[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:39:57 -0500
Subject: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
These are some of the recommendations of the Countryside Commissioners to
Government.
It leaves quiet a few questions unanswered, suggests negotiated agreement
and, failing that, that the CA will advise the Government in the future.
It makes it clear that LGA & CCW have sent draft not final comments, and
notes no response from CCPR or BBT amongst others. Thus it appears there
is still options for further practical suggestions to be made?
The Extreme views of CRA and GLEAM have been 'put into context' in Annex 3,
and identified the lobbying done in Berks Hants and Wilts.
So it would seem important that we keep pushing home the lack of evidence
of damage (and the resorting to fabrication), that the vast majority of use
is NOT recreational, most damage is agricultural and lack of maintenance.
Our efforts and benefits of use far outweigh any small problems, IF they
exist at all. Lets get this reported at least in our press and club mags!
I would like to thank Tim Stevens for his efforts in the LARA response to
CoCo, which was well quoted and received. The comments received to the
discussions on the RoW list this time last year are also appreciated,
despite the then wrecking tactics of one club!
Recommendation 26 is clearly one we should be involved with, and work
closely with ALL user groups, continuing our reasonable approach!
PARA 90. does need challenge though.
The recording of a National register of RoW is an area that we should be
involved in, and promote the project to record all RoW by users into such a
project.
Objective 8: Promoting a more effective approach to managing vehicular use
of rights of way
85. This objective covers a group of particularly difficult and complex
issues, which are the subject of strong and opposing views. Uniquely among
the issues we have considered, there is strong disagreement about the
starting point (i.e. what historic rights exist over RUPPs and UCRs), let
alone what changes are needed to the present arrangements. But it is
essential to find an answer to this problem, and to establish clear
arrangements to replace the current muddle and war of attrition, which is
being conducted to the detriment of the wider public interest.
86. The starting point should be an unequivocal recognition of the
importance of having an extensive, properly recorded and well-managed
network of byways (we use the term "byways" here to mean all those
highways, other than ordinary tarmac-surfaced roads, which have higher
rights than bridleways). Byways are an important part of the nation's
heritage and an important recreational asset to the public, because:
a. they have distinctive historical importance and are often important
for wildlife;
b. they tend to be more substantial landscape features than footpaths
and bridleways;
c. unlike footpaths and bridleways, they cannot be ploughed up where
they cross fields. - or where fields have been enlarged around them; and
d. they are a vital resource to horse riders (for whom the existing
bridleway network is inadequate), cyclists (who have full rights over them,
unlike bridleways) and the drivers of horse drawn vehicles (who are not
able to use bridleways at all), as well as for those seeking recreational
use of the countryside in motor vehicles.
87. Effective maintenance of the routes themselves must be an integral
part of any 4 solution, whatever approach is taken to the issues of
recording the rights over them and managing their use.
88. The Government should therefore take as its starting point that it
is in the public interest that the network of byways should be properly
recorded and well-maintained to meet the needs of modern society; and that
the issue of recording byway rights accurately should not be confused with
the equally important issue of managing the use of byways appropriately.
89. Strong, and. radically different, views are held by different
groups about the extent to which public vehicular rights exist over UCRs
and, particularly, RUPPs. Despite several attempts to clarify the situation
through statute and case law, confusion and dispute abounds. Although logic
might suggest that the vast majority of these routes have historic
vehicular rights, those rights cannot always be proved to the standards
currently required in practice - particularly given the strength of the
challenge mounted by those opposed to recreational motor vehicles in the
countryside. In these circumstances it is very difficult indeed to arrive
at a solution that is likely to be acceptable to all sides as historically
'correct'. In looking forward, we need to decide how best to record and
safeguard the full gamut of public rights, while at the same time putting
in place arrangements to secure effective and sustainable management.
However, we believe that the real issue of public concern should be not
only the recording of rights over byways, but also the management of their
use and the prevention of severe and widespread damage by motor vehicles.
90. The damage caused to byways by motorised recreational users can be
locally significant - though so can the intensive use of bridleways by
horses, and footpaths by walkers. In many cases where problems do occur,
they are a consequence of the lack of any effective management by highway
authorities (IPROW have noted in their response to us that most highway
authorities do not currently budget at all for the maintenance of UCRs.)
And it is difficult to distinguish between damage caused by recreational
vehicles and that caused by 'ordinary' farm and forestry vehicles; there
may often be an element of both.
91. Given the particular sensitivity of this issue, and the overriding
need to put in place clear arrangements for the future, it requires special
attention as part of any future Government consultation process.
92. Recommendation 26: The Government should invite the Countryside
Agency to convene a time limited working group of representatives of the
main organisations with an interest in vehicular use of rights of way, with
the objective of identifying and agreeing specific proposals to improve
both the management and the recording of byways.
93. If it proves impossible to secure agreement on the way forward, the
Government will have to decide whether motorised recreational use of byways
should be:
a. accommodated as far as possible, but subject to more effective
local control or restriction in those places where it would either make the
byway
unusable in practice by other groups or result in disproportionate
maintenance costs; or
b. restricted to a limited category of byways perhaps UCRs and BOATs);
or
c. banned altogether.
94 Option (a) above is the approach favoured by LARA and the British
Driving Society (who represent horse drawn vehicle drivers). LARA are keen
to work with highway authorities, to help with both the maintenance of
byways and the discouragement of unsustainable use. At present, however,
many highway authorities are unwilling to take them up on this offer.
95. Option (b) is the approach proposed by the British Horse Society,
who suggest that byways be divided into two categories. Brown byways (ie
those having a surface or base of some kind) would be open to all users,
including those driving recreational motor vehicles. Green byways (ie those
which are completely unsurfaced) would be open to all non-motorised users,
presumably with special arrangements for essential access by motor
vehicles.
96. Option (c) is the preference of the Ramblers' Association, who
would like to see all byways reclassified as "Car-free roads", and
therefore closed to motorised recreational use.
97. Improvements are also needed to the arrangements for regulating the
use of rights of way. The present TRO arrangements are perceived by rights
of way managers not to be flexible enough. They are also widely perceived
by user groups to be improperly used by some highway authorities as a cheap
substitute for carrying out their statutory maintenance duties.
98. Recommendation 27: In the event that a n?gotiated agreement on the
way forward on vehicular use of rights of way cannot be secured, the
Government should make a clear choice between the three options specified
at para 93 above. It should also decide, at the same time, how best to
clarify and record user rights over byways. The Countryside Agency will, at
that time, give advice to the Government about what it believes to be the
best way forward on these issues.
99. Recommendation 28: The Government should propose legislation to
introduce revised arrangements for regulating the use of byways. These
should include provision to regulate their use throughout the countryside
on environmental grounds. However, the exercise of these powers by highway
authorities should be firmly constrained, within the legislation and
through supplementary Government guidance and monitoring, to prevent their
misuse as a substitute for reasonable maintenance.
Objective 9: Understanding the demandfrr, and use of rights of way
100. Not enough is known about the use of the existing rights of way
network - or its potential use, once it is perceived by the public as being
fully available and unobstructed. More detailed understanding of the public
demand for new or alternative routes would also help inform the programmes
of new creations discussed above.
101. Recommendation 29: The Countryside Agency should undertake research
to improve the general understanding of the use of, and demand for, rights
of way.
102. There are currently doubts among highway authorities about the
extent to which the Disability Discrimination Act applies to rights of way.
These may ultimately need to be resolved by the Courts. However, there is
widespread recognition that rights of way management needs to respond to
the spirit of that Act -in the interests of a wide range of less agile
users including, but not limited to, disabled people.
103. Recommendation 30: The Government should propose legislation to
give highway authorities a duty to promote, through the implementation of
their rights of way duties and powers (including any support they offer to
landowners) the principle of "least restrictive option" for all crossing
points (i.e. places where rights of way cross obstacles such as fences,
hedges, walls, watercourses or roads). The same duty should be applied to
the Highways Agency in respect of major roads which are crossed by rights
of way. The principle of "least restrictive option" should encompass the
issue of safety, as well as convenience, but it should allow for exceptions
to meet legitimate land management requirements, such as the need to
stockproof certain fields.
104. Recommendation 31: The Government should ask the Countryside
Agency, in consultation with relevant interests, to draft guidance on how
the pnnc'iple of "least restrictive option" should be interpreted for each
category of rights of way.
105. Recommendation 32: The Countryside Agency should promote an
initiative to identify, both in published information about rights of way
and through distinctive waymarking on the ground, those paths which are
free of obstacles such as stiles.
Countryside Rights Association
[Rupudiates the representation of NFU and CLA]
The CRA does not accept that landowners' property rights can be taken away
from them by administrative bodies such as HAs or the DETR without a proper
Court declaration. It views this as an infringement of Article 6(1) of~ the
Eur6pean Convention on Human Rights.
· The emphasis on the recreational aspect of ROW is a wrong concept.
Where rights exist, they were dedicated for the purpose of passing and
repassing.
· UCRs do not necessarily carry public rights, so blanket
reclassification by statute would be inappropriate.
· Definitive maps should not be closed to further amendment on the
basis of historic evidence, as this would make it impossible to correct all
the existing II.mistakes and over-recording.
· RUPPs should not be reclassified by statute. Lots of RUPPs have
already been reclassified as BOATs when there was no evidence of use and no
test of suitability; all these BOATs should be downgraded to the correct
status. The Commission is attempting to circumvent the illegal actions of
HAs and protect them from future challenge by changing the law.
· The proposal to penalise farmers who break the law on ROW by
withdrawal of subsidy is draconian. The CRA would want to see such measures
matched by a law of trespass and fines for people who break the law, or
leave litter behind, leave gates open, endanger animals, make noise, etc.
Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement (GLEAM)
i. A substantive response, focusing on the status and use of green
lanes. Strongly opposed to the Commission's proposals in this area, but
generally supportive of the rest of Rights of Way in the 21st Century.
ii. Specific comments:
· Support the ten objectives at para 14, and many of the detailed
proposals.
· Oppose statutory reclassification of remaining RUPPs as byways,
because:
a. contrary to WCA81, recent caselaw and guidance from DETR, as well
as Commission's own Objective 2;
b. wrong to endow some RUPPs with public vehicular rights they may not
possess - only about 40% of already-reclassified RUPPs have become
· BOAT, and many of these erroneously;
c. upgrading a road from bridleway to BOAT may have detrimental effect
on the land over which it runs, and may therefore be an erosion of freehold
rights and value of that land; and
Annex 3
SUMMARY OF UNSOLICITED RESPONSES
Introduction
Representativeness of the responses
3. The responses came from a range of organisations and individuals
throughout the country. It would be wrong, however, to regard them as
representative of the full spectrum of interests that are concerned with
rights of way; nor are the responses necessarily a good indicator of where
the overall balance of opinion might lie on the detailed recommendations
made by the Commission. It should be noted in particular that:
a. the views of local authorities are likely to be significantly under
represented. Similarly, the farming and landowning community are almost
wholly unrepresented amongst the responses; and
b. a disproportionately high number of responses - around one third
-appear to be from local organisations or individuals that are strongly
opposed to the use of off-road vehicles in the countryside. Many of these
are also from the narrow, geographical area of Hampshire, Berkshire and
Wiltshire. Conversely, only a small minority of responses were from vehicle
users groups or their individual supporters.
4. It follows that the weight of opinion to emerge from these
unsolicited responses, particularly in relation to the issue of vehicles in
the countryside, should be treated with some caution.
END
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:46:08 -0500
Subject: Hereford Listen, (but say nowt)
Hi
RoW & Glass
I spoke to Dir of Environment at Hereford this afternoon.
"The program could not have come at a worse time. I was appalled by what I
saw. It was most unhelpful, given another 2 or 3 weeks and we could have
got this sorted out.
[You are not blaming me for that are you?]
I'm not blaming anyone.......
The report on everything they have on Upper Lye will be completed by the
end of today, then I will be considering it next week.
On Roman Road, we will be getting the obstructions removed (large bollards
erected by the parish) and then leaving it open for a while to see what the
level of use is. We will not be putting a TRO on staight away.
[A lot of whip and a little carrot seems to have worked.]
Ring my secretary after 2.00 and arrange a meeting......."
I never did quite find out why it was such a bad time for the
program.........
Thanks for your support through the Chief Exec, it resulted in the comment
"I think we have a few bridges to mend with you, not just here, but also
elsewhere"
He seemed to welcome the support / complaints of users to show L/Os it is
not the council doing it themselves, but because they are being forced into
complying with the law. (That was after I read CoCo Rec 5 to him - s56
should also cover obstructions!)
The Battle for Bridleway group have not actually done very well out of it.
:-)
Chris
ps Now back onto Powys............
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:31:10 BST
Subject: HA80 s56
Has anyone any experience of taking a s56 further than serving the
notice and using the HAs formal reply? Has anyone taken one to a
magistates court?
If so - is the description of the proceedure contained within the
Blue Book complete and is there anything else that should be
considered?
Bolton MBC admitted FP26 as being a publicly maintainable highway and
asked in the same letter in what way I consider it out of repair.
I sent details on 11th February, and as a month has now passed and I
have heard nothing, I think now is the time to progress the matter.
I am hoping to get to the court today to find out their proceedure
for laying the complaint and whether they require specific forms of
just a typed sheet.
Comments and thourghts anyone.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 15:20:20 -0000
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
Thank you for that summary Chris. I have said that Hants was in a somewhat
delicate situation right now. Do you have further info as to the Hants
responses? Send direct may ease the load on the list. I would be
interested to know the signature on the Hants response - as I'm sure would
another list 'listener'.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Harvey Davies" <gam85@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 16:19:39 -0000
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
Dave I think the response was the last thing I did before leaving but I have
heard a rumour that a second response was subsequently submitted. Merrick
DT was far from happy with my response but I have no further info. I would
be extremely concerned about the new chair of Countryside Agency - I have
contact with him through family connections and can tell you he is very anti
vehicular user. The CA will need watching very very carefully.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:18:32 +0000
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
> It would be nice to also have a side-by-side picture of an agricultural
> tractor alongside, say, a series Land Rover on 205x16's. It could be
> used to show the difference in tyres and ground clearance.
How about a picture of a Series 1 next to an absolutely monsterous 750 hp
Steiger Tiger?
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:17:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Green Lane Saved by LARA Volunteers
> I wonder if anyone is aware of all the UCRs in Warks?
Hi Chris,
Is this a rhetorical question?
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:23:15 -0000
Subject: RE: Fax to HCC - Countryfile
Hate to say 'Me too', but HCC's fax machine must be heading towards melt
down.
Hope it doesn't 'cause CJM needs it to send in all those defamatory S56s
doesn't he ;-)
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:23:10 -0000
Subject: RE: Letter From MP (Was Re: EDM letter to MP - advice please)
About as much chance as a three legged nag winning the Derby?
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: Dave Tilbury [mailto:Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: 11 March 1999 20:10
> That, IMV, was a very open and honest response for an MP. My reply will
> Sent: 11 March 1999 20:10
start "TY for contacting me on the matter of ... which is obviously of great
concern to you". Bets??
> That, IMV, was a very open and honest response for an MP. My reply will
Dave Tilbury
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:23:21 -0000
Subject: RE: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
Spied an interesting article by the 'CoCo in Wales' (or whatever they call
themselves) - about damage to SSSIs - 'vast majority due to agriculture
including over grazing and farm machinery'. I'll dig out the paper and sort
out the proper quote if you like as I think there is a useful parallel here.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:23:26 -0000
Subject: RE: Hereford Listen, (but say nowt)
Time of the month/year/century?
Maybe they were hoping it would just 'go away', then someone pointed a
camera at a gate that just happened to be lying around, and someone started
lying around it...
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 99 18:24 GMT
Subject: Re: HA80 s56
I spoke very recently to a TRF member who did this very thing and he
described it as potentially a very expensive undertaking, since costs
could go against the claimant.
My advice Ian (fwiw) is make sure that two or more Joe Publics as well as
those with a more expert eye agree that it is out of repair....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 99 18:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Hereford Listen, (but say nowt)
<<<<,The Battle for Bridleway group have not actually done very well out
of it. :-)>>>>>>
My heart bleeds, no honest, it does, look, I'm serious here, why don't you
believe me, I think they were all splendid chappies, I hope they wont sulk
too much....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Brian Pratt" <btp@freeuk.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:37:42 -0800
Subject: Re: Where's the GLASS website these days ?
>Just been checking the links on the TRF website, quite a few not working or
>changed location. Could not find the official GLASS site, is there one ? I
>found a few regional sites, but not the main one.
>Can anyone help?
Try the GLASS Northern Bulletin website at .. http://www.btp.freeuk.com
Brian Pratt: GLASS(Lakes/Dales) + TRF member
Email: btp@freeuk.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Codrai" <dave@codrai.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 22:52:10 -0000
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
Chris
>These are some of the recommendations of the Countryside Commissioners to
>Government.
Is this a publicly available document, if so do you have a contact
address/phone No/e-mail where I can apply for a copy.
Thanks
Dave Codrai
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 00:04:58 -0000
Subject: Re: Letter From MP (Was Re: EDM letter to MP - advice please)
Not sure I dare say this .... but ... from experience, all letters I have
had from my MP have started - Thank you for contacting me on the matter of
.. which is obviously of great concern to you".
Talking of which, if you think Glimmer are mendacious then the local Lib
Dem newsletter is vieing for first place. It tells how Lib Dems are
fighting the proposal for 120 new houses in the Parish (which is in fact
160) - yet the buggers voted approving planning.
Dave Tilbury - even more a-political than he was last week
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 99 00:52 GMT
Subject: RE:Useful quote: was RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
Rob says
<<<<<<<<Spied an interesting article by the 'CoCo in Wales' (or whatever
they callthemselves) - about damage to SSSIs - 'vast majority due to
agricultureincluding over grazing and farm machinery'. I'll dig out the
paper and sortout the proper quote if you like as I think there is a
useful parallel here.>>>>>
YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! date of issue, title of mag, page
number, any accompanying photos.......
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 00:09:08 -0000
Subject: Local Access Forums (was: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle)
>We - all of us - need to be geared up for the new Local Access Forums*, and
>pressing for them to meet in the evening.
>* As promised by Meacher along with Open Trampling.
I am led to believe that these will go hand in hand with the new Regional
Rural Development Panels - do we know anything more about these links?
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 00:14:08 -0000
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
>What a shame the chap lacks the integrity to say so out loud.
>Funny how keen such folk can be to repeat anti-motoring opinion, but not
pro.
>It is just as well no-one needs to assert or protect anything, ennit?
To be fair the chap is very new to his post within Stockport MBC and openly
admits to not knowing the lane other than from the DM&S and other documents
in the RoW department. He suspects that there may be more to this
than recreational damage but, at present, cannot be sure.
I think that he could be one more RoW officer that is on our side. It
helps that the only two 4x4 representatives he deals with (Paul Byron &
myself) try and work with him. This presents a stark contrast with the
reps from the various walking groups in the area. For completeness, there
appears to be no active m/c rep in the Stockport area but both Paul and I do
speak up for their needs when needed.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 00:42:21 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
>property could be held to ransom by a landowner. There is one case in
>Hants where one end of a lane is now bridleway but the other end BOAT
>because of the houses along the route.
And quite right too - except that the BOAT/BW bit is slightly anomalous.
[see earlier posting]
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 00:23:28 -0000
Subject: Easements and reclassification (was: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren
Lane')
><< A private house is likely to be granted an easement as part of the
> reclassification >>
.....
>I know of no power than anyone has to grant an easement over the land of
>another. In any case, reclassification is about Public rights, and is paid
for
>with public mobney, so they doubly have no business doing any such thing.
.....
>Unless I have missed something fundamental?
Yes and no - yes you are quite right in what you say but you have also
missed something fundamental! Reason: my inability to say what I mean.
Despite what I wrote - what I meant to say was that during the
reclassification process the householder who has enjoyed access to their
property and requires continued access should attend the PI and say so.
Therefore, one of three conclusions MUST be drawn:
1. The access is a public right (eg carriageway right exist) and the
householder has been using these public right to gain access purely as a
member of the public.
2. An easement is already in place and this will continue no matter what
the result of the PI into the reclassification of the route.
3. The householder has been using the route illegally and, assuming that
the route is not reclassified as BOAT, that access will continue to be
illegal.
So I guess that what I was trying to say was that the existence or otherwise
of an easement over a route that is being reclassified is a fact that has to
be established (if it is not explicitly established already) during the PI.
Well that is how I understand that the law SHOULD work.
Of course theory and practice are VERY different things.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 00:39:56 -0000
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
>That was the whole point, an SJ just happened to come along first.....
Well it wouldn't be able to AFTER the tractor had damaged the lane.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 00:57:06 -0000
Subject: Copies of letter are sent to this list (was: Re: Fax to HCC -
Countryfile)
>Hate to say 'Me too', but HCC's fax machine must be heading towards melt
>down.
Yes I am sure that a few folks on the list have sent letters or faxes to
HCC.
Good - keep up the very important work chaps.
I do, however, feel that it is important that we post example letters to the
list because there are a lot of people on here that never, or seldom write
to any HA about anything.
I am sure that they think that their letter will not be good enough, will
not quote the correct legal section or will cause them no end of future
hassles.
There is no such thing as a letter to a HA that is not good enough - sure
some are better than others - but the only one that is not good enough is
the one that is not written and sent. I make a point of copying nearly
a proportion of the letters I send to HAs to this list in the hope that they
might just help someone else to draft a letter to their HA and actually
complain (or praise, or comment). A badly written letter is
infinitely better than no letter.
So please, EVERYONE, do write something.
If you need to bounce it off someone - try sending to the list first.
If that is still too public for you - mail it to me directly and I will look
over it for you.
The important thing is that HAs know that someone cares enough to write.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 23 lines 1243 [forwarded 39 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 936 [content 802 forwarded 39 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990313 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]