[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 99 08:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
Does anyone on the List have a Suzuki and live within 10-ish miles of
Wokingham/Bracknell/Camberley? TIA
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:22:10 -0000
Subject: Now I am cross
Following the departure of Hampshire's RoW manager the antis are gaining
control fast. Here is the latest example of actively denying public access
on carriageways in defiance of s130 HA 80. The officer who wrote the
following letter is the same one that wrote telling me to keep my nose out
of matters that don't concern me. On that occasion I had complained about
the obstruction (dragons teeth) of a lane near Basingstoke. The
obstruction had been carried out by HCC to prevent the illegal use of the
lane by drug users and fornicators.
"Northern Area Office
Basing House, Redbridge Lane
Basing, Basingstoke
Hampshire RG24 7HB
Telephone 01256 844214
Fax 01256 326283
23d January, 1999
Dear XXXXXXX,
Footpath No. 13 Litchfield
Footpath No. 13 St. Mary Bourne
Thank you tar your letter of 18th February, 1999.
The two gates on footpath No. 13 Litchfield have been erected to prevent
this footpath from being used by motor vehicles. It has been used illegally
in the recent past as a short cut between the two lanes. [the postman and
all locals have used for all time - ed]
The gates were erected by Hampshire County Council under Section 62 of the
Highways Act 1980. I they belong to Hampshire County Council and will be
removed by us if and when the need to have them ceases.
Footpath No. 10 St. Mary Bourne is a farm track, which again was being used
illegally by motor vehicles between Egbury and Wadwick as a short cut. No
authorisation was required in this instance as the Revised Statement of
1964, gates are mentioned in the description of the footpath. The landowner
therefore replaced the missing gates. Footpaths under the Highways Act are
for the use of pedestrians only to walk, and not motor vehicles, cyclists
or horse riders, as seems to have been in this case.
I hope this answers your queries. Should you have any further queries,
please do contact me.
Yours faithfully,
M W Johnn
Rights Of Way Oflicer"
This officer is now running amock with the apparent blessing of his
managers, John Tickle and John Davidson. Little surprise when one realises
that these two are countryside managers and have only the faintest idea
about RoW law. Time to name and shame. I feel a letter to B&B coming on.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:42:54 -0000
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
That's a biggy!! MD, do you not think you should qualify that a little? 4
or 2 wheels; 50cc or 11,00cc; 4x4 or 4x2. Bloody good job it's not a
Yamaha owner you seek. That could be a keyboard, ship, bike or trombone!!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 12:14:16 -0000
Subject: MP - EDM
OAKBANK COTTAGE 01703~618937
OAKBANK ROAD
EASTLEIGH
HAMPSHIRE ~ SO50 6PA
February 27, 1999
Mr. D Chidgey
Member for Eastleigh
House of Commons
Westminster
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Chidgey
I have been made aware that you support Early Day Motion 24, as proposed by
David Rendel, regarding the work of GLEAM and a perceived threat to Green
Lanes by recreational vehicular traffic.
[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. ]
I am concerned that my Parliamentary representative should be seen
supporting an organisation devoted to the removal of public rights and the
destruction of out heritage in ancient, unimproved, carriageways. Despite
the positive title GLEAM are not as their promotional material would have
us believe. This is expanded upon on the appended fact sheet.
You should know that I devote a lot of time to the protection of public
rights of way, in a voluntary capacity, and have done so for the last
twelve years. As such I would do nothing that I would consider detrimental
to the character of, or the rights over, a RUPP or BOAT. I know Hampshire
extremely well and I wonder what you have experienced that has prompted
your support for this EDM?
I would be grateful if you could tell me where in your constituency (or for
that matter, Hampshire) there are damaged 'green lanes' and in listing them
would you be good enough to note the cause of the damage. The list will be
very short and the causes restricted to two factors - agricultural vehicles
and neglect. That said, most of the lanes that have been neglected and are
in a poor state are subject to Traffic Regulation Orders precluding motor
vehicles. I await your list with interest.
In your reply you might be able to tell me where the "…designated and
appropriate areas for the use of recreational off-road motor vehicles." are
in this constituency? Of those designated sites can you assure me that
some are suitable for families to picnic, relax and do a spot of bird
watching. Will these sites cater for the trail rider of pensionable age
who would otherwise enjoy a gentle potter along car free lanes? And are
these site suitable for those who's disability or infirmity require that
their countryside access is mechanically assisted?
I would be interested to learn of your perception of a vehicular user of
'green lanes' and why you think they should want to use an unsealed road.
In the mean time I would hope that you feel moved to withdraw your support
for the EDM. I can commend the document Making the Best of Byways,
produced by the DETR, with contributions from GLEAM members. I suggest
that you have a researcher read this document.
Yours sincerely
Dave Tilbury
The Facts - As I See Them.
Prominent GLEAM member (Secretary?) Mrs M Masters featured in a TV
documentary on obstructed rights of way. She was filmed with a hidden
camera and shown denying access to walkers and horse riders to a Byway Open
to All Traffic / Unclassified Road. This ancient highway has subsequently
been obliterated and planted with a crop of turnips, the hedges having been
grubbed out. The police are regularly called to her farm to deal with
alleged assaults on users of that right of way.
Prominent GLEAM member (Chair ?) Mr A Dunlop fought long and hard to have
vehicular rights removed from a 'green lane' alongside his house. Press
articles showed a white Land Rover parked in the lane. I believe the
damage to the lane is confined to the end used by the white Land Rover and
it is this same vehicle that has been parked in Mr Dunlop's front drive.
Mr Dunlop has stated on national radio that only 50% of unclassified roads
carry vehicular rights. It should be noted that in excess of 80% of this
class of highway are sealed by the Highway Authorities and are in daily use
by car drivers nation wide.
GLEAM founder, Mr D Gardiner, has been quoted in a number of press articles
on recreational damage to 'green lanes', most recently in the Independent.
In each case serious agricultural damage to the route has been blamed on
recreational users.
In all cases there is the financial motive of improved land value behind
the removal of public rights.
An outspoken GLEAM supporter, Mr Peter Temple-Morriss MP used the following
in his 1997 election leaflet:-
"RURAL ACCESS AND URBAN INTRUSION
This is a real problem now and increasing in the future. Access on a fair
and proper basis there must be, but 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; our local councils; and on me as MP to be constantly vigilant
in this area."
>From the Norman Invasion there have been statutes that protect the rights
of passage of the population at large. It would appear that GLEAM are more
interested in 'preventing' and 'financially gaining' than in protection and
preserving, which is, after all, the thrust of current legislation (section
130 HA 80)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 12:29:37 -0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
<<Sensible is not a word I would normally associate with MP's, he just
didn't
sign the EDM, either lost his pen or he was playing hooky that
day/week/month, or was on a fact finding mission to the Caribbean to study
the mating habits of the lesser spotted secretary, all at our expense of
course.
<<Sensible is not a word I would normally associate with MP's, he just
Was this not the man who put Hunter in his place on rec. veh. damage to
lanes some 4-5 years back?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Keith <Keith@rtsofway.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:35:59 +0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
North Yorkshire - MP=William Hague
--
Keith
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Lloyd <chris@upandrun.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 16:19:31 -0000
Subject: RE: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Hi
Chris Lloyd, Basingstoke Hampshire
Sorry for the late response, just got out of hospital after busting my
leg down a muddy lane last weekend:-(
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:16:34 -0500
Subject: MP - EDM
> From the Norman Invasion there have been statutes that protect the rights
> of passage of the population at large. It would appear that GLEAM are
more
> interested in 'preventing' and 'financially gaining' than in protection
and
> preserving, which is, after all, the thrust of current legislation
(section
> 130 HA 80)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Comments?
> Dave Tilbury
Magnificent, (and not just the bit highlighted).
Can we lesser scribes lift large chunks of it, or would you consider that
dilutes the effect on the letter to your MP?
Morris has only one s, unles it is Charlie M.
I thought Gardiner was chair. I walked along byways near gardiners on Wed
last, they had the unnofficial VRs, had been used, but were not damaged by
that use, it was virtualy all marks in substantial silt on lanes with an
excellent firm base.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 99 08:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
Dave T is quite right, I specified _which_ kind of Suzuki elsewhere but
not in teh List.
I meant SJ410/413, Vitaras need not apply.
Sorry for being sloppy.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 9 lines 477 [forwarded 14 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 391 [content 310 forwarded 14 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990228 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]