[ First Message | | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:12:58 -0000
Subject: Re: Independent Article
yet?>>
That would be my intention but I feel that there must be someone more local
that could do it. I know the AWDC are very active in that area (pubmeet
wise) and Fox 4x4. There are 2 TRF groups covering that area as well so
why should I stick my neck out?
<<Is it worth a complaint to PCC for biassed reporting?>>
yes - emphasis on the locality and other unreasonable press releases from
same local.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 99 10:15 GMT0
Subject: re:Somme geology was Re: Independent, Sat
Sorry guys, I only said
<<<<Matt Reeve will tell you more about the make-up of the groundi>>>>
not <<<<Matt Reeve will tell you more than you would ever want to know
about the make-up of the ground,>>>
I am told that he was a great source of joy to his teachers after he left
school......
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 99 10:15 GMT0
Subject: Re: MP Bennett
Hey, I got a reply
and it stinks, IMHO
You might remember that I gave Blur two facts and asked one question...
I note that the Chairman of the Commons Environment and Economic Select
Committee is Mr. A. Bennett, Lab., Denton and Reddish.
Mr. Bennett is also the President of the Ramblers Association. This
organisation has the stated aim of denying access to unsurfaced Rights of
Way to vehicular users, and I wonder how the two positions held by Mr.
Bennett may be reconciled.
Please advise me how users of vehicles might be assured of impartiality on
issues presented to and discussed by the Select Committee.
Here is Bennetts reply
Dear Mr Dyer
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWlA OAA
I am surprised that you wrote to the Prime Minister rather than to me
concerning a possible conflict of interest.The fact that I am President of
the Ramblers' Association is fully declared. I do not receive any
remuneration or assistance from the organisation in any way whatsoever.
When matters are discussed which are relevant to ramblers I specifically
declare my membership, as other members declare any that they may have.
Finally, I belong to a whole series of organisations some of which have
aims and objectives that I strongly support, like the Labour Party, and
others where I have considerable differences on many policy areas. But,
whatever the circumstance and whatever the issue, I always make sure that
any interest I may have is fully declared.Yours sincerely ANDREW BENNETT MP
Phone numbers. Office 0161 320 1504, House of Commons 0171 219 4155 Home
0161 432 2953 (24 hr ansaphone)Fax 0161 320 1503
E-mail: bennett.andrew@pop3.poptel.org.uk
http://www.poptel.org.uk/andrew.bennett/index html.
Well its nice to know his EMail address, it migth be useful.
Compare the points I raised with the reply. Is it me, or does he shuffle
and not answer? I dont give a ratsarse about teh declaration, its the
effect of his Presidency on his impartiality that should concern
me.....and the fact that he sidesteps it in the first instance by
answering a question that wasnt asked and not answering the one that was
does not bode well to one as paranoid as me ;-)
Now, I want advice. A couple of you have advised me that he has not shown
any anti-motorised-user tendencies, (better the devil you know, was one
phrase) but I still think he _cannot_ be impartial. (Judge in His Own
Cause, donch know?).
Do I press him for a clear declaration or let it go and hope? If anyone
has evidence that might indicate that he has listened to his Inner Man at
any time please do tell.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:01:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Babtie
> Are we allowed to refure this sort of crap when at a PI? Did she state
her
> qualiifications?
Ask for the qualifications. Then ask how they are relevant to the
documentary proof being considered, then check up on those qualifications
afterwards, if they are not as stated write telling insp to disregard her
evidence as totally unreliable. Anyway as a gleam member she immediately
demonstrates her ability to lie profusely. And any evidence of ploughing
RUPPs and injuring walkers and starring on TV should be used to rubbish her
biased view of her evidence. Most of it's on suitability grounds anyway.
> <<<<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
Complain to chief exec, LGMO and Ombudsman, when you start, you learn the
system of how to complain effctively. They then have to spend lots of time
checking they are doing everything by the book, it slows them down, makes
them take less liberties, and feel it's not worth the effort. Have a
dozen or so stock letters to fax off for every TRO, asking the most arkward
searching questions possible. Any discrepancies, contradictions, or
non-answers, seize on and don't let go. It's as much fun as laning, more
enviromentaly friendly keeping these no-gooders out of mischief. They have
had it far too easy for too long. But remember some people in RoW dept are
on the right side, find out who, and who is two faced.
> Watch this space, I ahve asked for the contract details.
> Its a matter of collecting good-enough evidence and using it
> wisely....send me your bits and pieces people
Shrewd move. Inspect accounts, query items with babtie, and councils with
District Auditor. Find out policies. How long do they quote to repair
dangerous roads, report anything that is dangerous, like gates that do not
open easily, can be a danger to horse riders, the horses do not stay still
if there is nothing to tie them onto, while fiddling about with bits of
string. Any agricultural ruts complain about the danger and point out what
caused them, where they came from, cc letters, (or personalise them to
get replies from each) to: CoCo DETR CC babtie, council leader, MP and
anyone else you can think of. Try to get about 20 a month in, spread
between 1/2 doz or more different people, and remind them of the published
timescale for replies.
No obstruction or other report is acted on unless (at least) THREE separate
reports are made. Every obstruction, or agri damage MUST be reported every
year, so make sure they get one before end March, then another in in
April for their new year.
Anyone that ever visits the area, and particularly if they are ever likely
to re-visit should also complain, and we rely on feedback from our man on
the spot ;-)
Chris, practising being a pain, it's great fun. Try it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:01:18 -0500
Subject: Re: MP Bennett
> Phone numbers. Office 0161 320 1504, House of Commons 0171 219 4155 Home
> 0161 432 2953 (24 hr ansaphone)Fax 0161 320 1503
> E-mail: bennett.andrew@pop3.poptel.org.uk
> http://www.poptel.org.uk/andrew.bennett/index html.
That is probably the address / format for all members (of the same party?)
I have Labour Party HQ as: labour-party@geo2.poptel.org.uk
> Well its nice to know his EMail address, it migth be useful.
> 0161 432 2953 (24 hr ansaphone)Fax 0161 320 1503
> Now, I want advice. A couple of you have advised me that he has not shown
> 0161 432 2953 (24 hr ansaphone)Fax 0161 320 1503
> any anti-motorised-user tendencies, (better the devil you know, was one
> phrase) but I still think he _cannot_ be impartial. (Judge in His Own
Cause, donch know?).
> Do I press him for a clear declaration or let it go and hope? If anyone
> has evidence that might indicate that he has listened to his Inner Man at
> E-mail: bennett.andrew@pop3.poptel.org.uk
> any time please do tell.
He has a job to do to represent his constituents IN GENERAL, and it is
quite possible more oppose laning, after the torrent af PR gloom is getting
:-(
These people make the laws that can give the wealthy L/O the benefits, but
less so during this gov than the last. (This is not political, just that
one side has more L/Os in it's ranks than the other, Labour has got a lot
of votes by championing F2R, the CLA have now pointed out how expensive
they might make it, via Eurpean Courts) They are torn between what their
electors read, and the rights of the individuals and minority groups.
They are not likely to read MBB, or take much notice if they do. We need
to tell every one of them the facts of the case for laning, and gets cast
iron facts that can be verified. We ALL need to point out the need to email
fax write to ALL MP's to let them know that the hooligans are perhaps 1%,
and will exist whatever they do to law abiding sensible users.
Lets face it, we will NOT get a fair press, come what may. Even if we did
joe public would not believe it, or write to their MP and tell them so. We
have got to put the facts to them, not 1 or 5 or 20, but everyone, to EVERY
MP.
Does that makes sense?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:35:17 -0000
Subject: RE: Somme geology was Re: Independent, Sat
(A)
This is the sort of repair that is described in MBB. Cheap to do,
effective, no wander B£$%^&* won't do it, less than £100k, so no votes....
If a VR or TR was put on, for say six months, and the repairs you have
described take effect - my guess is yes, and the lane would be more useable
by everyone, footed or wheeled. I think that's the problem, they want to
close this lane, and can't stand the criticism of saying so out loud, and
the real repairs would cost very little for the whole user base to gain
(B)
Not another can of worms - does anyone have a pre 1968 OS map of the area,
is this BW shown as RUPP - if so get hold of the decision letter, my guess
is that it was reclassified under the 68 Act 'hardship' rules....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:39:48 -0500
Subject: Upper Lye - Highway Obstruction.
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
Mr D Forbes
Hereford Council
Brockington
35 Hafod Road
Hereford
HR1 1SH
By Email 11/2/99: dforbes@herefordshire.gov.uk
Dear Mr Forbes,
I have not heard from you or Mr Randall since our meeting almost three
weeks ago, you were expecting to be able to advise about Leysfield Road
in about two weeks from that time. Do you know when you will be in a
position to confirm action has commenced?
I do intend using this way again fairly soon, either on foot or cycle, and
would prefer to avoid confrontation, or more personal danger from the
obstruction. As this public road is not owned by Brown, he can have no
valid title deeds to it, and who it seems, openly admits erecting the
locked gates, I can not understand the delay in taking action to remove.
Is the road, at this moment in time on the List of Streets or not? If not,
why not?
Who is making the decision, and when; or who (which individual) is
blocking the enforcement action?
Are there any claims or communications from adjacent landowners such as
Brown, or other parties that are being considered by the Council? If so,
as they affect a publicly maintainable highway can you explain what the
factors are, and copy any relevant communications, I assume they are in
the public domain? * If they are providing ‘facts’ which are being
considered, it may well be that other members of the public can provide
further information, or refute some erroneous claims.
* I might add that I was asked to offer the applicant of another BOAT DMMO
near Upper Lye £ 2,000-00 to withdraw the two applications affecting his
farm. (He refused). In the interest of open government there is a need
for relevant information, when statutory duties do not appear to be carried
out.
I assume you are considering the prosecution of the obstructer, and that
regard will be paid to the length of time this has been happening. Will
the apparent Ultra Vires ‘permissive’ payment by the council to Brown be
considered? I would mention I have been asked by the District Auditor,
on 14/1/99, for confirmation of these details, and will be writing
shortly specifically in connection with this.
Yours sincerely
Chris J R Marsden
byway@compuserve.com
c.c. Stewart Gilbert
c.c. RoW List
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:43:31 -0000
Subject: RE: MP Bennett
Heard the aforementioned Hon Mem on the radio yesterday, blasting on about
the RA's 'Right to Roam' bill. Never answered a straight question, ignored
polite probing with rude rebuttals......
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:17:01 -0000
Subject: Re: OK what next?
How about you and Geoff writing up this sorry tale and post to B&B. See
Your Council and the Environment: he Model Local Environment Charter. Page
29:
"Examples of good Council practice include:
* responding to complaints about RoW within 14 days;
*removing obstructions within 3 months of an inspection"
As well as MBB.
In the piece I'd name and shame.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 99 19:54 GMT0
Subject: Re: Rupp 13 Herts + prosecutions
John OReilly says to post these snippets with his blessing
<<<<Your questions / comments re the RUPP in Herts have just be forward to
me.
The local land owner a Mr. Hederson (Parish Councilor) and his wife are
typical NIMBYS, they purchased the farm as a scluded place to live and
have rented the fields out.
When they purchased the land they believed a TRO was in place and that
therefore vehicles were barred for ever. The TRO was never legal and was
withdrawn, then the Hedersons started taking matters into there own
hands.
Hederson claims that a) the route is not vehicular, b) it's in the wrong
place.
Upon hearing vehicles he uses a Frontria to block a gate.
To-date FA maps, enclosure awards, Tithe maps, 1st edition OS, 1st DM,
cycling maps from the 30's early Drury & Andrews plus the survey for the
original DM from the 50's all imply a vehicular route. County agrees
privately that the route is vehicular but will not say so publicly.
The case against the AWDC driver was dropped after he sent their
solicitors 6 photo's and asked them to identify him. The person they had
taken the action against was the registered keeper but not the driver.
The 3 members of the TRF had the registration numbers noted twice and
are not disputing that they were on the lane.
Hederson's solicitor gets the drivers details from Swansea, this is
legal as he states he needs the details in relation to a legal matter.
The solicitor then sends a letter asking the addressee to write back
signing an under taking that they will not use the route again as they
accept the route is not vehicular.
Neither the guy from the AWDC or the guys from the TRF signed.
Hederson is hoping to get a court ruling without having to wait for the
CC to re classify incase the route becomes a BOAT.
Cheers John O'Reilly
<<<<Your questions / comments re the RUPP in Herts have just be forward to
and also
If anyone else require info please make sure
you include my new E Mail address at home JOR@oreilly69.freeserve.co.uk
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,,
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:17 -0000
Subject: Bolton MBC reply to s56
So Bolton are not quite so obstructive as I thought they were going to
be over FP26.
It was getting close to the month since serving the s56 on them but
today they admitted by letter that the highway is maintainable at
public expense and that they are the authority responsible for that
maintenance.
They did add the following:
"It would be helpful if you would let the Highway Authority know in
what way you consider the portion of highway described in the notice
to be "out of repair". "
So today I faxed the following:-)
##########
Mrs S Stone - Solicitor
Bolton MBC
By Fax To: 01204 392808
Dear Mrs Stone,
Footpath 26 - Westhoughton
Thank you for your response to my notice served under section 56 of
The Highways Act 1980. I am however surprised that you should ask
for my opinion of how the portion of highway is out of repair. It
is my understanding that Bolton MBC employ a qualified surveyor whose
full time occupation is to survey highways and his opinion must surely
be of more use than any opinion of mine as to the state of a highway.
However, as you have asked, please find attached in the schedule below
my unqualified opinion of the manner in which the appropriate portion
of Footpath 26 is out of repair.
It would be helpful if you could include a copy of your list of
priorities with your reply in order that I might have some idea when I
can expect to find appropriate maintenance works to have been carried
out on this route.
I am sending this by facsimile so as to delay your information as
little as possible and, hopefully to be as helpful as possible to your
department. Please note that this correspondence does not
constitute a legal notice.
Yours faithfully
Ian Boddison
cc: Alistair Bunting - Rights of Way Officer (Bolton MBC)
SCHEDULE
The portion of highway known as Footpath 26, as shown on the
Definitive Map for the Metropolitan Borough, is not convenient for use
by the public for four distinct reasons.
1. The eastern end of said highway is obstructed by a wooden fence
which is reinforced by a co-existent wire fence. Whilst this does
not constitute the highway being out of repair in the context of
Section 56 of The Highways Act 1980, it does represent a statutory
notice which Bolton MBC have a statutory duty to arrange the removal
of.
2. The portion of said highway has, at many points along its surface,
vegetation of an obstructing nature which is growing in the surface of
the highway. That vegetation prevents the free passage of the public
along the highway as is their right.
3. A major section of the said highway has a founderous surface of
deep mud due to standing surface water which, I submit, is a result of
negligence on the part of Bolton MBC to ensure that the highway is
provided with proper and functional drainage.
4. The surface water referred to above is of a depth so as to make
that section of highway impassable to the public. As such, I
consider it to be an obstruction in its own right and as a separate
entity to the surface damage which it has caused.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:47:15 -0000
Subject: Re: Highway in A.Bennett's constituency
>Go to CC and ask to see the side roads orders that went with the
>construction of the m/way.
Already written a letter to that effect.
Waiting for reply.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 99 21:57 GMT0
Subject: Re: Making sense (of) MP Bennett
Chris asks
<<<Does that makes sense?>>>
as much as ever :-)
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:28:13 -0000
Subject: Re: OS Explorers
<<> There are several lanes that are not shown at all on sheet 185
> (Winchester).
Astounding! Cads. What are they playing at. Too far away to go and survey
them I expect.
What status? UUCRs? We need to know why, who is being selective, HA, OS,
policy(who's), bungs, simple error?
Are they green, and are they usable?>>
Unclassified roads and yes - useable. One is part of the old London to
Winchester road. Oglby shows it - "The road passes through water" and it
still does from time to time. Need clearing.
<<No one comented on my OS letter, so I guess no one has any concerns or
other questions, (other than Tim's helpful idea of separating in two
letters the policy from practical examples.)>>
sorry - it was a good letter but I'm all behind in my work - butcher -
bacon slicer!!
<<You could ask for a refund - map not fit for purpose?>>
One day when I'm bored.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:45:55 -0000
Subject: Re: web site
<<Can you have a web site with a section which is password only? Then only
current subscribers would have access, but the costs would be less. Someone
would still have to write it, though.
<<Can you have a web site with a section which is password only? Then only
Yes - no problem - have I seen this thread somewhere before?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:53:21 -0000
Subject: Re: Independent - Not
All please make note:
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
Phax = 0171-353-8355
Phone = 0171-353-1248
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:40:34 -0000
Subject: Re: Oxfordshire vehicular RoW
<<I was trying to save myself some work. Nowadays Berkshire is quite a
narrow
strip of land and I often fall off the edge into Oxon, Wilts or
Tilburyshire.
<<I was trying to save myself some work. Nowadays Berkshire is quite a
I approve. And, Howard, you are most welcome. Tilburyshire welcomes
careful laners.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:31:12 -0000
Subject: Re: Babtie
I am going to follow this up. First I want to see the lanes. I'm leading
a TRF rune in a week or so and I'll see if we can't make it up there. I
can then write as a disappointed user who has written in the past and not
had responses and now find ....
That will be the starting point. I know that all lanes involved were in
good condition 5 years ago.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:04:53 -0000
Subject: Re: MP Bennett
<<Do I press him for a clear declaration or let it go and hope? If anyone
has evidence that might indicate that he has listened to his Inner Man at
any time please do tell.>>
Press on I say. And what about being helpful and passing the
information/e-mail address to the CLA and NFU. They may have a view vis
RtR.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:00:33 -0000
Subject: Re: Babtie
<<NGR? I can add it to the workload no worries>>
SU559713 - 565702
~~~~~~~~
Monday, April 27, 1998
FAO Mr Duncan Mackay
Berkshire County Council
Shire Hall
Shinfield
Reading
RG2 9XG
Dear Mr Mackay
I write, in the belief that you deal with such matters, seeking information
on RUPP 64 in the Parish of Bucklebury. In case I have the number wrong I
refer to the byway that passes between SU559713 and 566701.
I have intended to look at this lane for some time now but lack of time and
poor weather have foiled me at each attempt. I am told the lane is once
again obstructed and a rumour is circulating that there are plans to impose
a traffic regulation Order.
I ask that you look into and seek the removal of any obstruction. I would
also be most grateful for any information regarding a proposed TRO. I am
told that the proposal arises from a poorly maintained bridge along the
route. If my understanding of the situation is correct, it would be
improper to use a TRO as an alternative to maintaining a highway and I
shall object accordingly.
Bearing in mind the protracted history of illegal obstruction on this
route, and dependant upon your response, it would appear that my best
option to preserve users enjoyment over this route would be to make a
section 56 (HA80) application to the County Court. I therefore ask that,
in your response, you confirm that this is a publicly maintainable highway.
Should there be a risk that I might be disadvantaged in this matter by the
speed of conventional mail I ask that you e-mail information to the above
address. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
D Tilbury
~~~~~~~~
To date I do not think I have a reply. NOTE THE DATE AT THE HEAD
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:41:10 +0000
Subject: Re: Making sense (of) MP Bennett
In message <bulk.8409.19990211135812@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Michael Dyer
<doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>In-Reply-To: <bulk.29358.19990211080217@Land-Rover.Team.Net>
>Chris asks
><<<Does that makes sense?>>>
>as much as ever :-)
>73s and 88s
What 'all the best' and love and kisses'
who else is a Ham?
<doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 99 00:22 GMT0
Subject: Re: Lifting a TRO
Suppose a Byway was gated and locked against vehicles in 1991 under a TRO
due to vehicular traffic. Lets assume that we go through the hoops of
walking it, seeing no damage remaining (probably none there in the first
place), asking the HA to lift it, them saying 'no, it stays'.
Are there any legal devices available to make them show cause for the
continuation? or any devices by which we can compel them to lift it?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 99 01:17 GMT0
Subject: Re: MP Bennett
DT reckons
<<<<Press on I say. And what about being helpful and passing the
information/e-mail address to the CLA and NFU. They may have a view vis
RtR.>>>>
A good point - do we have an address for the PR offices of CLA or NFU?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:38:17 +0000
Subject: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
In message <bulk.9267.19990211144039@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
Hi Dave
>who is being selective, HA, OS,
>policy(who's), bungs, simple error?
I wrote to Lancashire CC about missing roads on the new O/S maps and the
say they had nothing to do with it, here is their letter.
Mr B Lewis UCR Representative Juno Richmond Road Ingleton via Carnforth
Lancs LA6 3AN
4th February 1999
Dear Sir
NEW OUTDOOR SURVEY MAP
I refer to your letter of 31.1.99. concerning the above subject and to
previous correspondence.
I apologise for not giving a definitive answer to your questions but
many of the issues raised remain under review. However, I offer the
following information which I hope is of some help.
The Highway Authority have not supplied directly any information to the
Ordnance Survey for the production of their commercial mapping other
than dealing with occasional queries that have arisen from time to time.
As such I can assure you that there has never been to my knowledge any
instruction by the County Council to the Ordnance Survey as to what to
include or not on their maps. It is assumed that the Ordnance Survey are
extremely careful about what information is depicted and if doubt
remains as to status of any particular road they might choose not to
include so as not to mislead. I have no information to confirm or
otherwise this assumption .
As you rightly say in your letter if public rights are for any reason
extinguished from a highway some formality is required. I must point out
that there are other mechanisms for "highway closure" than Section 1 16
of the Highways Act 1980 but all require some extensive formalities.
With respect to "other public access" I can inform you that at present
there is no general acceptance by the Lancashire County Council as
Highway Authority that "there is a presumption that vehicular rights
exist" though I can inform you that this general issue, as indicated
above, is under review.
I will write again very soon about the specific routes you refer to in
your recent letter.
Yours faithfully,
for the Director.
Contact Mr J Marginson
on 01772 264536
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 25 lines 1349 [forwarded 68 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 981 [content 816 forwarded 68 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | | <- Digest 990212 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]