and proper?"
So can you enlighten me on the events leading up to proposing the TRO, why
and how did you suddenly decide that was such a high priority to disregard
all of the government’s advice on managing this byway?
Yours sincerely,
Chris J Marsden.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:40:18 -0000
Subject: RUPP 63 - Stockport
NGRs: SJ 862 860 to 864 855
RUPP 63 is a short, badly made up track on the southern urban fringes
of Stockport. Back in November 1996 the HA made a reclassification
order for this route to reclassify it as a bridleway. I objected
on the basis that it is shown as being free from land valuation on the
FA1910 working plans (the books have not been consulted) and that the
1st series OS map shows it as a through route. The 'through' bit is
now a definitive FP but is a farm track of vehicle width and hedged on
both sides. At the southern end of the FP bit is a substantial
bridge across the railway just before the track meets the tarmaced
road which crosses the railway by a separate bridge. (Bridges at SJ
865 848 and SJ 864 847)
The northern end of RUPP 63 connects to a definitive bridleway. The
HA claim that this and the fact that the RUPP once terminated (at its
south end) on MOD land, stops any vehicular rights having been gained.
I have pointed out the error in their thinking but it is all too late
as the order had already been made and my objection lodged.
Therefore the PI process had begun. The northern bridleway has
strong circumstantial evidence of carriageway as it was once the only
link between two now-metalled roads - one of them the Wilmslow to
Manchester Turnpike (A34).
A PI has been set for the beginning of February 1999 which surprises
me as I am the only objector. However, the Inspector is unlikely
to extend the scope of the Inquiry to consider the possible status of
the bridleway to the north of the RUPP or the FP at its southern end.
Because of this I have really only the FA1910 evidence to go on and it
is virtually a foregone conclusion that the route will go to
Bridleway.
I have exams upto 1 week before the PI and the PRO is a long way away
(Chester) so I am unlikely to find any new evidence between now and
then. As the PI is almost certain to confirm the order, I have to
ask if it is worth me pursuing it with all the time, hassle and stress
that is entailed with that.
I am therefore considering withdrawing my objection with a letter
stating my reasons and reminding the powers that be that a definitive
bridleway is without prejudice to any higher rights. Therefore,
armed with the evidence that I have, I can be confident that such
evidence is not sufficient for a PI but IS sufficient to protect me
from prosecution from using the route with a motor vehicle even if it
is recorded as a definitive bridleway. Such a test is surely a much
fairer one on which to base the entire system and gives users, and the
public in general, a greater involvement in the system which is
supposed to serve them.
Copies would naturally be sent to DETR, CoCo (or whatever they call
themselves), etc.
What do folks think???
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:42:18 -0500
Subject: motors in the countryside - we're under attack, again.
> Given that responses went in for an article by Oliver Tickell a month or
so
> ago, and nothing was heard of that, can anyone be bothered to try to put
our
> side to this story? If so, e-mail the Guardian, giving your postal
Not really bothered to waste time, but to prove they only like to wind
things up then not put the facts:-
To the editor,
letters@guardian.co.uk
I see you are starting on the anti 4wd theme again? Seems little point in
replying, there is an anti access organisation (gleam) urging members to
write to all national and local papers frequently. They have one common
interest - to prevent access to the countryside. They show no coherent
case has been shown. Of all the off-tarmac use of the countryside, a
minute fraction of 1% is by leisure vehicles, which cause no problem
requiring draconian action. Any isolated problems can be dealt with,
rather than create bigger problems with uncontrolled use. So why not look
at the many official, unbiased reports that show obstructions, under use,
and illegal use by the ill-informed are the real problems, help the
responsible user's organisations to protect the countryside. The
countryside is for every-one, not for a few harvesting fat subsidies. But
you do not wish to print letters like this!
Cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:42:22 -0500
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
Mad dog said
> We'll investigate this again on Friday Matt if you like it could make a
> good NGLD project if tackled intelligently
We (Dave Wright and others) saw a UCR Sunday, Llandrindod Wells area, with
several (ineffective) fences, few fallen trees, fairly short, but continues
other side of road in same condition. Not yet inspected. Not used for years
by anyone. Suitable GLD project. A typical project, what's the preferred
modus operandii?
Looks like well silted over a firm base, so might look rutted when first
used. Lots of ammo for the antis, but they are not using now, don't want
to, or don't know about it. They will wait for us to clear it, and say look
at the mess as they then start to use it.
ie asking (telling?) HA, photographing / recording, before & after.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:52:40 EST
Subject: Re: Chapter and Verse on the Ridgeway please
In a message dated 12 : 01 : 99 09:39 GMT, you write:
<< so can 4x4s and 2x1s use the Ridgeway at the weekends
without _any_ restrictions, voluntary or no....?
>>
Yes, you can. But do please observe the code of conduct (and the very similar
Code of Respect specifically for the Ridgeway). And of course, you can only
use those bits with vehicular rights, and not the TRO section, and only then
with road-legal vehicles.
Not much to worry about there then, is there?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:34:36 EST
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
In a message dated 12 : 01 : 99 02:48 GMT, you write:
<< A typical project, what's the preferred
modus operandii? >>
You need to ensure -
i. That the route is capable of being turned into a usable one, ie no 6 foot
vertical drops into the Wye, etc, as it would be frustrating to clear a way
that was a dead-end.
ii. You need to make sure that you are proof against the claim that you set
out to clear the route and this is trespass. You can do this by letting the CC
know that you are aware of the UCR, but it is blocked, and would it be in
order to clear it (abate the obstruction) on your next journey along it. Ask
if the have any reason why you should not do this. Ask too, if it could,
instead, be an option for GLD.
Please mention my name and LARA wherever it might be useful, such as 'I'm sure
Tim Stevens will be able to give you more detail on the technicalities', etc.
And if you get a refusal, let me know and I will ask them, yet again, whether
they are trying to use up our patience as quickly as possible or whether they
might actually allow us to help them.
And please let me know (privately) what the Grid Refs are, as I can then talk
to them on the basis of firm knowledge, should the occasion arise. (and have a
look for myself if passing).
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:34:30 EST
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
You could suggest that the matter be dealt with by written representation (ie
exchange of written case by both sides, then response from both sides, to the
Inspector). This allows you to fit the writing in rather than having a day off
your important studies. The option works best when there is only one objector
- as here, so no reason why not. And if then your case was weak, not much
expense for the CC so costs ought not to be considered (and in any case, you
have got some evidence they had not considered already, and the ONLY way to
get this into the process was by objection)..
Having made such an offer, you can then (if refused) withdraw as your exam
schedule makes it impossible to attend, or could they perhaps adjourn, you
ask, until xxx when you will have more time free. You were relying, of course,
(as I understand) on other volunteer help but it has evaporated. This argument
should save any chance of costs if you simply withdraw as you suggest (even if
they would be applied in circumstances as outlined).
You could also point out that in choosing the date, you, the most relevant
part of the process, were not consulted, and it is therefore not your fault if
a date is chosen which does not allow you to attend.
Hope this helps
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99 17:40 GMT0
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
Chris Marsden gives good advice as usual...I'll be phoning Graham Barnwell
at Newbury later...
...dunno about oop north but darn sarth its avery good day for catching up
on paperwork ;-)
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99 17:40 GMT0
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
BW12 - EAST ILSLEY
Matthew Reeve wrote on the list
<<<Yesterday (Sunday) three of us drove a BOAT north of Newbury. (SU476808
- SU 484818). It was markedBOAT on the OS, signed byway by the council.
The width was dramatically reduced by trees whichlooked 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 thatwe couldn't get through and had to divert off
the proper route for about 20metres right at thenorthern end. Does anyone
have any more details on this lane, i.e. what is the proper width? is
itfeasible to open up the northern end? it is otherwise a very nice lane
which is technicallyinteresting to drive, as well as being very dry and
firm even after a lot of rain.>>>>>>
120199 : I Spoke to Rhoda Barnett @ Babtie 0118-988-1555. She confirms
that an enquiry was made in ‘the days before Babtie handled RoW matters'
(=pre 1994, which means that it was probably _my_ original enquiry from
the days with HBRO - i well remember planing the roofrack on my last
Rangey on this lane before getting to the point of no return.) and a
subsequent decision was made to afford this a low priority.
No width can be given because ‘we estimate widths from the definitive map
nowadays'. Ooer Missus as Frankie used to say.
Subsequently spoke to Bruce Lousley, Tech. Assistant, Engineering and
Highways, West Berks Council, and proposed that it was time the
obstructions were removed, possibly as a NGLD project with BHS and having
WBC oversight. We have undertaken to talk again in the next week or so.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:32:20 -0500
Subject: RUPP 63 - Stockport
> I am therefore considering withdrawing my objection with a letter
> stating my reasons and reminding the powers that be that a definitive
> bridleway is without prejudice to any higher rights. Therefore,
> armed with the evidence that I have, I can be confident that such
> evidence is not sufficient for a PI but IS sufficient to protect me
> from prosecution from using the route with a motor vehicle even if it
Seems you may be saying that only (say) 5 - 49% certainty of CR rights is
enough to use cos they cant get a conviction! This should not be the case.
Perhaps you mean your interpretation is that "it is more likely than not
that it does have VR. The inspectors 2 weeks training does give him/her
confidence to make it legally binding evidence, that they are willing to go
to HC with" Not quite how the law was intended, but neither was nettlecomb.
> is recorded as a definitive bridleway. Such a test is surely a much
> fairer one on which to base the entire system and gives users, and the
> public in general, a greater involvement in the system which is
> supposed to serve them.
> evidence is not sufficient for a PI but IS sufficient to protect me
Does not sound like it is worth the effort, in so far as the time could be
better spent elsewhere, why not ask for it to be heard by written reps,
tell them what you suggested above, and withold your evidence for use if
challenged. It is worth much less, if anything, in court if an Inspector
has heard it and rubbished it, save it for the place it really matters.
Some seem to tend to look at each bit of evidence, and unless convinced by
that on it's own, rubbish it completely. That's not a lot of use then,
even though if the coin had landed the other way up it would be a
powerfully persuasive piece of evidence.
As you say, Insp is not stopping up any rights. If you might not attend,
you MUST tell them that in good time, otherwise that is unreasonable and
could lead to costs againts you.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:32:18 -0500
Subject: Under Performing Highway Authority.
Draft letter to CoCo, for comments please.
Re: Under Performing Highway Authority.
I have reported a large number of obstructions and other problems, to
Hereford Council some on footpaths, many on them on byways, the most useful
of all RoWs. Apart from reports appertaining to footpaths, it is rather
like posting to a pit of oblivion, few letters are answered, those that
are, are evasive and say a reply will be made shortly. Weeks or months
later I have no further response. (Two formal complaints have been made)
The kind of problems encountered are unauthorised gates, locked gates,
ploughed and cropped carriageways, ornamental ponds in a carriageway, 5ft
gates on carriageways, overgrown holloways, in-filling, undergrowth,
under-signing, un-authorised diversion, fenced, massive craters, banks
fallen onto roads, condoned purpresture, the list goes on.
One such example, not shown on the definitive map nor the list of streets,
yet is admitted as "a carriageway maintainable at the public expense", has
been gated and padlocked for over 10 years. Despite various requests, no
enforcement action has been taken. A DMMO still waits unresolved from this
time.
Long outstanding DMMOs have been dumped. A proposed BOAT was re-submitted
after an abandoned review, but as bridleway (by the Parish). 25 years after
the original claim I have been man-handled off the now overgrown road
(whilst walking), by the landowner, denying any public rights exist.
This county has about 1/10 of the national average of BOATs as a percentage
of all RoW. CRFs and CRBs were however dealt with promptly long ago. The
"CR" was crossed off. Very few of the BOATs remaining are correctly
signed - apart from Kington Rural area, signed by the OSS / Probation
Office partnership.
Many, the majority, of unsurfaced county roads are impassable due to this
gross dereliction by the Council of minor highways. Despite reports, no
action has been taken to clear obstructions, other than voluntary work by
users. I have been promised I would be consulted over the management of a
particular byway, they subsequently reneged on that written promise. They
suggested a meeting, but failed to deliver. I have had an admission that
(H&WCC) have been "cavalier with my tolerance", - but still no action!
The Council claim to have consulted 10 user groups over the TRO. However,
some statutory consultees, nor the RoW Forum (meeting on the day of
publication of the Order), were consulted. They have failed to give
details of the consultees despite requests. Nor to provide evidence of the
claimed reason or excuse for the TRO, despite repeated requests.
At least one incidence of payment to a landowner for use of an admitted
public road as a permissive path has been made. This is despite his
continued obstruction of a highway. Rather than spend a claimed £30,000 on
a survey, they decided to place a TRO on a road (an ultra vires action),
following a complaint of bollards being illegally installed.
Obviously I could give chapter and verse on all of these, and many more,
however attempting to negotiate with the Council is frustrating and
unproductive. I have suggested I use the EP90 s82, - but had no reply to
my letter. I have reported the massive bollards placed illegally in a
Roman Road to the Police, the Force solicitor advised (twice) I should take
action under HA80 s150(2) in the magistrates Court. The Council retorted by
threatening costs if I pursue the Police’s advice. (Correspondence
available to corroborate)
Surely this action is not sustainable leisure use of these unique
resources. If the Countryside Commission is funding Hereford Council on
any RoW or other projects, would it be possible for the Commission to ask
for a report on these allegations and to make further funding conditional
on some degree of compliance with statute and good practice?
Yours sincerely,
Chris J Marsden.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Elwyn York <Elwyn@ey-eg.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:43:43 +0000
Subject: snow
Its not fair. Where is the snow for us in this part of Wales. Im not fussy.
A couple days or so? Well?
EY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Seymour, Gareth" <gareth.seymour@sihe.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:56:56 -0000
Subject: RE: snow
If you said before Christmas I would have snail mailed you some from
Alaska in a flask.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------8CB8855035783DA0A408C89C" ]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:26:47 +0000
Subject: Re: 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
Matt,
As I understand it just because a lane has BOAT status it doesn't mean that it
necessarily has to be
wide enough to get a modern vehicle down it. There are few other BOATs in the
vicinity that are too
narrow to drive in a LR and always have been so. The particular byway you are
referring to is BOAT 12
East Ilsley. There is no width given in the DM&S. This lane narrows down
considerably at its eastern
end. If I remember correctly some of the trees that grow along it are very
mature. The route is,
however, shown as the same width as adjacent roads on the 1830 OS map.
If you do write to Rhoda Barnet please let me know what she has to say. She
will probably reply with a
TRO!
If any one is considering using Gidley Lane (SU463742 to SU468765) please
reconsider. Wait until it
dries out. It is a right mess and the natives are revolting. There is a well
surfaced RUPP that runs
parallel about 600 yds to the west that provides a sustainable alternative.
Regards,
Howard
[ Original post was HTML ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii ]
[Attachment removed, was 28 lines.]
[Attachment removed, was 21 lines.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:58:13 +0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
> As the PI is almost certain to confirm the order, I have to
> ask if it is worth me pursuing it with all the time, hassle and stress
> that is entailed with that.
> What do folks think???
Bod,
If you think the PI is a foregone conclusion then you have nothing to lose.
You can always try for a modification if more evidence turns up.
I have driven reclassified bridleways that I believe have VRs but it's not
much fun, especially when you get stopped.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:43:10 +0000
Subject: Re: Chapter and Verse on the Ridgeway please
> OK, thanks Tim, so can 4x4s and 2x1s use the Ridgeway at the weekends
> without _any_ restrictions, voluntary or no....?
Mick,
As I understand it vehicles are asked not to use the Ridgeway on Sundays,
bank holidays and during periods of wet weather. This is not compulsory but
is part of a code of practice that is displayed on boards where sealed roads
intersect the Ridgeway.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:59:56 -0000
Subject: RE: restricted width BOAT
Your little tips may come in useful up here as well. Spies have told me
that no progress has been made on one of the BOATs I'm chasing up here :-(
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:59:55 -0000
Subject: RE: restricted width BOAT
Lack of intelligence in tree felling:
Standing on the side its going to fall
Cutting the branch off you are sitting on
Letting it land on your lunch
Letting it land on the pub you are going to have lunch at
Not making sure that it won't hurt anyone (possible exceptions to this rule,
so lets be flexible about it)
Seriously we may need some minor tree felling up here to re-open a BOAT I
have talked much about, advice would be greatly appreciated as I think it
will have to be a 'hand tools only' job, and the trees are a bit taller than
I am...
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:59:57 -0000
Subject: RE: restricted width BOAT[multipart mime alternative 5 lines deleted.]
Unless the statement says otherwise there are MINIMUM widths laid down for
all classes of RoW
I quote:
Schedule 12A. Further powers of highway authorities and councils in relation
to Interference with highways
Interpretation
1. (1) For the purposes of this Schedule the 'minimum width' and 'maximum
width' of a highway shall be determined in accordance with sub-paragraphs
(2) and (3) below.
(2) In any case where the width of the highway is proved, that width is both
the 'minimum width' and the 'maximum width'.
(3) In any other case-
(a) the 'minimum width' is-
(i) as respects a footpath which is not a field-edge path, 1 metre,
(ii) as respects a footpath which is a field-edge path, 1.5 metres,
(iii) as respects a bridleway which is not a field-edge path, 2 metres, or
(iv) as respects any other highway, 3 metres, and
(b) the 'maximum width' is-
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
(ii) as respects a bridleway, 3 metres, or
(iii) as respects any other highway, 5 metres.
Nice to know, but I wander how many we use have nothing in the schedule, and
are 'shoulder scraping wide'?
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:59:59 -0000
Subject: re: Sarn Helen
They were expecting to have to charge you for towing you out of a bomb hole
somewhere.
Or they have seen the light and accept that there are some really nice
people around who just enjoy a nice drive in the country, off the tarmac
roads.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99 20:00 GMT0
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT LLandidrod Wells
Mad Dog House can recommend a totally excellent B&B in LW for any
prospective NGLDers in the area.
They (Pat and Ivor) welcomed Mad Dog House's Mad Dog Daniel, too :-))))
so everyone was happy.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99 21:14 GMT0
Subject: Re: Walronds Manor Farm Netherhampton
Would some kind person with access to a large-scale OS map be able to give
me a GR for Walronds Manor Farm or Fitzgeralds Farm they are in the 120300
region west of Salisbury.
Alternatively an accrurate positioning for BW104 salisbury will suffice
TIA
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 99 22:29 GMT0
Subject: re: Seeing the light
Rob has been hitting the waccy baccy again....
<<<,Or they have seen the light and accept that there are some really nice
people around who just enjoy a nice drive in the country, off the tarmac
roads.>>>
Geddoff before you come out with something equally ludicrous......no-one
would ever believe _that_, shurely?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:27:47 -0500
Subject: GLASS: Mount Famine/South head Bridleway.
I think this should be repated for the widest possible audience, hence from
the Glass members list:-
> Mike Cattel and others should be pleased to know that the obstruction
i.e.(who dug up the road) has now been repaired by N.T. and D.C.C.
Apparently this section is on N.T. land and Derbys C.C. would like any
information on who did the damage to the highway as they will prosecute
them. I have been informed that 3 members of the Manchester T.R.F. seen the
persons doing the damage to the highway & if anyone can put them in touch
with me I would very much appreciate it.(they did turn up at the last P&D
L.R.C. pub meet.)
> Mike Cattel and others should be pleased to know that the obstruction
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:27:38 -0500
Subject: Earth to Hereford, are you receiving?
Programmed to go off at 7.30 tomorrow by fax:-
Ms. M Rosenthal
County Secretary and Solicitor
Brockington
35 Hafod Road
Hereford
HR1 1SH
13/1/99
Fax 01 432 260206
Tel 01 432 260000
Dear Ms. Rosenthal,
Re: Roman Road Proposed TRO, & other obstructed highways.
Could you advise me what the Council’s policy is on removing obstructions
on RoW, and byways, in particular those with either locked, on unlocked
but un-authorised gates, other deliberate obstructions, and on ploughed
carriageways?
Can you advise if the proposed TRO on Roman Road will be enforced by locked
gates? If this IS envisaged, can you state whether you consider this is
lawful on an unclassified road, where the TRO does not include all classes
of traffic, and also on a BOAT where the TRO does not include all classes
of traffic, should such a Modification be made to the DM&S? If it is NOT
to be enforced by locked gates, was the Chief Constable made aware of this,
when considering his response to the TRO?
‘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 31 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:56:47 +0000
Subject: Re: motors in the countryside - we're under attack, again.
In message <bulk.9515.19990112021919@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, hawker
<hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Hilary Fenten, Horton in Ribblesdale, N Yorks."
Do you people know Mrs Fenton is the wife of the Chairman of the
Yorkshire Dales National Park RoW committee!! Perceived Bias or what?
Can anyone let me have a copy of the article and I will make good use of
it!!!
Please!!!
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 23:10:45 +0000
Subject: motors in the countryside - Bias
In message <bulk.14352.19990112064328@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Chris
Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com> writes
Draft letter, any comments?
>To the editor,
>letters@guardian.co.uk
Are you aware that Mrs Fenton is the wife of the Chairman of the
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority's Rights of Way Committee, and
that it is people with predetermined attitudes who work their way up
into a position where they can use their powers to make the Rights of
way issue the mess it is today.
The process of determining a right of way is a quasar judicial process
and there should be no evidence of perceived bias.
In my opinion such perceived bias is given by the lady's letter.
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:27:44 -0500
Subject: RE: restricted width BOAT
> (a) the 'minimum width' is-
> [ truncated by lro-lite (was 10 lines)]
> (ii) as respects a bridleway, 3 metres, or
> (iii) as respects any other highway, 5 metres.
Which Act is that HA80?
These widths are for new roads set out, or the minimum width to be retained
presumably when planting trees under licence etc. If a road is only 8 or 5
ft wide say, and has never been more then that is all it is. Theres a road
in Ironbridge that the stone walls to the buildings scrape both wingmirrors
simultaneously, standard production saloon car. Owners may get a bit
miffed if I started demolishing I guess.
How big are the Newbury trees, how long have they been growing? The 1830 OS
is not adequate to measure the width, even by reference to other similar
roads. The c1880 25" is the one to look at.
If you were taking a reasonable sized vehicle on a way without limitations
statemented, but open to ALL traffic, I would see no legal reasons for not
abating trees growing in what was traditionally the highway (when
dedicated) poss umpteen thousand BC, so long as there are no other 'old'
indicators of a narrower width further along. When (non-weed such as
Elderbury!) trees have been growing for 100+ years abating to get a modern
vehicle down is really another matter, you must take a view on.
Several lanes here (Spoon Lane, Llan Arrow) have massive trees growing out
into a narrow lane (8ft). The logistics and political correctness to allow
4 w vehicles to pass is problematical. Certainly the legal right to abate
should exist, I would think.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: phil.wadey@WHICH.NET (phil.wadey@WHICH.NET)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 23:45:18 -0000
Subject: RE: restricted width BOAT[multipart mime alternative 5 lines deleted.]
These are only widths in relation to reinstatement after agricultural
operations, and in the absence of other information about width. Can't rely on
it for anything more, I'm afraid.
Phil Wadey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 35 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 34 lines 0 [forwarded 86 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1097 [content 908 forwarded 84 (cut 2) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990113 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]