[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
arl-img-10.compuserve.com (arl-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.217.140])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
arl-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id GAA29592
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 06:25:04 -0500
Subject: Anti horse
> (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
Any legitimate, reasonable demands clearly should be met!
> horses are privately owned.
Not sure of the significance? (And no, that's NOT a reason to use on
Private Occupation Roads ;-)
But I suppose it is a case of Private horses being used by the Public. Ergo
so could private Carriage Roads be used by the public.
> 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.
I think they were laughed at by their neighbours. :-)
> 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
> abridleway surface to a racecourse.
Partly, but only by a couple of adjacent L/Os. One was quick to point that
out on the site visit. Got his Brownie point.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 06:24:55 -0500
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
These photos are really important. (we have the same problem on a lane
being photographed today, bloke said he would take his tractors down there
at PI, he has.)
Make some bold, true statements "gleams lies exposed" with the photos to
back it up. Why not try to get a picture of the tractor, or any in the area
that is on a green lane. Pictures can't be wrong.
Is there any possiblity of a complaint to the Press Complaints Council?
> Green lanes are not meant for ‘mud plugging antics’
> 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
How right. such a pity the "lonely brain cell mob" see LRW Jan99 p45 don't
think about it first.
If there are any mud pluggers they too should be banned during the worst
weather, on the vulnerable lanes, AS WELL AS THE TRACTORS.
> 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
I thought this had been dismissed as lies, making lanes 'better' than they
were before, by surfacing, and also repairing years of neglect? It also
misleads by suggesting the 175 k was spent when it wasn't. CC should be
able to deny his lies, even though it's councillors are dominated by gleam,
are the RoW officers?
> 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.
This is a fact that is either true or not. If it was caused by 4x4's were
they manufactured by Massey Ferguson or LandRover?
What did the twats do sprinkle a little gravel on the surface? 4" stones
8ft wide 6-12" deep should fix most problems for many decades. It soon
greens over, and is often only for a few yards. Getting rid of road
plannings is a BIG problem. Unsuitable they may be, but if it is the only
way to save a lane, then that might be the answer! And it is cheap.
Do use the s56 procedure. It can be quite helpful, and draws official
attention to the real cause. If you have your photo evidence ready 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?
Correct, but why do they always jump to the conclusion it is leisure? If
it is then something does need to be done, of course. If it is not,
something still needs to be done - About the real culprits.
See if you have grounds for a complaint to ombudsman or Council Chief Exec
about his deliberate lying and mischief making.
Try to get some National 4x4 mags to expose his lies once and for all with
a blaze of publicity. Is there a competing paper that would run your side,
if they can show a competitor has misreported?
If you can confirm that the abuse is by farmers, or other non laners, and
can give any more details on how it is proved, we can quote that. If it is
hoodlums, and a temp ban is required, they are fouling it for sensible
laners. The forestry can make tracks that are indestructible for a
fraction of 70k, so how can it be destroyed if they did?
You realise the reason for this sudden upsurge in activity is the imminent
Early Day Motion that is being used to discuss a ban, or so I hear. Main
reason to get publicity, and pave the way to instant TRO style bans by the
like of him. Does he live on a byway or a potential one, or on his estate?
I suffer from this problem 100 miles away. The Aymestry Battle for
Bridleways mob quote the 175K (often as 475K) in their prediction of
problems. gleam (Great Liars, Exceptionally Able Mishief-makers) send this
rubbish to most if not all CCs, many parish councils, and all MPs.
They will photo mud pluggers (as the own goal in LRW). The answer must be
to photo tractors. A picture's worth a thousand words. If it really is
tractors, photo the tracks, but more so the culprits driving down the lanes
with big trailers on.
Prove the tracks dissappear into fields / farms, no such tracks on other
parts of the RoW where leisure use would reasonably be expected to go.
Remember Editors / Sub Editors or their friends or big advertisers own
large houses in the area. Estate agents want to sell property in the area,
if they could get rid of every muddy lane they could sell more houses at
higher prices. How much do THEY spend with the newspapers. Money talks.
Morality doesn't.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 06:25:24 -0500
Subject: Private Roads (IA)
For info and any comments please.
Mr Mellor
Planning Inspectorate
Bristol
Further to the Public Inquiry held at Hayton Bent on 14/1/99, I would like
to bring to your attention the following points on the Order Route, and
provide the case reference I mentioned.
In the parlance of Inclosure awards in general, and this in particular, it
was not a "Footpath" or "Bridlepath". It was a Road. It’s raison d’etre was
to provide access to the properties alongside such road. It was the
occupiers of those allotments that had the interest, and the duty, for the
maintenance of the Road. It had the effect and benefit of preventing
indictment by tinker or stranger.
This private maintenance is borne out by the admissions that the adjacent
landowners do not own the road, but they do maintain the surface. A custom
set by the Award.
The commissioners simply do not have the power in the General Act to say
who may or may not use a road. They do have the power to say who shall have
the duty to maintain. (S8 to S10 of the1801Act.) The word repair is used
6 times in S 8 - S10. The "private Roads or Paths" are to be kept in repair
in the same case as "public Roads" and at all times for ever thereafter
kept in repair at the expence of the owners….. The capitalisation within
the quotes might further indicate that "public" and "Road" were separate
terms to "Public Road". The award described under separate headings how
public Roads, Footpaths, Bridges and private Roads were "to be kept". The
state of the road, especially should the ownership of all lands become the
same, is of no concern of the Parish, save that they have no duty to
repair. This bears out the Board of Agriculture reports submitted by Mr
Brookes describing the Parlous state of the private Roads, and the public
Roads of being little better. (See also BBT 1998/5/31, 1998/1/7) Why the
public interest in the private Roads unless it is that they were only to be
maintained at private expense?
The public Footpath starting from this road clearly indicates that a
private Occupation Road carries some public rights thereover. Thus it is
reasonable to assume they are full in this case I would suggest, and no
maps presented indicated only bridleway status existed.
It is further supported by the number of existing DM footpaths terminating
on, whilst not being claimed as a footpath or bridleway itself. It
legitimises the driving of the vehicles as far as the Post Office. The
discussion then centred on the notion that when a section of road is of a
certain status, that status is likely to exist, in a rural area, for the
whole of it’s length. I suggested THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, AUGUST 13,
1892. 517 Reports. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL. June 18.
EYRE v. NEW FOREST HIGHWAY BOARD might be of assistance, but without the
benefit of the full title!
"It is a just observation that if you think Tinker’s Lane was a public
highway, an old and ancient public highway, why should it be so unless it
leads across that common to some of these places beyond? I cannot conceive
myself how that could be a public highway, or to what purpose it could be
dedicated or in what way it could be used so as to become a public highway,
unless it was to pass over from that side of the country to this side of
the country. Therefore, it seems to me, after all said and done, that the
evidence with regard to this little piece across the green cannot be
severed from the other; and it is comparatively of little importance,
because if I were a juror, and were satisfied in my own mind that Tinker’s
Lane was really a public highway up to that gate, I do not know, but I
think, it would take a great deal to persuade me that it was possible that
that state of things should co-exist with no public way across the little
piece of green."
The same case expands on the theme that a way may be either un-maintained,
or not maintained by the Public, but is still a highway:-
"it was absolutely immaterial for the purpose of settling whether it was a
highway or not, whether it ever had been repaired or not….. A great many
old highways in country places are highways, which from the time they were
first used, have never had a spadeful of gravel thrown upon them, or a
shilling’s worth of repairs done to them at any spot."
The evidence seen may well suggest byway is the correct status for this
way, regardless of whether the user evidence for bridleway is adequate for
deemed dedication.
I am not introducing any new evidence, all the above has been referred to
at the Inquiry, and naturally would have the opportunity for further
examination by way of a further order, if modified to BOAT, or by a s53
application subsequent to examination of the FA1910 map.
What does Private Occupation Road Mean?
If it means > PRIVATE MAINTENANCE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP PRIVATE
USE
Maintenance is > Obviously Private Private as Awarded
Definitely Private
Ownership is > As per Award - Public Obviously Private,but by whom?
Uncertain
Use is > Both Public & Private May be either Public or Private
Obviously Private
If it means all three, the properly enrolled award is clearly
incomprehensible, and contradictory. (The award was the subject of a
resolved objection to a public Carriage Road, so in that respect was
tested.)
· We know the way was a Road. (From the award)
· We know the way was a Highway. (From the described public Footpath "the
breadth of six feet" branching out from it.)
· We know it is privately maintained, from practice within living memory.
This may also be deduced from the award description of private Carriage
Road.
· We know it is a publicly owned Road both from the award not allotting it
to a person, and from the potential landowners denying any ownership of it
at the Inquiry, and from the Land Registry showing adjacent Land registered
since 1990 excludes the road. This public ownership might be further
confirmed by the missing piece of the puzzle: the FA1910 map at Kew.
· The owner may use it for any (highway) purpose. The owner may also say
who should not use it. Parliament has given this power to the public in the
form or Traffic Regulation Orders. (It has also stated that such methods
should not be used for RoW management unless alternative methods (HoTR, VR
etc.) have failed - Making the Best of Byways, Circular 2/93.) This road,
clearly unsuitable for modern vehicles, must have the protection of BOAT if
that is the correct status. Many other byways in the area remain unused by
vehicles, (i.e. BOAT 28 & 29 Clee St Margaret close by, resulting from a PI
three years ago) thus in-admissible unsuitability objections are not
sustainable.
Although I did not speak as a supporter or objector, I would be grateful if
you would send me a copy of the decision letter.
___________________
NB We do not particularly wish the FA evidence to be considered at this
stage as it will be "new evidence for a subsequent application". Does
reference to it here, enable the inspector to pre-empt it and say "even if
the FA does subsequently show it was not in ownership It makes no
difference to my decision"? Should I remain silent on FA1910 evidence not
being brought to the party?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:25:21 -0000
Subject: Re: Anti horse[multipart mime alternative 5 lines deleted.]
Unfortunately Sue, some inspectors seem to take all the bulls--t into
account.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:33:14 -0000
Subject: Re: Dummer in Dorzet
Definitive Status of the lanes is currently bridleway. They were CRB but a
review in 1974 was abandoned with all CRF & CRB being (quite illegally) put
on the DM as bridleway. The gates to not in fact control ingress or egress
to the lane as both are open to woodland and fields at some point in their
length. The other ends of the lanes do not have stock proof gates. It's
all part of the Cranbourne Estates 'get orf moi land' scheme.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: Charlietrf@aol.com
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: Dummer in Dorzet
> Date: 16 January 1999 17:58
> David,
> In a message dated 11/01/99 23:06:18 GMT, you wrote:
> << gates erected on Gussage All Saints 10 and 13........
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
> << gates erected on Gussage All Saints 10 and 13........
> ......You state that the gates were erected following s147
authorisation. >>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:40:00 -0000
Subject: Re: Gardiner letter in Newbury Weekly News
As you know I have lodged a complaint with the press complaints mob about
NWN. It would be good if Howard - or anyone - could whack in another one.
This might reinforce my first complaint and the view that the paper is not
acting impartially. Emphasis on the wrong photo.
If you guys are not going to do it send me all there is and I will do it.
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: Gardiner letter in Newbury Weekly News
> Date: 17 January 1999 11:24
> > 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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
> These photos are really important. (we have the same problem on a lane
> being photographed today, bloke said he would take his tractors down
there
> at PI, he has.)
> Make some bold, true statements "gleams lies exposed" with the photos to
> back it up. Why not try to get a picture of the tractor, or any in the
> Date: 17 January 1999 11:24
area
> that is on a green lane. Pictures can't be wrong.
> Is there any possiblity of a complaint to the Press Complaints Council?
> > Green lanes are not meant for mud plugging antics
> > 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
> How right. such a pity the "lonely brain cell mob" see LRW Jan99 p45
> > fiend Mr Gardiner. While I largely agree with his last paragraph. The
don't
> think about it first.
> If there are any mud pluggers they too should be banned during the worst
> weather, on the vulnerable lanes, AS WELL AS THE TRACTORS.
> > After the wet winter of 1994 the Berkshire County Council estimated the
> > cost of repairing the damage done by off-roaders that winter in
> How right. such a pity the "lonely brain cell mob" see LRW Jan99 p45
> > fiend Mr Gardiner. While I largely agree with his last paragraph. The
[ truncated by list-digester (was 11 lines)]
> > Berkshire at about 175,000. This was seven times the county council
> I thought this had been dismissed as lies, making lanes 'better' than
they
> were before, by surfacing, and also repairing years of neglect? It also
> misleads by suggesting the 175 k was spent when it wasn't. CC should be
> able to deny his lies, even though it's councillors are dominated by
gleam,
> are the RoW officers?
> > 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.
> This is a fact that is either true or not. If it was caused by 4x4's were
> they manufactured by Massey Ferguson or LandRover?
> How right. such a pity the "lonely brain cell mob" see LRW Jan99 p45
> > fiend Mr Gardiner. While I largely agree with his last paragraph. The
[ truncated by list-digester (was 22 lines)]
> > 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?
> Correct, but why do they always jump to the conclusion it is leisure? If
> it is then something does need to be done, of course. If it is not,
> something still needs to be done - About the real culprits.
> See if you have grounds for a complaint to ombudsman or Council Chief
> > fiend Mr Gardiner. While I largely agree with his last paragraph. The
Exec
> about his deliberate lying and mischief making.
> Try to get some National 4x4 mags to expose his lies once and for all
> Correct, but why do they always jump to the conclusion it is leisure? If
with
> a blaze of publicity. Is there a competing paper that would run your
side,
> if they can show a competitor has misreported?
> If you can confirm that the abuse is by farmers, or other non laners, and
> can give any more details on how it is proved, we can quote that. If it
> it is then something does need to be done, of course. If it is not,
is
> hoodlums, and a temp ban is required, they are fouling it for sensible
> laners. The forestry can make tracks that are indestructible for a
> fraction of 70k, so how can it be destroyed if they did?
> You realise the reason for this sudden upsurge in activity is the
> something still needs to be done - About the real culprits.
imminent
> Early Day Motion that is being used to discuss a ban, or so I hear. Main
> reason to get publicity, and pave the way to instant TRO style bans by
the
> like of him. Does he live on a byway or a potential one, or on his
estate?
> I suffer from this problem 100 miles away. The Aymestry Battle for
> Bridleways mob quote the 175K (often as 475K) in their prediction of
> problems. gleam (Great Liars, Exceptionally Able Mishief-makers) send
> You realise the reason for this sudden upsurge in activity is the
this
> rubbish to most if not all CCs, many parish councils, and all MPs.
> They will photo mud pluggers (as the own goal in LRW). The answer must
> problems. gleam (Great Liars, Exceptionally Able Mishief-makers) send
be
> to photo tractors. A picture's worth a thousand words. If it really is
> tractors, photo the tracks, but more so the culprits driving down the
lanes
> with big trailers on.
> Prove the tracks dissappear into fields / farms, no such tracks on other
> parts of the RoW where leisure use would reasonably be expected to go.
> Remember Editors / Sub Editors or their friends or big advertisers own
> large houses in the area. Estate agents want to sell property in the
> See if you have grounds for a complaint to ombudsman or Council Chief
> > fiend Mr Gardiner. While I largely agree with his last paragraph. The
area,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:46:34 -0000
Subject: Re: Private Roads (IA)
Sounds fair enough to me.
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 Roads (IA)
> Date: 17 January 1999 11:25
> For info and any comments please.
> Mr Mellor
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
> Bristol
> Further to the Public Inquiry held at Hayton Bent on 14/1/99, I would
like
> to bring to your attention the following points on the Order Route, and
> provide the case reference I mentioned.
> In the parlance of Inclosure awards in general, and this in particular,
> Date: 17 January 1999 11:25
it
> was not a "Footpath" or "Bridlepath". It was a Road. Its raison detre was
> to provide access to the properties alongside such road. It was the
> occupiers of those allotments that had the interest, and the duty, for
the
> maintenance of the Road. It had the effect and benefit of preventing
> indictment by tinker or stranger.
> This private maintenance is borne out by the admissions that the adjacent
> landowners do not own the road, but they do maintain the surface. A
> For info and any comments please.
custom
> set by the Award.
> The commissioners simply do not have the power in the General Act to say
> who may or may not use a road. They do have the power to say who shall
> landowners do not own the road, but they do maintain the surface. A
have
> the duty to maintain. (S8 to S10 of the1801Act.) The word repair is
used
> 6 times in S 8 - S10. The "private Roads or Paths" are to be kept in
repair
> in the same case as "public Roads" and at all times for ever thereafter
> kept in repair at the expence of the owners.. The capitalisation within
> the quotes might further indicate that "public" and "Road" were separate
> terms to "Public Road". The award described under separate headings
how
> public Roads, Footpaths, Bridges and private Roads were "to be kept".
The
> state of the road, especially should the ownership of all lands become
the
> same, is of no concern of the Parish, save that they have no duty to
> repair. This bears out the Board of Agriculture reports submitted by Mr
> Brookes describing the Parlous state of the private Roads, and the public
> Roads of being little better. (See also BBT 1998/5/31, 1998/1/7) Why
the
> public interest in the private Roads unless it is that they were only to
be
> maintained at private expense?
> The public Footpath starting from this road clearly indicates that a
> private Occupation Road carries some public rights thereover. Thus it is
> reasonable to assume they are full in this case I would suggest, and no
> maps presented indicated only bridleway status existed.
> It is further supported by the number of existing DM footpaths
terminating
> on, whilst not being claimed as a footpath or bridleway itself. It
> legitimises the driving of the vehicles as far as the Post Office. The
> discussion then centred on the notion that when a section of road is of a
> certain status, that status is likely to exist, in a rural area, for the
> whole of its length. I suggested THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, AUGUST 13,
> 1892. 517 Reports. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL. June 18.
> EYRE v. NEW FOREST HIGHWAY BOARD might be of assistance, but without the
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
> highway, an old and ancient public highway, why should it be so unless it
> leads across that common to some of these places beyond? I cannot
conceive
> myself how that could be a public highway, or to what purpose it could be
> dedicated or in what way it could be used so as to become a public
highway,
> unless it was to pass over from that side of the country to this side of
> the country. Therefore, it seems to me, after all said and done, that the
> evidence with regard to this little piece across the green cannot be
> severed from the other; and it is comparatively of little importance,
> because if I were a juror, and were satisfied in my own mind that Tinkers
> Lane was really a public highway up to that gate, I do not know, but I
> think, it would take a great deal to persuade me that it was possible
that
> that state of things should co-exist with no public way across the little
> piece of green."
> The same case expands on the theme that a way may be either
> severed from the other; and it is comparatively of little importance,
un-maintained,
> or not maintained by the Public, but is still a highway:-
> "it was absolutely immaterial for the purpose of settling whether it was
> The same case expands on the theme that a way may be either
a
> highway or not, whether it ever had been repaired or not.. A great many
> old highways in country places are highways, which from the time they
were
> first used, have never had a spadeful of gravel thrown upon them, or a
> shillings worth of repairs done to them at any spot."
> The evidence seen may well suggest byway is the correct status for this
> way, regardless of whether the user evidence for bridleway is adequate
> because if I were a juror, and were satisfied in my own mind that Tinkers
for
> deemed dedication.
> I am not introducing any new evidence, all the above has been referred to
> at the Inquiry, and naturally would have the opportunity for further
> examination by way of a further order, if modified to BOAT, or by a s53
> application subsequent to examination of the FA1910 map.
> What does Private Occupation Road Mean?
> think, it would take a great deal to persuade me that it was possible
[ truncated by list-digester (was 16 lines)]
> Uncertain
> Use is > Both Public & Private May be either Public or Private
> Obviously Private
> If it means all three, the properly enrolled award is clearly
> incomprehensible, and contradictory. (The award was the subject of a
> resolved objection to a public Carriage Road, so in that respect was
> tested.)
> We know the way was a Road. (From the award)
> We know the way was a Highway. (From the described public Footpath "the
[ truncated by list-digester (was 15 lines)]
> We know it is a publicly owned Road both from the award not allotting it
> to a person, and from the potential landowners denying any ownership of
it
> at the Inquiry, and from the Land Registry showing adjacent Land
registered
> since 1990 excludes the road. This public ownership might be further
> confirmed by the missing piece of the puzzle: the FA1910 map at Kew.
> The owner may use it for any (highway) purpose. The owner may also say
> who should not use it. Parliament has given this power to the public in
the
> form or Traffic Regulation Orders. (It has also stated that such methods
> should not be used for RoW management unless alternative methods (HoTR,
VR
> etc.) have failed - Making the Best of Byways, Circular 2/93.) This
road,
> clearly unsuitable for modern vehicles, must have the protection of BOAT
if
> that is the correct status. Many other byways in the area remain unused
by
> vehicles, (i.e. BOAT 28 & 29 Clee St Margaret close by, resulting from a
PI
> three years ago) thus in-admissible unsuitability objections are not
> sustainable.
> Although I did not speak as a supporter or objector, I would be grateful
> who should not use it. Parliament has given this power to the public in
> tested.)
if
> you would send me a copy of the decision letter.
> ___________________
> NB We do not particularly wish the FA evidence to be considered at this
> stage as it will be "new evidence for a subsequent application". Does
> reference to it here, enable the inspector to pre-empt it and say "even
> We know the way was a Road. (From the award)
> We know the way was a Highway. (From the described public Footpath "the
if
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:48:17 +0000
Subject: Another one lost in GLEAM parish.
I missed this article in last weeks (7-1-99) Newbury Weekly News.
It refers to a permanent TRO on a local RUPP, local to Lizzy Still that
is. It would appear to set a dangerous precedent locally. The reason
given was the usual Berkshire catch all 'public safety'. The concern
was that a bridge on the route was out of repair and therefore not
strong enough for motor vehicles. I objected and questioned why the
council appeared to be concerned about the safety of motor vehicle users
but not about the users horse drawn vehicles. I suggested they repair
the bridge. So they banned horse drawn vehicles as well! Sorry.
Motorcycles were not banned because of their low weight. The route is
muddy because it is regularly ploughed out alone part of its length.
Otherwise it is in very good condition. One of the two bridges is also
obstructed by handrails erected three feet apart in the middle of the
deck.
The route runs from SU566702 to 759714. I don't know when the TRO takes
force so there might still be time to visit this ver pleasant route.
Incidentally the next RUPP to the right is obstructed to twin track
vehicles by a telephone pole too close to a hedge SU570712 to 566716.
CARS and horse drawn vehicles are to be banned from a right of way near
Bucklebury. West Berkshire Council's transportation sub committee agreed
to the ban on RUPP 64, which runs from Hillfoot Farm to Rushdens Farm,
Bucklebury, at its east meeting.
Nearby resident Mrs Susan Pring, who lives in Bucklebury Road, a few
hundred yards away from the RUPP, welcomed the decision.
She said “It is a lovely path I have walked it for 30 years but I can no
longer walk it at all because of the mud."
Originally, only four- wheeled motor vehicles were to & banned from the
by-way, known as a Road Used as a Public Path (RUPP).
Two people objected to the scheme, one saying this would allow larger,
heavier motorised vehicles to use the area, and the other feeling the
proposal was being rushed through without due thought.
A report by highways officers said the police also felt that motor
cycles on the route might be a source of as conflict for horse riders
and walkers, and asked all motor vehicles to be banned.
The proposal was amended to include horse drawn vehicles, but it
recommended not to include motorcycles, as such a ban would be difficult
to enforce.
Frustrated regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 99 20:05 GMT0
Subject: Re: Gardiner letter in Newbury Weekly News
Chris makes some points
<<<Make some bold, true statements "gleams lies exposed" with the photos to
back it up.>>>
See my copy of the reply I will be sending tomorrow........at the foot of
this text.
<<<<<<Is there any possiblity of a complaint to the Press Complaints
Council?>>>>
NWN have sailed very close to the wind re: PCC on the subject of 4x4
'off-roading', PCC involvement will depend on their handling of the
replies to gardiners letters.
<<<<<<<<See if you have grounds for a complaint to ombudsman or Council
Chief Execabout his deliberate lying and mischief making.>>>>
watch this space....
<<<<<Try to get some National 4x4 mags to expose his lies once and for all
witha blaze of publicity.>>>>
<<<< Is there a competing paper that would run your side,
if they can show a competitor has misreported?>>>>
Not known...over to Howard?
<<<<<You realise the reason for this sudden upsurge in activity is the
imminentEarly Day Motion that is being used to discuss a ban, or so I
hear. Mainreason to get publicity, and pave the way to instant TRO style
bans by thelike of him. Does he live on a byway or a potential one, or on
his estate?>>>>
You must be joking Chris.....he's the man who invented the word NIMBY.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:34:54 +0000
Subject: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd
Hi folks,
This is interesting, a private carriage road awarded at enclosure which
subsequent, but presumably not long after, rly deposited plans all say
is public road. We seem to have an example of what CJM has been going on
about for so long. Demonstrable proof that a road awarded at enclosure
as private carriage road is in actual fact a public road which is
privately maintainable.
Can I assume the award did not put it in private ownership and the FA
plans show it as unowned?
Cheers,Mike.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:26:39 +0000
Subject: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
Hi folks,
TRO a RUPP because a bridge is becoming unsafe for motor vehicles? If as
this sugests the bridge is out of repair then the TRO should be
unacceptable. What have they said about access for agriculture? If the
bridge is out of repair then a S56 notice should be sent as they do have
a duty to repair it.
Cheers,Mike.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:38:25 +0000
Subject: Re: Private Roads (IA)
Chris Marsden wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:48:31 +0000
Subject: Re: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd
Mike wrote:
>This is interesting, a private carriage road awarded at enclosure which
subsequent, but presumably not long after, rly deposited plans all say
is public road. We seem to have an example of what CJM has been going on
about for so long. Demonstrable proof that a road awarded at enclosure
as private carriage road is in actual fact a public road which is
>privately maintainable.
>Can I assume the award did not put it in private ownership and the FA
plans show it as unowned?
You can, and it does. The award was authorised by an act of 1801, which
appears to have just eluded incorporating the infamous Inclosure clauses
act of the same year. (The local records office has stored the Act folded
ever since, with the result that they refused to copy it on the grounds
that it might be damaged: I've put a laboriously obtained transcript of the
relevant clauses of the Act and of the inclosure award at
http://www.hdc.mcmail.com/fetcham1.htm -- if you're exceptionally keen!
Kennel Lane is "Private Carriage Road no 3")
The Act clearly assigns the upkeep of the public carriage roads to the
inhabitants of the parish (this is confirmed in the Award), and permits the
Commissioners to make directions for the repair of “Hedges, Ditches,
Fences, Banks, Drains, Bridges, Gates, Stiles, Watercourses, and other
Requisites”. It does not, however, make provision for the upkeep of the
PrCRs, and nor does the Award. The Act requires an allotment for a gravel
pit, and appears to envisage that the rent obtained by the surveyor for the
grazing of the herbage of the pit should be used solely for “the Repairs of
the public Roads and Ways within the said Parish”. There must therefore be
some doubt about the intended and actual responsibility for the continued
upkeep of the PrCRs awarded. The language of the Fetcham Act and Award
implies that the responsibility for the maintenance of the PrCRs was not to
fall on the inhabitants at large, but does not assign responsibility
elsewhere. It may be that no-one had a duty to repair them, and I believe
that this was the distinction intended to be made between the public and
private carriage roads referred to in the Act and set out in the Award.
It's difficult to think of any other interpretation which fits the facts.
The FA plans show the road as "uncoloured".
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 14 lines 1342 [forwarded 509 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 925 [content 628 forwarded 461 (cut 48) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990118 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]