[ First Message | | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 99 09:56 GMT0
Subject: Evidence.
For starters....someone must have kept a clipping from the Maily Dail
which showed the White Landy allegedly stuck in mud. Send me the details
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:26:29 -0000
Subject: Re: Richard Marshall
Bill,
Richard Marshall is on richard.marshall@telinco.co.uk
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 07:55:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence against the Lies
In message <bulk.7850.19990212231358@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Michael Dyer
<doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>I'll do the collation, you mail me the deatils. Pass this around.
Hi Mike
Do you have a snail mail address, I have a number of paper cuttings I
can send you.
The local chap who is the Chairman of the Yorkshire Dales National Park
has been in the job since 1988, and the only way anyone can get him
voted out is by a show of hands vote. he is as far as I can tell very
anti vehicles on the green lanes, along with the chairman of the YDNP
RoW committee, what chance have we against such organised people. Mr
Fenton the RoW Chairman's wife did a very anti anybody in the
countryside article in the Guardian News paper not so long ago, I have a
copy.
The latest is now the Members of the Committee are going to have a
Workshop to be advised how they can stop us using these GREEN LANES and
motorbikes on Bridleways to quote the local paper, then to set up what
they think is a well informed forum to decide haw to stop us. Does this
not seem to be perceived bias or what?
Give them enough rope!!! I am just collecting and waiting.
See you soon
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:28:17 -0000
Subject: Re: Lifting a TRO
Not that I'm aware of. Seek a ruling that it was against the public
interest to have it continue? Rather your house than mine.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:40:50 -0000
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
Brian
Have you contacted the OS direct to find from whom they received the info?
The only e-mail address I have for them is
dighlpdesk@ordsvy.gov.uk
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:07:25 -0000
Subject: Candovers
Following receipt of the papers containing the objectors submissions I am
appalled to find that they contain nothing new, but re-visit past comments
and theories. Is this vexatious?
I am pleased to see that on map they produce shows a route for hop sellers.
It would appear that this route includes a lane recently reclassified to
bridleway across Weston Common. Now, would the Hop sellers have used a
wagon to transport their goods, or would they have loaded them on pack
horses for a journey along well established routes in comparatively flat
Hampshire.
Only another 70 pages to read and respond to in the next 10 days.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Elwyn York <Elwyn@ey-eg.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 18:13:03 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence.
At 09:56 13/02/99 GMT0, you wrote:
>For starters....someone must have kept a clipping from the Maily Dail
>which showed the White Landy allegedly stuck in mud. Send me the details
>(publication date, name of reporter, etc.)
>73s and 88s
>:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
Local libraries keep copies, if you have the date and newspaper etc I could
check around...
Bye fir now
Elwyn
LR S3 '72 (Very Dented) Lightweight. [47 FL 06]
"Sub Aerodynamic Green Brick" ICQ: 17087824.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:15:49 -0500
Subject: E5221, OSS response to Warks.
To consultees on E5221, for information:-
THE
OPEN SPACES
SOCIETY
25A Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG9 2BA
Tel: 01491 573535 email: OSSHO@aol.com
Chairman RODNEY LEGG Registered charity 214753 General
Secretary KATE ASHBROOK
The County Solicitor, 17, Nevilie Grove,
Warwickshire County Council, WARWICK. CV34 5TU.
P0 Box 9, Shire Hall, 01926 497516
WARWICK. CV34 4RR OSSWarks@pvg.clara.net
Attention of Miss L.Zicking. 15th January, 1999.
Your ref: LZ/02608047
Dear Miss Zicking,
Thank you for your letter of 8th January with enclosure showing the
proposed stopping up of
Public Highway E5221, Wootton Wawen.
On behalf of the Open Spaces Society I object to the proposed stopping-up
for the following reasons.
If it were unobstructed then the road would be a useful, attractive and
interesting rural recreational route.
That the road lies along the course of the River Alne for some way does not
detract from its value as a public resource. Rather, that unique feature
enhances its recreational value. When the river is in spate the road is
unusable but at other times the river section is easily negotiable and
enjoyably interesting.
The surfaced public roads B4089 and A39 do not provide an equivalent
alternative for recreational purposes to the unsurfaced E5221, which is
mainly still in its original condition.
In support of my contention that E5221 has recreational value as a public
byway I cite three sources.
Firstly, at paragraph 25 of the Countryside Commission's proposals Rights
of Way in the 21st Century, the Commission asserts the value of the "hidden
network" of unsealed, unclassified roads for recreational use by all types
of user. Recommendations for encouraging such use are offered at paragraphs
41, 58 and 63.
Secondly, Item 3 of a draft version of the Council's Countryside
Recreational Strategy as at April 1997 (a definitive version may now exist)
states, "Embark on a programme for conserving all unsurfaced highways and
managing them for multiple use
Thirdly, at paragraph 4.2 of the Council's record of a County Rights of Way
Forum on 26th March 1997 is a statement by Mr Paul Williams, the Council's
Definitive Map Officer, who "confirmed that the WCC had no intention to
close unsurfaced highways". In context it is clear that the lack of
intention was in consideration of the recreational value of such highways.
When I visited the road on 26th December I found it to be grossly
obstructed, by a heap of brushwood near the junction with public footpath
AL94, two fences south of the river and a fence with a pair of gates locked
shut near Grey Mill Cottage. Any suggestion that the road should be stopped
up because of lack of use would be unjustified, because the public has been
deterred from using it by obstruction. The obstruction is a statutory
offence under the Highways Act 1980 s.137. I have reported the obstructions
to the Council's Director of Transport and asked him to act in accordance
with the Council's statutory duty under the Highways Act 1980 s.130 to
assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of the
highway.
To judge from the appearance of the grounds at Grey Mill Cottage (whence, I
presume, the proposal originates) the proposal is an attempt to enhance the
value and private amenity of a gentrified rural habitation. An applicant is
fully entitled to make such an attempt but I trust your Council would not
allow it to succeed at the expense of losing a uniquely valuable public
amenity.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Gatenby.
Local Correspondent for Warwickshire,
Open Spaces Society.
THE
OPEN SPACES
SOCIETY
25A Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG9 2BA
Tel: 01491 573535 email: OSSHQ@aol.com
Chairman RODNEY LEGG Registered charity 214753 General
Secretary KATE ASHBROOK
17, Neville Grove,
WARWICK. CV34 5TU.
01926 497516
OSSWarks@pvg. clara. net
3rd February, 1999.
Mr P.A.J.Bndall,
Legal Services, Clerk's Department
Warwickshire County Council
Dear Mr Endall,
Thank you for your letter of 28th January about
Highway E5221, Wootton Waven.
Your criteria for assessing the application to close E5221 are
inappropriate.
You are misreading section 116 of the Highways Act 1980. That section
defines the criteria to be considered by magistrates when dealing with a
stopping-up application; in no way does it "dictate the approach which
should be adopted in deciding whether the County Council should exercise
its discretion to put in hand a stopping up application." In particular,
the Council is free to consider the potential usage of a highway in
conformity with pronouncements mentioned in my objection letter, including
the Council's statement of policy with respect to byways (which I now know
to have been formally adopted by the Council).
Your request for information about actual user of E5221 prior to the
consultation exercise is unreasonable and unrealistic. How do you expect
any of the small number of consultees to be able to provide such
information? How would anyone obtain such information about any seldom-used
minor highway anyway? If such information were required to counter
stopping-up applications then a large proportion of minor highways in the
County could be stopped up, especially as many are obstructed so as to be
unusable by and inapparent to the public.
The inappropriateness of your request for information about actual user of
E5221 prior to the consultation exercise is highlighted by a survey of
E-roads conducted during 1998 by the Trail Riders Fellowship; 34 (51%) of
67 known E-roads were found to be unusable. Besides complaining frequently
to the Council about obstructed footpaths and bridleways I have myself
complained about the obstruction of a number of S-roads but without the
slightest effect; despite its duty to protect highway rights your Council
does nothing to remedy the situation which, your Summary suggests, makes
the highways liable to closure.
It so happens that I have heard of E5221 being used some few years ago. I
shall see whether I can get confirmation of that. Considering the
obstruction and obscuration of E5221 and consequent discouragement of user
you will no doubt regard any such evidence as being decisive.
Concerning paragraph 4. of your Summary, your claim that a stopping-up
application "should" be considered before dealing with obstructions is
mistaken. The authority you me4tion might be supposed to allow such
procedure but the Council is certainly not obliged to consider a
stopping-up application before dealing with obstructions. Not only does
your Council have a duty to deal with the obstructions but it is contrary
to natural justice to consider an application for stopping-up (which can be
granted only if a highway is not necessary for public use) from one who has
illegally hindered public use of the highway. The question of priority for
the Council's powers and duties is considered more fully below.
Concerning your paragraph 5., the Council's duty under the Highways Act
1980 s.130 to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and
enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, is
unqualified. I refer you to a House of Lords judgement of 20 May 98, R V
East Sussex County Council, ex parte Tandy, in which, giving judgment, Lord
Browne-Wilkinson said, "Parliament has chosen to impose a statutory duty,
as opposed to a power, requiring the local authority to do certain things.
In my judgment the courts should be slow to downgrade such duties into what
are, in effect, mere discretions over which the court would have very
little real control." "It is not for the courts to adjust the order of
priorities as between statutory duties and statutory discretions." Still
less is it appropriate for a council official to adjust the order of
priorities, decided by parliament, between the power to make a stopping-up
order and the duty to protect public highway rights.
Please note also the following pronouncement in LJ Lane, 1979, P v Surrey
CC ex parte Send Parish Council, "The local authority must at all times act
with the object of protecting the highway and of preventing or removing any
obstruction, and, more broadly speaking, of promoting the interests of
those who enjoy the highway or should be enjoying the right of way and the
county council must likewise operate against the interests of those who
seek to interrupt such enjoyment of the highway."
Concerning your paragraph 6., would you kindly offer some suggestion as to
what would constitute "evidence . . to suggest that there would be public
demand to access Grey Mill Lane were any existing obstructions removed",
other than declaration by the parties presently engaged in consultation
about it, now that the road is known to exist? (Previously its existence as
a public highway could have been known to non-residents only by consulting
the Council's unpublished list of streets) . How is it possible to assess
the potential usage of any of numerous obstructed minor highways in the
county, including large numbers of footpaths and bridleways?
Concerning your paragraph 7., I assert again that obstruction and
obscuration of E5221 over many years invalidates any claim that lack of use
indicates lack of need.
Concerning your paragraph 8., lack of repair of 55221 is not an issue. In
particular, no-one (as far as I know) is contending that the obstruction of
55221 constitutes lack of repair. It is the statutory duty of the Council
to remedy the situation by ordering removal of the obstruction by the
owners or occupiers, not by treating the obstruction as lack of repair. If
your concern is to avoid liability of the Council for repair of 55221 then
it is unfounded. Relevant issues are addressed in a document entitled
"Warwickshire County Council's 5-Road Policies", which you would find
enlightening.
You may also find enlightening the enclosed copy of an item in Byway &
Bridleway 1998/8/51 in which a specialist Rights of Way Officer of
Nottinghamshire County Council declines to make an application for stopping
up. Much of the item is not relevant to 55221 but there are some noteworthy
points. Some government documents are mentioned in the first paragraph
which you would find helpful. Concern for misuse of a highway (a resident
near E5221 is worried about its misuse) is properly seen as telling
evidence for its potential use. The alternative highway (footpaths and
surfaced roads in the case of E5221) "is not necessarily a reasonable
alternative for all categories of user". Unless there are special
circumstances (it is not evident that any exist for F5221) a highway
authority's duty to protect the rights of the public in accordance with
section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 means there is a presumption against
using section 116 (to stop up a highway) because it might deprive users of
an already scarce resource. There is (as mentioned above) no obligation for
a highway authority to provide a surface suitable for vehicles.
Please reconsider your attitude to the stopping-up proposal in the light of
the foregoing considerations.
I am copying this letter to other known consultees as presumably they also
have received similar letters and your Summary. I am sending a copy to the
County Solicitor with a request that your inappropriate approach to the
stopping-up application be reviewed.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Gatenby.
Local Correspondent for Warwickshire,
Open Spaces Society.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:27:42 +0000
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
In message <bulk.15348.19990213080849@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
>Have you contacted the OS direct to find from whom they received the info?
No But I will.
I also have a letter from NYCC saying the same think that they did not
tell them what to put on the Map.
On Blubberhouse Moor they have shown only one route and that one is
blocked by a 5ft gate but there are another 8 or 10 roads on the moor
that they have missed of completely.
OS map sheet 104.
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:36:45 -0000
Subject: RE: E5221, OSS response to Warks.
I like the sound of this gentleman, but I sure wouldn't like to get the
wrong side of him!!!
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:36:42 -0000
Subject: RE: Candovers
Certainly sounds it.
I thought that once a piece of evidence had been 'tried and tested' it stood
in that state, unless there was a 'legal' problem with that evidence. As
far as I understand it is considered 'bad sport' to re-open, or request a
new, PI with new evidence, on behalf of the requesting party, obviously the
'defence' may use the existing evidence if that is all they've got....
Hop floggers question is a thorny one. It would very much depend on how
much they were shifting, the terrain, road conditions, and what was to hand.
That said I think you would find that they were one of the first users of
'bulk carriers' like carts, mainly due to the bulk of the product, not its
weight.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:07:35 -0000
Subject: Re: E5221, OSS response to Warks.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 23:09:00 -0000
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 23:43:47 -0000
Subject: Re: Somme geology was Re: Independent, Sat
>> 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.
>Which bridleway is this? What valley?
>Puzzled of Newbury
Dear Puzzled,
The bridleway in question is the one which ones along the valley floor,
about 20 metres downslope of the worst part of the Newbury Somme. It is
marked on my current OS map as a RUPP, but was marked as a bridleway on the
ground. It joins Old Street at the western end of the mudbath (all we need
now is some ladies to wrestle....) and runs to the south of Old Street
towards the east.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:27:32 -0500
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
> dighlpdesk@ordsvy.gov.uk
Also:
[spamkill: [Ii][Nn][fF][Oo]@ input: %s] custinfo@ordsvy.govt.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:27:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Lifting a TRO
> 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?
No. Damn well should be. What were the original reasons? Are they still
valid. How many badly OOR lanes are there in same council district? try a
batch of s56?
This is something to point out to DETR CoCo MPs etc the injustice of it
all.
Hence my questions about policy..........
The daghters of Rebecca knew a think or two about dealing with
gates.........
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 16 lines 883 [forwarded 22 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 611 [content 508 forwarded 22 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | | <- Digest 990214 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]