[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
arl-img-10.compuserve.com (arl-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.217.140])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
arl-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id HAA07428
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:01:00 -0500
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
I had heard figures of £300 upwards to check one bit of data. £30 is
justifiable, £300+ seems someone should be getting a service up and
running.
Ratlinghope?
Is that pronounced "Ratchup"?
CJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:01:01 -0500
Subject: s56 notices (was:Re: Re Kennel Lane Private Carriage Rd)
> 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?
Because you are stating that you consider it is out of repair, and are
asking them to admit they are responsible, before argueing the toss over
how OOR. If it was abused the law could be changed, it does not define
absolutely the status, that is it is non-binding and if they admit it to a
"highway", where do you go?
But it does still have a place. If you are stating it is OOR for a
carriage yet it's not for a FP, then the status is clearly relevant.
OOR is subjective, and for the court to find, if not admitted. So use with
caution, and when there is a benefit to be achieved. Lets all share info
on the progress of any cases going to court. Even if it's RA + FP, then
experience and limits of variation are beneficial, to BW & BY. We could
aquire more experience than the average court ever will.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:01:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Felling Trees
> >Doesn't an abated tree still remain the property of the landowner?
> Yes but I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time some awfull person removed
> some logs from somebody elses property! Not of course that I have any
> experiance of this!
Oh Dear. RvA say the L/O can not benefit from free firewood grown in the
surface of the highway, which he had no right to. Bet (s)he wouldn't sue
you for removing!
CJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:01:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Policy discussion./Private CRs
> 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...
Agreed, 1801GA s9 says no gates on Pb CR, but that seems to leave open the
possibility of legal gates on a Pv CR.
S10 sets out "private Roads Etc." including Bounds and Land Marks. Would
it now be an offence for a member of the public to see or just to read a
private Land Mark, in the way some argue "private Roads" are not for use by
the public.
And what happens to rain when it falls on one un-enclosed field, runs into
a "private Drain" or "private Ditch" or "private Watercourse" then flows
out of the other side of the enclosed land.
Does the water change from public to private and back to public as it uses
the "private Ditch"? Does the water (the user) know its changing?
The GLQC type arguements may be clever, but sensible they are not.
No chance those Ditches, Roads, Land Marks etc were to be *maintained*
privately? No that all far too logical!
Chris
Sorry if I'm going on a bit, but any challenges or different views, stops
me spouting silly ideas at a PI, get new answers, and may encourage use
elsewhereof these arguements!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:01:05 -0500
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.
Have they stopped making orders, or just stopped confirming them? They
can't put it on as owt else, except on LoS if it's a maintainable highway.
I heard he got Insurance to pay his action. Claimed it would devalue his
place if he didnt fight it, or the like? So that was a one-off, this is
some other L/O threatening I assume? Inspectors must be able to guess
where their next challenge will come from. Not that it Ought to make a
difference.
An inspector when asked recently if (very) wealthy L/Os with expensive
George's up in Co. Durham, gave them a better chance, quick as a flash "Oh
yes, it must!"
> Who pays a firemans wages?
> He hasn't lost it yet, and at the last PI High Court action was
Are they allowed to moonlight? I assume the taxman knows it is
moonlighting?
CJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:34:42 EST
Subject: Re: BOATS post Nettlecombe (was Kennel Lane, Fetcham)
In a message dated 20 : 01 : 99 11:22 GMT Standard Time,
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net writes:
<< I recall that he concludes that he (G Lawrence, requiring BOATs to meet
the user-test) thinks LOs will find this a very attractive outcome, and that
users will not: I think he's spot on there... . >>
The point may well be, that whilst LOs are pleased, Parliament is not. It is
up to us, Mr & Mrs Public, to show Parliament how silly it has now become, and
how contrary to their wishes.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:34:44 EST
Subject: Re: BOAT & Nettlecombe
Further thoughts if, as you suggest, only animals have been obstructed, is to
ensure that bicycle use has occurred, by witnesses who will confirm that they
deliberately gave way to walkers (and would have, to horses, had any
appeared). Alternatively, drive across the cattle-grid with your horse-box,
and unload your horse. Then make sure that there are lots of hoof marks.
I would argue that bicycle use confirms CW, and not BW, but you can take a
different view. The matter is not clear.
It seems that the lawyers are pushing towards strict compliance with
definitions. Lets do our best to show that that is not what is intended. The
ploy called Argumentum Ad Absurdam seems the best way to this.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:24:44 -0500
Subject: Press, they fear...
After dunlop lied in press I'd put 30 applications in I hadn't, I replied
correcting the error, said how much interest I have had in Lost roads from
readers, and asked for people to let me lnow of obstructed roads. They
edited that out!
Seems they fear that this publicity rebounds and increases use. Te He He.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:24:46 -0500
Subject: BOAT & Nettlecombe
> 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.
The Inspectorate will not state the law, Blah blah blah, but they WILL
have to state *their* interpretation before the decision letter is writ. So
we have a right to know now, what their view is, in a clear practical (and
typical) example.
If it needs the padlock to be abated,and if there is reasonable evidence BW
(+) rights exist, lets get abating.
The defence to Crim Dam is supported in BB 196, 304, In any case, IMV.
And what does GLQC propose for any way that does not meet the test?
No status
Left off DM
that it effectively 116's it
that it be shown at a lower status
as a UUCR on LoS
that we have civil riots over it whenever we use it
The order is made, the CC abates, then Inspectorate confirms order (CC have
"protection" if not subsequently found a H/W)
The last seems to have some merit, Order CAN be made, Insp looks at
evidence and Obstructions, instructs CC to clear / abate, adjourns PI,
state that he / she would make a BOAT IF it passed balance test, then
re-convenes when way is clear, and looks at user, and makes a BOAT "if
used".
Long winded, but prattish rulings need pragmatic solutions. At least this
way obstructed BOATs *have* to be cleared. One near me (in Sloppy) is
incredibly obstructed four years after PI. It is *impossible* to walk /
climb down. CC ignore.
This way it would def be in our favour IF CCs have to clear. Up yours,
georgy boy! :-Q
Chris :-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:24:49 -0500
Subject: E5221
Extracts on comms recvd on Warks 116:-
Hope it's not too chopped by the list.
> The [Parish] meeting that night was not very eventful as
there rules
> over when you can speak are not good. 15 minutes before the meeting opens
> and 10 minutes at the end. They did discuss the matter in meeting and
were
> of the opinion that the road should not be stopped up. At the end of the
> meeting The applicant spoke for its stopping up but his reasons had no
> substance whatsoever.
> For your info here are copies of part of an exchange of
> communication between me and the CC's Countryside Recreational Strategy
> >I am apologising to everyone for the delay in publishing the approved
(in
> November 97) strategy, particularly organisations such as yourselves who
we
> consulted during preperation. However it is at last now with our Graphics
> Unit and I am expecting to see a final version next week. It should
> therefore be published in February in a hopefully very user friendly
form.
> I quoted in support that Item 3 of a draft version of the
> Council's
> Countryside Recreational Strategy as at April 1997 states, "Embark on a
> programme for conserving all unsurfaced highways and managing them for
> multiple use". If it is necessary to pursue the matter further it might
be
> useful to know whether that item has made it through to the approved
version.
> I hope you also will try to prevent E5221 being stopped up. It is
> absolutely unique -- I know of no other road which runs along a river
bed!
> That is not as silly as it seems. When the river is in spate then the
river
> section is unusable (just as a snowbound road might be) but at other
times
it can be traversed easily and is enjoyably interesting. Stopping-up has
been requested to enhance private amenity at a gentrified rural habitation
> but it would be grossly unfair to do so at the cost of losing a valuable
> public amenity. I understand that E5221 runs through a special
conservation
> area, the public benefit of which would be seriously reduced if E5221
> became unavailable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:35:41 EST
Subject: Re: Kew FA Maps
In a message dated 21 : 01 : 99 12:04 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< Is that pronounced "Ratchup"? >>
I suspect if Cholmondely = Chumly and Featherstonehaugh = Fanshaw & Outgate =
Ootyet, Ratlinghope could be Ripe, but you are probably right.
There was a young lady of Slough
Who suffered a terrible cough
She tried to say 'Thought'
But she coundn't say owt
Her throat was too awfully rough
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:12:06 EST
Subject: Re: BOAT & Nettlecombe
Am I being more than usually self-centred, forgetful, or what?
Please, what does GLQC stand for?
Green Lane Quality Control?
Oh, silly me, George Lawrence Queen's Councillor.
I think my version is better.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:52:58 EST
Subject: Re: E5221
I have arranged a meeting with Warwick CC Officers, at a fairly high level, to
discuss policy about E roads and how LARA can help them if they will help us.
I would like to be accompanied by a local LARA club member (m/c or 4x4) with
knowledge of the local network.
Grey Mill Lane is one example of current concerns, and I know of others at Gt
Alne (flloded & vol restraint), Morreton Morrell (obstructed by electric
gates), Aston Cantlow to Newnham, and Watery Lane Baddesley Ensor. However, I
lack detail of the real problem on the last two. Anyone with further detail,
please let me know.
Please let me know if you, or a contact of yours, can be available, February 3
Wednesday, at Warwick CC offices (the ugliest building in Warwick).
Cheers, tim Stevens - LARA
01630 657627
PS I now have a spell checker on my e-mail system, but it thinks that Marsden
should be Macaroon. Perhaps it is right...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 99 17:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Moonlighting Firemen Was part of BOAT
CJM asks
<<<> Who pays a firemans wages?
> He hasn't lost it yet, and at the last PI High Court action was
Are they allowed to moonlight? I assume the taxman knows it is
moonlighting?>>>>>
I will ask the relevant peeps and come back
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:22:20 -0000
Subject: Re: Kew FA Maps
Sorry Sue, but you may have the wrong list. We have no knowledge of work.
;-)
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:28:51 -0000
Subject: Re: BOAT
<<Who pays a firemans wages?
The Parish of Rogate, West Sussex are making a contribution, as did another
Parish in the same County. He 'lost' Bread Lane at Climping and if the
evidence can be trusted (and the Inspector is straight) the advice he has
given Rogate may be some way off the mark.
We have something called Plumb here in Hants, who has take many a Parish
shilling. If you have read Lord of the Rings you will gain a fair
impression of the 'man' (I use the term loosely) if I were to liken him to
Gollom. I have a desire to 'nut' the b'stard but fear I would end up
covered in slime. (I must stop eating meat)
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:32:39 -0000
Subject: Re: Hunt
And where would one find a 'forelock' to tug? I trust it is not below the
belt.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: Michael Dyer <doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: Hunt
> Date: 20 January 1999 21:00
> In-Reply-To: <bulk.5934.19990120035912@Land-Rover.Team.Net>
> <<<A hunt saboteur
> An ordinary member of the public
[ truncated by list-digester (was 17 lines)]
> 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:36:19 -0000
Subject: Re: Trees
Most authorities have an arboricultural dept that would deal with such
things.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
> From: Michael Dyer <doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: Trees
> Date: 20 January 1999 21:00
> In-Reply-To: <bulk.13177.19990120083649@Land-Rover.Team.Net>
> Quick straw poll, you guys and gals....who in a CoCo or DC pays for
trees.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:06:57 +0000
Subject: Thorney (Cambs) FA Map
How successful would a claimed BOAT be based on FA map only?
No user, no Inclosure Award. Shown uncoloured in the FA map - no
deduction given
in the valuation book. No route on ground at present. Any precedents? or
good/bad examples (other than Inspectors I mean).
Annoying thing is, I was looking for a bridleway and found a footpath,
and an entry for deduction for public user.
TIA
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 99 19:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Heard tonight
Heard tonight on NewsRoom South-East (BBC1)
'...and tonight we investigate how thousands of people get into the
country on lorries'.
'Hey up, I thought, what lies are GLOOM spreading now?' I was reaching for
the video before I realised it was a piece on illegal immigration.
...Funny how the lorries use BOATS to cross lan Manche, tho ;-)
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 99 19:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Gardiner
One Ian Gardiner of the NFU was interviewed this pm on BBC1 - does anyone
know if this is the brother to the Lord High Gleamer?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:43:57 EST
Subject: Re: Heard tonight
In a message dated 21 : 01 : 99 07:30 GMT Standard Time,
doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
<< '...and tonight we investigate how thousands of people get into the
country on lorries'.
>>
That's it, the answer we have been looking for. It is not us that make the
ruts, or the farmers or forresters, its all those overloaded lorries bringing
greasy working class foreigners into the country. Why can't they unload at
Immingham along with the SAABs and Volvos?
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:43:53 EST
Subject: Re: Thorney (Cambs) FA Map
In my experience, a claim based on one anything, even an Inclosure Award, is
on thin ice. There is no legal reason why not, but all sorts of arguments like
'It stands to reason' and 'It's only common sense' and 'Youv'e only got to
look' will be used to devalue what you have. Is it really not shown on any
cycling map, road atlas, county map, etc?
You could argue that the FA was evidence of dedication, as the LO clearly
wanted the public to have a route in return for him not paying so much. But
whatever you do, don't put any money on the outcome.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:34:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Kew FA Maps
> I suspect if Cholmondely = Chumly and Featherstonehaugh = Fanshaw &
Outgate =
> Ootyet, Ratlinghope could be Ripe, but you are probably right.
And the Aussie asking for directions to Laff Barooga, had a problem.
He wanted Loughborough.
Combine that with Rhyming slang and you could get some interesting results.
CJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:36:18 -0000
Subject: Re: BOAT & Nettlecombe
<<I would argue that bicycle use confirms CW, and not BW, but you can take
a
different view. The matter is not clear.
<<I would argue that bicycle use confirms CW, and not BW, but you can take
especially if the mind of the cyclist is set in the opinion that they are
using a CR.
Tim, Chris, MD - let me know if you read this. I'm sure my mails are not
reaching the list.
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: BOAT & Nettlecombe
> Date: 21 January 1999 12:34
> Further thoughts if, as you suggest, only animals have been obstructed,
is to
> ensure that bicycle use has occurred, by witnesses who will confirm that
they
> deliberately gave way to walkers (and would have, to horses, had any
> appeared). Alternatively, drive across the cattle-grid with your
horse-box,
> and unload your horse. Then make sure that there are lots of hoof marks.
> I would argue that bicycle use confirms CW, and not BW, but you can take
> Subject: Re: BOAT & Nettlecombe
a
> different view. The matter is not clear.
> It seems that the lawyers are pushing towards strict compliance with
> definitions. Lets do our best to show that that is not what is intended.
> Date: 21 January 1999 12:34
The
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:48:30 +0000
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.
Judging by recent postings here, quite a few of us must make forays to the
PRO from time to time. If our plans were advertised here (assuming some
expected spare capacity during the day), we might just find we were able to
help out others' more urgent cases. In such circumstances, if the request
were not too onerous (say a reference to one particular highway on the FA
plans), perhaps just reimbursement of copying and postage charges would be
fair?
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:48:35 +0000
Subject: FA Maps
>You could argue that the FA was evidence of dedication, as the LO clearly
>wanted the public to have a route in return for him not paying so much. But
>whatever you do, don't put any money on the outcome.
There might be stronger grounds for a claim along these lines where an
abatement could be shown for an identifiable public rights of way across a
plot of land, than where the highway was itself uncoloured. In the former
case, the landowner has conciously made a claim for relief for a right of
way (which, if incorrect, would prima facie be a criminal offence -- was
anyone ever prosecuted under the 1910 Act I wonder?). In the latter, the
landowner might have claimed (if challenged) that he was not directly asked
to account for his ownership of what he (now) claimed to be a private road,
or perhaps the ownership was as unclear to the Board of Revenue then as it
often is to us today. There do seem to be some suspiciously unlikely
candidates for public road status on the FA maps. As they're roughly
contemporary with the OS books of names, and as both are held in the PRO, a
quick cross-check for the status in the name book might be worthwhile.
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:01:47 -0000
Subject: Re: E5221
Put me down to attend, and most probably, Ken Stepney.
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 29 lines 0 [forwarded 159 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 812 [content 600 forwarded 150 (cut 9) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990122 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]