[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:11:35 -0500
Subject: Warks. 116
To Warwickshire County Council,
Shire Hall, Warwick. CV34 4RR.
TAKE NOTICE that I, Christopher John Marsden of Orleton Manor, Orleton,
Near Ludlow, claim that the way described in the Schedule hereto is a
highway maintainable at the public expense.
AND TAKE NOTICE that a portion of the said way between grid reference SP
145 614 and grid reference SP 145 615 and being a distance of 100 metres or
thereabouts is out of repair.
AND TAKE NOTICE that I hereby require you pursuant to sub-section (1) of
Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 to state:
maintainable at the public expense, and
(b) whether you admit that you are the authority liable to maintain the
said portion of way.
Dated 19th January 1999.
CHRISTOPHER JOHN MARSDEN
SCHEDULE
Full Highway known as Grey Mill Lane, shown on the List of Publicly
Maintainable Streets, at Wootten Wawen, Warwickshire, between grid
reference SP 145 614 at the bank of the River Alne, and grid reference SP
145 615 adjacent to Grey Mill Cottage.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:11:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Anti horse / Haytons Bent
> << 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
> So an objection on the grounds that the law has not been complied with
must
> surely succeed?
> Oh no they don't. The authority has a DUTY to look at all the evidence
The first extract above should be in quotes - from Sloppy.
Well lets see what the man from the PI says about that, then object - but
where to? There could well be another DMMO appln. in before the decision
letter is proofed by the eagles :-)
Shame it's not a usable one, though it might be worth a try in summer on
2w.
CJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:11:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
> 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
If a s116 is a legal event, is a s56 reply by an authorised signatory a
legal event? (even a tiny little internal legal event?) I suspect not
(unless it has been to court perhaps?). So does that make it an illegal
event? ;-)
But why this fixation on being on the DM&S, why not the jolly old LoS if
pre 1835 and VR exist, by response to a s56? How do we know there is no
M/C use? has it been advertised for users in local clubs?
If bridge is crumbly it must be as dangerous for a 1/2 ton oss as a 1/4 ton
bike? (A bike is a steady loading, an 'oss may stress bridge more by
varying load) Assuming its an up an' over bridge, isn't crumbly bridges
slightly in-commodius for the Iron Oss's below? And it must be required for
safety for even FP.
Bridges do unfortunately cost a few bob, ask Sloppy Shroppy with an
RA/legal/repair bill for £61,000 or so at Bridgenorth recently?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:11:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Re Another one lost in GLEAM parish
> 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
I do hope several people are complaining to ombudsman and auditor, when
accounts published (by any one paying in W Berks), for the expenditure, if
VR has not been tried first? At the moment they seem to be making monkeys
out of everyone by doing just what they like and no one saying boo.
Ever thought of s56s on other muddy lanes destroyed by tractors? Lose one
to TRO, s56 3 others to redress the balance - if you have ANY unusable
lanes, and assuming mudpluggers are NOT the REAL culprits.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:11:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
> Pragmatism. A s116 application will (I hope -- see earlier message)
Three people submit s56s. Schedule shows:-
1st as FP
2nd as BW
3rd as Carriageway.
You then get a statement of their considered view of what rights exist, and
nothing lost.
Also shows
a) that way is needed
b) they are using 116 to save money, a chuck-outable reason for a 116
c) potential danger from crumbling bridge to either rail users or highway
users or both. Or else there is no need to do anything bout it other than
abate bollards.
Why not ask their policies while you are about it.
No Policy? Then they don't know what they should be doing, if they have
done it, or what to do if they fail.
They are wide open to criticism from Ombudsman.
Chris
ps
> George Laurence QC's recent contribution on this to the ROWLR
How much of a 'contribution' may be reproduced here for 'review and fair
comment'?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:11:50 -0500
Subject: RE: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd
> 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.
> simple task to prepare a tear off pad, which would provide one with the
A powerful tool, to be used with respect. If used with no intention of
taking further action will be devalued. It should also be sent by recorded
delivery, it may not always say highway sometimes carriagway, and what do
you intend to do if timescale is not adhered to?
Chris
PS one faxed of to Warks today.
DAISNAID
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:12:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
> 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.
(CW)
Public should be entitled to the full width. What is it statemented at?
if not they should maintain, if bollarded they can't recharge for veh use
anyway. If maintained to vehicle width, without recharging for priv use
indicates Veh Rts. mey exist.
IMV
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 99 10:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Official Positions
Surely it would be possible to get a job description of the Footpath
Closure Officer? and then complain to the auditors that succh a post
contravenes govt guidelines for greater access?
(subject to what the JD actually says, natch)
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 99 10:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Warwickshire [RoW & Glass]
<<<<It seems that a serious situation may be developing in Warks.>>>>>
V.V. serious and un-democratic
<<<<Some council officers are being criticised>>>>
By who? and are they in fear of reprisals? I can see a trades union being
very interested in this and may be in a position to pursue this avenue
<<<for daring to talk to users>>>
We need a test case, someone to approach such an officer and hear words
like 'sorry I am under instructions to deter dialogue' (yes I know fat
chance but one never knows)
<<<<<, and
others are saying that UCRs are not useful for anything and can be shut,
TROd,downgraded, etc without any need for consultation.>>>>
So we need to identify these and have them, er, educated.
<<<If LARA were to call a local meeting of affected users, to discuss a
jointprocess of getting resources properly managed, who might come>>>
I would subject work pattern
<<<<, and where might
be best to meet? I can arrange a Rugby meeting, but others might have
betterplaces in mind.>>>>
Rugby or nearby is good
<<<<And should it be an evening, or a weekend?>>>>>
No preferences
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:56:30 -0000
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
This will not fail the Nettlecombe test as the way is open to walkers and
horse riders (and motorcycles).
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
> Date: 19 January 1999 22:48
> 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
> Date: 19 January 1999 22:48
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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
> >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
> I'll help you if I can.
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
> >If you are happy that my rights are to be removed, why should I help you
> that even were a BOAT application successful, it would immediately be
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
> that this was the distinction intended to be made between the public and
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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
> 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:23:45 -0000
Subject: BHS ask
Hi
Carol, our local BHS rep is after a BOAT. It is shown as an RT road on a
copy of the 1929 handover map but is currently only footpath (for the most
part). she was going to approach the County with a s56 but I doubted that
that would be effective as it is RT. One section is 60 feet wide with no
known owner (which don't sit well with RT do it?) As it is used by walkers
(although horses cannot get through) I thought it might just get around
Nettlecombe.
The lanes link SU 527115 to 537084 &515096. Any bright ideas gratefully
received?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:37:05 -0000
Subject: Re: 116 to move BW again?
s116 can be used to divert recorded and presumed rights so it would seem to
be the way to go.
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: 116 to move BW again?
> Date: 20 January 1999 00:45
> 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"
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
> 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
> Date: 20 January 1999 00:45
> In May last year I raised the unusual practice of using 116 to move a
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
> Date: 20 January 1999 00:45
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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
> 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:50:44 -0000
Subject: Re: Official Positions
And that such a position is counter to the statutes that require the
authority to preserve and protect, this being reinforced in Send.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:41:53 -0000
Subject: Re: Policy discussion.
Sounds fair enough. Nail them down on the policy and priority bits as it
is through those that you will probably gain most. Counties seem to like
to have public spirited policies but are not so keen to implement them.
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: Policy discussion.
> Date: 20 January 1999 00:45
> 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
> Date: 20 January 1999 00:45
> County Solicitor has written:-
> I have arranged to meet with key officers in the Environment Directorate
[ truncated by list-digester (was 24 lines)]
> 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. Users assistance will be encouraged.
> e.g. Gates:-
> New gates should not be allowed on carriageways, nor on any Enclosure
> County Solicitor has written:-
> I have arranged to meet with key officers in the Environment Directorate
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
> New gates should not be allowed on carriageways, nor on any Enclosure
> County Solicitor has written:-
sooner
> wherever possible. Users 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:-
[ truncated by list-digester (was 26 lines)]
> 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
> condition, as is considered practical, in consultation with users.
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
> e.g. Management:-
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
> believed to exist). Using non-road licensed vehicles. Using regardless
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
> Have policies: Without policies they do not know what they should be
comes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:51:45 EST
Subject: Re: 116 to move BW again?
In a message dated 20 : 01 : 99 12:46 GMT, you write:
<< 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. >>
If he is seeking to move the route, whether or not it turns out to be a CW,
s116 is the safe option, describing the route as 'highway'. It also serves as
a legal event so there should be no argument about the new line or status on
the DM&S. This also ensures that the benefit of old evidence is 'transferred'
to the new line (which it wouldn't if he went for extinguishment &
dedication).
I am sure that someone local could offer to act as 'broker' to bring the ACU
contact round to agreeing with this. White Disco Man, perhaps?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:51:50 EST
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
In a message dated 20 : 01 : 99 10:13 GMT, you write:
<< If a s116 is a legal event, is a s56 reply by an authorised signatory a
legal event? (even a tiny little internal legal event?) I suspect not
(unless it has been to court perhaps?). So does that make it an illegal
event? ;-)
>>
I think you are right. A legal event must involve a decision which changes
something or confirms a doubt about status, etc. Just saying yes it is on our
list counts for nowt, but anything before the court proper would count if it
showed that the DM&S was wrong.
In my uneducated unqualified view.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:54:03 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Hunt
Cotswolds, Sat.
Guessed the hunt was about by the fact that someone else had
driven some of the lanes, followed by the mud churned up by
hooves and trail of recently broken down walls. Next a
Subaru cross-axled on a six-inch verge - driver covered in
mud & blood of the hunt presumably understood the controls on
a horse better than his Subaru - pushed him out onto tarmac
- next lane: stopped while pack of blood-smeared hounds
abandonned the lane by pulling down the stone wall in front
of us then we waited nervously while some very large and
ungainly horses carrying huntspeople squeezed past at full
tilt - presumably could control their Subarus better than
their horses. The overall impression was that any fox that
got caught by those incompetents was most likely to be run
over by an errant Subaru late back from the pub. On the next
lane I noticed there were a number of padlocks on the fences
next to several of the gates (though last week-end was the
first time I'd ever had to remove one in that area). Perhaps
they were in readiness to stop the hunt not byway users?
I've met hunts whilst laning in 4 or 5 different counties
- they have all regarded me with some suspicion and were
generally less friendly than other horse-riders. They are
increasingly motorised and since they have a general
disregard for minor damage done to walls and fences I
assume the same is true for surfaces (they are also
frequently in a hurry). There is a danger that we get blamed
for their mess - watch out!
Finally, last lane syndrome ... just when it looked like
being well timed for our customary afternoon tea in Broadway
via a lane I've driven a number of times before, a new fence.
The fence was legitimate but stopped my usual diversion
around a fallen tree (been there for years).... I'll go back
in the daylight and shift it. The moral of this tale being
not to be complacent and leave an obstruction on the RoW
just because it is easy to go round - it would have been
a lot easier to shift it in the summer with dry ground
and longer afternoons.
PS Any resemblance to any Subaru alive or dead, real or fictitious is
entirely your own fault.
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:48:07 EST
Subject: Re: BHS ask
I think the way to get a successful s56 here, where a doubt is raised about RT
liability (and in Co Durham's new BOATs) goes like this -
Apply to the HA using the standard wording, but adding a clause saying
In the event that this road is not maintainable at public expense, but by a
person under a special enactment or by reason of tenure, enclosure, or
prescription (ie the exact words in the Act) please inform me of the name and
address of such a person.
At least that gives them the opportunity, even if they came back and said
Dunno. And in a case like this where you want the stastus sorted, but not
necessarily the road repaired, it would be helpful to attach a further
Schedule indicating the evidence you have to show the status, liability, etc.
And of course, add a reference to this in the pre-amble.
Dear Sirs
Footpath No2 Parish of Upper Down
You will see from Schedule A herewith that there is evidence showing that FP
No2 is wrongly recorded and should be a Byway. The evidence also relates to
the liability to maintain the route as a public carriageway.
Take notice that ....
And take notice... etc
Further to a negative response to any of the above enquiries, please advise me
of the name and address of the person responsible for maintaining the road
under a special enactment ... etc
That sort of thing.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:58:36 EST
Subject: Re: Hunt
In a message dated 20 : 01 : 99 11:04 GMT, you write:
<< I've met hunts whilst laning in 4 or 5 different counties
- they have all regarded me with some suspicion and were
generally less friendly than other horse-riders. >>
I suspect this is because they regard you as one or more of the following -
A hunt saboteur
An ordinary member of the public
A council house dweller
A poacher
A troublemaker who complains to the council about the mess
A vegetarian
As all these are non-U, what do you expect, touching of forelocks, or
courtesy, or what? This is the real world, remember.
Cheers, Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:59:53 -0500
Subject: Re: 116 to move BW again?
> I am sure that someone local could offer to act as 'broker' to bring the
ACU
> contact round to agreeing with this. White Disco Man, perhaps?
Old sidecar outfit man called White Van Man this am. He is happy for that.
It was a holding Obj. But it is either do it properly or use 119, which is
a load of potential grief later for everyone.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| 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 KAA04206
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:37:34 +0000
Subject: Kew FA maps
> << 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
PRO Kew has a list of independant local researchers, who will go and
look at your maps and get copies. Cambs CC used this last year for
Corporation Bank DMMO to Byway, when I found it on the FA map, but did
not manage to get copies of the map of the whole route, its 3 miles
long. Cambs then used a local independant and he got the copies and sent
them direct, as I couldn't get to Kew before the Inquiry - which lasted
3 days due to you know who in Cambridge. But, it was confirmed byway
though we've to go back on widths as the CC forgot to put them on the
order.
Sue J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:19:54 -0500
Subject: Hunt
> being well timed for our customary afternoon tea in Broadway
When we (all) publish our book of the Greatest Green Lane Trips, we must
include the best Tearooms.
We often go over to Bird on The Rock at Clungunford, over top of Mocktree.
Snow on ground last Sunday, very wet, no surface, 30 ft wide wall to wall
grass. One of the best BOATs your council has asserted.
> PS Any resemblance to any Subaru alive or dead, real or fictitious is
> entirely your own fault.
Talking of Dead Subarus I'm geeing Tom D up:-
________________________
Hello Tom,
Re: U92616 Bircher Knoll - Continued Obstruction.
I would like to work in the way that assists you most in getting
obstructions removed, which is neither being too impatient, nor leaving
things to drag on, get worse, or where you are not aware that the way is
still obstructed, or has been re-obstructed. Please advise if more or
less frequent reports are more beneficial. As you know, I do not go away,
but I hope that is more of a benefit to see a reasonable solution achieved!
I wrote on 11/1/99:-
"On a small number of occasions different vehicles have been parked outside
the cottage near the end of the maintained section of this road. (NGR SO
482 662, there is no name displayed) I have asked the resident to move a
vehicle on one occasion, which they did willingly. Another time there was
no one in. (It may be a holiday let) Today whilst walking, a red Subaru
Pick-up (reg E776 YUJ, I believe) was parked restricting the width, some
50 metres I would estimate from the end of the tarred surface. This road
does enjoy through public carriageway rights to U92615."
Today the Subaru E776 YUJ is still in the same location, presumably not
moved. It is now being kept company by a silver Renault B656 WNF, probably
for several days without leaving. A Red Montego S318 UNF has also joined
the party, although this may be a short term visitor.
I notice the Subaru is not displaying Road Tax. As it is on the public
road (regardless of the precise end of the maintained section) it should
be, but I do not wish to report this to the Vehicle Excise Duty until such
time as the owner has been given a notice to remove the obstruction. (They
might be ignorant of this being a public road) Could you please let me
know when this has been done. If it is subsequently on the road, I will
then take it up with the authorities as required.
It does seem the problem of the harrow by the stables has been improved
substantially if not completely gone. Thank you for your efforts.
I wonder if any progress is being made on any of the other minor roads we
have discussed in the past?
Chris Marsden
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Andrew Rowbottom" <rummy@snaffle.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:42:48 -0000
Subject: Re: Hunt
> Today the Subaru E776 YUJ is still in the same location, presumably not
> moved.
When I was a kiddie I used to wonder if some of the cars down our
road ever moved, my dad told me to mark the bottom point of the
tyres with a little bit of chalk, and if the next day all the tyres had
the chalk at the bottom then they hadn't moved - he could be a cunning
swine at times!
Anyway, this is an easy way to find out fairly certainly if a car had
been driven away and then parked in the same spot.
Andrew Rowbottom
Geoworks
Tel: +44 (0) 1625 503305
Fax: +44 (0) 1625 500650
Email: arowbott@geoworks.co.uk
Web: http://www.geoworks.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <ian@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:19:08 -0000
Subject: LETTER
How pleasantly refreshing is was to see a major article dealing with
the issues of Public Rights of Way and countryside access (MP was born
to roam - 15.1.1999). However, the article does present a slightly
one sided view and raises a few questions.
The emphasis is squarely upon walking as the only activity for which
this country's rights of way network is used. It should be noted
that whilst the majority of of this network is footpaths a significant
amount can be used by horse riders, cyclists and motor vehicles.
At first sight it would seem to be incongruous for Mr Bennett to be
the president of the Ramblers Association (a group with a stated
objective of banning motorised users from the countryside) and also
chairman of the Commons environment and economic select committee
(which recently conducted a detailed study into leisure usage of the
rights of way network). His parliamentary duties surely require
him to be impartial to all users whereas his RA membership must make
that impartiality difficult to achieve. I am sure that Mr Bennett
will be one MP who has been following the recent 'Pinochet judgement'
very carefully.
Having said that, I have a great deal of respect for Mr Bennett and
his passion for the preservation of the countryside's character is
certainly evident. His actions in protesting against the illegal
obstructions in Sussex are to be welcomed but there are many miles of
rights of way right here on our doorstep in Greater Manchester that
are obstructed either deliberately or by general neglect on the part
of landowners and Highway Authorities. It is not just Mr Van
Hoogstraten who is breaking the law - it is the local Highway
Authority also who have a statutory duty to 'assert and protect' the
publics rights on highways.
The target of having all rights of way clear by the end of the year is
indeed a good one but alas it is one that even the Countryside
Commission (who set the target) recognise to be unachievable. Their
own estimates suggest that, at the current rate of progress, the
target will be reached by the year 2050. An unusable rights of way
network is not a suitable legacy to pass on to the future generations.
Ian Boddison
Greater Manchester Representative
GLASS (Green Lane Association)
[Notes for editor]
GLASS is a national user group representing the interests of
countryside users with motor cars. It is dedicated to researching
and protecting the country's historic roads and to promoting sensible
driving in the countryside.
Please do not publish my full postal address although you are welcome
to publish the postal area and/or my email address if you wish
Ian Boddison
27 Rushford Street
Longsight
Manchester
M12 4WZ
'phone/fax: 0161 224 0132
email: ian@bod1.freeserve.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:57:57 -0000
Subject: RE: Hunt
I've had the miss fortune to meet a hunt on the normal tarred road. Poor
rider of a nag lost control said nag. Both came over the same hedge, but
somewhat separated from each other. Being the kind hearted soul I am, I
stopped (rather rapidly) and made sure that the rider was intact - the horse
had gone off on its own. A senior member of the hunt appeared over the
hedge and threatened me with allsorts, until the first rider managed to get
a word in to put him right....
I now detest hunts.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:57:59 -0000
Subject: RE: Kew FA maps
Sue,
Do you know what the width should be? (or the CC are going to put there).
There are 'default widths' around, and they my be bigger than those on the
order. I think its Bod who knows of a BOAT that's only a couple of feet
wide, not much use to anyone but Twiggy on a diet.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:58:00 -0000
Subject: RE: Hunt
By the sound of things a mere padlock on a gate wouldn't stop that mad load
of b$%^&ds.
They don't bother with unlocking them, they just trample them down, along
with anything else in their way....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:23:03 -0500
Subject: Kew FA maps
> PRO Kew has a list of independant local researchers, who will go and
Thats the problem, they spent so much on TROs that they dont have left in
the kitty for paying for searches at Kew.
Any idea what they cost to look at one map? Might be scope for some
jobbing researcher?
> Cambs CC used this last year for
> Corporation Bank DMMO to Byway, when I found it on the FA map, but did
> not manage to get copies of the map of the whole route, its 3 miles
> long. Cambs then used a local independant and he got the copies and sent
> them direct, as I couldn't get to Kew before the Inquiry - which lasted
> 3 days due to you know who in Cambridge.
Is that that awful fireman? Lost one to BOAT did he? :-)
How important was the FA evidence for BOAT? ie The Saintbury PI was very
clear, para 26: In Order of descending importance #1, FA 1910, out of
eight pieces of evidence listed.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:39:03 -0000
Subject: Re: BHS ask
Ta.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: TimLARA@aol.com
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: BHS ask
> Date: 20 January 1999 11:48
> I think the way to get a successful s56 here, where a doubt is raised
about RT
> liability (and in Co Durham's new BOATs) goes like this -
> Apply to the HA using the standard wording, but adding a clause saying
> In the event that this road is not maintainable at public expense, but by
> Date: 20 January 1999 11:48
a
> person under a special enactment or by reason of tenure, enclosure, or
> prescription (ie the exact words in the Act) please inform me of the name
and
> address of such a person.
> At least that gives them the opportunity, even if they came back and said
> Dunno. And in a case like this where you want the stastus sorted, but not
> necessarily the road repaired, it would be helpful to attach a further
> Schedule indicating the evidence you have to show the status, liability,
etc.
> And of course, add a reference to this in the pre-amble.
> Dear Sirs
> Footpath No2 Parish of Upper Down
> You will see from Schedule A herewith that there is evidence showing that
> Schedule indicating the evidence you have to show the status, liability,
FP
> No2 is wrongly recorded and should be a Byway. The evidence also relates
to
> the liability to maintain the route as a public carriageway.
> Take notice that ....
> And take notice... etc
> Further to a negative response to any of the above enquiries, please
advise me
> of the name and address of the person responsible for maintaining the
road
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:13:22 -0000
Subject: The wicked witch's advocate
Can anyone tell me who acted for Marlene d'Maperton on Turnip lane? Was it
by any chance a firm of solicitors from Bath?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:14:19 +0000
Subject: BOAT widths (was FA Kew Maps)
Do you know what the width should be? (or the CC are going to put
there).
There are 'default widths' around, and they my be bigger than those on
the
order.
Proposed widths are:
Byway 1 & 2 - span of existing track, 3 metres minimum extending 1.5m
at side of Cattle grids at points on order routes
Byway 3 span of existing track 3 meters minimus 1.5m at side of cattle
grid and widening to max of 8 metres at splay junction with Byway 1.
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:16:14 +0000
Subject: Kew FA Maps
Any idea what they cost to look at one map? Might be scope for some
jobbing researcher?
Sorry, no idea but Kew could probably send you a list. Must be cheaper
than a day off work + travelling costs?
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:18:46 +0000
Subject: BOAT
Is that that awful fireman? Lost one to BOAT did he? :-)
He hasn't lost it yet, and at the last PI High Court action was
mentioned. It failed the Nettlecombe test by the way.
Who pays a firemans wages?
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 35 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 99 21:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Trees
Quick straw poll, you guys and gals....who in a CoCo or DC pays for trees.
Highways? Parks? Who?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 36 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 99 21:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Hunt
<<<A hunt saboteur
An ordinary member of the public
A council house dweller
A poacher
A troublemaker who complains to the council about the mess
A vegetarian>>>>
Well thats 4 out of 6 for me :-))))))
I own my own house and I dont eat poached eggs, so whats left for a man to
do except tug his forelock?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 37 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:28:19 +0000
Subject: FA MAP
How important was the FA evidence for BOAT? ie The Saintbury PI was
very
clear, para 26: In Order of descending importance #1, FA 1910, out of
eight pieces of evidence listed.
It was listed 3rd, after Parlimentary Acts of 1772 (Toll Road) & 1795
equal, then Inclosure 1822 (lacking in detail), then the FA as
"Secondary and supporting.... . . .cumulative effect" Route (order route
1) shown uncoloured and described as Roadway (order routes 2 & 3
coloured still got BOAT). THe routes are on top of an old drainage bank
part of the North Level Drainage system.
The Inspector, DM Woofford, compared the Toll to the M4 over the Severn,
i.e pub highway
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 38 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:06:17 EST
Subject: Re: The wicked witch's advocate
In a message dated 20 : 01 : 99 08:14 GMT, you write:
<< Can anyone tell me who acted for Marlene d'Maperton on Turnip lane? >>
I think she has acted so far on her own account. I do not know about the high
court. The case is now planned for Feb 24. You might ask the court, but don't
hold your breath. When my case was on, they couldn't even find it listed.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 39 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:06:21 EST
Subject: Re: BOAT & Nettlecombe
In a message dated 20 : 01 : 99 09:19 GMT, you write:
<< It failed the Nettlecombe test by the way. >>
Do you mean it was completely obstructed, or that the balance of user test
wasn't met? Nettlecombe was totally unusable, and from what you say that might
not be true here. So, keep your fingers crossed.
And remember that the test says 'is used...' and therefore the relevant test
is on the day of the Inquiry. So it may be possible to ensure it is used on
that day in a non-bridleway-legal way. That might mean a sledge carried into
the route and dragged up and down it, just before the site visit. Or driven
cattle, or a tricycle etc. Even a child on a tricycle. Or a handcart (not a
pram). And do tell the Inspector while the PI is open that you hope to be able
to show him evidence that the test has been met when he does the accompanied
site visit. Even better, make sure there is evidence to see on a pre-PI
unaccompanied visit. (Although he might not do a second one for a second PI,
and if so you need to ask if he did, and ensure that he does, because he needs
to see the evidence for himself). I see nothing in the legislation that rules
out use in anticipation or in consequence of a forthcoming PI, as the Act
clearly uses the present tense. And do make sure that you make the point that
obstruction is illegal, and while the device might have been carried over the
obstructions, that is no different from carrying a push-chair over a stile.
If lawyers can be arcane against us, we must be arcane back.
And even if it fails the test, it will be another example of the nonsense we
grapple with.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 40 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:14:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Fetcham
>Has it really not been used by bicycle or motorbike? Use should start at
>once, in that case, so get pedalling, all you Surreyalists.
Bicycle, yes: quite a few mountain bikes I would say, and I've used it
myself on a sports cycle once or twice during the summer. I have a vague
understanding that bikes don't count as evidence for bw status so must be
evidence for cw status, which must be what you're thinking (though the
legal principle sounds sort of ludicrous and not, I think, ever tested)?
Motorbikes, almost certainly not, at least, no evidence on the ground.
Remember that this is essentially a short "urban" "FP", so unlikely to be
used by trail riders from further afield unless they had considerable local
knowledge. If it's been used by local "lads", there's no sign of it
(besides, they'd be mortified if they knew they had a legal right to be
there). Still, now you know where it is... .
>And won't a pony and trap clear the bollards, too?
Probably, don't see them much round this way: there's a great run down
Admirals Road and Hogden Bottom (a BOAT) just 1km to the south, but I've
seen 4wds just once in four years, and only the occasional trail bike
rider. I don't think Marlowe would be too pleased to be hitched up to a
trap, though :-).
>Another approach might be to use s56 and when they say No, take the CW
>evidence to the County Court.
I've raised the "legal event" approach with the council and am waiting for
a reply. But the problem with the above ruse is that the case would go to
the Crown Court (vice the County Court), which sounds horribly
intimidating, especially if it goes pear shaped and there's a claim for
costs for the county solicitor and its eminent QC and junior.
PS Note change in subject: "Leatherhead" is the former UDC, but Fetcham is
a better description of geographical location.
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
Marlowe: a 15.2hh dark liver-chestnut cob
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 41 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:12:20 +0000
Subject: BOATS post Nettlecombe (was Kennel Lane, Fetcham)
>> George Laurence QC's recent contribution on this to the ROWLR
>How much of a 'contribution' may be reproduced here for 'review and fair
>comment'?
Probably the first three words, if you take the same restrictive attitude
to copyright as many public bodies. But seriously, he suggests that unless
there is current use of the way as a footpath and as a bridleway (not clear
from memory whether this means equestrian and/or cycle) and for vehicular
use, a BOAT DMMO (as opposed to RUPP reclassification) application could
not succeed. I recall that he concludes that he thinks LOs will find this
a very attractive outcome, and that users will not: I think he's spot on
there... .
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 42 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:08:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Policy discussion.
>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.’
The Fetcham Award requires "and that it shall not be lawful for any person
to erect any Gate across any of the said public Carriage Roads". There
must be similar provisions in other enclosure Acts, which would make it
impossible for a LO to suggest that even a gate which had long been present
on the highway could be considered as a limitation on dedication. Just a
thought...
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 43 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:06:19 EST
Subject: Re: Kew FA Maps
As the work is not particularly onerous or requiring arcane skills, I suspect
about 10 pounds an hour is sensible, plus travel & lunch. It is most sensible
to have as much as you can cope with all at once, rather than dribs and drabs.
Some work has been done for the TRF on this basis, can't remember for whom,
sorry.
Cheers, tim
PS anyone need research doing at Market Drayton? Shrewsbury? Ruyton 11 Towns?
Eaton Constantine? Ratlinghope?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 44 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
arl-img-12.compuserve.com (arl-img-12.compuserve.com [149.174.217.142])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
arl-img-12.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id SAA24016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 45 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:42:32 -0000
Subject: s56 notices (was:Re: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd)
>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...
The blue book says (p 231 s7.6.3):
"However, use of the s 56 procedure to ascertain the status of a path
is not to be recommended."
It does not say why. It simply says that the DMMO procedure should
be used in such cases but, as we all know, that involves the onerous
task of finding the landowner(s) and then waiting approximately a
decade for the case to be considered.
Can anyone suggest why a s56 should not be used simply to ascertain if
a route is a highway and if it is a highway maintainable at public
expense even if it is not out of repair?
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 46 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:13:27 +0000
Subject: BOAT & Nettlecombe
Do you mean it was completely obstructed, or that the balance of user
test
wasn't met? Nettlecombe was totally unusable, and from what you say that
might
not be true here. So, keep your fingers crossed.
In this case the only access completely obstructed was to riders - the
gate at the side of the first cattle grid had been padlocked. Local
users were currently driving along it, but horses will not cross grids -
for obvious reasons. 53 evidence forms were submitted, approx 30% was
vehicular.
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 47 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 46 lines 2266 [forwarded 369 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1534 [content 1153 forwarded 322 (cut 47) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990121 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]