[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:11:30 -0000
Subject: RE: Kew FA Maps
In most local record offices its a fixed charge, so much per document. From
memory Staffs charges a fiver. The researchers just about live in the
records office, so its their prime source of income, and probably don't
charge for travel etc. Unlike normal people I don't even think they eat.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:11:31 -0000
Subject: RE: Policy discussion.
Don't you just love those words "...it shall not be lawful for any person to
erect any Gate across any of the said public Carriage Roads..."
When the LO moans about stock straying onto the road through the
non-existent gate he should be reminded that his stock has already strayed
onto the road through the non-existent gate/fence/hedge that should separate
his land from the road, albeit a non-tarred one.
I don't think that such a statement is s 'limitation of dedication', rather
a pragmatic protection of both the LO and the public at large. The LO from
the expense of continually replacing gates that Rebecca's siblings have
removed, and the public at large from having to open gates whenever they
want to use this public road, and so being tempted to join Rebecca's
siblings by removing the gate one dark and windy night.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:08:19 -0000
Subject: Maintenance (was: 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.
As far as I can see, with one exception*, the law does not deal with
the standard of maintenance of a particular status highway. It
does not say this highway needs to be maintained to this standard and
this one to some other standard. The standard is explicitly
defined by the current status. It therefore follows that if a
footpath is publicly maintainable, then if it subsequently upgraded by
process of law or additional rights are proved historically, then the
highway is still publicly maintainable but to a higher standard.
*The one exception seems to be W&CA81 s54 (7) which specifically
states that a RUPP reclassified as a BOAT does not need to be made
suitable for vehicular traffic. However, it is difficult to see
how a HA with a mix of dedicated BOATs and reclassified ex-RUPPs
should differentiate between the maintenance needs of the two.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:11:44 -0000
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Leatherhead
>Another approach might be to use s56 and when they say No, take the
CW
>evidence to the County Court.
Surely the problem here id that a s56 only requires the HA to state if
the way is a highway and then a highway maintainable at public
expense.
There is no requirement to state the status of the highway and is is
already recorded as a footpath - therefore they will simply say, yes -
it is a highway and yes, we maintain it.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------A39E9F1828B0175C82E9DF51" ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:23:56 +0000
Subject: Car Tax Consultation
Not strictly a RoW matter I know but those of you who run a diesel or
large capacity (over 2000cc) petrol engined vehicle might care to look
at the DVLA web page. The proposals for car tax reform might be of
interest. There is an online consultation document that must be
completed by the end of this month.
www.open.gov.uk/dvla/vedcon.htm
Regards,
Howard
[ Original post was HTML ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii ]
[Attachment removed, was 20 lines.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:40:54 -0000
Subject: Definitive Widths (or narrows) [was: Re: Kew FA 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. 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.
0.6m is shown on the Def Statement but not as a limitation of use.
We have quite a number of 1.2m widths on RUPPs
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:56:07 -0000
Subject: Re: 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).
We may have a better answer soon.
Planning Inspectorate have just agreed to Written Representation on
RUPP 63 - Cheadle & Gatley.
The main evidence is FA1910 plans (not looked at valuation book)
It does exist on the ground and is used regularly on foot but (apart
from FA1910) the only evidence is the 1st series OS map which shows it
as a through route linking up with the currently existing metalled
highway network.
I will keep you posted.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 14:02:09 -0000
Subject: Re: BOAT & Nettlecombe
>But surely that doubt could be removed by using a tricycle or
>unicycle?
Or simply by pushing a pram with a load other than a child.
Or a wheel barrow and load.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:42:47 -0000
Subject: Re: Kew FA Maps
>Sorry, no idea but Kew could probably send you a list. Must be
cheaper
>than a day off work + travelling costs?
Much cheaper - yes
But much less fun!!!
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:41:26 -0000
Subject: Re: Hunt
>They don't bother with unlocking them, they just trample them down,
along
>with anything else in their way....
People included
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 14:29:06 -0500
Subject: Policies
Hi all and Charlie M,
The importance of good policies has been shown again.
Some thoughts for constructive criticism before forwarding to CC as
requested is invited.
[extract]
POLICIES
e.g. Management:-
"Promote all sustainable unsealed highways for multiple use, to benefit all
legitimate users without prejudice"
"Embark on a programme for conserving all unsurfaced highways and managing
them for multiple use" (Item 3 of Warks CC draft version of the Council's
Countryside Recreational Strategy as at April 1997)
'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 have
failed. (Wilts CC)
e.g. Preservation:-
A presumption to retain the character of all green lanes, in particular
holloways, protect from development, ploughing or surfacing with: concrete,
tarmac, planings or other non-traditional materials, by Council or
privately, and to encourage sustainable use to prevent siltation, or
obstruction.
OTHER MATTERS
Another matter that seems ongoing:-
The Rhydd, [so4733] I would confirm any stopping up under 116 would be
resisted on the grounds that full, through, highway rights do exist, and it
is the Councils duty to assert and protect those rights for which they are
the Highway Authority regardless of whether they are publicly maintainable
(and hence on LoS). I therefore suspect that even taking a neutral stance
at a court is Ultra Vires. One reason for opposing such an action would be
that a DMMO application was made to H&WCC which should be determined before
any question of stopping-up of a part of the rights can be considered by
the court. A further aspect would be the illegal ploughing of the road,
and the RvA implication of an illegal action not benefitting the
perpetrator. I would confirm I have used the existing physical track, and
am aware that another person has used the correct route through the illegal
crops. The road is not ‘not required’. The 116 procedure may be applicable
to divert the road to the current route.
I realise this is taking a robust view on this, but legal processes such as
116 s56 TRO should play no part in RoW (and byway) management, emphasized
by MBoB. I would be happy to meet with you and the agent for this
applicant if it would speed an amicable resolution. I seem to recall that
Peter McKay and Charlie Morriss may also be very concerned if a 116 was to
be considered for this through road. Thus early consultation with them may
be of benefit to all parties.
Finally, I would hope the view that these unsealed roads are a valuable
recreational resource, used in most cases as RoW are, are called simply
byways in MBoB, and should be protected and promoted for all users
sustainably. They are not just for, or except for 4 wheeled vehicles, and
I and those who use them wish to see all people able to use them, without
damage by agricultural or other causes. We will not tolerate any
mud-plugging, but there has never been one scrap of evidence that this has
occurred, or will.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (dub-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.206.140])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id TAA12506
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (dub-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.206.140])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id TAA12510
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 13 lines 0 [forwarded 24 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 393 [content 293 forwarded 24 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990124 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]