[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:24:34 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
> 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).
No Tim it is not a question of the evidence being 'used up' but simply
that if a piece of evidence is used to defend a prosecution case under
RTA88 s34* then the court are likely to place less weight on that
evidence if it has already been examined by an Inspector who found it
irrelevant than they would if it were 'new' evidence.
In essence, a RUPP reclassification Inquiry is there to decide whether
carriageway rights exist on the way in question and that must amount
to the same thing as whether a prosecution can be brought under RTA88
s34 for driving on a definite bridleway that the user claims is a
carriageway. I know the 'test' is different, but if the same
evidence is presented then the outcome 'should' be the same or at
least similar.
Cheers,
Bod.
*RTA88 s34 is the bit of law which makes it a criminal offence to
drive a motor vehicle "on any road being a footpath or bridleway"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:32:04 -0000
Subject: Re: widths
>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.
This certainly applies to FPs and BWs but not to BOATs. RoWA90
prohibits the ploughing out of a way which is, or which includes a
carriageway.
Now we were talking about widths on RUPPs and this, as usual, causes
the problem. A RUPP may or may not be a carriageway. However, if
you can produce evidence that a RUPP is a carriageway and make the HA
and the LO aware of this then it cannot legally be ploughed out even
under RoWA90. That's how I read it.
This is another reason why we should not hide our evidence unto
ourselves as some would suggest - again only a personal opinion.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:55:45 -0000
Subject: Lost Property (was: Re: Felling Trees)
>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.
Are the police obliged to take in lost property? Even if it is a
small lorry-load of logs?
That willow make you poplar with your local bobby.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:47:01 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
>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?
I am working from memory as I do not have it front of me.
They have considered 1st and 2nd series OS maps - 1st shows as a
through route but second shows it continuing as a FP.
They state that the Inclosure Award does not cover the way - I have
not found it.
They state that the FA1910 plans are not in the record office.
They are and clearly show the route.
They have not considered the Railway deposited plans and I have not
been able to find them.
They conducted a survey of use which shows all current use to be on
foot.
They rely heavily on (post 1930) user evidence forms which show some
vehicle use.
They say that because the southern end of the way terminates on MOD
land (1942-1950's) then no rights could be accrued by presumed
dedication (although that is not what carriageway claims are based
on).
They cannot find a land owner but think that part of the land is owned
by the MBC but do not know!
Cheers,
Bod.
PS - I will dig out the report later and if I have missed anything
significant then I will post again. Or I can fax a copy to anyone
who wants it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:38:44 -0000
Subject: Re: Abating in Staffs
>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).
Correct
>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 :-)
The problem with telling anyone that you are going to have to abate an
obstruction is that it can be subsequently claimed that used the
highway with the sole intention of abating the obstruction which calls
into question the bona-fide journey bit.
However, if it has been reported to the HA then it is reasonable to
expect that the obstruction might still be there but that it might
have been removed. Therefore, I would suggest that this is a
better tactic to advise the police of. Do not expect them to know
what to do - they will look at it as keeping any disturbance to a
minimum; abit like they treat a family argument that spills out onto
the street!
It would be a good idea to have a mobile telephone with you if you
have one or can borrow one. This way, if 'trouble' should occur, you
have a means of summoning help from the boys in blue.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:04:28 -0000
Subject: Re: Water leak
>Does anyone know how to detect the source of a water leak? This leak
And there was I thinking that all Water Authorities were mending all
their leaks!!!
>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?
You could try HA80 s163 which deals explicitly with water falling on
or flowing onto the highway. Unfortunately only a competent
authority (and how many of those are there), which is the HA, can take
action under this section by service of a notice.
However, s163 (3) allows anyone to lay an appeal before a magistrate's
court. I wonder if this is limited to appeals by persons on whom a
notice has been served?
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:25:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Gated lanes in Wilts
> But 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.
Dear CoCo,
I think farmers should stop blaming 4wd for making RoW muddy!
YS
The RoW list
_____________________
Sally Journal
Press Release
An influential body has sent an urgent request to the Countryside
Commission exhalting them to stop the farmers who are reaping huge
subsidies from using powerful tractors on ancient unsurfaced Green Lanes.
At a number of locations these lanes are being destroyed and churned up
into a sea of mud by tractors. A RoW users group has called for this ban
to be imposed as it was originally thought to be caused by leisure vehicles
until a recent government inquiry proved that was not the case.
The Countryside Commission have granted permission to farmers so that they
may install gates on bridleways and footpaths to keep off-road vehicles on
the authorised sites, by s 147 of the Highways Act. Cyclists and
Horseriders however are incensed at any increase in gates and vow to fight
it, saying they only ever see farm vehicles on bridleways.
END
?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (dub-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.206.140])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id JAA04538
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-12.compuserve.com (dub-img-12.compuserve.com [149.174.206.142])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-12.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id KAA11803
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:54:04 -0500
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
No, but I know a man that does. Call the Water Auth, then their watchdog
Offwat, giving proof of when and who it was reported to. Easiest to do it
on the water waste than the even more henious crime of damaging a highway.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:54:09 -0500
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
> In essence, a RUPP reclassification Inquiry is there to decide whether
> carriageway rights exist on the way in question and that must amount
> to the same thing as whether a prosecution can be brought under RTA88
> s34 for driving on a definite bridleway that the user claims is a
> carriageway. I know the 'test' is different, but if the same
> evidence is presented then the outcome 'should' be the same or at
> least similar.
Surely not. The same evidence but a substantial difference in the burden of
proof.
PI: simply more likely than not
Prosecution: that (The said person did it, & without authority etc) and
that it had NO vehicular rights beyond all reasonable doubt?
As they say at some PIs "we are here to establish precisley what rights do
exist"
but should add "that we have sufficient evidence to show, as that status,
on the DMS on the balance of probabilities, with the evidence examined
here" (and the L/O is not wealthy enough to take me to the HC)
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:54:03 -0500
Subject: Anti horse
At yesterdays PI the arguments about why a path should not be bridleway,
but only footpath were so sad.
Sea of mud, we used to be able to walk down there we can't now.
The activity has increased so much over the last 6m (or 2 years) depending
on witness.
(Seems there has been a concerted effort to show use/need recently :-)
The racing stables will exercise their horses down there, it won't be safe
to walk
There might be a commercial stable open up.
Insp: but they might build a supermarket but they haven't
No, but they might mightn't they?
There have been 150 horses down there, what a mess if they went down there
now!
(Summer Solstice Enduro used it once)
Same arguments that are used for anti byway.
Ok it was a little slippery, steep, but there were four footpaths off it,
why don't these people stick to them, or fight their own way through the
undergrowth, they like the clear swathe cut through for them, but don't
want to share their 22 ft wide 'foot' path with anyone.......
If Insp does not reject BW as proposed and modify to BY, as soon as we
have seen the FA map (at Kew, not yet seen) there will be another
application going in. Everyone along their denied owning it. So it MUST be
uncoloured.
(Now private Occupation Road)
Chris.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:54:10 -0500
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
> 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....
> wouldnt give the planter an excuse to moan) is to photograph the wee
Don't give a photo opportunity away, or leave signs of abatement,
Ceremoniously dig it up, and with lots of TLC transplant it to where it
should be and then write up the symbolic Millennium RoW movement, So it can
grow with the lane for the next 1,000 years. Send it to local Rag. Green
Lane Movement in Action for the Environment!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:54:18 -0500
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT/Babtie
> I have looked in the blue book, but the nearest alphabetical entry in the
> index is "barbed wire".
Close. Can't give chapter & verse, but the privatised highway authority
for Berks and some other counties. A private contractor.
I suspect (?) those that need to have had meetings to see the extent of
their powers, but I wonder if they are also given power to read the HA80
s130 for eg. If they were to enforce, does that give them extra pennies to
shareholders. (Or do they get a fixed sum, thus is not in their interest to
'waste' it on GLs?) If they get a fixed sum, is it based on miles of UCR
and if so do they get anything different for UUCRs BOATs BW etc?
> Please help.
> Confused Yorkshireman
Another interested Yorkshireman, living in N Herefordshire.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:47:52 -0000
Subject: RE: Widths
Since HA80 'kills' RUPPs, they should surely be 'other carriageways', thus
between 3 and 5 metres.
Read carefully, there is mention, not only of disturbance under S134
(ploughing), but also 135 - other work & disturbance, 137A - restoration
after obstruction by crops
Unless modified by the DM&S these limits will apply. For FP & BW the line
must be clear of obstructive vegetation to the width, but remember that a
BOAT should not be ploughed or cropped anyway - good reason for a BOAT
status me thinks - even the most ardent trampler has to agree with that!
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 99 17:20 GMT0
Subject: Re: Where to get your babtie
I'm sorry, that should have been Babtie with a capital 'B'. A Babtie is a
multi-faceted organism, predominent but not exclusive to Berkshire.
Its the RoW management company for Berks and a few other CCs I believe.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:51:05 -0000
Subject: RE: widths
Spoken like a true Lady.
Clearer than I could put it.....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:51:06 -0000
Subject: RE: CJM bursts out....
That is one of Chris's more restrained exclamations.....
But this is mixed company, so I will not expand further than to say some
could be the cuase of the ignition of a concrete roof.....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:51:15 -0000
Subject: RE: Felling Trees
If not consumed by the fire at the Police Station ;-)
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:51:09 -0000
Subject: RE: Felling Trees (
Large chunks may of course be used for other uses. If a lump of sufficient
size happened to fall across a nearby stream that is too deep and steep to
cross without such aid...
Also could be used for the removal of certain haemorrhoids.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:51:14 -0000
Subject: RE: Felling Trees (was: Re: restricted width BOAT)
Noise might be one of the considerations behind my original question, but to
say so.....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:51:17 -0000
Subject: RE: Water leak
This sounds like one of those nice occasions when we see users and LOs
united against another party!
As for leak detection, first thought was "I'd love to find where the water
comes into the rood on my LR"
Second was "Wales"
Third, and more serious, a diviner may be of some assistance.
Forth, I've seen people using some sort of 'ground stethoscope'. Basically
a long thin probe which is stuffed into the ground, listened to. Done in a
grid pattern it should be possible to get some idea of where the leak is,
providing it is flowing fast enough.
Then there's the way I saw the water board do it; dig a trench along the
line of the pipe until you find the where the water is coming from.....
It might be worth reporting the leak to the water authority on a very
regular basis, but I have my doubts.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:51:18 -0000
Subject: RE: Abating in Staffs
Mark,
Talking of things that wee to be done by Staffs HA, I wander if they've done
anything about that BOAT we drove when you got stuck on the lump? I very
much doubt it, but it is now drivable :-)
I think the intent of Tim's mail was the PC Plod that one was going to use
this BOAT as part of a journey, and that it had been obstructed on a
previous occasion, not to say "I'm going to abate the obstruction on this
BOAT".
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:47:11 -0000
Subject: Re: Private Occupation Roads
Look at recent BBT
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: Private Occupation Roads
> Date: 14 January 1999 19:05
> 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
> Date: 14 January 1999 19:05
> An interesting day listening to Geoff Brookes's arguements for a byway
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
> "Thank you Mr Weston, That now concludes this Inq.......... Er Yes Mr
time,
> it was only subsequent use that it became a public bridleway. This
proves
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:28:38 -0500
Subject: Hereford - The meet!
Tim, and anyone else still following the soap opera:-
Dear Mr Marsden
RE: ROMAN ROAD PROPOSED TRO
Thank you for your faxes of 11,12 and 13 January 1999. I note the contents
of all three.
In response to your general concerns, I have arranged to meet with key
officers in the Environment Directorate to review our policy and practice
in relation to this area. Additionally, I think it would useful as part of
this review to arrange to meet with you as well. My colleague Duncan Forbes
is in the process of co-ordinating this meeting which I hope will take
place during January and will contact you in the next few days to propose a
date and time.
As to the particular questions you raised, I have been unable to confirm
whether or not the Council is a signatory to the County Surveyors Society
but the position is being checked. I am aware of the documents "Making the
Best of Byways" and we do wish to meet with you to address the concerns
that you have been raising in connection with the above TRO.
I do not recall your request for my agreement to liaise with the
Countryside Commission. Plainly, if you wish to contact them as a member of
the public you are free to do so. We have reviewed the proposals set out in
the Countryside Commission document "Rights of Way in the 21st Century" and
note their plans to recommend a package of reforms in relation to this
matter. I cannot accept that Herefordshire is under performing as a highway
authority nor do I accept your allegation that we have approached the Roman
Road proposal in a cavalier matter.
I also note your concern in relation to the obstruction at Leysfield Road,
Upper Lye upon which I
am awaiting instructions.
I need to check the position in relation to posts and projects which might
be funded by the
Countryside Commission.
In relation to the proposed TRO on Roman Road, I do not envisage that the
Council will enforce the Order if it is made by locked gates. As you
indicate, this is one of the matters upon which the Chief Constable is
being consulted.
Yours sincerely,
MARIE ROSENTHAL
COUNTY SECRETARY AND SOLICITOR
County of Heretordshire District Council
P.O. Box No.240, HEREFORD HR1 1ZT
DX 135296 HEREFORD
Main Switchboard: (01432) 260000
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
15/1/99 By Fax 01 432 260206
Dear Ms. Rosenthal,
Re: Proposed TRO Roman Road.
Thank you for your letters of the 13/1/99.
I have indeed heard from Gareth Randall, and we have arranged the meeting
you mentioned with him and Mr Forbes. It may be that the following points
will be discussed at that meeting, even so you may wish to collate
information beforehand. If of course we can make progress in other
directions at that meeting, they may become less relevant.
· Precisely where (as per previous requests) are the Roman Remains, and
when was the full assessment undertaken? Would you please have a copy at
the meeting.
· What change in use is the TRO designed to achieve?
· If not TRO’d what change in condition do you anticipate?
· What evidence can you provide to show that
a) unregulated use
b) regulated as recommended by DETR, (HoTR or VR)
would jeopardise any remains shown as firstmentioned above?
I would naturally assume no decision will be made on this TRO until you
have completed your review of policy and practice with your Environment
Directorate?
The suggestion to liaise with the Countryside Commission was in my
objection to the TRO on 23/10/98, final sentence. I did familiarise them
briefly, recently. My ‘allegation’ of a cavalier approach has been
admitted by your counterparts H&WCC, Mr J Romanis, 30/3/98, headed: Roman
Road Uc 73019, first paragraph.
I note your comments and time-scale on Upper Lye in your other letter of
even date, however I do anticipate this will be on the agenda for the
above mentioned meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Chris J Marsden.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:45:22 -0000
Subject: Re: Where to get your babtie
Many thanks to Mick and Chris for explaining the significance of Babtie.
I have now crossed-off "get my own personal babtie" from my millennium
Christmas list.
thanks again,
enlightened of Yorkshire
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:32:04 EST
Subject: Re: Anti horse
Chris,
In a message dated 15/01/99 15:56:48 GMT, you wrote:
<< If Insp does not reject BW as proposed and modify to BY, as soon as we
have seen the FA map (at Kew, not yet seen) there will be another
application going in. Everyone along their denied owning it. So it MUST be
uncoloured. >>
Better let me have the GRs then.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:47:08 EST
Subject: Re: Water leak
In a message dated 15 : 01 : 99 02:09 GMT, you write:
<< You could try HA80 s163 which deals explicitly with water falling on
or flowing onto the highway. >>
I am obliged to you, as they say. It is not in the blue book and my HA 80 is
noot easy to plough through, not having a competent index.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:47:03 EST
Subject: Re: Babtie
In a message dated 15 : 01 : 99 12:02 GMT, you write:
<< Is it a thing (clearly not), or a person,
or a body of persons ? >>
Yes, it is a company, which used to look after Berkshire RoW, and now does the
same for the fragments (or most of them). Few counties farmed out RoW work to
a contractor, but this is one. Rhoda Barnett is their main protagonist.
I think the original idea was that the contractor would expand...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:47:06 EST
Subject: Re: Evidence - used up or not
In a message dated 15 : 01 : 99 02:09 GMT, you write:
<< the court are likely to place less weight on that
evidence if it has already been examined by an Inspector >>
How will they know?
The inspector is unlikelky to say any individual evidence is irrelevant, as
that opens him to high court challenge, he must consider it all. And what is
relevant for s53 or s54 is not the same as what is needed for reasonable
doubt, either in stregth or quantity. No court is going to take any notice
anyway of the views of a mere Inspector.
S54 is not the same as 'was it illegal;' as one is bal of probs, the other is
reasonable doubt. Also in the latter you can argue that lawful authority may
have been given, ie presumed dedication was in hand but not completed.
Evidence can be not enough to convince an inspector but enough to raise doubt.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:47:10 EST
Subject: Re: Abating in Staffs
In a message dated 15 : 01 : 99 02:09 GMT, you write:
<< a means of summoning help from the boys in blue. >>
Or bronze green, or Limestone, etc. or even silver.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:47:14 EST
Subject: Re: Gated lanes in Wilts
In a message dated 15 : 01 : 99 02:28 GMT, you write:
<< The Countryside Commission have granted permission to farmer >>
Not really, they don't make the law, they just think they can walk on water.
The Government, or Parliament, has granted...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:47:11 EST
Subject: Re: Lost Property (was: Re: Felling Trees)
In a message dated 15 : 01 : 99 02:10 GMT, you write:
<< That willow make you poplar with your local bobby. >>
Oak-kay, then, you dont have to ash them. Aspen costs nothing. Walnut give it
a try, it might be of service, all you wayfarers, with your old man's beard?
Anon (if only)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 99 22:25 GMT0
Subject: Re: BW12 East Ilsley
CJM continues to show why he can walk upright without scraping his
knuckles, and I can't......
<<<<<<Ceremoniously dig it up, and with lots of TLC transplant it to where
itshould be and then write up the symbolic Millennium RoW movement, So it
cangrow with the lane for the next 1,000 years.>>>>>
Wot a good idea.
<<<<Green Lane Movement in Action for the Environment!
Er...thats G-L-M-A-E.......musht be shum mishtake shurely:-)
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 35 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:27:40 +0000
Subject: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
Surrey CC is consulting on a proposal to stop up to vehicles part of Kennel
Lane, Leatherhead, under s116 HA80, subject to reservation of bridle
rights. The lane is at TQ 140562 to 140565, and is shown on the DM as a
FP. However, the track, which is unsurfaced, is (unsurprisingly)
historically a continuation of the metalled part of Kennel Lane to the
south (as far as 143552). It has not been used by vehicles in living
memory (there are posts in the track a little north of the railway bridge
which prevent use by four wheeled vehicles), and local residents even
object to equestrian use (so I make a point of using it as often as
possible...). The FP leads straight into a BW north of the railway bridge,
which continues north to Cobham Road (at 139568): this too is likely to
hold carriageway rights.
I had been assembling evidence of carriageway status, but since the railway
bridge is visibly crumbling, Railtrack has persuaded the SCC to make the
stopping up order to settle the matter beyond doubt. It wants to replace
the bridge (a classic 20ft wide carriageway bridge, still unsurfaced) with
a 2m wide bridle bridge. Since SCC currently accepts that bridle rights
should be recognised and retained (though we shall see whether it holds to
that view after local residents have made their point), I'm not
dissatisfied with the direction things are taking. However, does anyone
know whether such an order would allow SCC to make a "legal event" order to
subsequently show the FP as a BW on the DM?
Any comments can be sent to "environment@surreycc.gov.uk" with "FAO Mrs
Patricia Birch" in the subject line.
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 36 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| 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 TAA14312
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 37 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:04:19 -0500
Subject: RE: Widths
> BOAT should not be ploughed or cropped anyway - good reason for a BOAT
> status me thinks - even the most ardent trampler has to agree with that!
But that's why it stands for B*gg*r Off All Tramplers
Anon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 38 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:07:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti horse / Haytons Bent
> << If Insp does not reject BW as proposed and modify to BY, as soon as
we
> have seen the FA map (at Kew, not yet seen) there will be another
> application going in. Everyone along their denied owning it. So it MUST
be
> uncoloured. >>
> Better let me have the GRs then.
> Regards
> Charlie.
Yup, This is the second of a set of three PIs. Collect all three to be
awarded a bridleway.
1) CC advertise FP, Objections at PI CC concede may be BW
2) CC propose BW, 3 Objectors, two say only FP, 1 (GB) says BY at PI#2 on
Thursday.
However CC do not have FA locally, and 'financial constraints' prohibit
looking at Kew.
3) Either Mellor makes it BW or BY.
If BY must be re-advertised. Gleam et al get in on Act and it may go back
to BW at PI#3
or he makes it BW, in which case we look at FA, find it is uncoloured and
we put in another DMMO appl.
(I might be able to get to Kew Mid Feb)
It is hoped we can put in the DMMO appl before we get the PI 2 result, will
that be unusual, a first even? (if it's possible)
PI#3 follows when it may still go to BW, but it will have been a close run
thing.
It has insufficient user to get BW on that alone. But never challenged. Not
awarded to anyone. The awarded public Footpath comes off the Priv Occ rd.
Which drives a 'coach & Horses through the CC's argument that private means
private use.
So to get BW we need to show it was carrying some public rights. So why
not full.
Three FPs term on it on DM, but was not recorded with any status.
It is not usable by vehicles, too steep and muddy! Or so they say.
(Slippery not deep) Might get 2 wheels along in summer. But it is the
principle.
Chris
ps NGR SO 522 808 to 528 812 Haytons Bent (libellous?) 5m N Ludlow. (near
Clee St Maggie)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 39 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:07:23 -0500
Subject: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
> Surrey CC is consulting on a proposal to stop up to vehicles part of
Kennel
> south (as far as 143552). It has not been used by vehicles in living
> memory (there are posts in the track a little north of the railway bridge
> I had been assembling evidence of carriageway status, but since the
railway
> bridge is visibly crumbling, Railtrack has persuaded the SCC to make the
> stopping up order to settle the matter beyond doubt. It wants to replace
> the bridge (a classic 20ft wide carriageway bridge, still unsurfaced)
with
> a 2m wide bridle bridge. Since SCC currently accepts that bridle rights
> dissatisfied with the direction things are taking. However, does anyone
> know whether such an order would allow SCC to make a "legal event" order
to
> subsequently show the FP as a BW on the DM?
> Any comments can be sent to "environment@surreycc.gov.uk" with "FAO Mrs
> Patricia Birch" in the subject line.
Oh what a spiffing idea! Illegally (?) obstruct the road to vehicles. Then
try to stop equestrian use. Then only the ruddy tramplers to ObstrUCt it
for... Haven't we done well.
Could the bridge have any sort of preservation order on it?
The railway plans show status?
Better get some bikes down there ASAP.
Shurely the're not going to 116 it to save money on repairs? Must be some
mistook.
Can only be because not necessary. Even Bikes can show vehicular needs
exist. Surely so close to London and everywhere, there should be some
users that have used it.
If pre 1835 they could say we accept it as vehicular, add it to LoS,
reserve BW rights in M/ Court hey presto legal event ! IMV.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 40 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 39 lines 1829 [forwarded 140 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1188 [content 936 forwarded 140 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990116 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]