[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 99 08:35 GMT0
Subject: Re: S56 - Earwig-oh
Two questions...
1. Does a S56 (or any other 'S') _have_ to be served by a resident/Council
tax payer/WHY of the County/Council to which it relates?
2. Are multiple applications from different people more effective than
just one or two? ('The more the merrier?')
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 05:30:14 -0500
Subject: E5221 complaint.
Is there anything I have left of this initial complaint?
Formal complaint to the Monitoring Officer for Warwickshire CC
1. WCC appears to have put Pressure on Mr & Mrs Mark, "the applicant" to
underwrite the cost of an HA80s116 order, rather than instructing them to
remove a recently erected obstruction to the all-purpose Highway E5221
2. They appear to have pressured the applicants into underwriting the costs
for the stopping up of the same road on the other side of the river Alne
which they have no interest in.
3. WCC have not explained how this DISCRESSIONARY POWER, can sit squarely
with their failure to carry out a DUTY under s130 of the HA80.
4. It has not been acknowledged that the applicant has to pay for the
considerable involvement of the legal department, despite a written request
for clarification. If this money, is to come from the public purse, to
which budget is it allocated? It is suggested the beneficiary of this
action is the applicant, to spend public money on an invalid application is
irresponsible, a neglect of the duty of care, effective management and the
assertion of public rights.
5. That the council has failed to respond to a request for details of their
policy in connection with Minor Roads, or to confirm whether they accept
the DETR guidance of Making the Best of Byways
6. That WCC have threatened costs for a perfectly valid application under
HA80s56 to determine if the Council admit if E5221 is publicly maintainable
and that they are the HA for the Highway.
7. That WCC have threatened costs for a perfectly valid application under
the 1981 WLCA s53, properly served, when it is quite reasonable to allege
the road fulfils the definition of BOAT, and should be so described.
8. Such intimidating practice is Ultra Vires, which should be
acknowledged, fully investigated and retracted immediately by the council.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:12:44 EST
Subject: Re: OS map 125 (and Explorer 239)
David,
In a message dated 26/01/99 11:07:04, you wrote:
<< Does anyone know anything about a UCR from the junction at SJ081137
NE to the end of the RUPP at 083138, N(ish) to the other end of the
RUPP at 082144, then NE to 084146? .......does anyone know its number or
anything else about it? >>
I've never been that far up into Powys, but my records tell me that the UCR's
number is U2115 (but probobly U2118 N. fromSJ081137). It is U2115 from 064128
to at least 081137, and possibly as far as 082144. Although it seems to be the
U2118 from 081137, which runs through to 084146 with a spur (?) to 080143.
Other UCR's are the U2117, from 081137 to 095138, and U2114, from 0076134 to
074149. RUPPs are Llanfihangel 100, from 075146 to 080137, and Llanfihangel
102, from 080143 to 082138. Hope that helps.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:12:51 EST
Subject: Re: LQ83 SO3127
Chris,
In a message dated 26/01/99 22:08:22, you wrote:
<< Secondly, there is an obstruction built on LV3. >>
What's LV3?
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:12:47 EST
Subject: Re: MONTY (Map 137)
David,
In a message dated 26/01/99 11:07:39, you wrote:
<< Can anyone tell me whether the RUPPs from Montgomery across Offas
Dyke are vehicular? SO227970 to 230964 (and 225963 to the same point)
are both signed bridleway and there's an additional sign saying no
vehicles. From that point I've got it as RUPP as far as Offas Dyke at
241961 then either RUPP on the Welsh side of the border to the lane
at 244953 or UCR into Shropshire to Whitley at 247961 then dual
status UCR/bw to Timberth at 252966. >>
I can, again, only supply the RUPP numbers (all Montgomery):
26 from SO227970 to 240960, via 230963.
27 from 240960 to 244952.
29 from 225962 to 230963.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:12:50 EST
Subject: Re: Maintenance
In a message dated 26/01/99 17:23:48, Chris wrote:
<< Just you wait to see how quick it comes off the LoS when it's on the DM. >>
Strange as it may seem, the reverse has occured (See how quick it comes of the
DM&S when it's been found on the LoS) - some years ago in the then County of
Dyfed. Done by a thousand and one Legal (??) Event(??)s - as a quick and easy
alternative to all those controvertial RUPP reclassifications that had to be
done on all those dual-status ones. Most dual-status FPs and BRs also got
swept under the carpet at the same time and in the same way.
And possibly a load of tippex was ordered up for storage - so that the LoS
could be 'tidied up' at a later date, when everyone had forgotten and the
County got split back up into three again. Or am I being too cynical?
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:10:41 -0000
Subject: RE: TRO Roman Rd
Do I detect a degree of sarcasm in your letter young Chris?
I think the real truth is sitting in the his club, swilling the odd G&T with
some ill informed 'friend', maybe the odd member (who keeps changing his
spots?), and deciding to upset the odd casual user, but not the farmer who
regularly trashes the countryside....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:10:42 -0000
Subject: RE: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
I don't believe that the use of major roads, such as the A34 is an
acceptable alternative. Further that the continued allowance of use by
agro-cultural vehicles will not allow the road to repair, indeed it will do
the exact opposite.
Suggest to them that they reconsider other 'buddy routes' before they try
the expense of a TRO, which is not going to solve the underlying problem,
only defer it until the problem is totally beyond resolution.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:10:39 -0000
Subject: Agro-cultural damage in Staffordshire
Earlier today I was out for a drive along my favourite local BOAT.
In general it was no worse than the last time I used it - suffering from a
minor case of under use. But then I came to the spot where the local farmer
has been doing some land drain work. From here on there was an abundance of
mud, deep gouges, ruts and mess.
Tomorrow I will be speaking to Highways, just so that 4x4 (wheeled & footed,
recreational), 2x2 (footed), and 2x1 (wheeled) don't get the blame. I've
got a few pictures, but the light was bad.
Strange thing happened a short while later - I met someone else in a LR who
had got to the mud and backed out - they had come in from the other end, and
it looks far worse from that side!!
Location of problem area - SK 20 09.
Just a thought - has the farmer got permission to do such drainage work on a
BOAT? I know he has to reinstate FP after the work is done, but I wander if
he has to get permission to do such excavation on a BOAT?
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:10:40 -0000
Subject: RE: TRO signs
I've seen some chat up lines in the past, but that one beats most ;->
On a more serious note, as if ever I would, there is a danger of being
persecuted for defacing public property.
By setting such a precedent, could this be an action replay of those events
of about a hundred years ago - those events which were lead a by 'Rebecca',
and lead to the downfall of many a Turnpike Trust?
We've got the modern equivalents of the Turnpike Trusts, we've got Rebecca,
now all we need are the events :->>
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:13:53 -0000
Subject: RE: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
Mike, do you have a phone number for this mob?
I feel like having a go at someone tomorrow, and I might as well start with
a berk in Berks.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:13:55 -0000
Subject: RE: Maps in District Councils
Here in Staffs you have to ask for the 'Footpaths Map' in some local
libraries, the 'Rights of Way' map in others, and the DM&S when you go to
Rights of Way. Actually at the latter they ask me which bit is to be
brought down! now that's what I call a working relationship.
Never had to have anything copied from it yet, but I feel the day is
approaching fast....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:13:56 -0000
Subject: re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
I don't believe that the use of major roads, such as the A34 is an
acceptable alternative. Further that the continued allowance of use by
agro-cultural vehicles will not allow the road to repair, indeed it will do
the exact opposite.
Suggest to them that they reconsider other 'buddy routes' before they try
the expense of a TRO, which is not going to solve the underlying problem,
only defer it until the problem is totally beyond resolution.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:17:39 -0000
Subject: re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
I don't believe that the use of major roads, such as the A34 is an
acceptable alternative. Further that the continued allowance of use by
agro-cultural vehicles will not allow the road to repair, indeed it will do
the exact opposite.
Suggest to them that they reconsider other 'buddy routes' before they try
the expense of a TRO, which is not going to solve the underlying problem,
only defer it until the problem is totally beyond resolution.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:49:14 -0000
Subject: RE: HA80 s36
So how much to reply to an S56, requesting status of a road?
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:49:16 -0000
Subject: RE:
Just a passing thought.
If Babtie are a 'private' company, then they are out to make a profit are
they not. Thus they spot a good profit making wheeze - 'Lets TRO everything
in sight', and so more income this year as they do no maintenance, but lots
of expensive TROs, they can lay off all those smelly men with diggers,
lorries and heavy plant used for repairing the highways. In a few years
time there is nothing left to TRO, or use in Berks, and they go belly up.
So, let us speed them on their way. Whenever we are in Berkshire,
particularly West Berkshire, and find an un-even paving slab, or small
imperfection in the tarred road surface, we put in and S56 notice, demanding
that they TRO said stretch of road on the grounds of public safety.
Eventually something will give.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:49:17 -0000
Subject: RE: S56 - Earwig-oh
1 In principal any member of the public can raise an S56.
(I think some CCs might get suspicious....)
I think CJM has had responses for 'out of county' S56s
2. Depends on how many arrive in the same post - they might think it a
'concerted campaign' if say sixty, all worded the same arrived in the same
post, from different wide spread addresses....
(CC now gets suspicious)
I think that one or two will be just as effective. But obviously if the
first couple don't get any response heavier fire may be required. After all
they do have to come up for air every now and then...
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:18:07 +0000
Subject: copyright
Has anyone tried to take a copy of a def map (or anyother document) with
a digital camera? Can we, or can't we? Would they charge? would it be
cheaper? I find that having only seen documents in Cambs I've no idea
how they compare to other counties. If there was a mechanism for getting
docs and maps out in to the public domain, and fora such as this, with a
better exchange of ideas and interpretation of documents it might make
life easier. Any thoughts?
Sue
BHS Cambs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:19:14 +0000
Subject: Re: TRO signs
> Headline: Yorkshire humour misses by a mile.
> Dinner date is off.
If you're lacking a dinner date I could probably set you up with that well
known Russian lady of dubious virtue, Getonya Backubich.
Regards,
Ivor Bollokov
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 99 19:30 GMT0
Subject: Re: LoS - HA80 s36
If anyone wants/needs the old Berks LoS I seem to have sprouted one
overnight.
...and it'll only be 99p/sheet (joke, boys, honest!)
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:23:27 -0500
Subject: Re: S56 - Earwig-oh
> 1. Does a S56 (or any other 'S') _have_ to be served by a
resident/Council
> tax payer/WHY of the County/Council to which it relates?
IMVHO no. Anyone with a legitimate wish to use the way may make
application. It is a two part process. the first merely establishes the way
and it's maintainability.
> 2. Are multiple applications from different people more effective than
> just one or two? ('The more the merrier?')
No. One, perhaps with witness statements ready to confirm the state of the
road, may be desirable. But it is possible two independent applications
would carry more weight, I suspect it better to follow one through
carefully. Keep us all informed what you do.
Yours faithfully,
Mr 56it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:58:33 +0000
Subject: Re: LoS - HA80 s36
In message <bulk.23039.19990131113018@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Michael Dyer
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:56:07 +0000
Subject: Re: copyright
In message <bulk.21980.19990131101731@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Susan Jeggo
<derek.sue@virgin.net> writes
>If there was a mechanism for getting
>docs and maps out in to the public domain,
Hi All
If the Councils go digital for their DMs then surely we could have a
copy of a route down loaded onto a disk as a file. any comments?
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:48:44 -0000
Subject: Re: copyright
1 - ask the officers that serve the Definitive Map.
or
2 - take a shot of it when no one is looking.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
arl-img-11.compuserve.com (arl-img-11.compuserve.com [149.174.217.141])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
arl-img-11.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id RAA08670
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:59:33 -0500
Subject: Any info on road Stoke Edith, Foley again.
Had a call from someone who is suffering from the despicable Andrew Foley
blight.
He is trying to fight a claim that an unrecorded highway belongs to foley
preventing access to one of his cottages.
Dormingtom to Tower Hill SO 589 402 to 592 397.
Any info welcomed.
(0531 660 208)
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| 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 SAA29610
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| 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 SAA29618
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:07:28 -0500
Subject: E5221
Tony, The County Council seem to be a bit tetchy over the s56 and s116
notices I sent them. You will see they are trying to disuade me by
threatening costs. As you can see, I am giving them a bit of the same
back!
I wonder if you do have any user evidence, other than your own use whilst
you owned the cottage? i.e. you since, or of anyone else that has even
walked down to the river on either side?
This is what I have sent them:-
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
Mr P A J Endall
County Solicitors Department
Warwickshire County Council
Shire Hall
Warwick
CV34 4RR
30th January 1999 By Fax: 01 926 412 946
Dear Mr Endall,
Re: Highways Act 1980 S116 Stopping Up Order, Grey Mill Lane, E5221.
Thank you for your interesting letter of 27th Jan 99 received today, where
you request a reply within 7 days. I note this was posted 2nd class,
therefore your time scale will be somewhat exacting to meet. How ever I
will do my best if you will also assist. This reply will be faxed.
Firstly however, could you advise on your council’s response time for
answering letters? I note some questions remain unanswered from my letter
of 5/1/99, for example "Has Making the Best of Byways been accepted by your
council?" and "what your response has been to your legal duty?" (in
removing the obstructions you now seem to admit you were aware of) Will
the council be following all the relevant guidance issued by the DETR?
I confirm I have had an acknowledgement, and a note that the divisional
surveyor will be answering some points raised. If you would reply to my
request for your policy on managing minor highways (19/1/99), when I have
had a chance to peruse, I shall consider withdrawal of the s56 notice.
Unfortunately until that time the notice must stand, and I might add the
clock is still ticking.
I would be grateful to know your complaints procedure, and if you have an
official complaints form would you be kind enough to forward one to me.
Turning to the WLCA s53 notice, it would appear you are saying that a road
shown on the List of streets can not be shown on the DM&S? That is, there
can not be dual status roads? Is this a bylaw in Warwickshire, or is this
based on statute? I must admit to not being able to find any such reference
that a way that is used mainly for the purpose for which bridleways and
footpaths are used (fresh air and exercise) yet has vehicular rights can
not be depicted on the DM&S, thus making an application under s53 invalid;
perhaps you could advise? On reflection, could you please enclose two
complaint forms.
Moving on to your statement, point 8. My s56 notice was not referring to
obstructions, but to interruption to the surface (and no, not by the fence
posts!) so as to make it incommodious for "the type of traffic which might
normally be expected to use it". Are you suggesting minor fencing works
recently erected justifies an s116 application, or prevents action under
s56, due to Westley? Any way that is out of repair in Warwickshire you
feel by erecting an illegal fence, you can escape your duty to repair? Any
person that decides they do not want a highway, can obstruct and you will
not enforce? And allow them to buy a stopping-up order? Perhaps you would
advise urgently, as I am certain the Countryside Commission for one, would
be concerned. The issue of the threat of costs is another matter they may
find of interest.
Could you please elaborate on the procedure that you might use if you were
minded to stop up highway and provide an easement? (para. 6) Also do you
have any precedence to substantiate your assertion that s116 (power) takes
priority over s56, s130 (duty) or WLCA81 s53?
Would you confirm whether the Cheshire case you refer to was an
extinguishment under s116 or a Public Path Extinguishment Order for a
Footpath or Bridleway? If not, do you really consider it ‘on all fours’
with a s116 stopping up?
Your views seem at variance with R v SoS for Env, Ex P Barry Stewart (1980)
where Mr Justice Phillips held far more substantial obstructions were of a
‘temporary’ nature, ‘It seems to me quite intolerable that an admitted
highway…. for it to be considered good grounds for stopping up [due to] ….
obstructions … that to allow such a ground would be an encouragement to
those who would obstruct the highways. I would have thought that they [a
very much more substantial obstruction] could be of only the most marginal
importance’.
You will no doubt be mindful of Lord Justice Lane's dictum in R v Surrey CC
ex parte Send PC, (1979) - 'The local authority must at all times act with
the object of protecting the highway and of preventing or removing any
obstruction, and, more broadly speaking, of promoting the interests of
those who enjoy the highway or should be enjoying the right of way and the
county council must likewise operate against the interests of those who
seek to interrupt such enjoyment of the highway') Nor will you I am sure,
be minded to ignore it was held that no benefit should accrue due to an
illegal action, in Robinson v Adair?
In view of this, I would advise you to consider carefully before proceeding
whether officers of the council are liable to surcharge personally, should
the order fail.
Would you confirm if the word ‘and’ should read ‘any’ in summary of legal
position para 5?
I appreciate your concern in undertaking the preliminary consultation
exercise, and I can detect your frustration at the responses to just this
informal stage. I can sympathise with your dilemma, and the sooner the
decision on this ill-conceived stopping-up is settled, the sooner sensible
decisions on co-operative management, if required, can be made.
Your sincerely,
Chris Marsden
P.S. You asked "For the assistance of the County Council investigation
please could you advise me of any evidence you have regarding actual user
of this highway prior to the commencement of this consultation exercise".
The answer is yes , I can.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:08:41 -0000
Subject: Re: GLASS: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
>- public safety. The damage to this route has been done entirely by
>large agricultural vehicles. The TRO bans ALL vehicles so I suppose
>this means agricultural as well. I will be watching to see if this
ban
>is observed by ALL vehicles.
Some would (and do) say that a TRO does not apply to the landowner.
Equally they would say that a landowner can legally drive on a
footpath/bridleway which crosses his land. I am not quite so sure.
If this were the case then why would some (most?) TROs on unsurfaced
roads have that 'except for agricultural vehicles' clause?
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 99 07:50 GMT0
Subject: Re: copyright
Hi
<<<<<<<<<<Has anyone tried to take a copy of a def map (or anyother
document) witha digital camera?>>>>>>>>
Not here
<<<< Can we, or can't we?>>>>>>>
Depends....I doubt that a 'cold call' would produce instant co-operation,
but a pro-4x4 officer might allow it after satisfying themselves that it
was genuine.
<<<Would they charge? >>>>
If they supplied the paper printouts, undoubtedly! (PS how rich are you?)
<<<Any thoughts?>>>
I have seen copies of the Berks DM outside Babties office but I have no
idea of how they got there ;-).
The crux of the query is whether it is considered public domain info by
the HA/agent. In the case of Berks,' You'll know what you need to know
when we think you need to know it. Dont expect any info beyond when and
where the next TRO will be applied'.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 99 07:50 GMT0
Subject: RE: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
Rob asks for the Enemies blood group, I hope he's not thinking of trying
an infusion of common sense.....
Try Rhoda Barnett of Babtie, 0118-988-1597.
...Of course, if anyone else wishes to indulge themselves
tomorrow?????......help yourself.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 99 07:50 GMT0
Subject: RE: TRO signs
Rob asks us to put on our dresses...
<<<<, we've got Rebecca,
now all we need are the events :->>>>>>
before we go for the Action Replay, just _what happened_ to the original
Dorterovs? Transportation? Hanging? Large prison sentences?
In other words, OK, Im game, but lets be careful out there.......
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 33 lines 1479 [forwarded 38 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 848 [content 705 forwarded 38 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990201 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]