[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:26:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Visit #2 S Warks DC
Chris Marsden wrote:
> in S o A.
> "Sorry, we don't keep it."
> How about a peek at the Def Map?
> "Sorry we don't keep that.
> You'll have to go to Warwick." They say it's a
> nice place in Winter.
> I thought District Councils were supposed to keep the Map for their area
> available?
Yep, they are! WCA1981 Section 57(5) - this is exactly the problem I have with
South Cambridgeshire District (still not resolved), which I posted here a
couple of weeks ago. The Districts are supposed (as planning authority) to
consider the impact of development on PRoW (Circ 2/93 Annexe D para 2); how can
they if they dont even have the damn map!! Suggest you did what I did, write to
the Chief Exec of the District and draw the matter to his attention, ask him to
confirm that they do have a map, and see if you get a similar (or even better)
response than I did.
> There has been a deafening silence to my request on 5/2/99 "Whare can I see
> the LoS?"
Cambs LOS is (I'm told) with the Asst Director of Planning at County. The 1929
handover map is (I am told) in Development Control at County. Why dont they
keep them in one place all together.
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 10:36 GMT
Subject: A Favour from all List partcipants please
In connection with the GLEAM/EDM/Approach to MPs thread, please would ALL
List participants do us a favour. Its a quickie, takes no more than 15
seconds, honest.
We would like you to just state which County you are in. Thats all,
honest. It doesnt matter if you post to the list or mail to me if you
prefer. _IF_ you happen to know the name of your MP and the constituency
so much the better, but your County is the basic info.
TIA.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:31:16 BST
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA) - OH YES IT IS
> usual format is often based on OS maps, but need not be so to accord with
> the law(LoS, that is), so far as I am aware. It is just that OS maps are the
> logical only answer in
> the name of uniformity, and clarity.
HAs are not required by law to keep a map of streets but a 'LIST' of
streets. Take a look at Trafford and that is all you will see,
the list. They admit that they do have a map which is for their
own use only and not for public eyes.
> The OS is a business to sell maps which they produce. I am not aware that
> they are required by the law of this country to include certain info, just
The OS are not legally bound to include LoS (or other access)
information on their maps. They are however, required to show
Definitive Map information subject to mapping scale limitations.
Th requirement comes fom their original charter when they first
changed from being purely military to being a part of the public
service we call government.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:35:08 BST
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
> So far as commercial considerations are concerned, if you say that the
> local authority has a /duty/ to supply information to the OS without
> charge, then the OS must have an equal duty to publish their maps without
> charge.
Let's not forget that the information we are talking about is
principly the List of Streets and the Definitive Map. Both of these
are accessable to ANY member of the public free of charge at any
reasonable time.
If that member of the public is sent by the OS for their mapping
operation then that makes no difference. The HAs COULD charge the
OS for any other information or service that they supply but not to
view the information contained in the LoS and DM.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:39:17 BST
Subject: Re: bewdley/stourport bywayDevil's S TRO
> > Any thoughts, particularly the illegality of unregisterable bikes ?
> Since they are by definition 'machines' they are presumably subject to
> current Health & Safety regulations in regard to their safe operation?
> This would include noise levels. Penalties for offences under the Act are
All nois, however caused (except natural occurances like thunder) can
be statutory nuisences under EPA90. However the problem with
unregistered bikes is not bringing a case but poving beyond
reasonable doubt who the offender (rider) actually is.
The GMP have an off-road motorcycle response team and they rarely
catch anyone so what hope has anyone else got?
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:43:46 BST
Subject: Re:
> I hear that Babtie are advertising for two RoW Advisers. I really don't
> fancy the treck to Reading from here each day, but ....
I don't think you would qualify.
You like to see lanes open and people using them.
Clearly totally against Babtie's policies.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Dave Haynes <david.haynes@roke.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:44:57 -0800
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
>In connection with the GLEAM/EDM/Approach to MPs thread, please would ALL
>List participants do us a favour. Its a quickie, takes no more than 15
>seconds, honest.
Can't say I participate much, but I'm an interested greenlaner, and I'm in
Portsmouth, Hants.
Dave
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:49:24 BST
Subject: Re: Warks E5221
> According to the map I was sent, the E5221 runs alongside and to the W of an
> old railway line at its SW end. (It was clearly diverted to this line when the
> railway was built across its original line). Are we sure that the 'other
> track' is not the rail-bed being used in mistake for the 'real' highway?
The 'track' I walked was to the east of the line of the old rail-bed.
But within a few tens of yards it joins that rail-bed and runs along
that instead.
It would be possible to continue along the track without joining the
rail-bed (at least a little way) but that route is very wet and VERY
muddy. I bought about half a bucket of it up to Manchester on the
bottoms of my trousers!!!
The confusion was the dogleg where it joins the rail-bed. It was
getting too dark to go much further although the track was in good
condition apart from a few big muddy puddles which would have been no
problem in daylight and didn't really matter after the earlier
encounter with a bigger muddier puddle.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:57:17 BST
Subject: Re: Visit #3 E5221
> S Side. Travellers gone, site clean. Substantial neat pile of sticks in
> middle of lane. Bod you said there was a TRO nearby. Where? I could not
> see any.
Not got a map with me - I will try and post an NGR tonight or
tommorow night but in the meantime:
>From the south end drive along tarmacced roads to north end and head
towards old A34 (A3400?). TRO is on single track road (tarmacced)
on right of 'main' road.
You might want to wait for NGRs !!!
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:19:07 -0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
>We would like you to just state which County you are in. Thats all,
North Yorkshire
Peter Bradley pbrad@dial.pipex.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 12:28 GMT
Subject: EDM
I accept Tims point that the EDM numbers were way below the danger level
quoted by his parliamentary sources, but the following information on
constituencies might be useful to those with a mind to write to their
elected representative..
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Can we find out who are the 65 MPs claimed to be in an anti group which
records those who have signed the EDM on Green Lanes (24/11/98)
Atkins/Charlotte Staffordshire Moorlands
Lab
Baker/Norman Lewes
LD
Ballard/Jackie TauntonLDem
Barnes/Harry North East DerbyshireLab
Body/Richard Boston and SkegnessCon -
Borrow/David South RibbleLab
Bottomley/Peter Worthing WestCon
Brady/Graham Altrincham and Sale WestCon
Brake/Tom Carshalton and WallingtonLDem
Brand/Pete Isle of WightLDem
Brinton/Helen *PeterboroughLab
Burstow/Paul Sutton and CheamLDem
Butler/Christine Castle PointLab
Caton/Martin *GowerLab
Chidgey/David EastleighLDem
Cotter/Brian Weston-Super-MareLDem
Cryer/Ann KeighleyLab
Cryer/John HornchurchLab
Dafis/Cynog Ceredigion
PC
Drew/David StroudLab
Etherington/Bil Sunderland NorthLab
l
Fabricant/Michael LichfieldCon
Fearn/Ronnie SouthportLDem
George/Andrew St IvesLDem
Gill/Christopher LudlowCon
Grieve/Dominic BeaconsfieldCon
Hancock/Mike Portsmouth SouthLDem
Harris/Evan Oxford West and AbingdonLDem
Harvey/Nick North DevonLDem
Heath/David Somerton and FromeLDem
Howarth/Gerald AldershotCon
Hunter/Andrew BasingstokeCon
Jackson/Robert WantageCon
Jones/Nigel CheltenhamLDem
Keetch/Paul HerefordLDem
Livingstone/Ken Brent EastLab
Luff/Peter Mid WorcestershireCon
McWalter/Tony Hemel HempsteadLab
Mitchell/Austin Great GrimsbyLab
Organ/Diana Forest of DeanLab
Pickthall/Colin West LancashireLab
Rendel/David Newbury
LDem
Robathan/Andrew BlabyCon
Russell/Bob ColchesterLDem
Simpson/Alan Nottingham SouthLab
St Aubyn/Nick Guildford
Con
Taylor/David North West LeicestershireLab
Taylor/Matthew Truro and St AustellLDem
Temple-Morris/Peter LeominsterLab
Townend/John East YorkshireCon
Tyler/Paul North CornwallLDem
Wigley/Dafydd CaernarfonPC
52 signatures
That this House notes the work of the Green Lanes Environmental Action
Movement, and the safety and environmental implications of the use of
vulnerable green lanes used by motorised vehicles for recreational
purposes; further notes the Countryside Commission's flawed proposals to
classify all roads-used-as-public-paths as byways on which motorised
traffic would be permitted; and calls on the Government to re-examine the
law in relation to the use of green lanes as part of its work on access to
the countryside, recognising that there are designated and appropriate
areas for the use of recreational off-road motor vehicles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry if the formatting comes out ragged in your OLR, but I trust you'll
work out whats what
BTW its interesting that Tipping, Paddy (Sherwood,Lab) is currently the
Gloomers Darling but seems to have failed to add his name to the list. Do
we have any Sherwood Foresters amongst us who could possibly write to PT
and alert him to the fact that his name might be taken in vain bu an
organisation known for their mendacity?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:30:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Warks E5221
> The confusion over route is that the track starts off straight and
> then does a right/left onto another track - both run between hedges
> and are adjacent and parellel.
Thats right, right puts you onto the track!. Vere left instead, The road
has barbed wire across in two or three places, just to prove it is a road!
B. typical.
Chris
ps Tim said:
According to the map I was sent, the E5221 runs alongside and to the W of
an
old railway line at its SW end. (It was clearly diverted to this line when
the
railway was built across its original line). Are we sure that the 'other
track' is not the rail-bed being used in mistake for the 'real' highway?
There is no doubt of it's present course, and yes you are right, before the
Iron Horse it would have been a cross road on the Southern end. Bod, Surely
there is not a TRO notice on the rail bed is there?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:44:13 -0000
Subject: Re: MPs & GLEAM
Litchfield & Woodcott PI on RUPP 14, held in Denning'ston, Whitchurch,
Marlene told the Inquiry that she was a qualified historian and then
spouted a load of bollox about drove roads, exclusion of vehicles, etc.
She had even seen the lane ASFAIMA.
MM also attackes walkers, riders and cyclists that attempt to use BOAT
through farm. Ploughed BOAT and planted turnips. Police dealt with a
number of assaults by son. etc. Mail Dave Clegg
david.clegg@gbsea.mail.abb.com
Elizabeth Still - I'm sure Howard or Eric will be able to provide cuttings
of her ramblings. She has been a lot quieter (AFAIAA) since I complained
to the Lord Chancellors Office that she was writing inflamatory articles
and using the title JP.
Rubberman, on radio with TS claimed that only 40% of RUPPs and 50% of
unclassified roads carried VR. The former cannot be held true. It must be
80% in Hants & Wilts, with 98% [sic] in IoW. The latter category cannot be
right as we drive on unclassified roads daily. I would estimate that 80%
of unclassified roads are sealed.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:12:52 -0000
Subject: Re: EDM
Chidgey has had one. Hunter and Howarth might - no promises.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Stephen Somers <stephen.somers@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:34:49 -0800
Subject: Re: bewdley/stourport bywayDevil's S TRO
TimLARA@aol.com wrote:
> 1. H&S only covers 'at work' situations, not pratting about for 'leisure'.
Not sure about this. A recent Radio 4 programme (so it must be true)
referred to new H&E regulations which were phrased in such a way that
private installations of electrically powered 'up and over' garage doors,
being machines, would be covered. This means that operators of such doors
could be legally compelled to wear protective helmet, gloves, shoes and
overalls! No doubt this was 'hyped' by the reporter for best
'Eurobashing' effect, but I don't recall any of the experts arguing that
it did not apply to private individuals.
Any lawyers on list?
--
Steve Somers (Project Leader)
'75 Land Rover 101" Forward Control, 1-Tonne, General Service
(62FL50 - Royal Artillery/2 Commando)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:43:22 EST
Subject: Re: bewdley/stourport bywayDevil's S TRO
In a message dated 23.02.99 11:47:29 GMT Standard Time,
mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk writes:
<< The GMP have an off-road motorcycle response team and they rarely
catch anyone >>
Another description for such ventures is
'A few meaty enduro bikes so the plod can play about at taxpayers expense'.
There you are, a comment entirely devoid of unwitting prejudice.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:43:24 EST
Subject: Re: EDM
In a message dated 23.02.99 12:32:51 GMT Standard Time,
doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
<<... to those with a mind to write to their
elected representative... >>
Anyone doing this could usefully ask for problem lanes in your constituencies
to be notified to you so that you can help resolve the problem.
You might also ask your MP to identify for your benefit the < designated and
appropriate
areas for the use of recreational off-road motor vehicles > in the
constituency.
In many cases, as you will know, there are neither problem lanes not
alternative resources, but let them have to tell you that.
An MP is obliged to respond to letters from constituents, but not from a
national organisation like LARA, (etc). So please do write.
Cheers, tim Stevens
LARA mrdo
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Richard G. Hall" <richard_g_hall@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Hi,
I'm based out of Surrey. A friend and I started green-laning last year
on XR400's. Thoroughly enjoy it.
Cheers
Rich
---Michael Dyer <doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <bulk.18567.19990222110950@Land-Rover.Team.Net>
> In connection with the GLEAM/EDM/Approach to MPs thread, please
would ALL
> List participants do us a favour. Its a quickie, takes no more than
15
> seconds, honest.
> We would like you to just state which County you are in. Thats all,
> honest. It doesnt matter if you post to the list or mail to me if you
> prefer. _IF_ you happen to know the name of your MP and the
constituency
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:03:43 -0500
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA) - OH YES IT IS
> streets. Take a look at Trafford and that is all you will see,
> the list. They admit that they do have a map which is for their
> own use only and not for public eyes.
Get the OS map with ORPA, mark up your map, with all likely routes (using
LoS) and local knowledge, then ask them to confirm they are all UCRs. If
they don't reply, try again, but word it as a s56.
I am not sure how correct their refusal is, with the freedom of information
Act and the fact it was compiled with public money? Anyone in the HA
district that is a tame trampler that could enquire of the RA what they
think the rights to see the map are, since the 85 Freedom of Info Act?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:03:51 -0500
Subject: meaning of Private, Roads, etc
Something that has puzzled some of us - what Private Road means.
I have mentioned that it simply means private maintenance, till we're all
bored.
I have argued it at PIs at Marden and Haytons Bent.
Also at Woolhope the inspector decided even Road may not mean Road, but
could mean Bridleway when a Carter complained of overhanging branches on
the Road. (despite the fact he didn't have the power to On a bridle path or
road, but did on a cart road)
All answered at library today.
HC 1998/9 Transport Policies Document p19:-
Bridge Assessments, "The number of bridges carrying (Public Roads) that
require stage 1 or 2 assessments..." (When considering the requirement to
be able to carry 40 tonne vehicles)
"99% of Council owned bridges were assessed by 1/4/97 together with 58% of
all private bridges, which includes al of the principle road private
bridges."
Seems they mean ownership and/or maintenance not use! so Mr Inspectorate,
what does "private Carriage Road" mean?
Unless of course there is a "sole use and benefit statement" and even that
might be UV, where were they given that power?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:56:08 EST
Subject: Newbury TV prog
I was asked today by Meridien TV to appear on a prog looking at green lane
problems. They had been prompted by an anti-group. I replied -
1. I am not prepared to argue in a fielkd with mendacious persons (I gave
examples - the detail and nature of which they were already familiar with, ha,
ha).
2. I am busy solving real problems, not invented ones or those caused by
tractors
3. This is not a good time of year for this area, the lanes are sodden, and I
cannot recommend a route which will not be affected by driving for the
program.
4. Later in the year, with a bit more notice, I would be very willing to show
them what the real problems are, and how use and users can help.
They then rang again and said they had cancelled their immediate plans and now
proposed to run a more extended program in late May.
A minor success, I think, so far.
Anyone local to Newbury is asked to identify lanes which can demonstrate
problems and solutions. EG lanes cut up by obvious tractor use, obstructed,
overgrown, cleared on Green Lane Day, repaired by volunteers, offensive signs,
etc.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:03:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Warks E5221
> The 'track' I walked was to the east of the line of the old rail-bed.
> But within a few tens of yards it joins that rail-bed and runs along
> that instead.
> It would be possible to continue along the track without joining the
> rail-bed (at least a little way) but that route is very wet and VERY
> muddy. I bought about half a bucket of it up to Manchester on the
> bottoms of my trousers!!!
[ truncated by list-digester (was 17 lines)]
> problem in daylight and didn't really matter after the earlier
> encounter with a bigger muddier puddle.
You were off course. BY 'East' do you mean East or West?
E5221 goes from SH58 at 143 610 Northeastwardly, at all time to the WEST of
the disused railbed, bearing left to termination of FP, and then bank of
river at 1442 6123 (from L/R 151)
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:04:00 -0500
Subject: Re: bewdley/stourport bywayDevil's S TRO
> The GMP have an off-road motorcycle response team and they rarely
> catch anyone so what hope has anyone else got?
Perhaps a letter to them might elicit what powers to prosecute they DO
have. It seems strange that A TRO stops legal bikes but can not stop
illegal bikes that are a far bigger menace not just to us and our rights,
but to everyone ie insurance, not passed a test, etc etc. *
What do they use to prosecute IF they catch them.
The answer to this might help fight TROs, A) it not us thats the problem B)
the TRO can not stop it. C) They are not even made illegal by the TRO
(they are already I know, but under different legislation)
Remind me to post a copy of the Ridgeway TRO D/L.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Seymour, Gareth" <gareth.seymour@sihe.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:01:44 -0000
Subject: EDM...green lanes
Here's a copy of my proposed letter to Martin Caton regarding the EDM on
Green Lanes and I actually live in his constituency.(one vote less at
the next election). Please feel free to suggest corrections or
deletions. What is the percentage of VROW at the moment, I have it
somewhere but not to hand ??. The letter will be sent tomorrow and I'll
let you know if I get a reply.
Bye for now,
24/2/99
Dear Mr. Caton,
It has come to my attention that you support EDM 24 proposed by David
Rendel regarding the work of GLEAM and the threat to Green Lanes by
recreational vehicular traffic.
I would like to enquire on what knowledge do you base your support. Is
it...
1. From local experience in your constituency.
The Gower has very few Green Lanes whether they are Byways/RUPPS or
Unsurfaced County Roads. In fact, The County of Swansea has only 2.5km
of Byways Open to All Traffic (BOAT) which is subject to very little
use if at all by recreational vehicular users. Therefore you should be
more aware of the problems from lack of use and the lack of protection a
Green Lane has when its vehicular rights are removed.
2. Based on the word of the ill informed or the word of the person
whose own self-interest is at the heart of his/her objection.
Drawing your attention to the DETR report "Making the Best of Byways",
this states that there is no National problem with the recreational use
of Green Lanes. Admittedly there are a few "Honey Pot" areas and then
the problems are more likely to be due to lack of maintenance or
agricultural traffic. You may just be using the recent press articles on
Sarn Helen as the basis of your opinion. If so, then it's based on the
vision of a person who's own self interest is at the heart of the
problem as has become apparent at recent meetings. Powy's County Council
has openly said that the condition of the road is due to a lack of
maintenance.
The "Green Lane" whether it is an Unsurfaced County Road or a BOAT is a
valuable resource for the enjoyment of the countryside and an important
basis for its history. As mentioned earlier, vehicular rights give added
protection with ploughing and obstructing being illegal. There are also
users whose only means of seeing the countryside is from the seat of a
4x4. Many clubs take groups of disabled people on day trips that would
otherwise be unavailable to them. Some of the lanes are muddy in wet
weather and some of today's ramblers expect good solid paths. What's
more in keeping with the countryside and history.....a grassy, muddy but
passable route or a dry, flat route covered with chippings ? The
National percentage of vehicular Rights of Way is such a small
percentage of the whole network that it's easier to find a route that is
not open to vehicles than to find one that is. The percentage is ever
decreasing due to the illegal removal of routes from definitive maps by
councils with the aid of tippex in some instances and the downgrading of
rights by quietly pushed through modification orders that are not
carried out by the book.
I look forward to hearing from you and hopefully assist in clearing your
blurred vision of the situation.
Yours truly,
Gareth Seymour
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bill" <bill@trail.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:49:14 -0000
Subject: A Favour from all List partcipants please
MP = Nigel Jones (Libdem)
Const = Cheltenham
County = Gloucestershire
One of the bad boys I note. So Gleam have him signed up have they, methinks
a letter needs to be written. Any of you more literate fellows give me some
pointers.
Cheers, Bill. (TRF)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:03:10 -0500
Subject: Re: EDM
> An MP is obliged to respond to letters from constituents, but not from a
> national organisation like LARA, (etc). So please do write.
After giving one brush off letter, can he then wash his hands and decline
to reply to a sensible letter?
I'm talking Plonker Temple - ("we are not some sort of playground for coach
loads of ramblers, autograss racers, four wheel drive enthusiasts, fishing
parties and so on. We rely greatly on our organisations such as the NFU and
CLA") - Morris
When I ask for help he just retorts "from what I hear you are no mean
campaigner yourself"
Perhaps it was the only friends he has now (since changing sides and not
standing to be re-elected) are the Aymestry Mob who are his natural enemy,
now that he's Lab. Perhaps it was my reference to "friends of
convenience" that stung him?
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:03:11 -0500
Subject: Re: bewdley/stourport bywayDevil's S TRO
> 'A few meaty enduro bikes so the plod can play about at taxpayers
expense'.
> There you are, a comment entirely devoid of unwitting prejudice.
Riding round the same waste ground, etc that the reported villains were
seen on? Just to make absolutely sure they are not still there. It's an
'ard life maintaing the thin blue line.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:25:14 -0000
Subject: RE: bewdley/stourport bywayDevil's S TRO
>From memory they can be done for using an un-taxed vehicle on the public
highway. Vehicles are defined by type, not by virtue of being taxed or
otherwise.
Then if said 'vehicle' falls outside the constraints of 'construction and
use' more charges can be brought. Some years ago it is said someone decided
to try their dragster on road, tried using the same argument and got well
and truly clobbered.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:25:11 -0000
Subject: RE: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
The use (abuse?) of satellite mapping technology, and its associated
computerisation of data has lead to a degree of complacency within the OS.
Once the little man would walk along, levelling table in hand and brain in
gear. Today the little man sits in an office, staring at satellite maps on
a computer screen, and brain out of gear...
Worse if he is told "That's a sheep track" he doesn't think "Why has it got
cart ruts and lots of horse hoof print then? - must be a cart track". Some
people have vested interests in ensuring that they are all 'sheep tracks',
rather than using a brain......
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Gordonkerr@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:33:46 EST
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Only recently joined the list but FWIW
County Bedfordshire
MP Patrick Hall (Lab)
Constituency Bedford (I think the name changed last time round and its now
Bedford and Something but its near enough)
Gordon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Brian Pratt" <btp@freeuk.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:31:45 -0800
Subject: Re: A new threat in Cumbria
>One of the nicest green lanes I know is called Breast High, a Byway
starting
>alongside the old A6 over Shap, but taking a more, er, interesting route to
>the NE. Recently a motorcyclist using the route had his keys taken by a
person
>on foot. The keys were reclaimed, but ... The person is believed to be a
>local, and more likely to have LO than RA leanings.
Sounds familiar, we've (4x4'ers) had problems in the past with the
Landowner, and wasn't it Roger Harris who wrote about being threatened by
his wife with a pitchfork (in a previous edition of TRF Trail !)
Brian Pratt: GLASS(Lakes/Dales) + TRF member
Email: btp@freeuk.com
GLASS Northern Bulletin website: http://www.btp.freeuk.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:51:30 -0000
Subject: RE: A Favour from all List partcipants please
County Staffordshire
MP ????
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:51:27 -0000
Subject: RE: Visit #2 S Warks DC
Your reactions are typical of those I have received in trying to deal with
Warks on some non-RoW matters, its all just too much for them to obey the
law...
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
> prefer. _IF_ you happen to know the name of your MP and the
> constituency so much the better, but your County is the basic info.
Carmarthenshire here, Mick - got no idea who is supposedly representing my
interests in Parliment, I must find out.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 35 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:21:03 -0500
Subject: EDM...green lanes
> The Gower has very few Green Lanes whether they are Byways/RUPPS or
> Unsurfaced County Roads. In fact, The County of Swansea has only 2.5km
Technically they are UnClassified Roads now according to the DETR
You could re-enforce your confidence that there are no problems by offering
to show him first hand the state of lanes. He won't take you up I can
guarantee!
Nationally it was 2% are BOATs and 3% RUPPS. In some counties like salops a
very large proportion have since gone to bridleway.
In Herefordshire it is 0.5%, Yes 99.5% vehicle free! (Leisure vehicle that
is) I counted several bridleways yesterday, and about 80% seemed to have
private vehicle usage on them. I would also estimate 99.99% of all
vehicular use in this area off tarred roads is NOT leisure 4x4.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 36 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:21:40 -0500
Subject: Ridgeway TRO PI letter 6/12/93
The reasons for not imposing a TRO re-inforces that it is agricultural
damage rather than leisure use. This may be of interest in writing to
MPs................
Sir/Madam/Gentlemen
THE RIDGEWAY LONG DISTANCE ROUTE (OVERTON HILL,
WILTSHIRE TO STREATLEY, BERKSHIRE SECTION)
(RESTRICTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES)
1 Between 20 October and 4 November 1992, Mr M F Davies, an
independent Inspector, held a public local inquiry to hear representations
about a draff order which would, with certain exceptions, ban the use of
motor vehicles on Sundays and Bank Holidays on most of the western length
of the Ridgeway Long Distance Route. A copy of the Inspector's Findings of
Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations is attached. A copy of his complete
Report may be inspected or obtained as explained in the appendix to this
letter.
2. The Inspector considered that in light of the evidence presented to
him he was unable to recommend that the order should be made. The Secretary
of State has decided to accept this recommendation.
3. The Secretary of State has considered carefully all of the
representations, both oral and written, together with the Inspector's
Report. He has noted the following points in particular.
(a) Most parties now accept that agricultural vehicles have been
responsible for most of the damage to the surface; this problem is being
addressed, with some success; and the order would have no effect on
agricultural vehicles.
(b) There is considerable uncertainty over the reliability of the
figures in the 1988/89 Ridgeway Users Survey, comparing vehicular,
pedestrian, and horserider usage. The Inspector concluded that as one of
the main concerns was the amount of vehicular usage, it must be of
fundamental importance to have accurate base figures, and even the adjusted
figures agreed during the inquiry were only a 'best guess' He therefore
concluded that such uncertainty was an unreliable basis for making a
traffic regulation order.
(c) While a number of those in favour of the order claimed that motor
vehicles caused danger to other users, and individual experiences were
reported, no comprehensive record of incidents was available. The Inspector
concluded that no evidence had been produced to show that a TRO would
reduce danger.
(d) The Inspector found much of the evidence adduced to support the
contention that there is "conflict" between motorised users and other
groups was based more on attitudes and opInion than on hard facts. He
believed that it would be unwise to rely on the expressions of opInion of
people's attitudes without strong factual evidence.
(e) Although many of those in favour of the order mentioned noise from
motor vehicles as a major source of annoyance to other users, there is
uncertainty over how much of this emanated from noisy scramble events
adjacent to (but not on) the Ridgeway. The Inspector found that noise was
not a major factor; the trouble was that a few noisy machines gave rise to
complaints out of proportion to their numbers.
(f) Again due to the lack of comprehensive records, and in view of the
open nature of the route, the Inspector did not consider that any pollution
and dust caused by vehicles could be considered significant.
(g) Although the proposed ban on vehicles would apply only on Sundays
and Bank Holidays, the Inspector concluded it would effectively preclude
many people in employment who are recreational vehicle
users or motor cyclists from pursuing their activities on the Ridgeway
altogether; and he considered that this could be justified only if there
was a very strong case for it.
(h) The Inspector accepted that the policy of the Countryside
Commission was to give priority to walkers, riders and cyclists on National
Trails, but if that priority has to resort to banning motorised users who,
at the time of the establishment of the National Trail had equal rights
that were well known, then there needs to be a strong case to justify it.
(extract)
In another letter accompanying the cover letter:-
6 December 1993
our reference: MSE 504310/0/41/22/1
Dear Sir/Madam/Gentlemen,
The Ridgeway Long Distance Route
I enclose a letter setting out the Secretary of State's decision on the
draft Traffic Regulation Order which would have banned the use of motor
vehicles on most of the western section of the Ridgeway on Sundays and
flank Holidays, and which was the subject of the public inquiry held
between 20th October and 4th November last year. As you Will see, the
Inspector found that the evidence presented to him was insufficient to
justify curtailing long-established vehicle rights as proposed in the draft
Order. The Secretary of State agrees, and has decided that the Order should
not be confirmed.
In reaching this decision the Secretary of State has consulted the
Secretary of State for the Environment. They both recognise that there are
problems on the western part of the Ridgeway, and that these need to be
tackled. The route has been designated as a National Trail. This recognises
that the route has a particular importance for walkers, cyclists and horse
riders and should be managed so that they find it attractive to use.
Designation does not imply an automatic ban on motor vehicles, but in some
circumstances curtailing the use of the route by motor vehicles might be
appropriate. Each case needs to be examined on its merits, and on this
occasion the Secretary of State decided that the evidence presented at the
Inquiry was insufficient to justify curtailing vehicle rights as proposed
in the draft Order.
With that in mind, both Secretaries of State regard it as essential that
all parties should examine the situation afresh and use their best efforts
to develop a package of management measures which will minimise the
potential conflict between the various kinds of user. The Secretaries of
State look to the Countryside Commission to take the lead on this, and
expect that in due course the Commission will report back to them on the
action taken.
The Countryside Commission has previously worked with reputable
organisations representing vehicle users to develop a Code of Voluntary
Restraint. It has also published
a management strategy for the Ridgeway for the period 1992/1997. These
documents should afford the Commission, the local authorities and the user
groups a good starting point.
As part of the package of management measures, it may be appropriate to
encourage, and possibly even require (through local authority Traffic
Regulation Orders), vehicles to use convenient alternative routes instead
of those stretches of the Ridgeway where there are particular problems.
Identifying and sign-posting such routes would be a positive step towards
this. Providing extra sensitively-placed car parks might also encourage
more of those who use the Ridgeway solely for recreational purposes to
leave their vehicles and walk.
Part of the current problem seems to stem from the expectation of a number
of users that they will not come across any vehicles on the Ridgeway. It is
important that the way the Ridgeway is described, whether in publications
or on maps, does not give the impression that vehicles are not allowed. The
description in publications could usefully be reviewed in order to prevent
misconceptions or inaccurate expectations about the rights of vehicles on
the route. Recreational vehicle groups can also do much to help the
situation by continuing to educate their members so as to behave
courteously towards other users, to avoid excessive use of the route, and
to make sure that their activities are compatible with the nature of the
route.
The Secretaries of State for Transport and Environment believe that much
can be achieved to minimise the problems on the western part of the
Ridgeway if the sort of measures and approach described in this letter are
pursued in a constructive and determined manner. They look to all parties
concerned to employ their best efforts to achieve this.
On a more general front, the Secretary of State for the Environment is
considering whether there are easier and better ways of managing the use of
byways and of enabling traffic authorities to use their traffic management
powers more effectively. DOE officials are discussing these matters with
interested parties, including the DOT. while it is too early to say what
the outcome will be, both Secretaries of State are keen to ensure that,
where appropriate, byways should be specifically recognised as a
recreational asset and managed accordingly.
Yours faithfully
A.D. Rowland
______________
Extracts from the D/L
History of the TRO
8.12 Consideration of a TRO goes back to the fifties and early sixties
when the rambling and conservation interests wished to restrict or ban
vehicles. Since 1974 there have been five studies/surveys on the western
section of The Ridgeway which have resulted in five
reports. 3.48, 3.49, 3.54, 3.62, 3.62
8.13 As a result of an aerial survey in 1974/75 Oxfordshire County
Council made an experimental TRO for a 3 mile section between ~lstone Hill
and Sparsholt Firs; this went to public inquiry and the Inspector
recommended that the TRO should not be made as none of
the statutory criteria had been fulfilled. 3.55
8.14 In 1978 a Ridgeway Officer was appointed and as a result of his
report on the difficulties of reconciling the differences between vehicle
users and others, the Commission decided to seek a TRO. This was not
followed up because an agreement was reached with various. motoring
organisations for a voluntary ban on flank Holidays and Summer Sundays;
this was monitored by The Ridgeway Officer and wardens. Nonetheless, a
provisional approach was made to the Minister who commented that he would
be reluctant to use his reserve powers to intervene in what was essentially
a matter for the local authorities
concerned. 3.56-3.58
8.15 The use of the Code was monitored through surveys and it was
concluded that in
general it appeared to have had some effect with an overall reduction in
motorcycle use from
3.8% in 1982 to 2.7% in 1983. However, over half the drivers questioned
remained unaware
of the Code. 3.59
8.16 The 1983 Monitoring Report recommended the continuance of
management combined with the Code; the Commission decided to request the
County Councils to make TROs on Summer Sundays and Bank Holidays in
conjunction with the Code. Wiltshire and Oxfordshire County Councils were
not in favour, whereas Berkshire was already considering such a proposal.
Ultimately Berkshire resolved to take no action but to invite the
Commission to request the Secretary of State for a TRO.
3.59
8.17 In August 1986 the Commission decided to ask the Secretary of State
to make a TRO to apply on Sundays and Bank Holidays between 1st May and
31st October. The Department of Transport indicated that more up to date
information would be needed on the use of The Ridgeway and evidence of the
conflicts between users, as officials wished to be able to gauge accurately
the degree of conflict and felt they could not advise the Secretary of
State on the
basis of the 1983 Survey. 3.60, 3.61
……………
8.24 The Survey showed that 33% of all non-motorised users disliked some
aspect of motorised use with 36% specifically disliking motorcyclists. 39%
of Day Walkers disliked some aspect of motorised use; horseriders showed a
greater concern for surface conditions (41%), but 35% disliked motorised
use. The more frequently an individual visited The Ridgeway the more likely
he or she was to mention motorised use or motorcycles as a
dislike. 3.74, 3.76
8.25 The Commission compared the 'Satisfaction' Rating where 40% of
Ridgeway users had no dislikes, with other surveys in places such as
Sherwood Forest and Rufford Country Parks, where ratings have been in
excess of 90%. However, neither of these parks had the
vehicular access that The Ridgeway has. 3.75
8.26 The Survey found that a greater percentage of complaint about some
aspect of motorised use occurred in the Winter Off-Peak periods, 38% as
opposed to 36%, and for surface conditions 27% as opposed to 22%.
3.74, 3.77
8.27 The Winter Off-Peak period consisted of Saturday 2nd and Sunday 3rd
April 1988 (Easter), Sunday 13th November and Sunday 11 December 1988 and
Sunday 1st January
1989. The Commission considered that the spread of the use of The Ridgeway
into the winter
period was a major new factor. 3.64, 3.77, 3.84
8.28 The main reason for dislike of motorcycles was noise (74%),
followed by the belief that they damaged the surface (37%). For CCVs these
proportions were reversed at 63% and 36% respectively. However, since 1979
the Commission has accepted that the primary cause of damage was
agricultural vehicles; large CCVs could be a contributory factor, but
motorcycles probably caused little damage. A quarter of those disliking
cars thought The
Ridgeway should be for walkers only. 3.78, 3.79 3.90
8.29 The percentage of those who were interviewed who said they would
not return to The Ridgeway because of one of the dislikes was less than 2%
(less than 72). 3.79
Significance of the Survey
8.30 A comparison with the 1983 Survey suggested that the level of
conflict was at least as great in 1988 as five years before, despite all
the voluntary measures and enhanced management. The 1983 Survey had led the
Commission to propose a time limited TRO and the 1988 Survey has done
nothing to change the Commission's view. Although the survey was done 4
years ago the Commission did not consider there were any factors to suggest
that the results are any less valid today.
3.85, 3.86
____________
Chris
With thanks to Mark Holland for forwarding.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 37 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:20:58 -0500
Subject: Newbury TV prog
> Anyone local to Newbury is asked to identify lanes which can demonstrate
> problems and solutions. EG lanes cut up by obvious tractor use,
obstructed,
> overgrown, cleared on Green Lane Day, repaired by volunteers, offensive
signs,
> etc.
Try Oareborough Hill. Nicely featured in the Independent, with tractor
damage. An unfortunate slip by their correspondent Duff Davies seemed to
erroneously imply it was 4wd leisure rather than 4WD agricultural damage.
Howard and I have inspected this, He about 3 weeks before, me two weeks
after the article. We both have concluded without any doubt all the damage
is agricultural. There is a small amount of playing about in the prevailing
conditions, but nothing to compare with the tractor ruts.
There is evidence of substantial volume of LandRover type tracks as well
that go into woodland where there is no RoW. So unless there are complaints
of serious trespass, (which could be verified by checking the destination)
there is substantial L/O usage by non-tractor 4WDs
Ruts 18" wide, and 18" deep in one and 31" deep in the other wrt the
centre. (Confirm thirty one inches deep!) Few leisure vehicles exceed 9"
ground clearance. They do not usually go round with tractor tyres with a
rib spacing of 5". Nor do leisure vehicle tracks originate from cropped
fields as these do.
There has been an abysmal lack of stoning for such a heavily used
agricultural track.
Chris
(Dave, You asked about Oareborough Hill)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 38 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 19:07 GMT
Subject: Re: MPs & GLEAM; RUPP
TVM on both counts, will be coming back for more info re some aspects
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 39 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Hughes <dr@bigblues.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:40:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Dere Street
In message <bulk.7918.19990222050429@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Mike Thomas
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 40 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 20:58 GMT
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Bill asks for some pointers
1. Keep plugging away, the first 83 replies you get will be evasive.
2. Ask him if he is a member of GLEAM.
3. Ask him if he sought membership or has merely failed to cancle the
mebership which was conferred upon him.4. Ask him if he is aware that as
an MP his membership is free yet Joe Public would have to pay subs.5. Ask
him if he is happy with that notion; even tho the HoC Register of Members
Interests specifies a 250ukp lower limit on 'gifts', the principle is the
thing to hammer.6. Ask him if he is aware of problem areas in his
constituency, because govt policy is such that co-operation rather than
conflict should be tried first.
7. See 1. above.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 41 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 20:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Newbury TV prog
<<<<<<<Anyone local to Newbury>>>>>>
I can hear Howard girding his loins now
<<<<<< is asked to identify lanes which can demonstrate
problems and solutions.>>>>>>>
;-) Where have you been, Tim, never heard of Old Street with its 31-inch
ruts caused by Land-Rovers ;-)?
<<<<offensive signs,>>>>>
ie any put up by Babtie
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 42 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 20:58 GMT
Subject: Re: EDM
<<<<<<<I'm talking Plonker Temple - ("we are not some sort of playground
for coachloads of ramblers, autograss racers, four wheel drive
enthusiasts, fishingparties and so on. We rely greatly on our
organisations such as the NFU andCLA") - Morris >>>>>>>
A beautiful quote, was it in personal correspondence or may we have date
and reference to use it on another occasion?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 43 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Codrai" <dave@codrai.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:48:25 -0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
>We would like you to just state which County you are in. Thats all,
>honest. It doesnt matter if you post to the list or mail to me if you
>prefer. _IF_ you happen to know the name of your MP and the constituency
>so much the better, but your County is the basic info.
Hertfordshire
MP = W.J. Clappison
Constituency = Hertsmere
Dave Codrai dave@codrai.freeserve.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 44 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:07:21 EST
Subject: Re: EDM...green lanes
Response to Gareth
Mileage of BOAT is about 2% of RoW recorded, and another 3% of RUPPs.
'Confirmed vehicular routes are only 2% of the total'
The points you make are good, but remember an MP thinks his time is precious.
If it is short, it might get read, if not, certainly not. Try a one page brief
response with an attached page of 'Supporting Notes' spelling out the detail.
Hope this helps Gareth and others.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 45 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:30:54 -0000
Subject: Pennyfold Lane, Warwickshire
Following my earlier mail replying to Chris' question about which lane
has a TRO on it near to Warkwickshire E5221 - here is a better
description.
NGR SP 147 621 heading SE under railway bridge to Pennyfold Hall - SP
151 619
Continuing NE to meet A3400 at SP 158 630.
I only looked at the western end of this lane (stopped in the entrance
to confirm location of E5221) and whilst I was reading the TRO notice
(A4 attached to fixed signpost) a Discovery went down the lane and a
saloon car came out of it. This despite a barrier 3/4 the way
across the entrance and some 'Road Closed' signs.
Like I say, I don't know if this TRO (RTRA88 s16) is related to the
proposed HA80 s116 order on E5221 but they are very close together
geographically.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 46 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:22:20 EST
Subject: Re: Ridgeway TRO results
In a message dated 23.02.99 20:37:17 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< As part of the package of management measures, it may be appropriate to
encourage, and possibly even require (through local authority Traffic
Regulation Orders), vehicles to use convenient alternative routes instead
of those stretches of the Ridgeway where there are particular problems.
Identifying and sign-posting such routes would be a positive step towards
this. >>
This is the one bit of the recommendations that has failed most completely.
The adjacent HAs refused to sign or promote any use of adjacent routes on the
grounds that maintenance costs for the Ridgeway were met from CoCo funds, at
least in part, but they, poor things, had to bear the whole burden of
maintenance on other routes. Including the routes in West Berks which are
currently under so much perceived pressure from those who wish to ban others
from the countryside.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 47 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:28:56 -0000
Subject: Re: bewdley/stourport bywayDevil's S TRO
>>referred to new H&E regulations<<
In my youth, H&E was a euphemism for the only form of soft porn which could
be obtained from the top shelf of the Newsagents counter. Its full name was
(still is?) Health & Efficiency. It was the Playboy/Mayfair/Fiesta of its
day.
Are you sure this is the right thing to refer to for Rights of Way issues?
Does it get sent through the post "under plain cover"? (brown envelope, for
you younger individuals).
>>compelled to wear protective helmet, gloves, shoes and overalls!<<
YEEEESSS, you do mean that magazine!!!!!!!
Puzzled of Poverty(and not a little mixed up!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 48 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:55:11 -0000
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA) - OH YES IT IS
>>since the 85 Freedom of Info Act?<<
Please can we have the full title of this Act. Is it something like Local
Government (Information) Act 1985, and does it apply only to Local
Government?
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 49 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:03:21 -0000
Subject: Re: Ridgeway TRO results
>>but they, poor things, had to bear the whole burden of
maintenance on other routes<<
Oh no!! Not more examples of local govt whinging? I don't know who to feel
most sorry for, the farmers or local govt.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 50 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:09:18 -0000
Subject: Re: Pennyfold Lane, Warwickshire
Bod,
Yes, they are very close together, but Penny Ford Lane does not join Grey
Mill lane.
Grey Mill Lane is about 100 Yards from the end of Penny Ford Lane, in the
direction of Little Alne. From that point, it goes down to the nice hices,
through/along the river by way of a ford about 100 yards long, out on the
other side, up to the side of the dismantled rail track bed and out onto the
tarmac opposite the junction of the road going to Aston Cantlow.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 51 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:14:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Dere Street
> I wrote and objected and know of at least one other person who also did.
> Neither of us have heard anything
I also objected and have heard nothing yet.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 52 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:32:14 -0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Hi Dave of Portsmouth.
Good man. What did your letter to Mike Hancock say??
You could ask if St Mary's hospital is to become an off road centre, now
that most of the buildings of character have been destroyed. Guess they'll
build higher on the west side of the road and sell the east site for
development??
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 53 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:47:02 -0000
Subject: Witches week
I hear that the Maperton case has been postponed, and, in the same day, the
wicked witch has been on SW TV whinging that she is being persecuted.
Should be prosecuted for obstruction, destroying the surface of a highway,
assault, etc. IMV.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 54 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:01:21 EST
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Mick,
I've just faxed a letter off to my MP - David Drew - Stroud, Glos.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 55 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tom Murkin" <tom@riverside-repairs.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:59:33 -0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
>We would like you to just state which County you are in. Thats all,
>honest. It doesnt matter if you post to the list or mail to me if you
>prefer. _IF_ you happen to know the name of your MP and the constituency
County: Somerset
MP: Jackie Ballard
Constiuency: Taunton
I note that she has also signed the EDM on Green Lanes. Will try to find
time to write to her, trouble is I have never driven any green lanes
in somerset, only walked some and don't know the staus - does this matter?
I'm sure that she hasn't either.
Tom
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 56 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "David Wright" <Dave@oscroft1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:25:46 -0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Hi Mike
My area as GLASS rep is Denbighshire , Flintshire & North Powys
Regards
Dave (Wright)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 57 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 56 lines 0 [forwarded 166 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1915 [content 1623 forwarded 157 (cut 9) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990224 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]