msg	Sender	lines	Subject
1	TimLARA@aol.com	26	Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!
2	TimLARA@aol.com	28	Re: E5221, Warwicks CC sulks.
3	TimLARA@aol.com	21	Rhyme or Reason
4	TimLARA@aol.com	22	Re: copyright
5	TimLARA@aol.com	29	Re: S56 - Earwig-oh
6	TimLARA@aol.com	20	Re: E5221 complaint.
7	"Harvey Davies" [gam85@d	13	Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!
8	TimLARA@aol.com	19	Re: TRO signs
9	davidg@hwcces.demon.co.u	25	RE: HA80 s36
10	davidg@hwcces.demon.co.u	20	Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!
11	davidg@hwcces.demon.co.u	22	Re: Agro-cultural damage in Staffordshire
12	davidg@hwcces.demon.co.u	42	Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
13	davidg@hwcces.demon.co.u	38	Another hunt, another trunk, another cafe
14	"Chris Marsden" [byway@n	21	Re: LQ83 SO3127
15	TimLARA@aol.com	17	Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
16	TimLARA@aol.com	28	Re: Another hunt, another trunk, another cafe
17	TimLARA@aol.com	44	Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
18	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	12	Times 1/2/99
19	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	44	Re: E5221 complaint.
20	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	32	Re: E5221, Warwicks CC sulks.
21	"Rob Smith" [rob@archenl	11	RE: copyright
22	"Rob Smith" [rob@archenl	10	RE:
23	"Rob Smith" [rob@archenl	19	RE: Agro-cultural damage in Staffordshire
24	alan kind [alan@highwaym	20	Re: Rhyme or Reason
25	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	14	Re: HA80 s36
26	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	37	Re: TRO signs
27	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	25	Re: Maps in District Councils
28	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	58	Re: Agro-cultural damage in Staffordshire
29	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	60	Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!
30	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	49	Re: copyright
31	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	167	Bridleway 58 - Cheadle & Gatley
32	"Matthew Reeve & Mel Mau	25	Re: GLASS: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
33	howard.neal@which.net	27	Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
34	howard.neal@which.net	19	Re: copyright
35	"Dave Tilbury" [Dave@han	36	Bartholomew's Maps
36	"Dave Tilbury" [Dave@han	12	Re: E5221, Warwicks CC sulks.
37	"Dave Tilbury" [Dave@han	17	Re: Agro-cultural damage in Staffordshire
38	"Dave Tilbury" [Dave@han	14	Re: copyright
39	"Dave Tilbury" [Dave@han	13	Re:
40	"Dave Tilbury" [Dave@han	17	Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
41	Brian Lewis [brian@limb.	11	Re: HA80 s36
42	TimLARA@aol.com	19	Re: Bridleway 58 - Cheadle & Gatley
43	TimLARA@aol.com	17	Re: Times 1/2/99
44	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	188	Bennett in Manchester Metro News
45	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	28	Re: S56 - Earwig-oh
46	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	45	Warwickshire - Grey Mill Lane
47	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	37	Another hunt, another trunk, another cafe
48	"Peter BRADLEY" [pbrad@d	10	Re: Bennett in Manchester Metro News
	Majordomo		About the digest

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ Message 1 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990202 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:07:31 EST
Subject: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!

Please do not forget that there is a LARA-CLA Rapid Response scheme.
It is designed to allow a quick and informed view, and perhaps resolution, of
RoW problems whether caused by the actions of recreational motorists or
farming activities. (or neither, if they still affect one or t'other).

This 'West Berks tractor damage leads to TRO for LARA Members' is an ideal
case, and the report should include evidence that it is tractor damage. Photos
with grid references and datesvshould be adequate. If the photos show the
tractor, as well as the ruts, even better. And if the LO can be named or
identified, also better.

The number is 0171 235 0511.

Please let me know pronto if you take up this option, as it will be
interesting to see how long it takes to get through the system.

My advice is to make the report entirely factual, and not to indulge in any
sort of finger-pointing, etc. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:07:47 EST
Subject: Re: E5221, Warwicks CC sulks.

In a message dated 30 : 01 : 99 07:39 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:

<< I have, with respect, to suggest that neither of these notices is legally
 valid for the reasons set out in the attached legal summary. >>

How helpful. I have had a similar letter. My s56 was by letter, not fax, and
it may be that (as Ian B discovered) only a letter is valid notice.

But I am confident that 
i. the state of the lane counts as 'out of repair' independent of any
obstruction.
ii. you are entitled to use s56 and have a proper reply, even if the road is
not out of repair.

I am saying this to them, and I suggest you do the same. But include a letter
in your reply confirming the fax, so they cannot use the fax=invalid escape
clause.

And is this really Warks sulks? It looks like a tantrum to me.

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:07:50 EST
Subject: Rhyme or Reason

	Most of you may know that George Laurence QC has recently been involved 
in
passing RoW definitions through the legal mincer. He insists that every last
word of the BOAT description should be met exactly, in full, with evidence.

He recently went to see his lad who had recently started at University.
Calling at his Hall Of Residence in the legal department, he was told that the
lad was not available. ( In fact, he was in bed with a hangover). George then
asked if he could see his quarters.

After a pause, Laurence junior was brought out to his father.

In four pieces.

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:07:53 EST
Subject: Re: copyright

In a message dated 31 : 01 : 99 06:18 GMT Standard Time, derek.sue@virgin.net
writes:

<< Any thoughts? >>

Yes, this matter is a serious concern. The CCPR are getting concerned, too, on
behalf of their members, especially the Outdoor Pursuits Division (incl BHS).

All users should encourage their organisations to take an active role in this
organisation. The representative need a reminder that their work is valued,
and to be told what your concerns are. 

Central Council of Physical Recreation - the organisation is paid for by the
Sports Council (ie Govt funded) 

cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:07:51 EST
Subject: Re: S56 - Earwig-oh

In a message dated 31 : 01 : 99 08:36 GMT Standard Time,
doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

<< 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?')
  >>

1. Not usually, as in highway law we are all subjects of the queen, and all
have a right to use the road. But there may be restrictions for other matters.

2. Councils are complaint driven, and several notices might cause more
consternation, etc. They might also provide an opportunity for some nice
person to go in and say 'I know why all these people are doing this, and if
you help me, I can help you to resolve their problems and get them off your
back'.

Quite who might do that in current circumstances I do not know, but perhaps we
will see a way forward eventually. (cryptic or what?)

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:07:52 EST
Subject: Re: E5221 complaint.

In a message dated 31 : 01 : 99 10:31 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:

<< DISCRESSIONARY POWER >>

If you said Discretionary Power it might be better.

Otherwise, smack on. I am sure that CoCo and DETR would like to know about the
threat of costs for a WLCA application.

So would I. Can I see the letter in which this threat is made?
By e-mail, and privately, if you like.

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Harvey Davies" <gam85@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:24:51 -0000
Subject: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!

Tim does the rapid response  scheme cover all classifications of PROW?
Walked a track which despite its physical appearance is footpath but has
been used by tractors for access to neighbouring fields - accepting the
recent weather conditions agricultural use has made what should be very
pleasant path almost unusable on foot and a struggle on horseback -
particularly annoying as fields on both sides of track had been ploughed and
there was no need  for access along the path.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:18:55 EST
Subject: Re: TRO signs

In a message dated 01 : 02 : 99 07:51 GMT Standard Time,
doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

<< Transportation? Hanging? Large prison sentences? >>

No, they got sensible management by a South Wales Highways Board with a Govt
over-view, instead of lots of tin-pot 'trusts' run by ignorant grasping
conniving persons.

Nothing remotely similar to recent CoCo recommendations, or the situation in
Berks which is now divided into 6 HAs, I am sure.

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:31:24 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: RE: HA80 s36

> Yes you can have copies of the list of streets about a 1Pound a sheet!!  and
> if you want you can write in a letter to clarify a road but you have to send
> the 10 Pounds for a reply!!

We have to charge 10 pounds per A4 of Def Map. We tell people 
that this is only because of O.S. copyright but this is a 
complete porky and I don't suppose the O.S. get any extra to 
our licence fee. Although there is no justification for such a 
'copying charge' for non-copyright or public domain info. such as LoS 
I am advised that there is no legal reason why we could not charge 
anything we saw fit to. When we do charge for copying, which we 
normally don't as it's more hassle, it's about 10p. As for charging 
for a reply, you already pay for that in taxes. Do you charge 
them the same amount for your replies to them, if not why not?

 BTW, who is the 'them'?
David Goode                                davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:02:03 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!

> Am I right in thinking that Highways Act 1980, section 131 &
> 131a makes it an offence to disturb the surface of a right
> of way so as to make it inconvenient for the exercise of a
> public right of way? 

I would use it in the case of vehicular use and if a farmer on my 
patch does not repair the damage he has done I might be using this 
soon. It is a slightly different case because it is not the landowner 
who's driving his tractor on it. Just as valid though. Threat of this 
by a RoW officer in S Herefords was used to get footpath surface 
reinstated where an LRO playday had mildly muddied it.
David Goode                                davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:41:27 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Agro-cultural damage in Staffordshire

 
> 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?

Unequivocably YES he does have to get permission 
HA80s131(1)(a)&(b), 131A(2)
The difference in footpath/bridleway and BOAT situation is HA80s(135) 
which does not allow for such on a carriageway and he would require a 
streetworks licence under the streetworks act (which I don't have a 
copy of).

Cheers
David Goode                                davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:53:57 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn

PERSONAL OPINION ONLY - NOT WCC

The TRO proposal arose becasuse the bw/fp/inclosure road had a mod. 
application for a bridleway but research found it to be vehicular. 
The route crosses a nature reserve and the county councillors only 
agreed the mod. order on the condition that a TRO was used. This is 
seen in County Hall as a one-off not as the start of a particular 
policy direction. It is supported by the local councillors (all 
levels). The PROW manager is in favour of the TRO tho' he is not 
generally anti-vehicles, on the basis of the nature reserve.

Having heard some of the exchanges between him and Tim I take a 
different view to both. I think that to say no vehicles because of 
a nature reserve is dangerous because it is tantamount to saying that 
vehicles do cause damage but it only matters in a nature reserve, 
which is only a small way from a total ban. On the other hand I would 
accept the TRO (speaking as one who drives the lanes in Worcs and 
neighbouring counties once or twice a week and whom it would effect) 
for the pragmatic reasons of fending off a more wide-ranging 
restriction on vehicles which would find 'evidence' through illegal 
abuse on urban fringes presented as inevitable damage when 4x4s and 
bikes are in the countryside. I don't know if we could effectively 
counter that propoganda.

I am opposing the TRO on the edge of Hereford because I am concerned 
that it could be turned into a general policy and therefore they need 
to know that it is not an easy option. However, on a similar basis I 
am ready to accept that TRO that I expect them to push through in 
order to save face.

PERSONAL OPINION ONLY - NOT WCC

Yes I am expecting an enthusiastic reaction!
David Goode                                davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:17:13 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Another hunt, another trunk, another cafe

Another hunt on N Cotswolds Sat. very different to the last, friendly 
& polite and less destructive although hooves had made one track very
slippery compared to 2 weeks ago and they'd cut up all the 4m of 
field-edge track plus another 3m of planted field. 

Cleared Glos. 50514 Stanway-Snowshill by driving through neighbouring
field to get good angle to winch from. Landowner came up on his horse 
to find out what I was doing - seemed quite pleased much  to my 
surprise. This bit had been passable on 2 wheels or 4 legs but not 4 
wheels. Further down there was another tree down that I went to 
remove only to find it had already been cut - presumably because this 
one stopped the horse riders - and only needed dragging clear.
Can anyone tell me (Tim?) If I move a fallen tree by a large or 
little amount
 a) if it is still on the highway am I liable for 
   causing an obstruction, in the way I am when I close a gate
 b) if someone comes along and sits/climbs on it and it rolls over, 
   runs into it or otherwise injures/damages themselves am I liable 
   as the last person to have done anything with it?
 
It's always interesting to see the surprised looks we get when 
pulling up outside a cafe when we've got mud up to the roofline and 
then get out to reveal an apparently respectable family not the 
expected bunch of hooligans that bigoted opinions expect - Mandy is 
one of these people who always looks presentable and Dominic seems to 
be able to walk through any amount of mud without it sticking to him: 
oddly enough they prefer me to sit at a different table.

cheers
David Goode                                davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:42:39 -0000
Subject: Re: LQ83 SO3127

         In a message dated 26/01/99  22:08:22, you wrote:
<< Secondly,  there is an obstruction built on LV3. >>
What's LV3?

It is a FP going NE from the junction of LQ83 and the U74407 (which is all
the same road) Penrhewr Fm (now sold?) to Longtown 320 288.  I am relying on
Trevor Pritchard. He could be wrong. No higher rights suspected.
Mike Eastwood said he, as HC, can not admit that there are any public rights
on LQ83 or the adjacent FP, despite all the evidence submmitted pre 1974 by
TRF for BOAT, and last year by the Parish for Bridleway.

So anyone walking,  is likely to be physically ejected. Hence the
obstruction report on LV3, same L/O.

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:07:35 EST
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn

In a message dated 01 : 02 : 99 04:01 GMT Standard Time,
davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk writes:

<< The route crosses a nature reserve and the county councillors only 
 agreed the mod. order on the condition that a TRO was used. >>

If this is what the minutes record I would dearly like to see a copy (for
consideration of quoting in LARA News, perhaps under the heading 'Quasi-
Officious').

Tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:07:32 EST
Subject: Re: Another hunt, another trunk, another cafe

In a message dated 01 : 02 : 99 04:01 GMT Standard Time,
davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk writes:

<< Can anyone tell me (Tim?) If I move a fallen tree by a large or 
 little amount
  a) if it is still on the highway am I liable for 
    causing an obstruction, in the way I am when I close a gate
  b) if someone comes along and sits/climbs on it and it rolls over, 
    runs into it or otherwise injures/damages themselves am I liable 
    as the last person to have done anything with it?
   >>
The straight answer is, I do not know. But I guess that in case (a) you could
claim that any remaining obstruction after you got your Land Rover through was
de minimis.
In (b) you would only be liable, I suspect, if you had been negligent, ie had
knowingly left the log in a precarious position, knowing but not caring that
it might trap a small child in a position so that the crows could peck its
eyes out.
But why should my guess be any better than anyone else's? G Laurence could
give you an authoritative guess, but it would be followed by a big bill.

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:07:39 EST
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn

In a message dated 01 : 02 : 99 04:01 GMT Standard Time,
davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk writes:

<< On the other hand I would 
 accept the TRO (speaking as one who drives the lanes in Worcs and 
 neighbouring counties once or twice a week and whom it would effect) 
 for the pragmatic reasons of fending off a more wide-ranging 
 restriction on vehicles which would find 'evidence' through illegal 
 abuse on urban fringes presented as inevitable damage when 4x4s and 
 bikes are in the countryside. I don't know if we could effectively 
 counter that propoganda. >>

Readers should know that one reason given by the TRO Dept was that RoW are not
for motorcyclists tear-arse-ing about. (I could not get that past my spell
checker.)

I could accept a TRO on a route through a Nature Reserve if the use of
vehicles could be shown to be detrimental to the nature (and more than de
minimis). But I would be keener to accept it if it was recorded as an
exception, and if users had been consulted before applying a ban. I am also
concerned that the public were notified that a Byway was in the pipeline, but
not that a Byway had been agreed by councillors only on condition of a TRO.
Had the public known they could have objected. And in any case, the BOAT order
should have failed under the Nettlecombe test.

I agree that urban friinge razzing about is difficult to control, but it is
illegal, and the Police will not act. So why should legitimate users, who
might be able to apply peer group pressures to improve the situation, be
tarred with the same brush? Do the authority want to chase the legal user into
the arms of the hooligans? Where is the equity in that?

I am hoping to visit Worcs soon (1 month?) to seek a concordat on who will be
consulted about what, and acknowledgement that sticking strictly to legalistic
options leads only to an interchange of hand-grenades. Anyone with advice for
this process is invited to contact me here or privately.

Cheers, tim Stevens
01630 657627

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:46:18 -0500
Subject: Times 1/2/99

Another letter today in Times, This time about the Ridgeway.  
Much as I detest TROs that are not justified, it may well be that a TRO on
a few roads such as this may save the unjustifiable calls for bans
everywhere.

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:46:20 -0500
Subject: Re: E5221 complaint.

> Otherwise, smack on. I am sure that CoCo and DETR would like to know

about the
> threat of costs for a WLCA application.
> So would I. Can I see the letter in which this threat is made?
> By e-mail, and privately, if you like.

I wouldn't be seen publicly talking to you in private, you don't know what
the AWDC might say......  ;-)

They letter dated 27/1 arrived Sat 30/1 and I posted it on the list the
same day in full. pse advise if you wish it faxed. the relevent bit is:-

"Please could I comment briefly on the notice enclosed with your letter of
19 January under
Section 56 of the Highways Act and the second notice faxed to the County
Council on 25
January pursuant to Section 53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

I have, with respect, to suggest that neither of these notices is legally
valid for the reasons set out in the attached legal summary.

Please could I ask you to confirm in writing that you will, forthwith,
treat these notices as withdrawn. I would advise you to consider carefully
your own position on the matter of costs should you opt to continue with
the notices on an invalid basis. In order that the position may be
clarified please could I hear from you regarding the notices within the
next 7 days.

Yours faithfully

P A J Endall "

Am I being over sensitive interpreting that as a threat of costs for both?
I assume you had the legal summary. That does mention the s56's but not
refer to being invalid by reason of transmission mode. 

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:46:22 -0500
Subject: Re: E5221, Warwicks CC sulks.

> But I am confident that 
> i. the state of the lane counts as 'out of repair' independent of any
> obstruction.

I understood from Westley that a partial obstruction to a bridleway due to
having been deliberately enclosed in a garden, fenced, and then to have
leylandii trees planted deliberately prevented the operation of the s56,
probably as if trees grewed there natuarally it is OOR (Newman) but if
planted, that was not an OOR failure by HA. If it is an obstrcution, it may
still be same H Auth that has to deal, but action needs to be taken under
different legislation.

It seems from the covering letter I had,  that it is being translated that
IF there is an Obstrcution AND true OOR, (in this case a stream that should
be at the side meanders across in a 3 ft wide gully, and is soft due to
silt deposits etc.) then they are saying, and extending the scope of 
Westley to stop action under s56.  The fence is in a slightly different
position, but in the same 100 yd stretch.

> ii. you are entitled to use s56 and have a proper reply, even if the road
is
> not out of repair.

Agreed.  I do not think they are on the same wavelength.

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:54:05 -0000
Subject: RE: copyright

Hadn't thought of that - Staffs leave me alone with sections of it often
enough.....

Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:54:08 -0000
Subject: RE: 

I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK, I dress........

Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:59:23 -0000
Subject: RE: Agro-cultural damage in Staffordshire

Thanks David,
This explains why Staffs Highways almost went ballistic when I described
what I'd seen!

The current state of play is that RoW are going to look at the Footpath, and
Highways are going to look at the BOAT.  Once these inspections are over
they are talking about 'ensuring that the farmer understands it is his duty
to restore the FP', and 'Send the bugger the bill, or get him to repair the
damage to the BOAT'.  All for the cost of two phone calls - now lets see if
they are as good as their words....

Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:00:01 +0000
Subject: Re: Rhyme or Reason

In message <bulk.11200.19990201050817@Land-Rover.Team.Net>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>       Most of you may know that George Laurence QC has recently been involved 
>in
>passing RoW definitions through the legal mincer. He insists that every last
>word of the BOAT description should be met exactly, in full, with evidence.
>He recently went to see his lad who had recently started at University.
>Calling at his Hall Of Residence in the legal department, he was told that the
>lad was not available. ( In fact, he was in bed with a hangover). George then
	 [ truncated by list-digester (was 14 lines)]
>After a pause, Laurence junior was brought out to his father.
>In four pieces.

Errr... GL's good lady wife has just departed this earth (I am told).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:00:12 -0000
Subject: Re: HA80 s36

>North Yorkshire CC charge you 10 Pounds to look at the Highway Maps
then
>tell you that they are not accurate.

But not the LoS or DM&S I hope.

Cheers,
Bod.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:14:46 -0000
Subject: Re: TRO signs

>Some jolly old wag once suggested changing the red to a black border
round
>the white TRO sign on an incorrectly applied / consulted /
unnecessary TRO.
>Would that then be a valid sign?

Becky,

I must point you in the direction of HA80 s131 (2):

"If a person without lawful authority or excuse pulls down or
obliterates a traffic sign placed on or over a highway, or a milestone
or direction post (not being a traffic sign) so placed, he is guilty
of an offence; but it is a defence in any proceeding under this
subsection to show that the traffic sign, milestone or post was not
lawfully so placed."

In other words, if the TRO sign is there to indicate a valid TRO (e.g.
made by an order under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) then
obliterating it is an offence and would render you liable to legal
proceedings.

If however, someone (maybe the HA) have decided to put a TRO sign up
other than in connection with a valid TRO (yes it does happen) then
you should pull it down or obliterate it as it has been placed there
"was not lawfully so placed".

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Bod.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:55:31 -0000
Subject: Re: Maps in District Councils

>Admittedly I was only there to check that some routes that I wanted
to
>drive were actually BOATs, but the staff were all helpfull and at
least
>recognised what I wanted to look at.

I am convinced that the majority of HAs are reasonably good at holding
the DM&S and (to a lesser extent) the LoS.      Generally 'phoning
first to book will ensure they are there waiting for you and an
officer is available who has some understanding of what they are.

It is, however, a requirement and one HA that has not got its act
together is one too many.     Always try 'phoning, especially if you
have questions to ask - but 'cold calling' is a great way to show an
un-cooperative authority that you mean business - especially at 4:30pm
on a Friday!

Cheers,
Bod.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:32:08 -0000
Subject: Re: Agro-cultural damage in Staffordshire

>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?

I started writing and then re-read the question!
I have left it below as it might be of interest but PLEASE NOTE it
does not apply to BOATs - only FPs & BWs.

The answer for BOATs is at the bottom!

Yes he does and yes he can.
The HA can give permission for "an excavation or engineering
operation..." which is "...reasonably necessary for the purposes of
agriculture...".    I think land drainage would certainly come under
that description.

The LO applies to the HA for an order to be made under HA80 s135 (1).
The order allows him to disturb the surface for period specified in
the order (the authorisation period).   This period shall not exceed 3
months.

The HA must be satisfied that the way can be adequately diverted or
that it will still be 'sufficiently convenient for temporary use.

[I have just read what you asked again!!!!]
THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO BOATs BUT ONLY FPs AND BWs

Now for the bit that relates to carriageways:

A person can apply to a HA for an order under HA80 s181 (2) for a
license to install apparatus (including drains) in or under a highway.
There are various different conditions which may or may not be added
to such a license but it usually covers an ongoing right to maintain
the apparatus.

If a person places apparatus in or under a highway (without lawful
authority or excuse) then he is guilty of an offence and liable for a
fine not exceeding £20 for the first offence and £50 for subsequent
offences.

[The fines will have been amended to fit into the standard scale but I
do not have the relevant amendments]

A license is, obviously, 'lawful authority'.

It is all contained in HA80 s181 which, unfortunately, is not covered
by the Blue Book.

Cheers,
Bod.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:50:41 -0000
Subject: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!

>Am I right in thinking that Highways Act 1980, section 131 &
>131a makes it an offence to disturb the surface of a right
>of way so as to make it inconvenient for the exercise of a
>public right of way?

s131 is not alot of use for surface damage unless that damage is a
trench or similar.

s131A (which was added to HA80 by Rights of Way Act 1990) is of more
use in that it says:
"(1) A person who, without lawful authority or excuse, so disturbs the
surface of -
a) a footpath,
b) a bridleway, or
c) any other highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway
other than a made-up carriageway,
as to render it inconvienient for the exercise of the public right of
way is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3
on the standard scale."

>If so, can this be used in this case,
>especially if we could get photographic evidence of this
>usage? In this situation a locked gate preventing vehicular
>access to the lane, except for the landowner who has a key,
>would prove the guilt...... Or is that just being devious?

Now there is the first problem.
The LO will claim that he has "lawful authority or excuse" in that he
needs to drive heavy agricultural machinery on the lane in the conduct
of his business.     This might be true in a handful of cases but
mostly he could use (his) adjoining fields.     Also a level 3 fine
might not be enough of a deterrent (what is a level 3 fine in real
money?)

The second problem is what s131A goes on to say:
"(2) Proceedings under this section shall be brought only by the
highway authority....."

If the HA are not interested then there might not be much that you can
do about it but it is not all doom and gloom for subsection 2 goes on:
"...without predujice to section 130 (protection of public rights)
above, it is the duty of the highway authority to ensure that where
desirable in the public interest such proceedings are brought."

>On a slightly different approach, couldn't this also be used
>against mud-pluggers, such as certain contributors to
>magazines who have provided evidence against themselves,
>including photographs and a carefully written confession?

It is a thought but again it is upto the HA to bring about any
proceedings.

Cheers,
Bod.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:54:13 -0000
Subject: Re: 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?

The OSS rep for Gtr Manchester has all the DMs for the area.
So far the only HA prepared to supply a copy to me is Bolton but as
they are currently digitalising theirs they want to wait until they
can supply it on CD-ROM.

There is DoE advice to the effect that HAs should supply copies of DMs
to LOs and user groups (Circular 1/83 Annex A para69) and sell them
rather than give them away.    There is, however, the issue of
copyright.    Some authorities have got around this (as Bolton propose
to do) by loaning a copy to user groups but which remains the property
of the authority (a licensed user).

>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?

Theoretically all DMs should look much the same.
Although W&CA81 does not specify scale or symbols to be used 'The
Wildlife and Countryside (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations
1983 (SI 1983 No21)' does state that "(3) A definitive map shall be on
a scale of not less than two and a half inches to one mile (or
1/25000)...".      s4 and Regulation 4 refine how various classes of
highway are to be shown and all have two alternatives (one colour and
one symbolic) and FPs and BWs each have three alternatives (one colour
and two symbolic).

I see no requirement that DMs have to be based on OS maps but to not
do so would involve the surveying authority in lots of surveying!
Whilst they are we are going to be subject to the silly principles and
practices that the OS insist on having.

Cheers,
Bod.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:55:22 -0000
Subject: Bridleway 58 - Cheadle & Gatley

NGR:      SJ 8569 8591 to SJ 8614 8625
[joins RUPP 63 at SJ 8618 8601]

This is a short bridleway but has evidence of carriageway status.
It is not of very much interest in its own rights but, if RUPP 63 goes
to BOAT (or if we decide to use it as a bridleway!), then Bridleway 58
will form the northern access.

When the A34 dual carriageway was built the bridleway was diverted
slightly south (200 yards) where it crosses over a bridge.     This
bridge is just wide enough for a Landrover or similar sized car.
However, it is not the most substantial looking bridge I have seen but
then, I am not a civil engineer!

Here are the three letters so far:

###
>From me to Geoff Funnell (RoW officer - Stockport MBC):

Dear Mr Funnell,

Bridleway 58 - Cheadle & Gatley

Please can you advise of any orders affecting the section of Bridleway
58 that runs west from RUPP 63 to the old line of the A34 trunk road.
The orders I am concerned with are those, if any, that were made at
the time of the construction of the new portion of the A34 trunk road.
I am especially interested in any diversion order to allow the
Bridleway to pass to the south of its apparent original route where it
is carried by a bridge over the above trunk road.

Furthermore, could you please supply me with a copy of the bridge
specifications with regard to its weight carrying capabilities.

The reason I require this information is that I have substantial
documentary evidence that the entire length of Bridleway 58 carries
public vehicular rights and either myself or the members that I
represent may wish to exercise those rights in the future.
Unfortunately I am unable to apply to have the Definitive Map amended
in accordance with the provisions of The Wildlife & Countryside Act
1981 section 53 due to the requirement that I serve notice on the
landowners.    As you will be aware, this is a onerous task especially
in this particular area.

At the northern end of Bridleway 58 there are two concrete bollards
obstructing the route and additionally there is a single wooden
bollard at either end of the bridge which carries the bridleway across
the A34.     If myself, or any of the members I represent, intend to
use this route with a vehicle then we will, naturally, discuss the
documentary evidence with you so that you can arrange the removal of
these obstructions.

Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.

Yours sincerely

Ian Boddison

Manchester Area Representative
GLASS (Green Lane Association)

Rights of Way Officer
Manchester & District Land Rover Club

cc: Paul Byron
 GLASS Rights of Way Officer - Stockport

##########

Then this morning I get a response:

Dear Mr Boddison

BRIDLEWAY 58 CHEADLE AND GATLEY

This is shown on the Definitive Map as a Bridleway and, therefore,
carries no public vehicular rights.  The only way that the status can
be changed is by a claim for Byway Open To All Traffic status - which
would require the production of substantial evidence to justify a
Definitive Map Modification Order.  Unless and until such an order is
obtained, I have no power to open the Bridleway up to other traffic.

As to the design of the Bridleway Bridge and the Orders relating to
the A34 Handforth Bypass, I understand that these works were carried
out by Cheshire County, under Orders made by them.  I do not have
copies of the Orders - it may be that they have not yet been
transferred to this Authority.  Nor have the amendments been formally
incorporated in the Definitive Map for the Borough.

Yours sincerely

G C Funnell
Public Rights of Way Officer

############

So I faxed a reply immediately:

Dear Mr Funnell,

BRIDLEWAY 58 - CHEADLE & GATLEY

Thank you for your letter of 27th January 1999.     I cannot, however,
agree with the first paragraph of this letter although I understand
your reluctance to accept that vehicular rights might exist on a
definitive bridleway especially one through a residential area.

A public bridleway when shown on the definitive map is conclusive
evidence of a bridleway existing at the relevant date but it is shown
"without prejudice to any question whether the public had at that date
any right of way other than those rights."(1)    I would add that many
highways carry vehicular rights but are not shown on the definitive
map at all;  indeed the vast majority of the highway network falls
under this description.

As I explained in my previous correspondence of 19th January 1999, the
reason for not applying for a definitive map modification order is the
requirement to serve notice on all adjoining landowners.(2)     I have
made attempts to identify the landowners but to no avail.  If you can
supply this information then I will happily make a formal modification
order pursuant to section 53 of Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981.

In the meantime, the Highway Authority have a duty "to assert and
protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any
highway for which they are the Highway Authority".(3)   Furthermore,
highway users have a common law right to abate any obstruction which
impedes their lawful journey along that highway.(4)     Clearly for
your authority to maintain the obstructions to this highway would be
unlawful assuming that carriageway rights do exist.      However, you
are given a specific protection allowing you to assume higher rights
which may subsequently be proven not to exist.   "Proceedings or steps
taken by a council in relation to an alleged right of way are not to
be treated as unauthorised by reason only that the alleged right of
way is found not to exist."(5)     I therefore submit that you DO have
the power to open the bridleway up to other traffic.    However, I
would add that there is no current expectation on the part of myself
or the users that I represent for you to do this.

I note your comments regarding works and orders carried out by
Cheshire County Council,  I will contact them in due course.    May I
reiterate that it is not the quantity or quality of documentary
evidence for Bridleway 58 which prevents me from submitting a
Definitive Map Modification Order but the requirement to serve notice
on the affected landowners.    Additionally I stress that it is NOT my
intention to advise users to abate, or to personally abate the
obstructions on this route without first laying documentary evidence
of carriageway status before you and allowing reasonable time for you
to act accordingly.

Yours faithfully

Ian Boddison

Manchester Area Representative
GLASS (Green Lane Association)

(1) - Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 s56 (1) (a)
(2) - Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 14 s2 (1)
(3) - Highways Act 1980 s130 (1)
(4) - Seaton v Slama (1932)
(5) - Highways Act 1980 s130 (7)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:27:14 -0000
Subject: Re: GLASS: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)

>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.

Unless the landowner has the right to plough under s134, he is not allowed
to damage the surface of the highway under s131. It was also mentioned that
this act is also now punishable under the Criminal Damage Act, as if the
surface of the byway is publicly maintainable, then the surface is
technically owned by the council, then the driver of said tractor could be
nicked and imprisoned (in an extreme case, not in the real world, but it
might be a good threat). Also, if the fact that the lane is TRO'd as a
result of criminal damage by the landowner, then is he profiting from an
illegal act?

Comments please from those who understand the law better.

Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:54:35 +0000
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)

Rob Smith wrote:

> I don't believe that the use of major roads, such as the A34 is an
> acceptable alternative.

It's actually the old A34, now a yellow road.

> 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.

I have already tried this on other routes (Fence Lane) but it falls on deaf
ears.  I do intend to ask how they think the lane will improve unless agro use
is stopped also.

Regards,

Howard

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:06:01 +0000
Subject: Re: copyright

> Has anyone tried to take a copy of a def map (or anyother document) with
> a digital camera?

I have tried with a film camera.  No chance.  Copywrite and all that, more
than my jobs worth etc.  If I remember correctly they (local council)
offered to sell me a copy at around 7 quid.

I have considered doing covertly in the local library but my camera makes
too much noise!  I suppose I could cough 36  times in succession.

Regards,

Howard

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:26:36 -0000
Subject: Bartholomew's Maps

Hi

The following may be of interest to the collectors of map. Bartholomew's
prices according to media/year. Columns are as follows:
		paper	cloth	dissected

1875		2/6	3/6	-
1890		1/-	2/-	-
1898		1/-	2/-	2/6
1912		1/-	2/-	2/6
1920		1/6	3/-	4/-
1944		2/-	4/-	5/6
1950		2/6	4/-	6/-
1952		3/-	6/-	9/-
1953		3/-	5/-	7/6
1957		3/-	5/-	10/-
1968		4/-	6/-	12/6
1970		4/-	6/-	15/-
1971		6/-	8/-	20/-

If anyone has a problem with the above figures they are shillings/pence,
when there were 12 pennies to a shilling and 20 shillings to a pound.  For
further information on historic currency ask Tim.

There are several pages of other information on Bartholomew's that I can
supply on demand.

Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:05:30 -0000
Subject: Re: E5221, Warwicks CC sulks.

Lane LJ.  Send PC.  A Duty must be placed before a Power.  Duty = s130.
Power = s116 - etc.

Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:23:13 -0000
Subject: Re: Agro-cultural damage in Staffordshire

<<but I wander if
he has to get permission to do such excavation on a BOAT?
<<but I wander if

Illegal to disturb the surface of a road without authority.  The Utilities
have that authority.  I doubt that a farmer has.  Keep an eye on it and
seek full restoration if left a mess.

Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:20:44 -0000
Subject: Re: copyright

Hi Sue

On reflection I can state that Wilts send copy Def maps to interested
persons as the sheets are amended and deemed to be up to date.

Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:27:11 -0000
Subject: Re: 

<<Thus they spot a good profit making wheeze >>

Or did you mean - Thus they spot a good profit making whiz!!

Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:24:59 -0000
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)

Hi Howard

Haven't used these for years but in about '88 you could have driven a
saloon car along then.  A bit tight in the summer to the north.  I'll have
a look some day soon.

What is the new/current address for BABTIE and I'll wind one into them.

Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:53:14 +0000
Subject: Re: HA80 s36

In message <bulk.22527.19990201121520@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Bod
<bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>But not the LoS or DM&S I hope.
No just the Highway Maps.
Brian 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:46:47 EST
Subject: Re: Bridleway 58 - Cheadle & Gatley

In a message dated 01 : 02 : 99 08:17 GMT Standard Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:

<< This is shown on the Definitive Map as a Bridleway and, therefore,
 carries no public vehicular rights.  The only way that the status can
 be changed is by a claim for Byway Open To All Traffic status - which
 would require the production of substantial evidence to justify a
 Definitive Map Modification Order.  Unless and until such an order is
 obtained, I have no power to open the Bridleway up to other traffic.
  >>
Dunnit make yer wanna spit?

Tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:46:44 EST
Subject: Re: Times 1/2/99

In a message dated 01 : 02 : 99 06:47 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:

<< Much as I detest TROs that are not justified, it may well be that a TRO on
 a few roads such as this may save the unjustifiable calls for bans
 everywhere. >>

Not after a 3 week public inquiry which concluded it was not appropriate,
though.

Tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:09:31 -0000
Subject: Bennett in Manchester Metro News

The following article was published by the local Metro on 15-1-99.
It is unusual to find a RoW related article in any of the local papers
so I wrote a letter!
The Metro is a free weekly attached to the Manchester Evening News.
metro@mcr-evening-news.co.uk

#########################

MP was born to ramble
Why Andrew Bennett is taking no notice of the 'keep out' notices

When MP Andrew Bennett speaks of his passion for the countryside,
there can be little doubt that his sentiments come straight from the
heart.

His desire to see rural England open and available for all to enjoy
was made very public last week when, just month after a hip
replacement operation, he led a group of Ramblers in Sussex to protest
about a controversial landowner, after he blocked an official
footpath.

As well as being the Rambling Association's (RA) president, the 59
year old Denton and Reddish MP is an influential figure when it comes
to government green policy, as he is chairman of the Commons
environment and economic select committee.

But his association with the countryside goes back much further, to
the days when, as a child, he would be regularly treated to the
delights of the North West countryside at half term, when his mother
would take him for day-long walks.

It was his love of the land which also prompted him to spend over a
decade working as a geography teacher before being elected to
Parliament in 1974.

He said: "My mother used to cut out maps from the newspaper of walks
you could do, and we used to go out regularly at half-term.  By the
time I was 12 I was also a Scout and I would be getting out every
Sunday.

"I gained a real affection for it."

And last year's hip operation doesn't seem to have slowed him up, as
Andrew is still a regular walker in the region.

He added: "Part of the treatment, once you've had a hip replacement,
is to get plenty of walking in.

"I've usually been walking about six miles, on parts of the route
between Marple and Macclesfield."

Being such a strong advocate of the public's right to roam, it was
inevitable that Andrew would sooner or later be at loggerheads with
millionaire landowner Nicholas Van Hoogstraten - who recently blocked
a public footpath running through his 100-acre High Cross estate in
Sussex, where he is building himself a £30m palace.

It will eventually include a mausoleum with foot thick concrete walls,
where Mr Van Hoogstraten, aged 53, will eventually be laid to rest.

Andrew joined 50 other ramblers to protest against the seven-foot high
grey metal fridges, fringed by barbed wire, closing off the route.

The RA have now taken legal action against Mr Van Hoogstraten, who
recently described ramblers as "disgusting riff raff".

In response to allegation that he intimidated walkers, Mr Van
Hoogstraten said: "It's not that I am threatening these people.   It
is just that there may be an occasional incident."

Andrew said: "Van Hoogstraten has said some pretty obnoxious thing
about ramblers.

"He wouldn't expect people to block roads but he is doing the same
thing to public rights of way."

And as the bitter battle rages on, Andrew is also intent on insuring
that the government fulfils its promise to open up thousands more
acres of countryside for the next millennium.

"A lot more needs to be done, although things are improving.

"The target of having all rights of way cleared by the end of this
year is a very good one.  We've got to keep pushing landowners to keep
these routes clear."

#########################

Letter sent by email (20-1-99)

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

########################

This is what they printed (28-1-99)
Complete with a picture of Andrew Bennett out walking.

We all have a right to roam

How pleasantly refreshing it was to see a major article dealing with
the issues of public rights of way and countryside access (MP was born
to roam, Jan 15).  However, the article does present a slightly one
sided view and raises a few questions.

The emphasis is upon walking as the only activity for which the
country's rights of way network is used.   It should be noted that
whilst the majority of this network is footpaths, a significant amount
can be used by horse riders, cyclists and motor vehicles.

It is not just Mr Van Hoogstraten who must take account of the law -
the local highway authority has a statutory duty to 'assert and
protect' the public's 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 (which sets the target) recognises to be unachievable.
Its 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 onto the future generations.

Ian Boddison
Longsight

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:58:21 -0000
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?

No, a s56 can be served by "A person ('the complainant') who alledges
that a way...."

>2. Are multiple applications from different people more effective
than
>just one or two? ('The more the merrier?')

In the case of a s56 the HA are obliged by law to respond and
receiving one generally makes officers jump - this is one good reason
for not over-using them.    If they ignore them then the Courts sort
them out!

This is not true of all sections which you might like to throw at them
but then again not many other sections involve serving legal notices
in the manner that a s56 does.

Cheers,
Bod.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:17:31 -0000
Subject: Warwickshire - Grey Mill Lane

A bit more to show them that there is public interest in this route.
And that it is not unnecessary.

Cheers,
Bod.

#########################

Head of Legal Services
Warwickshire County Council
Shire Hall
Warwick
CV34 4RR

Dear Sir,

Highways Act 1980 s116 - Grey Mill Lane

It is my understanding that it is the intention of your authority to
make an application pursuant to section 116 of The Highways Act 1980
with the effect of stopping up the above highway.   I also understand
that this application is being sought at the request of the landowner
and not as a result of your consideration of the wider public
interest.

I would be grateful if you could state on what grounds you believe
that a stopping up order would benefit the public at large.   Is it
your intention to provide a diversion which is nearer or more
commodious to the public in accordance with Highways Act 1980 s116 (1)
(b).

In the past, as a former resident of Warwick, I have used this highway
and certainly expect to do so again in the future, even if
infrequently.   I therefore would be grateful if you could keep me
informed of developments regarding this route.

Yours sincerely

Ian Boddison

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:00:32 -0500
Subject: Another hunt, another trunk, another cafe

> Can anyone tell me (Tim?) If I move a fallen tree by a large or 
> little amount
>  a) if it is still on the highway am I liable for 
>    causing an obstruction, in the way I am when I close a gate

IMV, non legalistic, if it is same or more comodious for other users
afterwards you have not CAUSED any obstruction.

>  b) if someone comes along and sits/climbs on it and it rolls over, 
>    runs into it or otherwise injures/damages themselves am I liable 
>    as the last person to have done anything with it?

If it is left in a dangerous position yes, if it was dangerous before and
you do anything, but is still less than quite safe, a claim COULD be made,
unless you had acted reasonably ie to leave a warning notice if you had not
been able to make it safer than before change,  and to report the danger.

Suppose a tree was causing an obstruction, you attempted to abate, but
could not complete the removal, after cutting half-way through. Still safe,
but you decide it would be safer to report, so that the HA dept could
complete the work they may not have otherwise felt inclidned to undertake.

> one of these people who always looks presentable and Dominic seems to 
> be able to walk through any amount of mud without it sticking to him: 
Teflon Kid ! Huh.

> oddly enough they prefer me to sit at a different table.
> be able to walk through any amount of mud without it sticking to him: 
That understandable.  

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:00:51 -0000
Subject: Re: Bennett in Manchester Metro News

crucial bit .... (steady now ... )

>"He wouldn't expect people to block roads but he is doing the same
>thing to public rights of way."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  END OF * LIST DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 48 lines 2461 [forwarded 125 whitespace 0]
 Output: lines 1803 [content 1545  forwarded 119 (cut  6) whitespace 0]