[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:53:29 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
What is the width of the bridge? This is relevant because the Railway
Causes Act required that it be a minimum of 24 feet for a public
carriageway, unless the road was narrower in which case it could be 20
feet. Private bridges were usually about 12 feet.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:38:29 +0000
Subject: widths
I understood that the widths in Sch 12A only apply after disturbance to
RoW by agricultural practice. Last summer I object to a TCPA1990 S257
diversion order. The awarded Public bridleway width was 30', and the
proposed new route order width was only 3m (9.84 feet).
On opening the inquiry, the District Council solicitor put forward the
argument the the 3m width was perfectly adequate because thats what the
1990 RoW Act said. The Inspector, I'm glad to say, queried this straight
away and informed the Inquiry that as that particular Act applied to
reinstatment after ploughing, it did not apply in this case.
Sue
BHS Cambs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:16:19 +0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
> 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)
Bod,
How wide is footpath bridge? I seem to remember somebody (Dave Tilbury?)
telling me that railway companies had to build bridges to a certain width if
they were carrying public carriageways.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 99 11:06 GMT0
Subject: Re: GLASS: Mount Famine/South head Bridleway.
<<<.(they did turn up at the last P&D
L.R.C. pub meet.)>>>
Be gentle with me....is the author saying the _perps_ or the _witnesses_
turned up at the pub meeting?????
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 99 11:06 GMT0
Subject: RE: restricted width BOAT
Chris makes some points re: BW12 East Ilsley (for that it is)
<<<<How big are the Newbury trees, how long have they been growing?>>>>
Will recce on Friday and measure/photograph
<<<<< Certainly the legal right to abate should exist, I would think.>>>
When I last encountered BW12 (93/94) i was still fairly green in RoWO --
still am - but had we been equipped to abate and I knew then what I know
now, the little arboreal specimens would not have been there for the last
5 years.......
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:43:49 -0500
Subject: Copy of: Re: Upper lye & Roman Road 3866 4442
On 9/1/99 I said:-
"Must remind the Audit commission I have not heard from their auditors.
Don't you just love it when you got sommat yer can get yer teef inta?
I expect a fone call about Wednesday........
I know I could go to ombudsman now, but we will get further if we can sit
them down at a table and give them a good talking to. (There's modesty!)
I'll keep you posted."
YEEEEEEEEEES !!!!!!
Bang on cue. Phone call from Director of Highways this morning. They want
to arrange that meeting.........
(the one they promised two weeks ago)
Chris
>.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:47:06 -0000
Subject: RUPP 63 - Cheadle
Following Tim's suggestions I have just faxed this to the Planning
Inspectorate.
Lets see what they say.
Cheers,
Bod.
####################
Dear Mr Greenslade,
RUPP 63 Cheadle & Gatley - reclassification order 1997
Thank you for your letter dated 27th November 1998 advising of the
date set for the Public Inquiry into the reclassification of the above
highway.
I understand from Stockport MBC and from local user groups that I am
the only person to have objected to the Borough Council's
reclassification order. For this reason I am surprised that a Public
Inquiry is to be held rather than dealing with the case by written
representations. Please would you reconsider this position as
written representations would save me from having to set aside a day
solely for attending the Inquiry and would save the Borough Council
much money and resources.
Yours faithfully
Ian Boddison.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:49:20 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
>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.
If written reps are the way forward the surely I need to put all the
evidence that I have around that table for there to be any way of
succeeding. Written reps therefore (like a PI) prevent the
evidence
from being used later in court.
>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 against you.
There is no question of not being able to attend - just not being able
to search for any more evidence of carriageway status.
Exams will be finished before the PI but only just before.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:27:48 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
>How wide is footpath bridge? I seem to remember somebody (Dave
Tilbury?)
>telling me that railway companies had to build bridges to a certain
width if
>they were carrying public carriageways.
Wide enough to easily get a 7.5T truck across but not wide enough to
allow two LandRovers to pass on the bridge.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:30:55 -0000
Subject: Felling Trees (was: Re: restricted width BOAT)
>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...
A chainsaw is a 'hand tool' in the sense that you hold it in your
hands.
It is also the sort of equipment that is commonly found in the rear of
a blue 110.
(Although in your case it might be there but not found due to all the
other 'equipment')
It is amazing how big a tree can be felled with even a small chainsaw.
And amazing how much damage that tree can do out of protest!
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Julian Watt" <julian@mindnet.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:08:04 -0000
Subject: Re: Felling Trees (was: Re: restricted width BOAT)
What flavour of tree is it? Some burn much better than others! On the other
hand a walnut tree is worth tens of thousand of pounds, even better if you
can dig up the root bowl as well!
What I'm getting at is some professional tree felling folk may be quite
happy to drop it FOC, if it could be worth their while in some other way!
Regards
Julian Watt
Blue 90 200 Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:54:12 +0000
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
> 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.
I will have look at the DM&S to confirm the line of the BOAT. I will also
attempt to find the OS 25" map although the library filing system appears to be
in latin (not that we are behind the times down here) and it could take all
day. It will have to wait until tomorrow as the library is shut today.
I have had a look at the offending BOAT and I think that Matt is right. It
has been deliberately obstructed. The natural width between hedges (or what's
left of them) averages about 9 feet. The actual usable width for the most part
is around 5 feet 6 inches. About 50 yards from the eastern end the track width
tapers down to virtually nothing. The north facing boundary seems to be
correct but the south facing boundary looks as if it has been realigned. At
first sight it does look as if there are a couple of well established trees
(15" dia.) in the path but I think they actually form part of the original
northern boundary. Whoever has tried to realign the track has planted some
saplings in protective plastic or wire mesh sleeves to try and establish the
new boundary. There is no need to chop any large trees down indeed the
saplings could be replanted on the original boundary ( if we can establish
where that should be). An excellent GLD project.
Incidentally Matt seems to taken the 'Tread Lightly' advice to heart, there was
hardly a trace of his passing.
Last year I and the local AWDC rep tried to organise a GLD project to establish
an alternative pedestrian pathway on nearby Old Street. Rhoda Barnet told us
we couldn't because it was impossible to establish the true width of the right
of way. I would have thought that it was the distance between the hedges on
each side. Babtie think otherwise.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:19:53 +0000
Subject: Widths
> I understood that the widths in Sch 12A only apply after disturbance
to
> RoW by agricultural practice.
What widths would apply to a RUPP that had been ploughed? Would it have
to
be 3m. or 5m.? Also how far does a LO have to go in reinstating a RoW
after
ploughing or similar?
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:43:06 -0000
Subject: RE: Felling Trees (was: Re: restricted width BOAT)
Chain saws are classified as 'power tools' under the CC's rules of
insurance, and one needs to be suitably certified to use one.
I know that I have used chain saws in the past, and even carried them, but
dealing with the CC's insurers on this one means 'hand powered only'.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:43:03 -0000
Subject: RE: Seeing the light
I now have a very large hole in my cheek, from which my tongue was
protruding as I wrote that ;-)
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:43:07 -0000
Subject: RE: Felling Trees (was: Re: restricted width BOAT)
>From memory it is either a sycamore, or lime, both fast growing, and
favoured by those who want an 'instant ancient hedge' (look at the size of
that tree there, must be hundreds of years old).
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:43:05 -0000
Subject: RE: restricted width BOAT
Yes, HA80, sorry I lost that bit when I re-wrote the message :-(
The implication is that, unless otherwise stated, these are the minimum
widths for _all_ highways covered by that act. My reading gives if the
statement says two foot, then two foot it is, if the statement says 50
metres, then 50 metres it is, and if the statement says nothing, as many do
then these limits apply.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:20:25 +0000
Subject: widths
"What widths would apply to a RUPP that had been ploughed? Would it have
to be 3m. or 5m.? Also how far does a LO have to go in reinstating a RoW
after ploughing or similar?"
IMHO, as a RUPP by definition is not a footpath or bridleway, then para
(3){a}[iv] would
apply for minimums, i.e. "as respects any other highway, 3 metres" and the
maximum would
be as para (3){b{[iii] "as respects any other highway, 5 metres.
For reinstatement, the way has to be reinstated, by the occupier, to no less
than the
minimum width within 14 days from the first disturbance, then if its reploughed
within
24 hours. And a way can only be ploughed out IF it's inconvienient not to do so.
But if anyone thinks different....
Sue J
BHS Cambs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:33:47 +0000
Subject: Abating in Staffs
Hi all,
Been very busy recently, so I have been quiet on the list...
There are a couple of routes in Staffs which Rob and myself
have been investigating, these are both presently obstructed.
One BOAT in Wychnor, originally brought to our attention by Tim
late in 1997, was still locked at both ends when I visited this week
(Rob also visited last week). Complaints have gone in to the CC
about 6 months ago, I am lead to believe that they have served
notices on the landowner (to which there has been no result).
Assuming I have a bona fide journey, I believe I can abate (e.g. cut
the padlock off with the bolt cutters I always carry).
Question is, should I inform local Plod BEFORE I do it - I expect
there is bound to be trouble (i.e. someone will complain), since the
gates are next to houses at each end. I suspect Plod won't
actually understand the law on this point, and I don't particularly
want to spend the day in the cells :-)
Same question (inform Plod first) applies to a BOAT in the North of
the County. Presently overgrown, needs cutting back with saw or
axe. A bit soggy when we last visited, so we are waiting for the
frost to set in one weekend, just to harden the ground up before we
start.
Any comments on the best procedure here?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 99 19:46 GMT0
Subject: Re: CJM bursts out....
Chris
<<<<<<YEEEEEEEEEES !!!!!!>>>>
This is really a _tad_ loud for this worthy company, please confine your
Millwall-style outbursts for the terraces.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:18:29 -0000
Subject: Re: widths
Love it!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 99 20:18 GMT0
Subject: Re: Old Street :was Restricted width BOAT
Howard continues about Old Street, a worthy Berkshire Way
<<<<Incidentally Matt seems to taken the 'Tread Lightly' advice to heart,
there washardly a trace of his passing.>>>>
(Fx:Sigh) I wish you hadn't said that, his head swells enough as it is.
He'll be unbearable on Friday now (g)
<<<Last year I and the local AWDC rep tried to organise a GLD project to
establishan alternative pedestrian pathway on nearby Old Street. >>>>
Would it be worth resurrecting this year? given that problems could be
overcome, of course
<<<< Rhoda Barnet told us
we couldn't because it was impossible to establish the true width of the
rightof way.>>>>>
Did you see the LoS? I used to have a copy here but I must have lent it
out :-(
<<< I would have thought that it was the distance between the hedges on
each side.>>>>
Would there be room between the hedges to provide room for pedestrians and
vehicles side-by-side (obviously with care where narrow)There is a lane up
near the Seven Sisters which has this parallel arrangement and it should
work nicely.
<<<< Babtie think otherwise.>>>
So what makes them think otherwise if they don't have the info? They can't
have it both ways.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 99 20:19 GMT0
Subject: Re: Felling Trees
Dinna worry Julian I'd already thought of that...and any tree felling
_will_ be done by qualified chainsaw chappies.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:28:07 +0000
Subject: Re: Felling Trees (was: Re: restricted width BOAT)
> What flavour of tree is it? Some burn much better than others! On the other
> hand a walnut tree is worth tens of thousand of pounds, even better if you
> can dig up the root bowl as well!
> What I'm getting at is some professional tree felling folk may be quite
> happy to drop it FOC, if it could be worth their while in some other way!
Doesn't an abated tree still remain the property of the landowner?
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:37:00 +0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
>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.
>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.
Ian
What does the council's report to its committee say (or statement of
reasons associated with the reclassification order)? Have they looked at
historical evidence, or just made assumptions based on the DM
classification of linking highways? What interpretation do they put on any
historical evidence?
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 99 06:50 GMT0
Subject: Re: Felling Trees (
Howard stops us all becoming rich by pointing out
<<<<Doesn't an abated tree still remain the property of the landowner?>>>>
Yes indeedy, the same situation as if you trim an overhanging neighbours
tree...., no, I'll rephrase that, if you trim an neighbours tree which
overhangs your garden.
....OTOH, if you trim it into small chunks, you wont need to re-abate it
next time you do the lane and the trunk has mysteriously rolled into a
'No-Entry' position....not that this ever happens, oh no no...
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:04:07 -0500
Subject: Widths
> What widths would apply to a RUPP that had been ploughed? Would it have
> to
> be 3m. or 5m.? Also how far does a LO have to go in reinstating a RoW
> after
> ploughing or similar?
Ahhh!! thats a trick question ;-) A RUPP can't be ploughed. Ask Mrs
Masters............
An inclosure road was reinstated after years of being cropped. It's got no
foundation, just grassed over and it's in perfect condition with only light
use 30 ft wide. A tractor would be adequate to restore a path, but not in
damp or heavier use. Keep a photographic record if ploughed, then use s56
and insist on stoning if it gets founderouse due to ploughing, they should
recharge the person ploughing under s59
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:04:11 -0500
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
> Last year I and the local AWDC rep tried to organise a GLD project to
establish
> an alternative pedestrian pathway on nearby Old Street. Rhoda Barnet
told us
> we couldn't because it was impossible to establish the true width of the
right
> of way. I would have thought that it was the distance between the hedges
on
> each side. Babtie think otherwise.
Rhoda was at a gleam AGM I attended, wittering on about something called
4wds and seemed to think there was some sort of problem, rather than a
blessing. Who does she think pays her salary? So if you get what seem
negative reaction, then it might be because it is.
So all the more important to get the 25" map, either the library, or the
records office, or the RoW dept should have them - if they are helpful.
SHould be OK to check where it runs.
The thing to ask is for a copy of the terms of the licence to plant trees
in the highway? ("What licence?")
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 28 lines 1275 [forwarded 145 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 794 [content 628 forwarded 145 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990114 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]