[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:54:57 -0000
Subject: Re: Another one lost in GLEAM parish.
Have used that route several times in the past and have a shot of a RR with
only 2 wheels on the bridge. We used the refer to it as 'the bridge over
the river Pang' - due to the fact that there was no bridge but a steep in
and out ford. South of the ford the route was always ploughed and I have
complained in the past. I have also complained about the handrails as an
obstruction.
Has the Order been made or just advertised?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:37:28 -0000
Subject: Re: Gardiner letter in Newbury Weekly News
Hi
As I have already made a complaint to the PCC it would be good to have the
latest at my fingertips (if no one else is going to complain about NWN to
the PCC) so that i may have a response planned when the PCC come back to
me.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 99 12:13 GMT0
Subject: RE: Felling Trees on NGLD
Hi Rob
Ive managed to lose your mobile number innit :-((
Could I have it and could I pass it on to a newbie NGLD-er
hes Lee Passam, Fulford, Nr. Stone. 01782-394445 sound keen to do some
clearance wrok and youre nearer to him than me...yuo migth have knowledge
of a local project.
TVM
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:47:40 -0000
Subject: Planning Inspectorate's decision to RUPP 63 Inquiry
As suggested I have asked the Planning Inspectotate to deal with RUPP
63 - Stockport by Written Representation. They have refused and
said, in effect, that W&CA81 orders cannot effectively be determined
by written representations and it now policy not to use this method.
Quite possibly true but very nice of them to tell users!
I have now written and asked for an adjournment - awaiting reply.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:29:09 -0000
Subject: RE: Abating in Staffs
Mark,
I've just tried to email Eddie Smith about the locked gates. My mail hadn't
bounced back by the time I left work tonight, so we may have opened another
door....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:15:22 -0000
Subject: RE: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
Isn't this a back door admission that the RUPP should really be a BOAT, not
a BW or FP?
Or am I just being thick?
Naturally a TRO to all use might be advisable DURING the actual repairs.
Throw an s56 at them - Chris can tell you the best wording to get the CC
squirming and then get the whole route opened up so ALL legitimate users can
use it again.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:28:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Gardiner letter in Newbury Weekly News
> <<<< Is there a competing paper that would run your side,
> if they can show a competitor has misreported?>>>>
> Not known...over to Howard?
To my knowledge there is no competing paper in the area. The only other
papers are the sort stuffed through letterboxes for free. They tend to be non
existent on editorial and high on adverts.
By the way the other day I noticed a book on the history of the Newbury Weekly
News.
It was called.................. 'No Apology Needed'.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:42:20 +0000
Subject: Re: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
> 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.
Though the TRO was justified by a concern for public safety the NWN report
says;
'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'
If their concern was really was public safety why were they discussing
conflict with horse riders and walkers
Below is a copy of my original objection to this TRO. Be aware that I wrote
just after becoming interested in RoW matters so it may seem a bit naive.
D.K.H. Over 24 February, 1997
County Solicitor
Shire Hall
Shinfield Park
Reading RG2 9DU Ref. ENV 222 007 SES
Dear Sir,
With reference to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order on RUPP 64,
Bucklebury.
I recently (8-2-97) drove the full length of this track. The only problems
I encountered were caused by several piles of cut brushwood piled on the
track, logs laid across it, and also a section that had been ploughed in.
It is claimed that one of the two bridges along the route (1697, 1698) has
failed and is unsafe. On what basis has this been determined? The Southern
bridge appears to be quite capable of safely taking the weight of a vehicle
with no obvious deterioration despite lacking headwalls and spandrels. The
Northern bridge has for some time been rendered useless to virtually any
kind of vehicle by the position of two handrails just over three and a half
feet apart. This second bridge is, however, easily bypassed and is thus not
strictly necessary for vehicular traffic.
The various obstructions along the route and the fact that this track has a
history of being ploughed in would seem to make it safe to assume that
somebody simply does not want it to be used by vehicles.
It is intriguing that, in the interests of public safety, the proposed
Traffic Regulation Order seeks to ban only four wheeled motor vehicles and
motor cycle combinations from using the road. No mention is made of
potentially larger, heavier and less controllable non motorised vehicles.
Why not? If there really is a serious problem with one of the bridges then
surely the Council should be equally concerned for the safety of the drivers
and passengers of all vehicles irrespective of their mode of propulsion.
I do not pretend to be an expert on legal matters but I would be grateful if
you could tell me whether or not the Council has a duty to protect and
preserve this highway (Section 130, Highways Act 1980). If so, and the
Council truly believes the bridge to be unsafe, then I trust the Council
will not shirk it responsibilities and carry out any repairs it deems
necessary, for the benefit of all users.
Please treat this letter as an objection in the strongest possible terms to
the proposed Traffic Regulation Order.
Yours faithfully,
Howard Neal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| 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 SAA25107
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| 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 TAA10887
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:23:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd
> >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?
The fundamental question is what did s 8 & 10 of the 1801 Gen Act mean by
Private and Public in relation to roads.
Then what did the railway Act mean by identifying it as Public?
If the 1801 meant private maintenance then why the hell didn't they define
it as such somewhere? But likewise if it meant private ownership, but if
so why was it not awarded to someone? Did they have Hansard at that time?
(Doubt if they televised it) does Hansard record the lots of debate that
would have gone on at that time. Although much was done by lawyers in the
terminology, Parliament must have pondered long over it. Who will have
searched Hansard for any explanation of the term they all accepted?
Alternatively it must be what was customery use of that term prior to then.
I find it strange the 1773 Highways Act refers so often to publick
highways and to highways. Indicating, but not ever saying the non publick
highways are private highways! (Cross Roads?)
The Railway Act was more likely referring to who may use rather than who
had to maintain (or owned) the road, would the rly co be responsible for
the 100 yards either side like on county bridges?
> 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”.
Because all of those were set out under s* as they were pubilically
maintainable, ie Water courses served the public - or inconvienced them if
not maintained.
It does not, however, make provision for the upkeep of the
> PrCRs, and nor does the Award.
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
I agree, how can so many Acts be ignored by the Inspectorate, but they only
ever look at one at a time, and that's inconclusive.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Mel Mauger & Matthew Reeve" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 02:13:31 -0000
Subject: Geological map of Newbury
I've just borrowed a copy of the geological map of the area north and west of
Newbury, (NGRs 2462 -
5281). First of all, can anyone recommend a suitable graphics package for
overlaying scanned images
of this and the OS map for the area so they can be easily compared? Also,
although this was done
primarily for assessing the cause of the 'Somme' on Old Street, if anyone else
has any other problem
lanes which may have a geological/geographical problem rather than a usage
problem, then let me know
the NGR's and I'll have a look. Also, if anyone else has any lanes in their
area which may have a
geological problem underlying for which we are unfairly getting blamed for
(unless some of you guys
are carrying water bowsers full of fresh spring water and trailers full of clay
on the back of your
trailbikes........) then let me know and I'll request the appropriate maps. I
can't cope with a huge
demand though, so please let me know how urgent/important each of them is so I
can best plan my
time.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 12 lines 770 [forwarded 161 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 384 [content 281 forwarded 161 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990119 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]