[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:17:37 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
Then it is unlikely to be a public carriage road.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:17:56 -0000
Subject: Gated lanes in Wilts
Hi
>From within the WCC I received the following:
Gate closed on drivers
LANDOWNERS who are fed up with 4x4 drivers churning up muddy tracks on
public paths and bridleways can protect themselves by putting up gates,
Wiltshire county councillors have ruled.
The gates would have to remain open on all public rights of way to allow
access for pedestrians and cyclists .
But councillors voted in favour of allowing landowners to use gates as a
deterrent to vehicles. They decided that 4x4 drivers would be less likely
to use tracks which appeared to be private roads.
~~~~~~~~~
This appeared in the Salisbury Journal on 7th January 99. The address:
Salisbury Journal Newspapers
Rollestone House
8 - 12 Rollestone Street
Salisbury
SP1 1DY
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Julian Watt" <julian@mindnet.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:16:58 -0000
Subject: Re: Felling Trees (was: Re: restricted width BOAT)
>Doesn't an abated tree still remain the property of the landowner?
Yes but I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time some awfull person removed
some logs from somebody elses property! Not of course that I have any
experiance of this!
Travellers on the other hand couldn't be accused of this, because on really
cold evenings to keep warm they stand round burning cars, making clothes
pegs. Indeed so much is their love for the countryside wherever they stay
forests of connifers spring up over night! Though unfortunatly because they
are a much misunderstood and persecuted minority they haven't had the
support and education they deserve and cock up the planting and tend lay the
trees down on their sides. They also seem to try and grow fridges, tyres and
propane gas bottles, the large type normally found on construction sites!
Q. How many clothes pegs would it take to buy a Mitsubishi Shogun or a
Toyota Hilux?
A. Not as many as you think!
Regards
Julian
Blue 90 200 Tdi (Thank god blue 90's are quite common!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:03:28 -0000
Subject: Re: Gated lanes in Wilts
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:23:42 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
<< 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.
<< However, the Inspector is unlikely
The Inspector must hear all available evidence and so if there is good
evidence to support the status of the section subject to Inquiry then it
must be heard.
i.e. your fp evidence may state that is the road to a place beyond the
Order route and the bridleway section and that they were in truth all one
route.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
> Date: 13 January 1999 23:37
> >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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 23 lines)]
> historical evidence, or just made assumptions based on the DM
> classification of linking highways? What interpretation do they put on
any
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:46:31 +0000
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
Today, in the local library, I tried to find the 1870 25" OS map showing BOAT
12, East Ilsley. It has disappeared. The best I could do was an 1872 6" OS
map and a1970 25" OS map. I also checked the DM&S again but no details were
given.
It seems to me that some time in the past the byway was widened for a length of
some 1300 yds from the sealed road. It was enclosed by a new fence on the
south western side which replaced the original byway boundary. It looks like
this was to give separate access to the field boundary that has now
disappeared. When the field boundary was removed sometime within the last 28
years there was no need for separate access so the fence was removed leaving
the byway effectively unfenced on this side. This was when I suspect that the
new trees were planted. The 1872 6" map does not show the new fence, it shows
the byway continuing more or less the same width along its whole length. The
definitive map, also 6" to the mile, clearly shows the new fence as shown on
the 1970 25" map.
It could be that the landowner is aware of this and that is why the barbed wire
gate like contraption that secures the field is not locked.
Regards,
Howard
ps. I have done a rather grotty tracing of the relevant section of the 1970
25" map. If anyone wants a copy let me know.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:39:01 EST
Subject: Re: CJM bursts out....
In a message dated 13 : 01 : 99 07:48 GMT, you write:
<< outbursts for the terraces >>
Who are you calling a tear-arse?
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:38:53 EST
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
In a message dated 13 : 01 : 99 12:05 GMT, you write:
<< Written reps therefore (like a PI) prevent the
evidence from being used later in court. >>
Can you expand on this? Evidence is not used-up when considered, it can of
course be used again.
I am sure the 'double jeopardy' rule only applies to criminal offences, and
not then to the evidence, but only to the criminal (alleged).
Or have I misunderstood what you mean?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:38:48 EST
Subject: Re: motors in the countryside - Bias
In a message dated 13 : 01 : 99 01:24 GMT, you write:
<< quasar judicial process >>
the term is quasi-judicial
And perhaps you might end by asking
Can we have any confidence that the bias displayed by Mrs F is not having any
influence at all on her husband or his committee?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:38:57 EST
Subject: Re: Felling Trees
In a message dated 13 : 01 : 99 02:10 GMT, you write:
<< ... if it could be worth their while in some other way! >>
Do remember that anything growing in land belongs to the owner (or tenant) of
the land. A passenger can remove enough to pass, but cannot legally take away
and keep (or burn) what is removed.
This can be resolved, I think, in 2 ways - first for trees in the highway,
they are growing in the HA 'surface' and may belong to HA, so they can give
them away (but you need to ask). Secondly, a section removed could be taken,
in the absence of knowledge about owner, and not wishing to committ the
offence of obstruction by leaving it lying in the highway, to the Police
Station and recorded as Lost Property.
Then, 3 months later, it might be yours.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:39:00 EST
Subject: Re: Abating in Staffs
I think a letter to the Plod is an appropriate 'safeguard'. You could explain
what you intend to do (drive from A to B) and that the last time you tried,
the route was obstructed, you believe illegally (see HA 80, etc). You have now
been advised that the HA cannot attend to this matter promptly, or other
excuse (if true), and that you have the right to abate the nuisance in a bona
fide journey. Can they please let you know if this would not be lawful for any
reason. And can they take notice of your proposed action in case any further
information, complaint etc comes to their notice.
Write to the Chief Constable giving road number and grid refs.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:38:55 EST
Subject: Re: Felling Trees (was: Re: restricted width BOAT)
In a message dated 13 : 01 : 99 01:42 GMT, you write:
<< It is amazing how big a tree can be felled with even a small chainsaw. >>
I have successfully dealt with fallen trees the size of telegraph poles using
a pocket pruning saw from a garden centre. Much more portable, cheap (£20) and
almost silent...
(Quite why gardeners need to prune pockets I have no idea).
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:39:09 EST
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
In a message dated 14 : 01 : 99 08:05 GMT, you write:
<< Rhoda was at a gleam AGM I attended, >>
I have, accordingly, invited her to attend the next LARA AGM.
The word Gotcha is not in my vocabulary.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:39:11 EST
Subject: Re: Gated lanes in Wilts
In a message dated 14 : 01 : 99 10:04 GMT, you write:
<< But councillors voted in favour of allowing landowners to use gates as a
deterrent to vehicles. They decided that 4x4 drivers would be less likely
to use tracks which appeared to be private roads. >>
In other words, breaking the law and deceiving the public. What a nice way to
assert and protect.
Butr that is not, I understand, what was decided. They decided to respond to
CoCo21 asking for a clause allowing gates on RUPPs and BOATs to be authorised.
Not the same thing at all, although I do not doubt that their reasons have
been accurately put. The Council are concerned to get the report put right,
and the paper says they will do so. I am not holding my breath.
Thanks for sending details. The Phone numbers are -
WCC 01225 713 000
SJ 01722 412525
Please bomard them both with your complaints.
How dare they print an article inciting innocent farmers to break the law?
Cheers, tim LARA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:52:00 +0000
Subject: Water leak
Does anyone know how to detect the source of a water leak? This leak
was reported to the Highway Authority many years ago (so I'm told), and
to prevent damaging crops the leak was directed on to the public
bridleway. At the top of the hill is a Water Authority water tower.
Despite numerous requests, Cambs Council say they can't do much till
they've found the source of the leak. Any suggestions as to how I could
encourage them to do so?
TIA
Sue J
BHS Cambs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:25:00 EST
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
It seems that Byway 12 East Ilsley is obstructed, and Babtie (who run the RoW
section, or some of it) are very interested to know who has done what. They do
not know of any authorisation for moving highway boundaries, or planting trees
in the highway.
Next step should be a formal complaint by a witness, preferably in West Berks,
stating what seems to have happened and that the road is now obstructed. Ask
what will be done about it, and when, and whether this can be a GLD exercise
for local LARA members. Copy the letter to me please.
The rule about highway widths is that the width now is the width that was
dedicated. There may be evidence of this from old documents especially maps.
Babtie have many BOATs mapped but not apparently this one, and it therefore is
important to get the facts before they do map it at the wrong width. Other
evidence may be the lines of old hedges, but as we know, hedges can move. Old
hedges have characteristics eg evidence of laying, not shown by more recent
plantings (eg S shaped growth about a foot above the ground). Users are
entitled to the full width of the highway, not just enough to get by, and the
HA duty to assert etc extends across the whole width.
The address is
West Berkshire Council
Market Street
Newbury
RG14 5LD
01635 424000
Cheers, tim Stevens, LARA
PO Box 20
Market Drayton
TF9 1WR
01630 657627
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Mel Mauger & Matthew Reeve" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:10:41 -0000
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.
Can anyone provide NGR's for Old Street, Mick Dyer and I will be laning in the
area tomorrow and he
wants to have a look at that as well.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:04:58 +0000
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
> The thing to ask is for a copy of the terms of the licence to plant trees
> in the highway? ("What licence?")
That's interesting. I noticed a freshly planted sapling in its protective
sleeve actually on the highway. I should have taken a photo. No doubt Mick
and his mates will abate it tomorrow!
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:14:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Felling Trees (was: Re: restricted width BOAT)
> Q. How many clothes pegs would it take to buy a Mitsubishi Shogun or a
> Toyota Hilux?
> A. Not as many as you think!
By an amazing coincidence I actually knew a Welsh farmer, the late Dai
Theophilis from Cilycwm, who back in the '60s bought a SWB LR entirely with the
money he made whittling wooden pegs for rodent traps.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:05:50 -0500
Subject: Private Occupation Roads
An interesting day listening to Geoff Brookes's arguements for a byway when
CC propose bridleway.
Just as Shrops solicitor winds up I was looking at Incl Award on table.
I looked for plots along the road to see if they describe access, and spot
a small track "Whitcott path". So I look at Footpaths, 6ft wide called
Witcott Footpath described as starting from the (order) Occupation Road.
"Thank you Mr Weston, That now concludes this Inq.......... Er Yes Mr
Marsden?"
"Excuse me Mr Mellor, but I have just noticed a Public Path coming out of a
Private Road!
Debbie Hughes said the only rights were private on this road at that time,
it was only subsequent use that it became a public bridleway. This proves
the commissioners MUST have accepted that this private road must have had
at least some Public rights over it.
It supports Mr Brookes and my contention that the Private refers to the
maintenance responsibilities. Not the Use.
Would you like to have a look at it?"
"Yes"
"Thank you, I will take that into acount"
All in a days fun!
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:53:12 EST
Subject: Re: Water leak
This might sound a bit obvious...
Trace the place at which the water issues from the ground. Dig around, and
keep digging in the direction from which water flows. Eventually, you will get
to a pipe (etc) and then you can trace the pipe using metal detecting gismos
etc.
Alternatively, if access to the outlet from the water tank is available, eg
inside the tower, try the effect of turning off the water. Of course, access
may be prohibited, and the tap may be inaccessible. But if any of the pipe is
[spamkill: [Mm]erchant input: %s] accessible, try freezing the water in
it. Plumbers merchants have kits to do
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:01:50 EST
Subject: Re: Private Occupation Roads
In a message dated 14 : 01 : 99 07:07 GMT, you write:
<< "Excuse me Mr Mellor, but I have just noticed a Public Path coming out of a
Private Road! >>
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Well spotted.
Perhaps your family badge, henceforth, should be a leopard passant regardant.
Regardant because you need to watch your back, passant because you travel
about, and, wait for it, leopards are well spotted.
Ha, Ha, Ha.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 99 21:49 GMT0
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
Howard does me a small disfavour when he says...
<<< No doubt Mick
and his mates will abate it tomorrow!>>>>
Since its in its sleeve, a far more effective abatement (= one which
wouldnt give the planter an excuse to moan) is to photograph the wee
beastie and then raise the roof with babtie. This method will not however
do much in the short term, but we'll see....
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 99 21:49 GMT0
Subject: Re:BW12 East Ilsley
Tim states
<<,Next step should be a formal complaint by a witness, preferably in West
Berks,stating what seems to have happened and that the road is now
obstructed. Askwhat will be done about it, and when, and whether this can
be a GLD exercisefor local LARA members. Copy the letter to me please.>>>>
I and Matt Reeve now have this in hand thanks guys
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:24:53 +0000
Subject: Telivision
Hi folks,
Only heard this third hand but apparently on Sat night, beeb 2 I
believe, is a programme with a title like," the problems of living next
to a hundred year old road" or summat like that. Have'nt a clue what its
about but you never know. Might be worth a look.
Cheers,Mike.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:33:39 -0000
Subject: Re: Re:BW12 East Ilsley
Well said Mike. Don't let these buggers from oooop nooorth tell uz what to
do.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: Michael Dyer <doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re:BW12 East Ilsley
> Date: 14 January 1999 21:00
> In-Reply-To: <bulk.18759.19990114094247@Land-Rover.Team.Net>
> Tim states
[ truncated by list-digester (was 11 lines)]
> Tim states
> <<,Next step should be a formal complaint by a witness, preferably in
West
> Berks,stating what seems to have happened and that the road is now
> obstructed. Askwhat will be done about it, and when, and whether this can
> be a GLD exercisefor local LARA members. Copy the letter to me
please.>>>>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:29:32 -0000
Subject: Re: Water leak
Report the slack buggers to OFWAT - or what ever their regulator is called
these days. As to finding the leak I wouldn't have thought it too
difficult. The can dig the road up bang on top of leaks so a field should
present no great prob.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:56:43 -0000
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:05:55 -0000
Subject: Re: Telivision
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 29 lines 0 [forwarded 113 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 737 [content 598 forwarded 95 (cut 18) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990115 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]