[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:04:19 +0000
Subject: Re: Wilts again
>a service?
I had an Enigma machine. It was called a 'BSA'. It was a puzzle that the
bastard ever ran at all.
I now have a stigma machine - it is called a Fiat.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:17:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Firemans second jobs
> << * permission will not be granted if there is a significant risk of
injury.
> Which means that a fireman cannot moonlight as a fireman.
> A new sort of double jeopardy.
Ever tried using some RoWs, that can involve risk from irate L/O
threatening, running off the road etc.
He ought to be at risk at PIs.... If I had the same attitude as some of
his mates........
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 05:40:53 -0500
Subject: Wilts - the hard way
> We need to perhaps explore the option of tracks specifically for 4x4s.
Yes, Now that sound a really good idea. What could we call them? I know,
Byways. They could be open to everyone, even lowly walkers could use them,
we could even suggest they could use them MORE than vehicles..
> "I will fight for a fresh approach with a bold strike to attract the
> attention of Government".
This is happening already, a highly orchestrated press campaign by Gleam
and one wonders who else? Is it not time users got organised and put our
case properly? Perhaps a national meeting of all groups that want to see
fair and responsible access to the countryside, condemn the illegal users
and obstructors alike, etc. With all the higher rights users, CTC BDS BHS
LARA there would be a bit over a thousand people campaigning with a single
voice. Can we do it?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 05:40:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
> If we are to maintain reasonable access we must get our own act(s)
> together.
I think it is pretty well.
It's all too easy to say my sort of usage but no more.
The NODAM syndrome in planning - No Other Development After Mine.
Worse than the The Banana syndrome - Build Absolutely Nothing And Never
Again.
RA dont want horses bikes or Landrovers
Some Horse riders dont want vehicles, (others see the benefit of a
reasonable balance)
Some Motorcyclist don't want 4 wheeled vehicles
4 wheeled laners don't want tractors, APV's or 40 tons forestry trucks
etc.
Lanes are there for everyone to use moderately, ie sustainably. And to be
reasonable.
Being Reasonable is NOT breaking the law, riding unlicensed(=untraceable)
un-insured, un-taxed vehicles without adhering to any code of conduct or VR
recognised by the majority as a partial restriction on personal freedom,
for the longer term good of the whole.
How do we differentiate? Easy - No illegal activities on any RoW.
Bikes (in particular) do have a right to be ridden off-road, and the CC
should make reasonable provision whenever they can to accomodate, old
quarries, tips, wasteland, perhaps at certain times. (They provided
skateboard facilities) It is already happening by lack of prevention,
indicating acceptance, so why not say where people can, and where they
can't when there are indications it is occurring, ie Devil's Spittle what's
it, Clee Hill etc.
So often these spill over onto RoW, and right into the hands of the antis.
Another factor as I pointed out before, look out for signs of tolerated
mis-use, as at Stapely Hill, that was welcomed by locals to get a reason
for an unnecessary TRO by the devious phillips-morris double act.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:33:12 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
> 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').
I'll bet it's not recorded like that in the minutes, I'll have a
look.
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:55:36 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
> Had the public known they could have objected. And in any case, the BOAT order
> should have failed under the Nettlecombe test.
True, but vehicular rights would still exist and a TRO could still be
made. However, if it were not for the DMMO application no-one would
have had their cage rattled to put on a TRO
> So why should legitimate users, who
> might be able to apply peer group pressures to improve the situation, be
> tarred with the same brush?
We shouldn't be tarred with the same brush but it is inevitable that
we would and given the current climate how do we counter? If this TRO
goes ahead then we should use the inevitable continuance of youths
tear-arsing-about as evidence of the expensive uselessness of TROs.
BTW I was in the city centre today, dodging the traffic in the
pedestrianised streets - surely there's some evidence there for both
the uselessness of TROs and an obvious higher priority target than us
on green lanes.
> 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.
Sensible and I am optimistic that it could be fruitful.
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:04:52 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Another hunt, another trunk, another cafe
> 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.
Thanks, Tim.
I try to cover myself by getting in touch with the relevant highway
authority ASAP and then if they know of something that might become a
liability and don't do something about it they certainly have some
liability. (Cynically assuming that liability motivates more
effectively than concern for public rights or welfare!)
cheers
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:26:32 -0500
Subject: E5221 complaint
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
Monitoring Officer,
Warwickshire County Council
Shire Hall
Warwick
CV34 4RR
5/2/99
Dear Sir,
Formal complaint No. 1 to Warwickshire C.C.
1. WCC appears to have put Pressure on Mr & Mrs Mark, "the applicant" to
underwrite the cost of an HA80 s116 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 DISCRETIONARY POWER, can sit squarely
with their failure to carry out a DUTY under s130 of the HA80.
a) to remove the obstructions under s130.
b) to contemplate removing rights contrary to clear DETR guidance, and
s130.
4. It has not been acknowledged that the applicant has to pay for the
considerable involvement of the legal department in the informal stage of
consultation, despite a written request for clarification. If this money,
is to come from the public purse, from which budget is it allocated? I
would suggest the beneficiary of this action is the applicant, to spend
public money on an invalid application is irresponsible. The Council should
have advised the applicant that there was little prospect of success, was
therefore in neglect of the duty of care, effective management and the
assertion of public rights. It has led to a waste of either public money
or the applicant’s money, and thus a risk of complaint and financial claim
against the County. Will you please advise whether all correspondence with
the applicant is available for public scrutiny, or if not, if you are
perfectly satisfied of the Council’s correct approach at that stage.
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.
Your faithfully,
Chris Marsden
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
5/2/99
Dear Mr Endall,
Re: Highways Act 1980 S116 Stopping Up Orders.
1. Would you advise if there are any other roads that you are, or are
contemplating using HA80 s116, either directly or on behalf of applicants,
which are a potential leisure resource, and have a similar nature to byways
shown on the DM&S?
2. Do you have any substantiated concerns over the usage of such ways, if
so have you followed the advice given in Making the Best of Byways, and can
you prove results have been unsatisfactory?
3. Can you let me know where the List and Map of Maintainable Streets may
be inspected, if possible in or near Alcester.
4. Would your council prefer to manage such byways co-operatively for the
benefit of all users?
Your sincerely,
Chris Marsden
With a hard copy of the s56. Complaint no 2 ready when they are ready to
go into battle again.
They must learn not to be provocative :-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 16:39:36 +0000
Subject: PIs
"He ought to be at risk at PIs.... If I had the same attitude as some
of
his mates........"
I thought Inspectors are supposed to not allow any unpleasantness at
Inquiries, to ensure fair play. I've only had one Inquiry where I
suppported byway and Dunlop objected - its not an experience I wish to
repeat, though I know I am going to have to.. These objectors make you
almost feel guilty for defending your rights, its hard enought getting
people to PIs as it is.
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:38:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
> We shouldn't be tarred with the same brush but it is inevitable that
> we would and given the current climate how do we counter? If this TRO
> goes ahead then we should use the inevitable continuance of youths
> tear-arsing-about as evidence of the expensive uselessness of TROs.
I am not certain they will.
Similar to Stapely Hill in several respects, but there the locals
encouraged, (by that I mean did, led, asked others to) ride on the hill
side. No notices saying DON'T or 'please refrain from riding'. As soon as
TRO went on, it stopped.
At the Devil's it will probably stop, what litle there are signs of, with
any notice saying don't do that, there, here. Thus proves TRO are
wunerfull.
They should take concerted action to say it should not be done, where they
can, who to contact for local clubs etc. These are kids(?) with bikes,
they need somewhere to ride them. Do we all wan't to make them criminals?
And if it doesn't then a small amount of use will be beneficial to the way.
Again rather than total, seasonal if needs be, and by VR unless it fails
substantially. Few are going to know about it, go out of their way to get
to it, epecially if signed several yards in, from the end of the lane.
And it is pretty firm, fairly steep, a litle narow and fairly well used on
foot yes, but not so much that it needs a full time ban.
A measured response is what is needed.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:02:57 +0000
Subject: Re: OS Explorers
Hi Tim
Do you know where to send a policy type question to the OS and to whom
it should be sent.
In message <bulk.27849.19990202155208@Land-Rover.Team.Net>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 20:23:48 +0000
Subject: Re: copyright
> 7 quid? For a whole DM? Pay up NOW!!!!!!!!!!!and be grateful.
> A bargain.
7 pounds a sheet!
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 20:15:56 +0000
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
> What is the new/current address for BABTIE and I'll wind one into them.
Hi Dave,
The new address is very much like the old one.
Rhoda Barnett
West Berkshire Council
C/O Babtie Group Ltd
School Green
Shinfield
Reading
Berkshire RG2 9HL
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 23:38:06 +0000
Subject: TRO Costs
Curious of West Berks asks:-
How much does a TRO cost? Why is it supposed to cost a council a lot of
taxpayers money? Surely all it needs is a notice in the press and a
couple of signs on the affected route.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:25:30 EST
Subject: Re: Ridgeway TRO PI
In a message dated 03 : 02 : 99 12:40 GMT Standard Time, owner-
row@playground.sun.com writes:
<< Tim what was the PI for a rights that exist, or wheher there should be a
TRO? >>
The PI was to consider a TRO proposal from CoCo as managers of National
Trails. We have several cwt of papers which you are very welcome to go through
when you are next here. Bring a sleeping bag and our B&B rates are very
sensible for a month solid.
I have now been approached by the Ridgeway Team with a request for Vol
Restraint on the major length of the Ridgeway. Anyone got any comments?
I have already said 'How does this square with W Berks own VR on other nearby
lanes?'
Cheers, tim
PS messages without titles seem to get called 'Garbage' somehere in the
system, and get sent on by owner-row@ rather than row@.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:25:51 EST
Subject: Re: E5221 complaint
In a message dated 03 : 02 : 99 01:28 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< Formal complaint No. 1 to Warwickshire C.C.
1. WCC appears to have put Pressure on Mr & Mrs Mark >>
This might not be the most constructive way forward, following a constructive
chat today (Warks CC, R Hawker and me). They agreed that their recent actions
had been unco-ordinated, and took on board the idea that if they agreed to
sensible management, I would try to ensure that volunteers were offering help
and not lobbing grenades.
They also hinted* that the Marks family are being pressured to withdraw their
offensive s116, and if so, we offered to manage the route with consideration
of VR and waymarked gates in the fences instead of complete removal. As a
concession, which could be removed the instance a lock and chain was within 6
feet of any gate.
I think the HA were impressed by our offers of help, and it may be that a
truce would be an advantage until we see evidence that they really mean it.
8 Hinted because they have no real power to withdraw, that is the apoplicants
option, but they can show him how expensive and likely to fail it all is.
I have not withdrawn my s116 (they did not seem to know one was in) as I want
the answer as evidence, should any policeman misunderstand at any stage. You
know what West Mids coppers can be like - perhaps Rebecca should think twice
about face-black...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 21:31:15 +0000
Subject: More from RB
> I will therefore arrange for LARA-type notices to be prepared and
displayed
> at the ends of the byways. If they are ready soon, I will send you a
copy
> with this
> letter.
More of those yellow Babtie VR notices with no expiry date I suppose.
> Moreover, the Council may be considering in the fairly near future
the best
> method of managing the use of Old Street and the RUPPS/byways which
lead to
> it, and this might
> invofve making seasonal or all year TROs. As Byway 1 2 is one of the
routes
> which allows access to Old Street, it would be premature to devote
scarce
> resources to the removal of trees which miaht then be unnecessary.)
Here we go again. If you dare to raise any problem with West Berks
Council
the result is a TRO, usually on the grounds of ' a concern for public
safety'.
Byway 12 doesn't directly give access to Old Street but it does give
access to Byway 1 East Ilsley , Byway 23 Beedon, Byway 2 Beedon and RUPP
11 West Ilsley. With the exception of RUPP 11 it is possible to use
these roads as through routes without even touching Old Street. I
suppose that these RoW also have a TRO waiting in the wings.
Am I right in assuming that a TRO does not absolve the highway authority
from
its duty to maintain the highway?
A TRO on Old Street would be a significant victory for DG and his mob.
This
together with a TRO on the Ridgeway would make many if not most routes
in the
area unusable.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 99 21:34 GMT0
Subject: Re: copyright
<<<<<< 7 pounds a sheet!>>>>>
Ah. Oh. Yes.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:25:41 EST
Subject: Re: Firemans second jobs
In a message dated 03 : 02 : 99 09:19 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< He ought to be at risk at PIs.... >>
Wouldn't it be a shame if a fireman could not attend PIs because they had
become dangerous?
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:25:36 EST
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
In a message dated 03 : 02 : 99 05:00 GMT Standard Time,
doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
<< What contributes a lot to public perception must be the off-road (yes, in
the real sense) motrocycles who congregate every w/e to run drag-strips
down teh Ridgeway. >>
First I have heard about it. How about a day of vigilante action, supported by
friendly plod and MSA, any comp licenses go through the shredder, all reported
for illegal motoring, no this, that, tother. With a bit of co-ordination and
a few radio equipped vehicles supported by trail bikes it might do some good.
Any thoughts?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:42:30 EST
Subject: Re: TRO Costs
In a message dated 03 : 02 : 99 08:22 GMT Standard Time, howard.neal@which.net
writes:
<< How much does a TRO cost? Why is it supposed to cost a council a lot of
taxpayers money? Surely all it needs is a notice in the press and a
couple of signs on the affected route.
>>
A significant amount of notification and consultation is required (not to us,
silly, they don't want our help), and the signs are not cheap. Two at every
point of access, plus erection costs. All that standing around in a luminous
weskit. They reckon 3000 quid is a low figure. Good job too, it slows 'em
down.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:25:44 EST
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
In a message dated 03 : 02 : 99 10:42 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< Some Motorcyclist don't want 4 wheeled vehicles >>
Not really, Only a 4x4 driven by one particular person. And Volvos, of course.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 99 22:08 GMT0
Subject: Re: Ridgeway TRO PI
Tim asks
<<<<I have now been approached by the Ridgeway Team with a request for Vol
Restraint on the major length of the Ridgeway.>>>>
Anyone got any comments?
Instinctively - reject it. Pragmatically - see what conditions they want
to attach.
<<<<'How does this square with W Berks own VR on other nearby
lanes?'>>>
I can do no more than point you at Howards observation ,reprinted without
his specific permission.
<<<<'How does this square with W Berks own VR on other nearby
A TRO on Old Street would be a significant victory for DG and his mob.
This together with a TRO on the Ridgeway would make many if not most
routes in the area unusable.
<<<<'How does this square with W Berks own VR on other nearby
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:15:07 -0000
Subject: Railway bridges
Hi
Take a butchers at B&B 3 of 1984 and also 6 of 1984.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:22:08 -0000
Subject: Re: E5221, Warwicks CC sulks.
<<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,
<<I understood from Westley that a partial obstruction to a bridleway due
Dark Lane - Cheriton, Hants. New 'hice' halfway up the lane and lane
widened as far as new house. Laylandii hedge planted in the lane, outside
fence. They were only stood up a couple of times before the occupier gave
up.
:-)
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:38:06 -0000
Subject: Re: Bridleway 58 - Cheadle & Gatley
Dear Bod
May I say that that little note to Cheshire CC falls into the category of
'save for later - cut and paste'. Nice one.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:14:41 -0000
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
<<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
<<The route crosses a nature reserve and the county councillors only
I don't think that conditional DMMOs of this nature are totally cosha.
These are two separate pieces of legislation and must be treated as such.
The DMMO must be done on evidence alone and cannot be conditional on
something else happening. The TRO should stand or fall on it's own merits
and I would argue that the expenditure of public money on an unquantifiable
issue is not on.
(That reads a bit like the old Bod, innit)
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:35:57 -0500
Subject: OK what next?
Geoff puts in an application for BOAT on IA PCR.
2 years later complains to DoE of failure to determine.
They say CC say it's in their Milestones, they do all the Parish ones
first, then individual's, so go jump.
8 years later it is of course Nettlecombed.
They start to look at it, but won't make the order, as they don't want to
be the Maverick test case.
I issues s56, they say fair cop, it's a highway.
CC issues enforcement notice.
Highways director cancels 3 weeks later due to LGR
New HA, new s56, they suggest not a highway,
I say OK, show us yer 116
They admit to s56
Applicant, Geoff Brookes asks "wot about my Order?"
HW director says, (31/12/98) "previous Auth Issued enforcement then
Cancelled"
Geoff says that's not wot I asked.
Puts in complaint.
No reply
He Telephones them yesterday 'You answered the Question I did not ask'
I want to know when you are making the order?
HW Dir says "We have got to start from scratch on that DMMO"
Geoff gets letter today,
"I've nothing further to add to my letter of 31/12/98 they cancelled enf
notice"
This does not bode well for the new era of co-operation we are anticipating
since our meeting with said highways director 12 days ago.
Someone else has asked "Is it on LoS then, what's it's number?"
They still cogitate.
So what next?
GB just called. He was told today the "Monitoring Officer is G Randall, HW
engr, by a legal asst J Adnett. I have a letter 9/11/98 from same gut
saying Marie Rosenthal Co sec & sol. (apparently unqualified) is the LGMO.
Can you have more than one per council, ie one for each dept. Or could
Adnett be confused with complaints officer, for which their IS one for each
dept.? They seem to be wanting to get max number of hits with the
Ombudsman I think. Completely failing to follow their own complaints
procedure.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:36:20 -0500
Subject: Times, Thursday
Yet another vitriolic plethora of anti access propaganda wrapped up as anti
4x4 to be doled out in tomorrows Times I understand. I just mention it so
you can all save up your 30p's for an erstwhile contribution to Murdoch's
empire.
They called my son as he wrote about Lady Milner - - Barry's Ridgway
letter. They edited it line by line, so goodness alone knows what it will
say, then they said we are not going to use it, but we might slip it in
later. Wot, they not nuj either Frank?
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-12.compuserve.com (dub-img-12.compuserve.com [149.174.206.142])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-12.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id TAA11231
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:52:07 -0500
Subject: Re: E5221 complaint
> I think the HA were impressed by our offers of help, and it may be that a
> truce would be an advantage until we see evidence that they really mean
it.
> 8 Hinted because they have no real power to withdraw, that is the
apoplicants
Is "8" a mis type?
> option, but they can show him how expensive and likely to fail it all is.
> I have not withdrawn my s116 (they did not seem to know one was in) as I
want
is "s116" a s56, or are you now into closing roads down, Stevens??????
> the answer as evidence, should any policeman misunderstand at any stage.
You
> know what West Mids coppers can be like - perhaps Rebecca should think
twice
> about face-black...
Damn close run thing that. The only reason I did not post today was that I
put 5/2/99 rather than 3/2 so I held it back from posting, but it's all
stamped ready...... I had to post as I was going to give them a hard copy
s56 to make sure.
You should have taken me to show them just how reasonably nice I can
be......... (not)
Congrats on meeting, jaw jaw better than war war eh wot?
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:52:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
> a few radio equipped vehicles supported by trail bikes it might do some
good.
> Any thoughts?
All for it. Lets slam anyone * that beggers up our legitmate,
enviromentally friendly, interest. Count me in.
* HAs, illegal, unsocial, - we could get some good soundbytes from that,
"responsible clubs slams the cowboys, gardiner welcomes LARA initiative"
"Rhoda watched in awe, as Tim terminates tear-arses"
Oh-yea
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 99 07:52 GMT0
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
Tim says (of mcycle activity on teh Rway)
<<<<<First I have heard about it. How about a day of vigilante action,
supported byfriendly plod and MSA, any comp licenses go through the
shredder, all reportedfor illegal motoring, no this, that, tother. With a
bit of co-ordination anda few radio equipped vehicles supported by trail
bikes it might do some good.Any thoughts?>>>
I'd be game, anyone who thinks its a good idea LETS TAKE IT TO MAIL - now!
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 33 lines 1444 [forwarded 93 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1024 [content 833 forwarded 93 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990204 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]