[ First Message | | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Mike Thomas <miket@sqf.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 21:38:27 +0000
Subject: Re: Skye
Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger wrote:
> has a completely different system of RoW. I'm going to be spending up to 5
> weeks there mapping just after Easter, and due to my dodgy knees would
> rather do most of it from the rangie, rather than hiking up and down the
> hills.
I managed to get up on the Cuillin ridge recently and I can't walk at
all!
Scotland does have a completely different system. It is based more on
the 'use it or lose it' basis. Unfortunately for those of us who want to
use unsurfaced RoW it is a little more complicated. Most of them are now
tarmac'd and are the 'normal' roads.
You may want to contact the 'Scottish Rights of Way Society' at:
10/2 Sunnyside,
Edinburgh
EH5 7RA
to ask them the same questions though - it would be interesting to see
what they say as I got little sense out of them. They appeared very
anti-vehicle even though the society purports to act to protect 'public
rights of roadway'.
I have the SRoW society book 'Scottish Hill Tracks' which lists only 7
tracks on Skye. My map suggests that two may be passable by vehicle -
though note that neither this book nor I have any idea about actual
vehicular rights and I haven't got a map for 2 of them.
NG 594202 Kilbride to NG 594160 Suisnish
excellent views of the Cuillin apparently, if it isn't raining (-:
NG 561279 Luib to NG 601267 Strollamus
If they aren't currently RoW then you will be doing your bit towards
starting to get them created - just another 19 years of use! Remember
that asking for permission is classed as permissive access and doesn't
help towards a RoW - phrase your question carefully!
Let me know how you get on - I might be persuaded to have a trek up
there. The other thing to suggest is a trip over the Corrieyairack which
isn't *that* far, though I'm not aware of its current status. I am
attempting to find this out and plan a trip up there soon anyway,
enjoy Skye - I reckon its the finest place in this country,
Mike
--
Mike Thomas - Edinburgh - mailto:miket@sqf.hp.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:05:20 -0000
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
<<Bikes (in particular) do have a right to be ridden off-road, and the CC
A right? Such sport is permissive. How would you respond to an enduro
club that claimed that they had a RIGHT to hold an event on your back
garden?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:19:26 -0000
Subject: Re: PIs
<<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>>
Sue
I should be facing rubberman in the not too distant future and would be
interested in your experience. Could you mail me direct on this - not via
the list.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:12:04 -0000
Subject: Re: Babtie
<<Seriously, leave smears out and go for legitimate causes of complaint -
they are always easier to prove>>
Come on MD, it's just a wish list. But seriously. Babtie, no doubt under
the guidance RB (and please tell me otherwise) have discriminated against
wheeled users. I complained years ago about the ploughing of (was it) RUPP
64, but that was not a problem apparently. Landowners can damage but users
are denied access due to that LO damage. Unjust and illegal. This other
business at Chievely. I have pictures of the tractor damage on the lane
off the Services slip road. That damage was not recreational. No action
was taken against the landowner who had for years obstructed that lane with
a series of gates, not hinged but tied in place with string and a danger to
the user. RvA - shall not profit from a crime???? Lane LJ - Duty before a
power.
Did you ever read any of the mendacious bilge trotted out by E Still, JP,
another local resident. Heard the total nonsense that Rubber man spins.
Ever seen the wicked witch of Maperton perform at public Inquiry .... "I am
a qualified historian ..... these roads would never have been used by
wheeled vehicles ... pack horses..."etc. Absolute cobblers.
If RB was doing her job the ancient highways for which she is responsible
would be in far better condition and there would have been a good number of
prosecutions for damage and obstruction caused by LOs. She is not doing
the biz and I have the photos and letters to show it. Please don't as me
to give respect to someone who, as I see it, takes public money and fails
to provide the statutory service for which she is paid. Worse, she would
appear to abuse the privileged position she holds to further the aims of an
anti access group.
If, as MD implies, RB is on this list, then I for one would be pleased to
hear, directly and in strictest confidence, any good reason why she adopts
the policy of banning users rather than keeping the adjoining landowners in
line. I find it hard to see how a ban on trail bikes can be justified if
horses are to be allowed access. I know what caused the most damage to
soft ground, and it don't 'ave wheels.
It may be that as a contract service, there is not the authority or funding
to operate in any other way. I think we should be told.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 05:18:57 -0500
Subject: Visit to Kew
I expect to visit Kew next Wed or Thursday. If there are any specific
enquiries that can only be answered there, pleae advise, I will do my best.
It will be my first visit, there so it will be a bit slow!
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:38:47 -0000
Subject: Re: Highway in A.Bennett's constituency
<<I'll bet it was stopped up to build the M'way. May be worth checking
that first, could save a lot of needless work.
<<I'll bet it was stopped up to build the M'way. May be worth checking
Go to CC and ask to see the side roads orders that went with the
construction of the m/way.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:59:11 -0500
Subject: HC complaint rejection rejected.
See below for his letter.
Mr A J Greaves
Director of Support Services
P.O.Box 240,
Hereford
HR1 1ZT
10/2/99
By Fax 01 432 340 189
Dear Mr Greaves,
Re: Complaint - Legal Services.
Thank you for your letter of 3/2/99, and you will appreciate determination
of departmental responsibilities clearly presents challenges to the lay
observer.
The meeting of 22/1/99 was indeed constructive, and I have greater
confidence of HC’s future intent on keeping safe our heritage of lesser
used roads.
My initial correspondence was an objection, as invited, to an order, not
specifically a complaint against the legal dept, although HC took points
16-18 as a joint legal / highways section complaint. These matters remain
unresolved. (Substituting 2/93 for 8/93 in para 17) If the TRO does not
proceed substantially in the form proposed they are of no consequence. I am
still waiting for information as to HC’s intention on this matter, an
answer could not be given at the meeting, which Mr Stevens and I accept.
The positive outcome of the meeting was that my other concerns regarding
the many obstructions and minor roads in dis-repair are, we understand, to
be addressed.
However, I have not heard of any intention to remove the illegal
obstructions from Roman Road. These are a danger to highway users. A
horse rider in particular, riding past is in danger of severe leg injuries
from the bollards, and concrete and steel animal crushes at the Magna
Castra end, I would ask you to take immediate action on this obvious and
illegally erected danger.[****] Being aware of this, and failing to take
action, would the Council’s insurance pay, in full, if any claim was made?
Timescales were exceeded, and without complaint may have continued to slip.
The obstruction on Roman Road, and Leysfield Road have gone on for a
number of years, with delays and inaction, with the failure to act on an
application for many more years. Hence you will appreciate my concern that
a precise timescale set by the Council for objection to the TRO did not
prevent proper and justifiable objection and complaint being made. Against
this background, when timescales for the proposed meeting and replies not
being adhered to started to slip, you will appreciate my concerns.
My several concerns, to date unanswered, are:
· Lack of consultation despite a promise by the then Council (30/3/98)
· Lack of user consultation in accordance with Circular 2/93
· Failure to follow DETR advice in Making Best of Byways & 2/93 on use of
other measures,
· Not giving the evidence for the TRO, specifically the apparently
un-corroborated evidence of Roman Remains on the carriageway, as was
requested.
· Failure to remove obstructions,
· The TRO is for political dogma rather than practical reasons, and to save
money.
· Failure to prosecute the persons damaging the highway
· Failure to prevent both a substantial risk of, and actual, agricultural
damage.
· Failure to remove obstructions at Leysfield Road
· Failure to make an Order for Leysfield Road.
If a full-time permanent TRO is imposed without proper consultation, trying
alternative measures, or corroboration of claims of Roman Remains, other
than by the archaeologist previously exhibiting overt bias, my objection to
the ombudsman will be maintained. The time scales of recent correspondence
will NOT form a substantive part of my complaint should it materialise.
You say that the complaints process is not designed to deal with policy.
Whilst I accept this, I asked on 13/1/99 what the Council’s policy was on
removing obstructions, on 13/1/99 Ms Rosenthal said in reply, she had
arranged to meet key officers to review and practice, and also our meeting
of 22/1 was to be a part of that review. Therefore my question is still,
What is that policy?
There are a number of substantive matters still outstanding, (for example
what remedies does HC consider are appropriate to deal with obstructions?-
asked 11/11/98) which I am sure your colleagues in highways are dealing
with. I trust an early reply will be forthcoming, as enforcement action
commenced in March 1998, but not completed by LGR, still has not been taken
by HC some 9 months later. This delay without detailed explanation is
simply not acceptable. It would be helpful to have confirmation that
Leysfield Road has been added to the List of Maintainable Streets, (see
Blue Book p223 A-G v Watford RD).
Yours sincerely,
Chris J Marsden.
[****] There is a policy that all dangers on highways will be dealt with in
5 days, and any causing an accident within one day. Lets see if this is
dealt with in accordance with their policy?
__________________________
His last letter to me
3/2/99
Dear Mr. Marsden,
May I first of all apologise' for the delay in responding to you fully
within the timescale I originally set. The main reason for this was to
await the outcome of your meeting with managers from the Council so that I
could be advised by my colleagues on the matter.
As Director of Support Services I am responsible only for those complaints
which relate to the Legal Service; my colleague Mr. Steve James, as
Director of Environment, has responsibility for matters relating to
highways. Therefore, I propose only to deal with your complaints in respect
of the Legal Service and with the application of the Council's Complaints
Procedure.
I understand from my colleagues that your meeting was constructive and
appears to have been useful to both yourself and them. On that basis I hope
that you will consider some progress has been made and, no doubt, in future
discussions with the highways department this will be built on.
Having reviewed all the correspondence relating to this matter I cannot
accept that you have any grounds for complaint against the Legal Service. I
found no evidence that as a service they have failed either to undertake
their obligations or to respond effectively to your correspondence. I am
sure that you will accept that as a '£contracto( to the highways
organisation they do not make decisions on these matters but merely advise.
Turning now to the Complaints Procedure itself, may I firstly make it clear
that your earlier correspondence did not in any way indicate a complaint
within the Procedure. By the time you did make such an indication responses
to you were flowing thick and fast from my colleagues in the Legal Service.
In particular, their letters of the 9,12 and 17 November 1998 had already
begun to address a number of issues which you had raised albeit, as I
stated earlier, not as formal complaints.
The Council's Complaints Procedure is explicitly not designed to cope with
matters of policy which
are a matter of political judgement and decision. It's principal objective
is to deal with administration and service. Furthermore, whilst in no way
questioning the matters you have raised with the Council, I must point out
we cannot be expected to respond to each piece of correspondence when it is
coming into the office at almost hourly intervals. In addition, it is clear
to me as a layman in this matter that these are complex areas where
accuracy on the regulations quoted etc is paramount. This complicates an
effective response which is made even more difficult by an overlap between
different pieces of correspondence.
The timeframes built into the Complaints Procedure do not adequately allow
for the complexities described above. Therefore, if you have cause to
complain in the future about such matters (and I
trust you will have no reason to do so) I hope you will understand that we
will not be able to hold ourselves bound by these timescales. For my part,
and I am sure Mr. James would share this view, I will do my utmost to see
that you get an efficient and prompt response, and certainly an
acknowledgement and updating where appropriate.
I am copying this letter to my colleagues in the legal and highways
departments and to Mr. James.
I am assuming that you are satisfied that your complaints about the
administration of highways
policies, traffic orders etc are now in abeyance on the basis of a suitable
outcome to your
discussions.
Yours sincerely,
A.J GREAVES
DI ECTOR OF SUPPORT SERVICES
cc Legal Practice Manager
Head of Engineering Services
Director of Environment
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:58:32 -0000
Subject: new lane just come to light
What is the opinion on this:
we have just had a communication from a west mids council which has come
across information which establishes a public carriageway from well over one
hundred years ago - but the route is shown as a footpath on the DM.
there is contention that the route has not been used for vehicles since
early this century - not since output from the local mineral extraction
ceased.
there is statement that since 1930s the way has been known locally as a
footpath - the district council of the time refers to a missing footpath
sign in the '30s (were there any such signs anywhere in the country pre 1949
and the legislation which set up the def map?)
there is statement that the estate of the local gentry around the '30s held
this to be only a footpath
there is statement that it is too narrow for vehicles in places (I don't
know how that squares with the original document which created this public
carriageway) and that a request for an upgrade to bridleway failed on safety
grounds, some time ago.
All this seems to be a case for KewMan to investigate if he has spare
capacity next week, and wants to get immersed in the Finance Act maps. I am
going to have a look on the ground tomorrow with Ken Stepney and will report
back.
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:46:12 -0500
Subject: Independent Article
The ground is in a dreadful state, with the winter braking records for
rainfall springs are bursting out all where none have flowed before, top
soil is being eroded by the ton, and mud with the consistency of porridge
lies knee-deep in gate-ways trampled by cattle.
Small wonder, then, that land-owners, walkers and riders are at
daggers-drawn with the drivers of 4x4 vehicles which churn green lanes,
bridleways and footpaths into a morass. One notorious theatre of dispute is
the Ridgeway; the ancient track that runs east and west along the summit of
the Berkshire Downs: a hiker recently described the stretch above
Marlborough as being like the battlefield of the Somme.
The leading force for conservation is Gleam, the Green Lanes Envi-ronmental
Action Movement, founded in 1995 by David Gardiner, a farmer living near
Newbury Today GLEAM has over 1,000 members, including 65 MPs and 16 MEPs
drawn from all parties, and its aim is to protect ancient lanes from damage
by recreational vehicles.
In the view of its founder chairman, the law has become hopelessly
Inadequate, in that it makes no distinction between motorised and
unmotorised vehicles, or between surfaced and unsurfaced roads.
'A 30-ton articulated lorry is the same in law as a pony and trap,"he says,
"and a green lane byway no different from a six lane dual carriageway."
The group is seeking to establish legal definitions of "motorised" and
"unmotorised", "surfaced" and "un-surfaced"; it also wants a ban on motor
vehicles using unsurfaced roads, except for access, unless specially
permitted by the respon-sible highway authority
Mr Gardiner has been personally vilified in 4x4 magazines, but he is far
from alone in trying to keep green lanes intact. Skirmishes between the
two sides are going on all over the country; and nowhere more vigor-ously
than in Herefordshire, where the county council is considering nearly 20
applications to have paths and bridleways declared Boats -Byways Open to
All traffic.
According to Dr John Harrison, Chairman of the Battle for Bridleway Group,
based near Leominster -the root of the problem lies in the Wildlife and
Countryside Act of 1981, which' places a county coun-cil under an
obligation to respond to any application for a right of way when an
application comes in, the council must serve notice on any landowner
affected, and investigate whether or not a public right of way has ever
existed. If evidence comes to light that the way
was once open to vehicles - even I they were only carts - the council must
declare a Boat, thus grant in access to motors.
The Act expressly denies councils the right to take into consideration any
impact on environ-ment, wildlife, amenity or archae-ology: decisions must
be based entirely on evidence gleaned from historical records. when a
decision is announced, objectors may call for a public inquiry; and they
have a month in which to prepare counter-claims; but the inspectors who
preside over the inquiry are equally bound by history; and they may not
take environmental considerations into account.
This is patently ridiculous, and misses the essential point that vehicular
rights were established by horse drawn carts, hundreds of years before
internal' combustion engine was invented. In Dr Har'rison's view:
'The trou-ble is that research in the public the records is laborious and
technical. The 4x4 clubs are well-funded, and they've retained a lawyer
who can devote a major percentage of his time to this work In effect,
they're doing the council's work for them. Most of the objectors are
farmers, who have neither the time nor the training to prepare
counterclaims."
The landowners fear that north-west Herefordshire will become criss-crossed
by a network of BOATS. which they claim will destroy the character of the
area. In the word of David Keown-Boyd, who lives near Bucknell, over the
border in Shropshire: "if you don't know the area, you cannot envisage the
degree of degradation to which this exceptional environment would be
subjected."
Yet even he concedes that very few green lanes have been churned up so far
a point made by one of his most active opponents, Chris Marsden,
co-ordinator of the Marches Historic Lane Preservation Group, which is
directing the research in county archives.
"His aim," Mr Marsden says, "is to preserve the character of ancient
lanes," which will not survive if they fall out of use because they have
been fenced or blocked off. His spe-cial interest is in the sunken tracks
created by the passage of men, an-imals and carts over hundreds of years.
On such ancient routes, he says, "you're surrounded by history-trees which
are very old, hedges which date back a thousand years".
He contends that the damage to such lanes is "fairly light from any sort of
vehicles", and that "in most counties there is absolutely none from
recreational vehicles". Almost all the damage that does occur; he
maintains, is done by farm tractors and trailers, and by the 4x4 trucks of
the utility com-panies and so on.
Indeed, he claims that most lanes would positively benefit from an increase
in recreational traffic of between 10- and 50-fold, and should be promoted
as a "leisure re-source". Such extra use, he be-lieves, would help keep
ancient routes clear and maintain their character He is, of course,
"ab-solutely against any form of tres-pass", but equally he has no doubt
that: "People who want to keep the public away from their little bit of
olde England - they're the menace."
So the argument festers. Mean-while, the demand for places in which drivers
can exercise their 4x4s is enormous. People are happy to pay £25 per car
for a cruise along Forestry Commission roads in the nearby Mortimer Forest,
even though they scarcely leave hard surfaces. Most of these, though, are
beginners, whose' Discoveries and Freelanders rarely go off Tarmac, and who
have to consult their manuals before they can engage four-wheel drive.
Mud-pluggers - the true addicts -pay £100 a day or more for instruction in
a really foul environment.
The difficulty is that they actively want what other legiti-mate users of
the countryside most hate - ruts, slippery slopes. water mud up to the
axles; and if they find such amenities freely available in the country they
will take to the lanes in hordes.
END of published muck. Save you wasting good money on this third rate rag!
Landowners are well funded. Keown-Boyd is married into the Harley Family,
of Harley St fame, not short of a bob or two, although Lloyds debts did set
him back somewhat. Because the applicant is careful and precise with his
research, and they have been unable to flaw it, they perpetuate the lie of
him being a lawyer, and carry on insisting he his retained by 4x4 clubs.
Another lie. When over two thirds of UCRS are unusable, those that are
severely damaged by massive agricultural 4x4, totally unsuited for green
lanes.
The distinction gardiner strives for has been roundly rejected on numerous
previous occasions, and thus this latest attempt to hi-jack the private
members bill on F2R on 26/3/99. To get a ban on motorised vehicles.
Clearly speared by jibes in the 4x4 press, these personal attacks yet again
are unproductive.
They fail to make it clear the process is two stage, firstly establish the
rights, (this is what the outlaws at Upper Lye Nr Leominster won’t accept
that there ARE public rights) and the second stage is where there is
liability to damage, traffic regulation IS available. That is why it is not
in the Wildlife act, it is in separate legislation.
What they have failed to say is that all of these byways that these nurds
have stolen, ploughed fenced and erected massive padlocked gates, that the
council will do bugger all about. The application was put in 10 years ago,
the council have voted to make the order, but now say they are starting
from scratch again. Because of the fuss they made, the applicant put in
another 20 byway applications! J Wonderful.
I wonder where they get the lie I am directing research? They live on a
different planet. Their proficiency in lying confirms gleam membership.
Why do they think he is my opponent?, he does not know enough about what
he’s talking about to take him on ;-) When Duff duffer called me last
week, he claimed ignorance of gleam, and said nothing of any mudplugging
angle, of course. I did not mention it, he didn’t ask, but it was pretty
obvious that was going to come into it. Typical of the lying conniving
[spamkill: [Mm]erchant input: %s] attitude of these pathetic
self-interest gloom merchants. The only way
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:11:29 -0000
Subject: RE: Independent, Sat
But large stones don't win votes.....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:11:34 -0000
Subject: RE: Skye
Magnificent views, great locals, and great locals. what more can you want -
several varieties of the water of life, midges in the wrong season, more
water of life to take the pain away.....
Only trouble is they have put a bridge in the way, lost its mystery.....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 99 20:19 GMT0
Subject: Re: Independent, Sat
<<<<<<<<<<<What an appalling mess, massive picture of a right mess, quite
possiblyleisure use, Oareborough Hill Nr Chievely Berks Downs, courtesy of
DavidGardiner.>>>>
If this is the bit I think it is and for once DG has got his captions
right this is teh Somme, of Babtie TPTO /Neal-Dyer S56 fame.
<<<<Who has wrecked this lane?>>>
Deffo agricultural
<<<But why should it be like this, if that number of people want to use it
surely it is possible to put some stone or even scalpings? to make it
indestructable?>>>>
Matt Reeve will tell you more about the make-up of the ground, in his HO
it is easily repaired in a quick-and-dirty way.
<<<<So surely some one in Berks can force the issue, issue a s56 notice,
forcethe B*&^%ts to repair the lane, and get rid of the problem, whoever
causedit.>>>>
Howeard and I have already done it but IMHO we are fighting a very biased
RoW advisory company and there is little evidence of impartiality. BTW I
dont think DG can actually justify the costs he quotes but I am happy if
he ever dares to step forward and prove it. Head Gleamer Tells Truth, now
that would be a headline to die for.......
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:29:47 -0000
Subject: RE: Independent Article
Someone ought to teach the author a bit of geography.
Marlborough is quite a few miles from and to the South West of West Isley,
the Western end of the Ridgeway..... I know, I used to drive from the
Midlands to Marlborough nearly every week for about 10 years, and if I
passed WI, then I knew I was on the wrong road (A34) - I should have been on
the Fosse Way!
For an organisation founded by a Berkshire farmer it shows a poor standing
if they don't even know the geography of their home county - shot down in
flames in the opening paragraph?
Has anyone got the Indi's email address?
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:17:31 +0000
Subject: Re: Visit to Kew
In message <bulk.20147.19990210021930@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Chris
Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com> writes
>I expect to visit Kew next Wed or Thursday. If there are any specific
>enquiries that can only be answered there, pleae advise, I will do my best.
> It will be my first visit, there so it will be a bit slow!
Consider this...
[ Section: 1/1 File: Kew-1.rtf UUencoded by: Turnpike Version 4.01 ]
X-deleted-[spamkill: hostnames start w/letter input: %s]
M97<@4F]M86X[?7M<9C1<9G)O;6%N7&9C:&%R<V5T,%QF<')Q,GM<*EQP86YO
[spamkill: hostnames start w/letter input: %s]
M97<@4F]M86Y].WU]#0I[7&-O;&]R=&)L.UQR960P7&=R965N,%QB;'5E,#M<
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:55:07 -0000
Subject: re:Somme geology was Re: Independent, Sat
><<<But why should it be like this, if that number of people want to use it
>surely it is possible to put some stone or even scalpings? to make it
>indestructable?>>>>
>Matt Reeve will tell you more about the make-up of the ground, in his HO
>it is easily repaired in a quick-and-dirty way.
The root cause of the problem is the underlying geology. The ground
underneath is the Eocene age Reading Beds, which are a mottled clay and sand
(Aveline et al 1905). Having examined the side profile of the ground
underneath on the site, there is a relatively thin layer (inches) of clay
overlying a medium sized bed (1foot+) of sand. At the worst points, if a
transverse trench is dug which cuts through the clay and into the sand and
is infilled with a porous deposit, such as stones, or even more sand, then
the excess water which is currently being trapped in the lane is allowed to
dissipate. For those who don't know the lane, it runs along the contours
part way up a slope, it is slightly sunken into the slope and this is the
shape that traps the water. The bridleway which runs below in the valley
(which incidentally is shown as a road on the 1895 OS map underlying the
geological map) is much drier, even though it is in the valley floor.
If the excess water is allowed to dissipate through trenches at the low
points, then the whole lane will dry out. If a clay surface is then
compacted, such as through vehicle usage, when it dries it will crack,
allowing soil and organic matter to fall into the cracks, thereby creating a
porous network through the otherwise impermeable clay (Cooper 1965). If the
route is not used then the clay does not compact and therefore does not
crack when desiccated as it is less well solidified. If the lane is left
wet, then it is a self-fulfilling problem and will never be convincingly
cured.
If I were in charge of the maintenance of that lane, then it would be
drained and partially levelled to reduce the depth of the ruts (clearly
tractor depth, tractor tracks clearly visible). Once it is no longer
underwater, then it should be used, with restraint, while it is still
winter, such that it compacts and then cracks in the summer. Another problem
is the overhanging vegetation, which is preventing the sun reaching the lane
in sufficient quantities, if this were cleared then it would be more likely
to dry out, thereby increasing the coverage of desiccation cracks.
However, I might be wrong and the correct solution should be a TRO, no
maintenance, but still let the farmer in his tractor charge up and down all
day long.......
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:10:01 -0500
Subject: Independent - Not
Independent No, misled by Gardiner's lies.
Had a call from H this evening, and that has confirmed what you say. It is
unbelievable that someone can lie as blatantly as farmer gardener does. If
that is not double teutolgy.
Dave, do you have the contact address for the Press Complaints Council?
To distort the facts as grotesquely as this shite does, pick up a grossly
damaged lane, plaster it 29 x 23 cm piccy and blame it on responsible
laners, and slur everyone by saying "The difficulty is that they actively
want what other legitimate users of the countryside most hate - ruts,
slippery slopes. water mud up to the axles"
Sulking over everything that MBoB has shown is true.
>>Howard and I have already done it but IMHO we are fighting a very biased
RoW advisory company and there is little evidence of impartiality. BTW I
dont think DG can actually justify the costs he quotes but I am happy if
he ever dares to step forward and prove it. Head Gleamer Tells Truth, now
that would be a headline to die for.......
babtie and barnet needs proper sorting out, they are a commercial company
that must be vulnerable to losing contracts if they don't play straight.
Trouble is it does take some time to find out their policies, what they can
do under delegated powers, and what they are doing. But if they are
supposed to comply with guidance and they don't you have legitimate
complaint. IMV
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:10:12 -0500
Subject: new lane just come to light
> What is the opinion on this:
> we have just had a communication from a west mids council which has come
> across information which establishes a public carriageway from well over
one
> hundred years ago - but the route is shown as a footpath on the DM.
> we have just had a communication from a west mids council which has come
That sounds good, then the bad news............
> there is contention that the route has not been used for vehicles since
> early this century - not since output from the local mineral extraction
> ceased.
But have they read DETR's DMMOs booklet? Perhaps the words are too big for
them?
5.5 In making a decision, the inspector only considers the facts
of the route based on the evidence presented. He or she
does not consider what the council, or anyone else, would
like the situation to be. Section 53 cannot be used to
change the definitive map and statement to show only the
paths which people would like to have.
5.6 Once public rights of way have been created, they remain
unless they have been closed by order. So in cases where
historical evidence proves that a public right of way was
created some time ago, those rights will still exist even if the
route is no longer suitable for the purpose for which it was
created, or no longer passable.
> there is statement that it is too narrow for vehicles in places (I don't
> know how that squares with the original document which created this
public
> carriageway) and that a request for an upgrade to bridleway failed on
safety
> grounds, some time ago.
> All this seems to be a case for KewMan to investigate if he has spare
> capacity next week,
Are they not available locally? Will try if I you want me to.
Notification letter Geoff B had today (dated 15/12/98), Suckley, was
proposed BOAT, went to bridleway, UCR for some of it's length, was UCR for
more before the Tippex got to it. Robertson (and his detailed two weeks
training?) finds that is not "conclusive" Don't these morons understand
what B of P means?
What is the point?, Use and produce your evidence, the sooner we get a
comprehensive database the better!
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 99 08:09 GMT0
Subject: Re: Babtie
Hi DT
<<<<<<<,Come on MD, it's just a wish list.>>>>>
Ok, I accept that
<<<< But seriously. Babtie, no doubt under
the guidance RB (and please tell me otherwise) have discriminated against
wheeled users.>>>>
And now its time to fight back.
<<<<< I complained years ago about the ploughing of (was it) RUPP
64, but that was not a problem apparently>>>>
NGR? I can add it to the workload no worries
<<<.Did you ever read any of the mendacious bilge trotted out by E Still,
JP,another local resident.>>>>
I believe that she was actually _told_ by BCC Legal Dept at one time NOT
to use her title wrt Gleaming
<<<<<< Heard the total nonsense that Rubber man spins.
Ever seen the wicked witch of Maperton perform at public Inquiry .... "I am
a qualified historian ..... these roads would never have been used by
wheeled vehicles ... pack horses..."etc. Absolute cobblers.>>>>
Are we allowed to refure this sort of crap when at a PI? Did she state her
qualiifications?
<<<<If RB was doing her job the ancient highways for which she is
responsiblewould be in far better condition and there would have been a
good number ofprosecutions for damage and obstruction caused by LOs. She
is not doingthe biz and I have the photos and letters to show it.>>>>
Its a matter of collecting good-enough evidence and using it
wisely....send me your bits and pieces people
<<<< Please don't as me
to give respect to someone who, as I see it, takes public money and fails
to provide the statutory service for which she is paid. Worse, she would
appear to abuse the privileged position she holds to further the aims of an
anti access group.>>>
'Give respect to'.....I'd agree with that totally......but I think we
could win bigger and better if we dont resort to yah-boo stuff.
<<<If, as MD implies, RB is on this list,>>>>
Nah, I dont think 'on', but I reckon there's a directish conduit. better
in any case to assume so
<<<<It may be that as a contract service, there is not the authority or
fundingto operate in any other way. I think we should be told.>>>
Watch this space, I ahve asked for the contract details.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 18 lines 1464 [forwarded 52 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 973 [content 836 forwarded 52 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | | <- Digest 990211 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]