[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:03:39 -0500
Subject: Grey Mill Lane
Another para to re state the case to abandon the 116:
There seems to be, as expected, appreciable interest in the stopping up,
without any publicity as yet. Although I would have expected the Parish to
veto (theirs is an absolute power to veto) the closure, if any resident
with access onto the lane, or adjacent landowner objected, it is my
understanding the courts are reticent to dispose of highways. The number
of other objectors seems to vary but my understanding is that it is unwise
to proceed when there are as few as about 5 or more other objectors. Is
this your Council’s view? There currently seems many times this already,
but that is a casual observation. As the interest is bound to escalate
when reported in user’s magazines, would you ensure the actual width
already enclosed in the garden is staked out, to show the actual loss being
suffered by the public. There is of course absolutely no reason why the
area could not be picturesque, with landscaped water features, still safe
for children, yet functional as a green lane. It is a challenge all could
rise to.
CJ
ps obviuosly any mag editors are welcome to quote from this letter if they
wish.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:29:54 -0000
Subject: Re: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
Did you get a response?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: howard.neal@which.net
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
> Date: 18 January 1999 21:42
> > 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
> > bridge is out of repair then a S56 notice should be sent as they do
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
> > TRO a RUPP because a bridge is becoming unsafe for motor vehicles? If
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,
[ truncated by list-digester (was 14 lines)]
> 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)
> Shire Hall
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
> It is claimed that one of the two bridges along the route (1697, 1698)
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
> Shinfield Park
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
> Why not? If there really is a serious problem with one of the bridges
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
> Dear Sir,
to
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:33:28 -0000
Subject: Re: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
Note the date. I cannot find a reply!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, April 27, 1998
FAO Mr Duncan Mackay
Berkshire County Council
Shire Hall
Shinfield
Reading
RG2 9XG
Dear Mr Mackay
I write, in the belief that you deal with such matters, seeking information
on RUPP 64 in the Parish of Bucklebury. In case I have the number wrong I
refer to the byway that passes between SU559713 and 566701.
I have intended to look at this lane for some time now but lack of time and
poor weather have foiled me at each attempt. I am told the lane is once
again obstructed and a rumour is circulating that there are plans to impose
a traffic regulation Order.
I ask that you look into and seek the removal of any obstruction. I would
also be most grateful for any information regarding a proposed TRO. I am
told that the proposal arises from a poorly maintained bridge along the
route. If my understanding of the situation is correct, it would be
improper to use a TRO as an alternative to maintaining a highway and I
shall object accordingly.
Bearing in mind the protracted history of illegal obstruction on this
route, and dependant upon your response, it would appear that my best
option to preserve users enjoyment over this route would be to make a
section 56 (HA80) application to the County Court. I therefore ask that,
in your response, you confirm that this is a publicly maintainable highway.
Should there be a risk that I might be disadvantaged in this matter by the
speed of conventional mail I ask that you e-mail information to the above
address. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
D Tilbury
Hampshire Area RoW Representative
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: howard.neal@which.net
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
> Date: 18 January 1999 21:42
> > 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
> > bridge is out of repair then a S56 notice should be sent as they do
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
> > TRO a RUPP because a bridge is becoming unsafe for motor vehicles? If
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,
[ truncated by list-digester (was 14 lines)]
> 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)
> Shire Hall
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
> It is claimed that one of the two bridges along the route (1697, 1698)
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
> Shinfield Park
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
> Why not? If there really is a serious problem with one of the bridges
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
> Dear Sir,
to
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:32:18 EST
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
In a message dated 15 : 01 : 99 10:29 GMT, you write:
<< 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? >>
What aspect of the direction things are taking are you not dissatisfied with?
The fact that public rights will be made extinct, or that horse riders will
get an unrecorded bridleway, or that users are beginning to object, or that
the evidence for carriageway seems fairly strong, or what?
Awkward question No 1 :
If you are happy that my rights are to be removed, why should I help you with
your question?
If this is your view, No 2 :
Do you really want LARA, or any of its members, to reverse their policy of not
criticising actions, damage, etc, or opposing the rights, of other users, but
to realise that we have two prime enemies, HAs and LOs.
As far as I am concerned, I answer (and ask) questions here in the spirit of
co-operation, and mutual aid.
Tim Stevens, LARA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:32:29 EST
Subject: Re: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
In a message dated 17 : 01 : 99 08:56 GMT, you write:
<< If the
bridge is out of repair then a S56 notice should be sent as they do have
a duty to repair it. >>
Isn't that a coincidence - I have just been talking to Rhoda Barnett, (Babtie
RoW) who advises that they are not sure that they must repair the bridge. But
she did confirm that handrails were put up 'in anticipation of the TRO'.
Eventually she agreed very reluctantly that this was an illegal act for which
they have neither powers nor duties and it has caused expenditure from a
budget not able to cope with its duties. I feel a s56 coming on, and a letter
to the auditors.
cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:32:34 EST
Subject: Re: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd
In a message dated 17 : 01 : 99 10:50 GMT, you write:
<< 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 may also be that as a highway in existance before 1835, it is caught by the
HA of that year, and is now publicly maintainable. Just like the new BOATs
across Wolsingham Common, Co Durham.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:32:31 EST
Subject: Re: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd
In a message dated 17 : 01 : 99 08:56 GMT, you write:
<< his 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. >>
Yes indeedy. Well done all round.
Surrey Highways claim to know nothing of any proposed closure, and the woman
in RoW was not in but will ring back.
I feel another s 56 coming on. Please, to help with this, can I have chapter &
verse on the route. Grid refs for the bridge, and the obstructions, etc. I
want to make sure that any application is watertight.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that s56 pro-forma post-cards might
be useful. On tear-off pads, in a waterproof sleeve, with a pen on a string,
ideal to carry on a drive or ride...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:32:22 EST
Subject: Re: Anti horse / Haytons Bent
In a message dated 16 : 01 : 99 01:12 GMT, you write:
<< However CC do not have FA locally, and 'financial constraints' prohibit
looking at Kew.
>>
Oh no they don't. The authority has a DUTY to look at all the evidence
available to it, which must include evidence which they know exists, which
they know is relevant, and which is in the public domain but not in the
county.
The recent Tandy case reminds HA that Duties must be done even at the expense
of discretionary actions.
So an objection on the grounds that the law has not been complied with must
surely succeed?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:38:59 EST
Subject: Warwickshire [RoW & Glass]
It seems that a serious situation may be developing in Warks.
Some council officers are being criticised for daring to talk to users, and
others are saying that UCRs are not useful for anything and can be shut, TROd,
downgraded, etc without any need for consultation.
If LARA were to call a local meeting of affected users, to discuss a joint
process of getting resources properly managed, who might come, and where might
be best to meet? I can arrange a Rugby meeting, but others might have better
places in mind. And should it be an evening, or a weekend? And is there a
local clubnight which we could add this to instead of a dedicated meeting?
Meanwhile, please do not mention any Warks officer by name under any
circumstances. Heads might roll.
Please pass this message, by e-mail or otherwise, to any others who might need
to be at any meeting. Thanks.
Cheers, tim LARA
PO Box 20
Market Drayton
TF9 1WR
01630 657 627 (9am - 9 pm)
fax 01630 658928 (anytime)
timLARA@aol.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:34:43 +0000
Subject: Re: motors in the countryside - we're under attack, again.
In message <bulk.1910.19990112171948@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Brian Lewis
<brian@limb.demon.co.uk> writes
Brian
I'm back on line, Tuesday PM.
396 incoming mails so far!
Geoff fell's sec just rang to say 29 is now out for Mr Burns.
Could you do 10.30 on Mon 1 Feb?
if not, its 23 or 24 feb.
A
--
alan kind
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:34:43 +0000
Subject: Re: motors in the countryside - we're under attack, again.
In message <bulk.1910.19990112171948@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Brian Lewis
<brian@limb.demon.co.uk> writes
Brian
I'm back on line, Tuesday PM.
396 incoming mails so far!
Geoff fell's sec just rang to say 29 is now out for Mr Burns.
Could you do 10.30 on Mon 1 Feb?
if not, its 23 or 24 feb.
A
--
alan kind
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:29:51 -0000
Subject: RE: Geological map of Newbury
If only we could get access to the GIS data that underlies the OS
publications at a reasonable cost. In such an event importing into say
AutoCAD, or Microstation, would allow easy, accurate overlaying of data. As
it is the best I can think of is using Corel to handle the graphics, but its
a bit of a pain getting the grids lined up accurately. I know, I've been
trying to do this with some of the older maps around here, and, ignoring the
problems of changing projection, I'd rather 'wrestle a hog in a bog'.
Then there are the problems of paper distorting due to age and humidity....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:29:52 -0000
Subject: FW: Unofficial "playground" closed
Just pulled this one off the UK-LRO list.
Sounds as if someone might be doing something right for once!
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:29:53 -0000
Subject: RE: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd
In your case a transparent window in your sleeve?
Is the wording for an s56 as in the 'Blue Book', if so it would be a very
simple task to prepare a tear off pad, which would provide one with the form
itself, and a carbon copy for ones files.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:29:19 +0000
Subject: Re Kennel Lane
Hi folks,
In Hugh's original posting he refered to the rly bridge being a bit
crumbly. If this is the surface of the highway across the bridge and not
the structure then the highway authority should be maintaining it
anyway, not Railtrack. Transport Act 1968 passed the duty of maintaining
the surface of all highways maint at pub ex over railway and canal
bridges to the highway authority. This is for surface and not structure.
what happens if the surface is also part of the sructure such as a
timber planked decking I dunno.
Cheers,Mike.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:34:43 +0000
Subject: Re: motors in the countryside - we're under attack, again.
In message <bulk.1910.19990112171948@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Brian Lewis
<brian@limb.demon.co.uk> writes
Brian
I'm back on line, Tuesday PM.
396 incoming mails so far!
Geoff fell's sec just rang to say 29 is now out for Mr Burns.
Could you do 10.30 on Mon 1 Feb?
if not, its 23 or 24 feb.
A
--
alan kind
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:48:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
Tim wrote:
>What aspect of the direction things are taking are you not dissatisfied with?
The fact that public rights will be made extinct, or that horse riders will
get an unrecorded bridleway, or that users are beginning to object, or that
the evidence for carriageway seems fairly strong, or what?
Pragmatism. A s116 application will (I hope -- see earlier message)
confirm BW rights. That will avoid the continuing commitment of pursuing a
BOAT MO which would be likely to fail on the Nettlecombe test (on the
grounds that the road has not been used by vehicles in living memory, and
therefore fails to meet the definition of a highway "which is used by the
public mainly for the purpose for which FPs and BWs are so used" [see
George Laurence QC's recent contribution on this to the ROWLR]). I'm
convinced that, taking into account: absence of current veh. user,
obstruction, quality of surface, weak bridge, strength of local feeling,
that even were a BOAT application successful, it would immediately be
followed by either a s116 or a TRO (or both), as happened a few years back
at River Lane nearby.
Others won't agree with that approach, and may feel they have the time to
pursue vehicular rights. That's why I've posted information about the
circumstances in this discussion group. You're welcome to do that, and
I'll help you if I can.
>Awkward question No 1 :
>If you are happy that my rights are to be removed, why should I help you
with your question?
See above.
>If this is your view, No 2 :
Do you really want LARA, or any of its members, to reverse their policy of
>not criticising actions, damage, etc, or opposing the rights, of other
users,
I'm not a member, so wouldn't dream of asking
>As far as I am concerned, I answer (and ask) questions here in the spirit of
>co-operation, and mutual aid.
Me too. But I think it's fair to say that this is (so far as I'm aware) an
open discussion group, and not everyone may share the view of every
contributor all of the time?
<< 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 may also be that as a highway in existance before 1835, it is caught by
the HA of that year, and is now publicly maintainable. Just like the new
BOATs across Wolsingham Common, Co Durham.
Yes, although proving when the highway was "dedicated" (ie, before or after
1835) could be tricky. Right now, the HA still seems to be working on the
principle that the road is a DM FP, and therefore publicly maintainable
under the 1949 Act.
>Surrey Highways claim to know nothing of any proposed closure, and the
woman in RoW was not in but will ring back.
Try asking for Mrs Birch in ROW group. I expect you've got the Highways
Department <very> worried now :-).
>I feel another s 56 coming on. Please, to help with this, can I have
chapter &
verse on the route. Grid refs for the bridge, and the obstructions, etc. I
want to make sure that any application is watertight.
My originating e-mail of 15/1 has most of the details (the railway bridge
is at the northern end of the path at 140565). E-mail me if you need
anything else. It's not clear, though, that the highway is maintainable at
public (or anybody else's) expense, though the HA will need its wits about
it to deny responsibility (see above). This bit of Kennel Lane is not,
incidentally, in the LOS. To answer Mike's point this evening, the
weakness in the bridge is structural: the parapets look like they might go
over with a hefty push, but Railtrack doesn't seem unduly concerned at
present (probably because of the absence of traffic.....).
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:02:20 +0000
Subject: Re: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
> But she did confirm that handrails were put up 'in anticipation of the TRO'.
Tim,
So the TRO was a foregone conclusion even a year ago. The original TRO did not
include horse drawn vehicles and the handrails would have been an obstruction.
I
don't think the current approved TRO includes two wheeled vehicles so the
obstruction remains for ponies and traps etc. My attention was drawn to the TRO
by a letter in the NWN from a James Walters and Tom (the horse) bemoaning the
ban
on horse drawn vehicles. I wonder if he was the other objector.
There are two bridges one after the other. Did Rhoda Barnett say which bridge
is
unsafe? If it is the one with the handrails then there is no need for a TRO as
the small stream can be forded.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:22:42 EST
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
In a message dated 19 : 01 : 99 10:52 GMT, you write:
<< fail on the Nettlecombe test (on the
grounds that the road has not been used by vehicles in living memory >>
Has it really not been used by bicycle or motorbike? Use should start at once,
in that case, so get pedalling, all you Surreyalists. And won't a pony and
trap clear the bollards, too?
And please excuse any churlishness in my initial reaction. I had been reading
Shropshire CC papers and that would bring out the churl in anyone.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:22:36 EST
Subject: Re: FW: Unofficial "playground" closed
In a message dated 19 : 01 : 99 07:31 GMT, you quote:
<< For some years now, when visiting friends in Derbyshire, we've gone to an
unofficial off-road "playground" in the hills above Matlock Baths (Grid
ref: approx SK254583). The last time we went there it had been bulldozed
around and was closed off.
The landowner no doubt has the right to do this, but I'm just interested
why. Does anyone know what's happened? >>
Try it the other way round -
The last time we went there [the site] had been bulldozed
around and was closed off.
The landowner no doubt has the right to do this, but I'm just interested
why. Does anyone know what's happened?
Answer -
For some years now, when visiting friends in Derbyshire, we've gone to an
unofficial off-road "playground" ...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:22:48 EST
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
In a message dated 19 : 01 : 99 10:52 GMT, you write:
<< the HA still seems to be working on the
principle that the road is a DM FP, and therefore publicly maintainable
under the 1949 Act. >>
I wonder what the reaction of the court would be to the argument that the 1949
made it maintainable, because it was recorded (as FP) and the true status (CW)
tells us to what standard it should be maintained. The 49 Act does not say 'If
shown as FP, maintain only as FP'. I do not think this is any more a 'spin' on
the wording than the Nettlecome and Wolsingham arguments.
Any thoughts
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:45:51 -0000
Subject: Re: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd
This matter has been covered by Chris Wilmore and Joanne Roseff.
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: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd
> Date: 19 January 1999 00:23
> > >This is interesting, a private carriage road awarded at enclosure
which
> > subsequent, but presumably not long after, rly deposited plans all say
> [ truncated by lro-lite (was 9 lines)]
> > >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?
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
> 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
> Private and Public in relation to roads.
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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 16 lines)]
> 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
> the 100 yards either side like on county bridges?
> > The Act clearly assigns the upkeep of the public carriage roads to 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
> the 100 yards either side like on county bridges?
> > The Act clearly assigns the upkeep of the public carriage roads to the
only
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:51:48 -0000
Subject: Re: Geological map of Newbury
Hi Matt
Adobe Photoshop springs to mind, and I know that the later version of
PaintShop Pro supports layers.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: Mel Mauger & Matthew Reeve <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Geological map of Newbury
> Date: 19 January 1999 02:13
> 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:57:09 -0000
Subject: Re: Grey Mill Lane
Romsey Magistrates stopped up a nice lane in the Test Valley despite the
court being packed with objectors, including cyclists and a disabled driver
who claimed to use the lane in his car (as you easily could).
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: Grey Mill Lane
> Date: 19 January 1999 09:03
> Another para to re state the case to abandon the 116:
> There seems to be, as expected, appreciable interest in the stopping up,
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
> There seems to be, as expected, appreciable interest in the stopping up,
> without any publicity as yet. Although I would have expected the Parish
to
> veto (theirs is an absolute power to veto) the closure, if any resident
> with access onto the lane, or adjacent landowner objected, it is my
> understanding the courts are reticent to dispose of highways. The number
> of other objectors seems to vary but my understanding is that it is
unwise
> to proceed when there are as few as about 5 or more other objectors. Is
> this your Councils view? There currently seems many times this already,
> but that is a casual observation. As the interest is bound to escalate
> when reported in users magazines, would you ensure the actual width
> already enclosed in the garden is staked out, to show the actual loss
being
> suffered by the public. There is of course absolutely no reason why the
> area could not be picturesque, with landscaped water features, still safe
> for children, yet functional as a green lane. It is a challenge all
could
> rise to.
> CJ
> ps obviuosly any mag editors are welcome to quote from this letter if
> when reported in users magazines, would you ensure the actual width
they
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:30:53 EST
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
In a message dated 15 : 01 : 99 10:29 GMT, you write:
<< 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? >>
My experience is Yes, a downgrading of a road reserving bridleway rights
counts as a legal event. I am not sure that if the s116 was 'just in case any
other rights than footpath exist' you will 'of course' get a bridleway, as I
suspect it will depend on the wishes of councillors, officers, etc. (But not
of course, of anyone in the BHS, RA, OSS, etc). So you might need to remind
them, using your CW evidence, that bridleway rights really do exist. Why not
do it now, notwithstanding any Nettlecombe nonsense? We need to show how silly
the N outcome is, in several counties, and then somebody might change the law.
Another approach might be to use s56 and when they say No, take the CW
evidence to the County Court.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:40:46 -0000
Subject: Official Positions
I have heard of a few strange job titles over the years but this is
new one on me.
Salford Council have, amongst there staff in the Rights of Way
department a full time person who is the Footpath Closure Officer.
I laughed when I heard this - but no it was not a joke. It is a
real position.
Salford is the one area of Greater Manchester that I have not really
looked at for Rights of Way matters - maybe I need to quickly before
the above officer gets there.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:45:07 -0500
Subject: 116 to move BW again?
In May last year I raised the unusual practice of using 116 to move a
bridleway, headed "New wheaze, 116 in place of BW DMMO"
Had a call on Monday from someone who wants to move a bridleway from his
garden about 20 feet the other side of a fence. It most likely does have
higher rights. He has paid £375 for an advert for a 119, then ACU who had,
(he was told by CC been consulted informally) rightly objected. He is
reasonable. Wants to do things the right way. It would be beneficial to
him to use his garden more effectively. He has set out the new way. It is
very slighty longer but by very liitle. Might need some stones to make it
as commodius as the original.
How should he proceed?
One possibility is to use the 116 as was used satisfactorily at Black Venn.
County Sol makes the L/O's sol the agent for HA. he applies for the
"highway" to be diverted 116/1(b).
I can't see any other way he can do it without either user's losing higher
rights if they exist, or him ending up with two routes, or a problem when
selling.
Still seems expensive to move about 20ft. sideways.
I would like to see him suceed, as he is willing to do what needs doing,
and not stop any ones rights.
I suggested he gets FA map to see where road went then, as the D&C, (like
the next farm along more clearly shows) seems to go into a farm yard, with
some buildings scattered about, and may have taken any of several paths, to
come out the other side. So both paths could have been within the then
highway!
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:45:10 -0500
Subject: Policy discussion.
County Solicitor has written:-
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 personal notes for the meeting are :-
Agenda
What are their present policies on Enforcement, Obstructions, Gates,
Dis-repair, and Management?
Suggested policies for assertion and protection.
e.g. Enforcement:-
‘That reported Deliberate obstructions be investigated urgently, and if
negotiations fail, enforcement action or removal and re-charge of
obstructer is pursued, to a published timescale.‘
e.g. Obstructions:-
‘Natural obstructions be dealt with as soon as practical with regard to the
nature, budget, use. In all cases remedial action will be taken within 6
months for new obstructions.’ User’s assistance will be encouraged.
e.g. Gates:-
New gates should not be allowed on carriageways, nor on any Enclosure award
Public Carriage Road, nor any other ways not depicted with gates on the
first 25" survey, and in any case, only where necessary for stock control.’
e.g. Dis-repair:-
(a) Maintenance
‘Minor Carriageways are brought back into repair within 3 months, or sooner
wherever possible. User’s assistance will be encouraged. When caused by
Exceptional traffic, the persons causing will be charged when known.
(b) Long standing Dis-repair
‘Resource budgets will be prioritised to bring as many roads into a usable
condition, as is considered practical, in consultation with users.
e.g. Management:-
'That permanent Traffic Regulation Orders be only introduced on Byways in
the County in response to specific problems and where a degree of
enforcement action can be taken, and other methods such as HoTR or VR has
failed.
All Parties have a right to expect reasonable behaviour from, and be
displayed to, all the parties as below.
1. Landowners, Tenant Farmers, Parishes.
2. HA Officers / Councillors
3. Users (whether on Foot, Horse/cycle, or with Horsedrawn Carriages,
Motorcycle, 4 wheeled vehicles)
Actions that would be considered unreasonable:
1) Deliberate obstructions, ploughing, or the suppression of rights that
exist is not reasonable. Any hindrance to normal use. As an example of (1)
the orchestrated campaign at Upper Lye, the Leysfield Road Upper Lye
obstruction, Ploughing at Oakcroft or Pateshall, or fencing as Quebb, or
Bush farm.
2) Lack of policies, or adherence. Failure to follow DETR guidelines (such
as making a TRO without trying other management methods, or not consulting
affected users), failure to assert and protect when a clear and
significant obstruction has occurred. Making DMMOs within a reasonable
time. Examples: Roman Road, Upper Lye, Pateshall, Quebb.
3) Using a RoW in a manner not permitted, (unless higher rights are
believed to exist). Using non-road licensed vehicles. Using regardless of
weather, width, weight, or on a soft unsurfaced road causing deep mud.
BUT Sorry, no examples are known to exist within County!
What should they do?
Have policies: Without policies they do not know what they should be doing,
they will not know if they fail, and can not put in procedures to prevent
re-occurrence of failings.
What do they actually do?
To find out - Watch their actions, ask. Use RoW. Protection of rights comes
from eternal vigilance. Be on consultation list. Talk to other users.
What can we do?
Sanctions include: withdrawing co-operation - that assumes there is
initially! Complain to HoD, Monitoring Officer, Ombudsman
Complain to District Auditor, Audit Commission.
S56 Action on subject lane and buddy lanes.
Report obstructions frequently.
Make DMMO’s
Complain to CoCo, DETR, MP, Councillor, National Bodies
CJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 28 lines 1599 [forwarded 292 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1216 [content 881 forwarded 268 (cut 24) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990120 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]