[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:14:12 -0000
Subject: Re: Telivision
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.
......
>8:10pm Century Road ..... A Lovely Way to Go
>Ceefax, Nicam Digital Stereo
>From the trailers that I have noticed over the festive period this a
series of programmes looking at people who live in residential roads
that sprung up in 1899/1900 and got called 'Century Road'. It
seems to be a collection of interviews with the residents of these
roads in various towns and cities across the country.
Interesting may be - but nowt do to with RoW.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:00:28 +0000
Subject: Gardiner letter in Newbury Weekly News
GLASS & RoW
The following letter appeared in NWN on January 14. It is from our old
fiend Mr Gardiner. While I largely agree with his last paragraph. The
rest of it stinks. The letter is accompanied by a photograph captioned
'One of the worst places for showing the damage is Old Street'. The
photo is of Green Lane (not Old Street at all) looking north at Red Lane
Barn (SU467796) showing a 30 foot long muddy puddle. What his photo
doesn't show is the farmyard on the left or that tyre tracks lead from
the puddle into the farmyard (I have taken photos). If he wanted to
show serious damage actually on Old Street he could have sent in a photo
of the skilful re-creation of a Somme battlefield at SU493749 to
SU492752. All done with the aid of large agricultural vehicles. I have
taken photos of the damage showing the tell tale tyre marks.
Green lanes are not meant for ‘mud plugging antics’
ONCE again the Green lanes of West Berkshire are being ruined by motor
vehicles both 4x4 and trail bikes. The recent weather has made these
lanes extremely vulnerable to damage, and over Christmas and New Year
the off-roaders have had a bonanza. As a result, many lanes are now
almost impassable to other legitimate users, be they on foot on a horse
or on a pedal cycle.
One of the worst places is Old Street and its feeder tracks. This lane
in thousands of years old, and runs from near Chieveley up to the
Ridgeway. My photograph, taken in the last week, shows typical damage.
After the wet winter of 1994 the Berkshire County Council estimated the
cost of repairing the damage done by off-roaders that winter in
Berkshire at about £175,000. This was seven times the county council
annual budget for all rights of way maintenance for the whole county. To
its credit, the council scraped together scarce resources, and over
three years repaired the worst of the damage.
It spent £70,000 on Old Street alone but this is public money paid for
by the likes of you and me; now once again we are back to 1994. Now
that there is no county council the burden will fall on the council
taxpayers of West Berkshire. Why should we have to pay to repair the
damage caused by a small, thoughtless irresponsible minority, who insist
on exercising their rights with -out realising that these rights come
with responsibilities?
I say to all those who use their vehicles off road: please keep off our
Green Lanes until they have had a chance to dry out. They are not made
for your mud plugging antics Other people have a right to enjoy them
undamaged and in peace.
DAVID GARDINER
Chairman Catmore Parish Meeting
Lilley.
Please respond if you wish to:
The Editor
Newbury Weekly News
Faraday Road
Newbury
Berks RG14 2DW
Or email .. paulj@newburynews.co.uk
Mark emails urgent or they take a week to reach the editors desk! Also
include a home address or they won't print it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:40:47 -0000
Subject: Re: restricted width BOAT
Babtie is an amagamation of the words Banker and Walker.....
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:51:36 -0000
Subject: Re: widths
<<Now we were talking about widths on RUPPs and this, as usual, causes
the problem. >>
I do not see any RUPP problem. Is it included in the list of ways that can
be ploughed - no. It may be used as a bridleway but it is not one. It is
a RUPP.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:49:12 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
I do not see what weight has to do with this. Any evidence that would
suggest that the way is vehicular must cast doubt in a s34 action. And it
would have needed to have expressly been rejected by the Inspector as not
relevant. Should he have done so had the Inspector seen the relevance on
the evidence. Any one who relies on evidence in court to defend a s34, and
then tells the bench that "an Inspector didn't think much of it, but it's
all I have" has got to be a sad looser anyway.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:03:25 -0000
Subject: Re: Water leak
<<At the top of the hill is a Water Authority water tower.>>
There is a case - and I cannot remember it that concerns the flooding of a
mine. It is established that where one party keeps anything (animate or
inanimate) that is harmless but on escape does damage then that person is
liable. In this case the Water co. is liable for the repair of the
bridleway if it truly is damaged by escaping water.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:07:32 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 63 - Stockport
House of lords. E-mail them to see if they have.
hlro@parliament.uk
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:33:40 -0000
Subject: Re: Gated lanes in Wilts
Did you? did you send that?
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: Re: Gated lanes in Wilts
> Date: 15 January 1999 14:25
> > 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,
[ truncated by list-digester (was 22 lines)]
> 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
> > Not the same thing at all, although I do not doubt that their reasons
vehicles
> until a recent government inquiry proved that was not the case.
> The Countryside Commission have granted permission to farmers so that
> to be imposed as it was originally thought to be caused by leisure
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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:38:05 -0000
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
Several points:
Are the local TRF on the case?
Bridge width indicates carriageway.
s116 cannot be used to slide out of a duty to repair. If Railtrack want to
close the lane (and you want to retain VR) then, should it reach court, you
can use that as part of the reason for opposing the order. There needs to
be some user (motorcycle) and some potential users at court. A coordinated
effort.
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: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
> Date: 15 January 1999 22:27
> 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
> historically a continuation of the metalled part of Kennel Lane to 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------F4E18C95EE6E528852992809" ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:23:55 +0000
Subject: Anti horse
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.
- There was plenty of mud at Glastonbury, and not a horse to be
seen!!
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 :-)
-Activity is increasing every where, since 1964 when Riding Schools
were licensed, the
demand for recreational riding has exploded. Over 88% of the
estimated 565,000
horses are privately owned.
The racing stables will exercise their horses down there, it won't be
safe
to walk
-Unlikey. Racehorses are valuable athletes, its an industry not
recreation. Yards would
not risk even a minor injury to legs on a bridleway. Compare
abridleway surface to a
racecourse.
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!
-What, you mean its not being maintained?
Sue J
Cambs
[ Original post was HTML ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii ]
[Attachment removed, was 57 lines.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:50:46 +0000
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
>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.
Well, up to a point! The historic rights have been somewhat overlooked
these past forty years. The posts in the road are presumably "official" in
origin. And I don't suppose the HA has any intention of removing them this
side of the stopping up application.
>Could the bridge have any sort of preservation order on it?
No! Though its rather nice to see such a large carriage road bridge still
unsurfaced (most of them must have been like this once).
>The railway plans show status?
Yes, public road, public road, public road, public road, occupation road,
public road (there were six different proposals to build a line over a
quarter century!). (The "occupation road" entry was probably a mistake:
the alignment associated with this proposal just missed crossing the lane,
so perhaps the surveyors were not too concerned with its status.)
>Better get some bikes down there ASAP.
No comment!
>Shurely the're not going to 116 it to save money on repairs? Must be some
>mistook.
It's almost certainly not publicly maintainable. Was a private carriage
road in the enclosure award, and there are several references to its not
being publicly maintainable between about 1860 and 1933. The rest of
Kennel Lane was adopted when the housing estates went up in the 30s.
>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.
Doubt it: no evidence of vehicular use (other than cycles), and no-one
would have had reason to suppose that vehicular rights exist (shown as FP
on DM). Besides, the width is now very restricted north of the railway
bridge (though this section is oddly not included in the stopping up order)
and decidedly muddy.
>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.
But LoS is not conclusive evidence of a vehicular ROW: so a legal event
order might well be challenged. Besides, as its probably not publicly
maintainable, no much chance that the HA will want to show it in its LoS!
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:58:00 EST
Subject: Re: Dummer in Dorzet
David,
In a message dated 11/01/99 23:06:18 GMT, you wrote:
<< gates erected on Gussage All Saints 10 and 13........
......You state that the gates were erected following s147 authorisation. >>
Are these ROW BOATs or RUPPs? If so, how come HA80/s147 authorisation is
possible?
Or am I not very subtle at all?
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 99 18:34 GMT0
Subject: Re: Gardiner letter in Newbury Weekly News
Howard says
<<<< If he wanted to
show serious damage actually on Old Street he could have sent in a photo
of the skilful re-creation of a Somme battlefield at SU493749 to
SU492752. All done with the aid of large agricultural vehicles. I have
taken photos of the damage showing the tell tale tyre marks.>>>>>
He ain't kidding........this is one of the worst-maintained Byways I've
ever seen.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:01:51 -0000
Subject: Re: Water leak
>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.
Neither was mine until I highlighted the sections that I refer to
regularly with orange highlighter pen and the occasional sections with
green highlighter pen!
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 14 lines 962 [forwarded 266 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 541 [content 395 forwarded 252 (cut 14) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990117 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]