[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Mike Thomas <miket@sqf.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 12:48:45 +0000
Subject: Re: Dere Street
TimLARA@aol.com wrote on the 22nd Feb '99:
> They say that they intend writing in about a week to all those who have
> objected, as some objections may be founded on misunderstandings and so might
> be withdrawn.
My letter arrived this morning...
> Anyone getting such a letter is asked by LARA to maintain their objection. If
> further advice is needed, please ask.
The text follows - and my objection will stand!
<<Quote
Dear Sir,
<<definition of Order removed>>
I thank you for your recent correspondence and I note your concerns and
objections to the above proposed Order. Several other objections have
been received and comments made as to why the Council is promoting this
conversion. To dispel such concerns the reasons why the Council wishes
to control the use of this section of Deer Street are as follows:
a) To lessen the damage to this unsurfaced road and adjacent ground by
motorised vehicles and keep it in a condition suitable for pedestrians,
cyclists and equestrians.
b) To lessen the impact on farming and in particular farm animals by
controlling the types of vehicle permitted to use Dere Street.
c) To protect part of an ancient monument (Deer Street) by removing the
types of vehicles most capable of causing damage and prevent further
deterioration.
It is certainly not the Council's intention to restrict access to the
countryside but actually quite the opposite by ensuring that the route
is kept in a condition which can be used and enjoyed by walkers,
cyclists and equestrians. To meet this end unfortunately it is necessary
to control cetrain modern motorised modes of transport, which can have a
detrimental effect on the running surface. HAving been constructed for
the types of use now being promoted by the Order I do not think it is
unreasonable to protect Dere Street for the same.
I hope this explains more clearly why this Order is being sought. I look
forward to your comments on the above and whether or not it allays any
of your conerns.
Yours faithfully
Ron Elliot
Development Control Co-ordinator
end-quote>>
What do you think of that letter then?
My objections were that the Order went against the CoCo MBoB and the
Disability Discrimination Act. I think some comments about types of
vehicle causing damage (the Order does not prohibit farm vehicles) and
the difference in pressure of horses and carts versus 4x4 traffic.
Does anyone have good counters to the 'Ancient Monument' argument as it
has appeared more than once up here.
Mike
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 13:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
Hello you Hampshire lot
The Muddy Lane Saga continues....a TRO is threatened, please spend yer 26p
on a stamp to object, I have submitted the following, but plaese do change
the odd word here and there........
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,Your Ref : CEP/CR148 5 March 1999
MUDDY LANE HORDLE
Dear Mr. Piper
As I explained on the telephone earlier today, I am the All Wheel Drive
Club representative to Hampshire County Council RoW Panel, but since I
have yet to secure a supply of AWDC letterhead, this letter is on unheaded
paper.
I appreciate the fact that there may well be major problems with the
sightlines for traffic at Muddy Lane Hordle, with its junction of the
A337, but I would like to formally OBJECT on behalf of the AWDC to any
proposed TRO under any of the clauses suggested in your notification of
16th February 1999.
The grounds for this objection are that
1. Since the visibility is ‘very limited in both directions' imposing
a one-way flow would only partly solve the problem in one direction.
2. The banning of four-wheeled traffic altogether would be punitive
and would not ease the potential danger for any other group of users who
would not be affected, eg a farm tractor, a horse and carriage,
motorcyclist, solo horse rider, pedal cyclist, or walker.
3. The cost of administering a TRO would be far more than the
erection of appropriate warning signs on the A337 and another adjacent to
the entrance of Muddy Lane and on the lane itself. I believe that such
warning signs need not be illuminated, but together with appropriate road
paint markings would provide a solution which was at least as effective as
any TRO would be, and far more cost-effective. I would suggest that the
inclusion of a legend such as ‘Sound Horn' be investigated to increase the
effectiveness of any traffic signs considered.
Yours sincerely,
M.P. DYER
Mr. Colin Piper
The RoW Department
Mottisfont Court
Winchester
SO23 8ZF
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Peter Dowson" <Peter.Dowson@softwareag.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:45:54 -0000
Subject: Re: Dere Street
>It is certainly not the Council's intention to restrict access to the
>countryside but actually quite the opposite by ensuring that the route
>is kept in a condition which can be used and enjoyed by walkers,
>cyclists and equestrians. To meet this end unfortunately it is necessary
>to control cetrain modern motorised modes of transport, which can have a
>detrimental effect on the running surface. HAving been constructed for
>the types of use now being promoted by the Order I do not think it is
>unreasonable to protect Dere Street for the same.
Does this bit mean I can drive my 1949 Landrover down the road as it is no
doubt less modern than the horses using this route and probably less modern
than the cycles and could be less modern than the walkers?
Peter Dowson
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:46:55 BST
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
> Does anyone on the List have a Suzuki and live within 10-ish miles of
> Wokingham/Bracknell/Camberley? TIA
Is 10 miles the maximum distance a Suzuki can travel?
Or is it maximum distance that anyone can stand travelling in one???
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:48:01 BST
Subject: Re: Now I am cross
> obstruction had been carried out by HCC to prevent the illegal use of the
> lane by drug users and fornicators.
Since when has fornication been illegal?
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:03:06 BST
Subject: Re: RA-Suffolk option
> << Can a declaration only be done by the CC?
> Is it done in the magistrates court? >>
.....
> A declaration of Highway Status is the fall-back option if a HA fail to
> respond to s56, or deny highway rights. It is done at the Crown Court.
.......
> The court would look at all the evidence put before it, the judge would be
> fully trained and experienced in evaluating evidence, we would get an answer
> fairly quickly, and irrelevant objectors, firemen, and turnip planters would
> not have a look in. Why don't we use it all the time?
Do you not think that cost might just be a reason?
Even if that is a fear of the unknown cost.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:05:37 BST
Subject: More wine DT? (was: Re: Now I am cross)
> Me no rite yet. me phone his boss and tell him they all tossas. Act
> togeter now or big poo in fan will happen.
OK so DT has finally flipped
Whatever you have been drinking Dave - please tell us so we all join
in
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:16:56 BST
Subject: On-line legal information
I have just come accross a free web-site that lists case law.
One slight problem - it is based in the US.
It does, however, have a UK section and I have just had a play with
it and it might prove useful. Find it at:
http://www.findlaw.com/
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:40:30 BST
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
> Just in case anyone was looking for a pun or some other humour I was
> serious (for once)
Many happy returns Dave,
I guess it must be your birthday!!!
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:45:49 BST
Subject: Re: Points of law
> >Taking keys is theft, and interfering with a motor vehicle.
> but might not be if the intention was "only" to prevent immediate further
> use of the vehicle, so that the keys were returned to the owner, say in the
> post or via the police. That would give rise to a civil claim (assuming
An offence is committed as soon as you stop a person from passing
along the highway. It is called obstruction. This is an
offence arrestable without warrant. If you then go on to remove
property from a person, wether or not you intend to return it, you
are commit highway robbery and are a highwayman (I believe the
offence is still mentioned on the statute). I would submit that
if you did all this whilst carrying a weapon (pitchfolk) then you are
committing armed highway robbery.
Remember that you do not need to stop for anyone when passing along a
highway except a policeman, traffic warden or lollypop lady in
uniform [there may be others]. Anyone else can be considered to
be a highway robber.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 16:39:56 +0000
Subject: Dere/Deer Street
I have had a reply from the Scottish Borders Council regarding Dere/Deer
Street
Regards,
Howard
2 March 1999
Dear Sir,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997.THE SCOTTISH BORDERS
COUNCIL (CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF DEER
STREET FROM PENNYMIJIR TO WHITTON EDGE) ORDER 1998.
I thank you for your recent correspondence and I note your concerns and
objections to the above proposed Order. Several other objections have
been received and comments made as to why he Council is promoting this
conversion. To dispel such concerns the reasons why (the Council wishes
to control the use of this section of Deer Street are as follows;
a) To lessen the damage to this unsurfaced road and adjacent ground by
motorised vehicles and keep it in a condition suitable for pedestrians,
cyclists and equestrians.
6) To lessen the impact on farming and in particular farm animals by
controlling the types of vehicle permitted to use Deer Street.
e) To protect part of an ancient monument (Deer Street) by removing the
types of vehicles most capable of causing damage and prevent further
deterioration.
It is certainly not the Council's intention to restrict access to the
countryside but actually quite the opposite by ensuring that the route
is kept in a condition which can be used and enjoyed by walkers,
cyclists and equestrians. To meet this end unfortunately it is
necessary to control certain modern motorised modes of transport, which
can have a detrimental effect on the running surface. Having been
constructed for the types of use now being promoted by the Order I do
not think it's unreasonable to protect Deer Street for the same.
I hope this explains more clearly why this Order is being sought. I look
for to your comments on the above and whether or not it allays any of
your concerns
Yours faithfully,
RON ELLIOT
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL CO-ORDINATOR
Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells, MELROSE, Scottish Borders,
TD6 OSA
Telephone St. Boswells, (01835) 824000 Fax (01835) 825071
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 16:41:21 +0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
> Babtie has sent me (received yesterday, dated 23.02.99...hmmmm) bumph on
> this reclassification. Does anyone have any info which might be relevant;
> they say its at least a Bridleway, they've loked at Tithe maps 1846,
> FA1910 early maps 1761-1811 and OS 1878-present. Seems sewn up :-( but any
> other suggestions?
Hi Mick,
Do you have any GRs?
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 16:41:02 +0000
Subject: virus
I recieved the following warning, I do not know wether it is true or a
hoax.
Sue
If you receive an email titled "It Takes Guts to Say 'Jesus'"
> > DO NOT open it. It will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward
> > this letter out to as many people as you can. This is a new, very
> > malicious virus and not many people know about it.
> > This information was announced yesterday morning from IBM;
> > please share it with everyone that might access the internet. Once
> > again, pass this along to EVERYONE in your address book so that
> this
> > may be stopped.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 21 lines)]
> > there is NO remedy for it at this time. Please practice cautionary
> > measures and forward this to all your online friends ASAP.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 17:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Dere Street
It might be wqorth pointing out to them that a fully-(over)loaded
C18th/C19th hay wagon would have caused far more damage to this 'ancient
way'......
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: BurgDM@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:41:25 EST
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
Can you provide NGR's just out of interest?
Darren Burgess
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 18:46 GMT
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
GRs are 788645 ESE to just beyond Warren Lodge to 795644. DT _might_ have
additional info, he put the name to it immediately so DT have you
experience. of it?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 18:55:35 -0000
Subject: Re: Now I am cross
>> obstruction had been carried out by HCC to prevent the illegal use of the
>> lane by drug users and fornicators.
>Since when has fornication been illegal?
I thought you were only allowed to stop on a RoW for the purposes of taking
sustenance, painting a picture etc. etc. did they mention fornication?
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 18:57:12 -0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
>Remember that you do not need to stop for anyone when passing along a
>highway except a policeman, traffic warden or lollypop lady in
>uniform [there may be others]. Anyone else can be considered to
>be a highway robber.
>Bod
I think the military can be given that right as well, although they don't
have it all the time.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:20:35 -0000
Subject: Re: Dere Street
<<Does anyone have good counters to the 'Ancient Monument' argument as it
has appeared more than once up here.
<<Does anyone have good counters to the 'Ancient Monument' argument as it
It is not an ancient 'monument' but a living historic route which derives
its importance from the rights over it, not the structure of it, which is
as ancient as Paddy's pick axe - (oi've ad the same pick, man 'n bouy.
It's ad 10 heads and 15 handles in that toime.).
Modern recreational vehicles cause less damage than agg vehs. or even
horses. The ground pressure of a horses hoof is far greater than that of a
rubber tyred wheel. the hoof marks hold water therefore keeping the lane
softer for longer and eventually lead to the deterioration of the
surface....
Not anti horse - just fact.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:30:49 -0000
Subject: Re: More wine DT? (was: Re: Now I am cross)
<<Whatever you have been drinking Dave>>
Archers 'Village' from memory. Only about 4.5 but very refreshing.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:26:08 -0000
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
February 19, 1999
Mr C Piper
RoW Map Review
Hampshire County Council
Mottisfont Court
High Street
Winchester SO23 8ZF
Dear Mr Piper
Re: Muddy lane, Hordle - Proposed Traffic Regulation Order.
Thank you for consulting on the above and thank you for considering the
safety of users of this route. From memory the cause of the poor sight
lines is a hedge that flanks the southern end of Muddy Lane. I recall this
hedge as being unkempt and grown out as far edge of the sealed highway.
This being the case it would seem advantageous to both all user groups, and
the public purse, to initially have the hedge cut back prior to proceeding
with and expensive Traffic Regulation Order. It would, of course, be
sensible to maximise safety by so cutting back whatever the eventuality.
On my last use of this route my way was impeded by brambles. It would then
be beneficial for there to be a low level of four wheeled use as this
would assist in maintaining a good width.
Once again the Authority seem to have forgotten the horse drawn vehicle.
If the southern junction of Muddy Lane is dangerous for 4x4 vehicles, with
the driver being only 2 metres from the front of the vehicle, how much more
so must it be for the carriage driver, who is some 4 metres back from the
horses nose?
The authority have a duty to preserve and protect the use and enjoyment of
ways such as Muddy Lane and it is this duty that must be discharged before
the exercise of a power, such as traffic management. The clearance of the
sight lines with the possible addition of 'SLOW' signs on the main road
would appear to be the legal, moral and practical approach to this problem.
It is, after all, not a problem caused by the recreational rights of way
user, but the mindless and selfish high speed use of the private motorcar.
Yours sincerely
D Tilbury
Hampshire Area RoW Respondent
~~~~~~~~
I forgot to mention the option of one way use!!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:44:48 -0000
Subject: LoS information within Trafford MBC (was: 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.
.......
>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?
Trafford play that very dangerous game of divide and conquer. Except the
second bit is not really working very well due to the good relationships
between user groups.
They (Trafford) have regular footpath users meetings but refuse to allow me
to attend despite me asking for an invite. I understand that it is
walkers only and that horse rider have also asked and also been refused.
The OSS however are supplied with full LoS information including there own
copy of the highways map and definitive map.
I am now told that I will be consulted when they do anything that effects a
vehicular highway but they are building a big concrete road and diverting
(unofficially I think) a footpath - but it's a little more than that!
Have I been consulted - no of course not.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:48:16 -0000
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. *
I am not sure that would help.
Please remember that this is the same police force who believe that
"obstruction of the highways is not a crime..."
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 20:11:31 -0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
<<I guess it must be your birthday!!!>>
No. Next one is worth a celebration. Band in the back garden and beer in
the shed. The little 14 piece cumbia band that I do the sound desk for
will do. dance you beggers dance.
http://www.soton.ac.uk/%7eoms/index.html
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 20:14:26 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
<<DT have you
experience. of it?
<<DT have you
Not at my age lad.
No.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 20:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Dere Street
Mike asks
<<<<<<<<<Does anyone have good counters to the 'Ancient Monument' argument
as ithas appeared more than once up here.>>>>>>>
FWIW my contribution contained
<<<<<<<<Your references to an ‘ancient monument' are rather misplaced,
Dere Street is not a monument at all, it is an ancient Right of Way with
modern Rights and obligations. If English Nature should be minded to
reclassify it as a National Monument then everyone would suffer, since no
person, animal or artifact would presumably have access to it.>>>>>>>>>
Its not a strong argument but it might make them tighten up on their
emotive approach.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 21:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
FWIW, I had a long conversation with Mr. Piper - a VERY reasonable chap,
IMV - he described the, er, local circumstances surrounding the lane (the
usual, one person who owns the land either side and who has come to view
ML as 'his' property upon which the great unwashed should not be allowed
to set foot, hoof, pedal or wheel).
The confirmation as Byway is being challenged on appeal but the LO is
apparently the only person in the Known Universe who remains unconvinced
of its status.
Mr. P. say that even with as severe a cutback as possible without
encroachment the sightlines remain fairly dangerous, and suggested to me
that a suggestion to look at warning signs would be well received as a
viable alternative.
I sent this today, perhaps others in Hants might wish to plagiarise with
my blessing
Dear Mr. Piper
I appreciate the fact that there may well be major problems with the
sightlines for traffic at Muddy Lane Hordle, with its junction of the
A337, but I would like to formally OBJECT on behalf of the AWDC to any
proposed TRO under any of the clauses suggested in your notification of
16th February 1999.
The grounds for this objection are that
1. Since the visibility is ‘very limited in both directions' imposing
a one-way flow would only partly solve the problem in one direction.
2. The banning of four-wheeled traffic altogether would be punitive
and would not ease the potential danger for any other group of users who
would not be affected, eg a farm tractor, a horse and carriage,
motorcyclist, solo horse rider, pedal cyclist, or walker.
3. The cost of administering a TRO would be far more than the
erection of appropriate warning signs on the A337 and another adjacent to
the entrance of Muddy Lane and on the lane itself. I believe that such
warning signs need not be illuminated, but together with appropriate road
paint markings would provide a solution which was at least as effective as
any TRO would be, and far more cost-effective. I would suggest that the
inclusion of a legend such as ‘Sound Horn' be investigated to increase the
effectiveness of any traffic signs considered.
Yours sincerely,
M.P. DYER
Mr. Colin Piper
The RoW Department
Mottisfont Court
Winchester
SO23 8ZF
CC Mr. Andy Bush
National RoW Officer
AWDC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 21:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Old father Time
DT says
<<<<<<<<Next one is worth a celebration. >>>>>
So NWN _was_ right then Dave????
<<<Band in the back garden and beer in
the shed. The little 14 piece cumbia band that I do the sound desk for
will do. >>>>
Is this an invite then dave....how many of us on the List?
<<< dance you beggers dance.>>>
We'll dance IF we're invited.....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 21:42 GMT
Subject: Re: CountryFile BBC
Dinna forget tae set yer video recording devices fer the wee beanfeast on
Sunday laddies....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 21:42 GMT
Subject: Re: LoS information within Trafford MBC (
<<<<<<<They (Trafford) have regular footpath users meetings but refuse to
allow me to attend despite me asking for an invite. I understand that
it is walkers only and that horse rider have also asked and also been
refused.>>>>>>>
This must warrant a joint approach from ALL 'refusnik' groups to the
Ombudsman? Non-democracy and all that....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Keith Butler <k.butler@virgin.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 22:47:12 +0000
Subject: Re: virus
Susan Jeggo wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Codrai" <dave@codrai.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 01:36:00 -0000
Subject: Re: LoS information within Trafford MBC (was: Re: OS Explorers (Reply
it is not us!! by the HA) - OH YES IT IS)
>They (Trafford) have regular footpath users meetings but refuse to allow me
>to attend despite me asking for an invite. I understand that it is
>walkers only and that horse rider have also asked and also been refused.
Can't you walk then Bod ?
Dave
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:41:58 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Explorer 203
Chris is now on the map
It goes without saying, some green dots and green crosses have been
missed off.
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:35:33 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Upper Lye
I am told that the famous steel gates of Upper Lye (one of the 7
wonders of Herefordshire) are to be featured on Countryfile this
Sunday.
Ask your kids to set the video for you.
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 35 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 34 lines 1471 [forwarded 115 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1061 [content 864 forwarded 102 (cut 13) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990306 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]