[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 03:57:23 -0500
Subject: CoCo Response
I note after all the fuss about AWDC 'not being represented by LARA',
clandestine meetings (and inuendos about the credentials of people that
weren't even supposed to be members anyway!) - there was no mention of
AWDC in the responses! Hopefully we can all pull together and try to get
on the same side in future :-) Nuffsed.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 03:57:27 -0500
Subject: CoCo - BHS
Open letter:
The Editor
BBT
Sir,
I note the BHS suggestion to RoW21C on byways. If I plough my Brown Byway,
will it become a Green Byway?
Yours sincerely
Chris Marsden.
__________________________
[ ps Does this not make a subjective decision whether the stone surface,
perhaps buried under a foot of silt, or patchy stoning, might determine
whether someone has a criminal record, probably affecting their
livelihood? Should co-operative management which HAS proved successful be
the first choice, - even where necessary having more teeth to deal with
the few cowboys? ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Mike Thomas <miket@sqf.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:50:42 +0000
Subject: Re: Dere Street
howard.neal@which.net wrote:
> Does anyone have any NGRs for the affected bit of Dere Street? I might go and
> have a look on the way up the week after next.
Pennymuir NT755143 to Whitton Edge NT740190.
I looked at it today (from each end) and could see *no* signs of damage
- in fact at the southern end, I could see no signs of use!
Other sections further north show signs of argicultural use.
Will drive it with luck in a couple of weeks.
Mike
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 99 09:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Any Questions?
<<<What all this about a panel?>>>>
Who asked about a panel?
<<<<< And who discusses anyway. >>>>
We dont discuss.
<<<< We just argue. ;-)>>>>
No we dont.
An argument is merely the forceful juxtapositrion of conflicting ideas.
By the way, is this the 5-min argument or the 10-min argument?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 99 10:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Dere Street
<<<<<<Other sections further north show signs of argicultural use.>>
*argicultural* use....is this a case of 36inch ruts made by south american
tractors????
<<<Will drive it with luck in a couple of weeks.>>>
PLEASE get some photos of this damage, if its possible to get it in the
same photo as your 4x4 so much the better, good clear tyre tread marks
will be a bonus, send them to me...I will send you a few groats for a
print or two...
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 05:40:39 -0500
Subject: Independent Response
Any comments on this:-
THE INDEPENDENT
One Canada Square, Canary What London, E14 5DL Tel. 0171 293 2000 Fax. 017
293 2435
12 March 1999
Chris Marsden Esq
Orleton Manor
Orleton
Ludlow SY8 4HR
Dear Mr Marsden
"Two legs good. four wheels bad" Duff Hart-Davis Independent. 6 February
1999
I refer to your e-mail of 2nd March 1999 in which you have made
a number of inaccurate assertions concerning the above article
which require correction.
Let me preface matters by saying that this was a perfectly fair and
balanced article on the conflicting arguments concerning the recreational
use of 4X4 and other vehicles on non-surfaced public roads and tracks.
The views of a number of individuals and organisations were sought and were
represented: David Gardiner of GLEAM; Dr John Harrison of the Battle for
Bridleway Group; David keown-Boyd; and yourself, as representative of the
Marches Historic Lane Preservation Group. In fact, over 20% of the article
is given over to your personal views.
Turning now to the individual points raised in your letter our response is
as follows:
1. "The article was faked around a phoney photograph".
It may surprise you to learn that Duff Hart-Davis wrote the article
entirely independently of the photograph. The photograph was supplied to
us by Mr Gardiner at the request of our picture desk after the article was
written. Mr Hart-Davis did not see the photograph before the article was
published in the newspaper. Even if he had, it would not have made the
slightest difference as far as his copy was concerned.
2. "The severe damage depicted was inflicted by agricultural
vehicles in the course of normal operations". We have been informed
by Mr Gardiner that no commercial or agricultural vehicles have used the
particular track in the photograph of Oareborough Hill for several years.
Mr Gardiner is a local farmer and may be taken to have particular local
knowledge. Furthermore, his account is upheld by the farmer of the
adjacent land, the assistant gamekeeper for that land and local residents.
They are all firmly of the view that the degradation of the track has been
caused by the recreational use of 4X4 vehicles and trail bikes.
3. "Leisure users in the area have complained of the state of this
road to The Highways Authority". This may well be the case, but it is
indicative of nothing more than their desire to continue to use Oareborough
Hill for recreational off-road activity. By focusing attention on the
condition of this road, the photograph is, in its way, similarly appealing
to The Highway Authority to do something about it.
4. "The rut depth measured to the central planed-mud inter-rut space
was (on the western rut) 18 inches and (on the easterly rut) 31 inches in
depth." We agree that the rut-depth is as you state but this is the total
rut depth and not the depth measured from the central planed-mud mound
(which of course if the relevant measurement). Our information is that
this depth averages 10 inches which we consider on well within the
capabilities of being created, and being negotiated, by cross-country 4X4
vehicles.
We further understand from Mr Gardiner that on the weekend prior to the
photograph being taken he saw three 4X4 vehicles 'mud-plugging' on this
part of Oareborough Hill although he did not have his camera with him at
the time. There is ample evidence in the photograph of recent 4X4 activity
as the tyre marks to the right of the picture bear out. We understand that
the 'lug-pitch' of these tyres measures approximately 2 inches which
accords with those fitted on cross-country 4X4 vehicles.
In the light of this you will appreciate that the question of us remedying
any 'mischief' does not arise.
Yours sincerely
Tristan Davies
Executive Editor - Features
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Scott <scotbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 05:45:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Independent Response
> 2. "The severe damage depicted was inflicted by
agricultural
> vehicles in the course of normal operations". We have been
informed
> by Mr Gardiner that no commercial or agricultural vehicles have used
the
> particular track in the photograph of Oareborough Hill for several
years.
> Mr Gardiner is a local farmer and may be taken to have particular
local
> knowledge. Furthermore, his account is upheld by the farmer of the
> adjacent land, the assistant gamekeeper for that land and local
residents.
> They are all firmly of the view that the degradation of the track
has been
> caused by the recreational use of 4X4 vehicles and trail bikes.
> adjacent land, the assistant gamekeeper for that land and local
Are these people trying to ban 4x4's? if so then the above information
is probably inaccurate due to their biased viewpoint. (It might seem
unfair to assume they are giving wrong information because of their
views, but this always seems to be the case - and has probably been
proved many times elswhere). I think the editor is right about the
photograph/article point though, and about the rut depth, if his
claims are true.
Having said the above I missed the article, Is it available on the
web? I would be very interested to see the picture.
Scott.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:45:17 EST
Subject: Re: Copies of letter are sent to this list (was: Re: Fax to HCC -
Countryfile)
In a message dated 14.3.99 21:00:34 GMT Standard Time,
rob@archenland.demon.co.uk writes:
<< Can we start organising a little
party, maybe a cake, with some candles could be left by the gates..... >>
Has anyone got any of this candle-shaped sticks of dynamite?
Much more effective than mere candles.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:45:11 EST
Subject: Re: CoCo21 Recommendations.
In a message dated 14.3.99 11:18:31 GMT Standard Time, geoff@cix.co.uk writes:
<< PTRO (pedestrian traffic regulation order) >>
I think we should start by promoting coin-operated pelican crossings. 5p would
do, and it would keep away the brats who just press the button and do not want
to cross. It would also improve attitudes by making walkers realise that their
wear and tear, and disruption to traffic flow, was also a drain on resources,
and it would give them a stake in the economy.
PS there is a pedestrian TRO in action on an underpass-type road in
Merseyside. I suspect that in practice there are several, for under-over
passes, but this one is actually signed. Red circle, white disc, with man
walking.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:45:22 EST
Subject: Re: Independent Response
In a message dated 15.3.99 10:42:56 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< In the light of this you will appreciate that the question of us remedying
any 'mischief' does not arise.
>>
But if you look closely at our response you will note that all the evidence we
use to support this argument comes from anti-motoring lobbyists.
Miss Rebecca can personally vouch for the fact that she saw Mr Gardiner
driving up and down the route at 3 am in a six-wheel Unimog, carrying the
markings, << Get out of that you LARA bastards >>. Mrs Still and Mrs Masters
were sitting in the back, holding sacks of turnips to add weght to their
arguments. And if you believe that, well, you would believe the press.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:45:16 EST
Subject: Re: ORPAs
Yes, another acronym to add to the list.
Other Roads with Public Access means -
These routes are not already shown on this map as RoW and not shown as tarmac,
but they are on the List of Streets and so they might be useful to the public.
But this is not a complete list, and once more we are going to dodge the issue
of status by using an almost meaningless phrase.
Yours neither faithfully nor sincerely,
The Ordnance Survey.
PS thanks for the financial support all you members of the public give us in
taxation, but don't expect any favours in return. Our motto is -
Think like Civil Servants, but be neither
Charge like a profiteering monopoly, and be both.
Tim Stevens
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:07:43 -0000
Subject: Re: Re(2): Rights of Way in the 21st Century
Patrick Shore writes
<<However, those tracks designated as Rupps (spelling?) were only ever
designed for horses and carts not 4 track vehicles as used aroung my
village. The ruts are so deep they have caused hillside erosion.>>
I think designed is the wrong term. The ways you talk about were probably
neither designed or set out, but came into use through use. I believe it
is accepted that unsealed lanes are probably in a better state today than
when they were in regular use by horse and cart. The history books are
full of the horrors of travel in rural areas before the 20th C. There were
often two routes over a hill and when one became impassable the other was
used, or a new one stated.
Could Patrick assure me that all the use is recreational and not
agricultural?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:21:55 -0000
Subject: Waste
>From Lisa - contributed to the white paper group:
Weren't the enclosed lands considered "waste"? Therefore how can the 5
million acres of it have been "prime" agricultural land. It may now be
"prime" it wasn't then. I may be wrong but did the 18th Century common man
have time to just "ramble" about ? Somehow I don't think so! They were on
the land for a reason.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:21:36 -0000
Subject: All reved up with no place to go
Re NGLD,
Just had a call back from Mr Pytlik at Staffs CC, with reference to
our planned lane clearance. The CC were happy until about 1 hour
ago when they recieved two calls from locals. One had concerns
about any drainage works affecting his field (fair enough), the other
had lived there for 40 years and had never seen a vehicle (therefore
it isnt vehicular etc.), all the birds will die, skies will darken, there
will be a plague of frogs etc.
The CC explained that it was vehicular. There is no question about
rights here, but I have been asked to call off this work until later in
the year. I think I can agree with this because it does no good to
get peoples backs up for no reason. So, lets revisit this one later....
but.....
I now have a team of voulanteers with no lane to clear. I did ask the
CC (Leek office) if they had any others they might like some help
with, but they declined (I think for political reasons).
I need a new (local) project - any ideas?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:33:25 -0000
Subject: RE: Copies of letter are sent to this list (was: Re: Fax to HCC -
Countryfile)
Damn, you've guessed.....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: TimLARA@aol.com [mailto:TimLARA@aol.com]
> Sent: 15 March 1999 14:45
> Has anyone got any of this candle-shaped sticks of dynamite?
Much more effective than mere candles.
> Tim
> Sent: 15 March 1999 14:45
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:33:31 -0000
Subject: RE: Any Questions?
But out of our arguments comes wisdom ?
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
p.s. at least 10 minutes please....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: phil.wadey@WHICH.NET (phil.wadey@WHICH.NET)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:35:03 -0000
Subject: RE: CoCo - BHS
I hadn't seen this. I ought to resubscribe, but quite honestly the volume fo
traffic that was not about rights of way was getting me down. I might even
reply to this one. I've never been that happy with this brown/green byway idea
and have had my concerns noted at HQ. But that doesn't necessarily mean I
disagree with it; it's just that I have yet to decide whether it is a right way
forwards.
Phil
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:27:50 EST
Subject: Re: Rights of Way in the 21st Century
In a message dated 13.3.99 08:14:27 GMT Standard Time,
lisa@jmnorr.globalnet.co.uk writes:
<< A bit of concern about No. 93 re: Motorized users
with option a) accomodate b) restricted or c) ban altogether. Please note
that the RA promote this. What do you think?
Isn't it dangerous to even consider this? Who's next? >>
For clarity, the option (b) is a BHS idea, and the RA support option (c).
(b) is based on a distinction* between once-surfaced or metalled routes (=
Brown Byways) and those with no artificial surface (= Green Byways). On BBs
motoring would be permitted, but on GBs only horse-drawn vehicles would be
allowed.
Like most hare-brained ideas this seems a useful distinction, but I make these
points -
1. There is no correlation between vulnerable/sustainable routes and the
presence or absence of metalling. Some Lake District vulnerable tracks are 4
feet of soft peat over a metalled surface, other sustainable ones are on
natural rock and stone surfaces, which have never needed metalling. An extreme
example is the over-sands route (Lancaster-Grange) which is swept by the tide
each day, could never be metalled, and which sustains frequent tractor and
trailer use by shrimpers without a trace of damage.
2. The current problems with both RUPPs and BOATs relate to their definitions,
involving arcane distinctions and long arguments about balance of user, etc.
These replaced arguments about suitability, and what RUPP meant anyway. All
that (b) would do is replace them with further arguments about whether a route
was, or was not, or had been, metalled, or whether the stones were natural, or
fell from ramblers pockets, or were thrown by small boys at crows, and so on.
Motorists would be tempted to carry a bag of gravel to ensure that metalling
was there when looked for, just as landowners were (are) tempted to ensure
that routes were 'unsuitable' when that test was (is) applied (pre 1981,
except for TROs).
3. Many tracks vary in terms of surfacing, metalling, etc along their length.
There are already too many dead-end, and isolated routes, because different
tests were applied in different parishes, etc. This would only add to that
confusion. (But, if one unmetalled section disqualifies, out will come the
diggers, see 2).
4. There is no evidence to support the idea that the use of horse-drawn
traffic is more of less damaging, sustainable, etc, than motorised traffic. A
heavy tractor can make more mess than a pony and trap, but a 4 in hand can do
more damage than a motorbike. Sustainability is the key, but it depends on
various factors and changes with time. Only LARA seems to have recognised and
applied this to the management of access (only in the Lake District, so far).
5. The only reason that no-one thinks HDVs are damaging, is that they are so
rarely seen. In fact, they are so rare that routes for them-only (along with
walkers, ridden horses, as on all roads of course) would become overgrown, so
that only a narrow track, impassable to a pony & trap, would remain between
the brambles, bracken, blackthorn etc. GBs would in practice become
indistinguishable from bridleways, and the only tracks HDVs could use would be
those where they mixed it with motors (shock horror).
Your question 'Who is next' seems not to have occurred to the equestrian
lobby. Perhaps when it does it will be too late.
* The exact distinction between BB and GB is not spelt out in the BHS response
to CoCo, so it may differ in detail from my deductions here.
Tim Stevens
PS I make no apology for the use of acronyms. They have been part of standard
usage from the time before the letters SPQR were waved about by soldiers
(exempli gratia, or is Latin out, too?)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:40:58 -0000
Subject: Blue Book (was: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes)
>The blue book is currently out of print, but I do know that Staffordshire
>library service has at least one copy, so your local library should be able
>to get it for you.
Do either of the authors have email and does anyone know the address please.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:14:53 -0000
Subject: Re: HA80 s56
I have posted full information regarding this route before but.....
>Is it on DM?
YES
>Is it worth it?
I am involved at the request of local OSS rep.
It is good for relationships and the route in question is certainly worth
fighting for.
There are a few principles that may be established here.
The DM and DS disagree. I have served a s56 for the route SHOWN ON THE
DM.
Bolton MBC has admitted it is publicly maintainable but also asked in what
way I consider it to be Out of Repair.
It has been subject of TVs Dangerous Walks and has a vicious LO.
It has been through two PIs and looks set for yet another.
>Is it OOR rather than obstructed. ie how?
Yes - copy of schedule below detailing how I think it is OOR.
>Is it also obstructed, might Westley be the fly in th ointment?
Yes it is obstructed as well.
.......
>Have you given them a reminder, recorded delivery or take it in a demand a
>receipt. Also ask to speak to Monitoring officer dirct - ring first?
They admitted liability and asked how OOR.
I answered and have reminded - 2 of the six months are now up since
admission.
.......
>Have you checked if the signatory is authorised to sign?
Solicitor to Council - is that good enough?
#############
Dear Mrs Stone,
Footpath 26 - Westhoughton
Thank you for your response to my notice served under section 56 of The
Highways Act 1980. I am however surprised that you should ask for my
opinion of how the portion of highway is out of repair. It is my
understanding that Bolton MBC employ a qualified surveyor whose full time
occupation is to survey highways and his opinion must surely be of more use
than any opinion of mine as to the state of a highway.
However, as you have asked, please find attached in the schedule below my
unqualified opinion of the manner in which the appropriate portion of
Footpath 26 is out of repair.
It would be helpful if you could include a copy of your list of priorities
with your reply in order that I might have some idea when I can expect to
find appropriate maintenance works to have been carried out on this route.
I am sending this by facsimile so as to delay your information as little as
possible and, hopefully to be as helpful as possible to your department.
Please note that this correspondence does not constitute a legal notice.
Yours faithfully
Ian Boddison
cc: Alistair Bunting - Rights of Way Officer (Bolton MBC)
SCHEDULE
The portion of highway known as Footpath 26, as shown on the Definitive Map
for the Metropolitan Borough, is not convenient for use by the public for
four distinct reasons.
1. The eastern end of said highway is obstructed by a wooden fence which is
reinforced by a co-existent wire fence. Whilst this does not constitute
the highway being out of repair in the context of Section 56 of The Highways
Act 1980, it does represent a statutory notice which Bolton MBC have a
statutory duty to arrange the removal of.
2. The portion of said highway has, at many points along its surface,
vegetation of an obstructing nature which is growing in the surface of the
highway. That vegetation prevents the free passage of the public along the
highway as is their right.
3. A major section of the said highway has a founderous surface of deep mud
due to standing surface water which, I submit, is a result of negligence on
the part of Bolton MBC to ensure that the highway is provided with proper
and functional drainage.
4. The surface water referred to above is of a depth so as to make that
section of highway impassable to the public. As such, I consider it to
be an obstruction in its own right and as a separate entity to the surface
damage which it has caused.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:18:01 -0000
Subject: UCR's in Oldham
I have recently written to Oldham MBC RoW Dept asking for confirmation that
10 routes are included on the list of streets maintainable at public
expense. To make life as easy as possible I included all the road names
along with start and finish NGRs.
I have just had a 'phone call to say that they could provide the information
but at a cost of 30 pounds! I questioned this on the basis that the List
of Streets is a public document and they agreed that it was available for
public inspection and that could provide the information required but that
they would have to charge due to the time involved.
I am surprised!
Is this usual???
Any comments.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:57:34 -0000
Subject: Further information on HA80 s56
I made it to Manchester Magistrates Court last week to find the procedure
for 'laying the information' after a CC has admitted that a way is publicly
maintainable and that they are the authority responsible for that
maintenance.
The Duty Clerk informs me that the case has to be brought in the magistrates
court for the area in which the HA are located - I thought as much but it
was still worth checking.
Also there is a charge of 23-50 for laying the information. I had the
Blue Book with me which I produced and showed her section 6.9.5 (page 201)
which says "There is no charge for making the complaint." She is aware
of both the authors and suggests that I find out some reference to support
this quote as 'they are unlikely to get it wrong'! I did ask if the
charge was new but she assures me it is not.
If it were bought before Manchester magistrates (every court is different)
then, as it is slightly unusual, it would have to go before the 'Stripe
Hendry' [spelling???] for them [him???] to determine whether it should get
as far as a magistrate. This would be done under oath in a court but
with the magistrates absent - I could not get a reason for all this extra
rigmouroll other than that it saves unnecessary cases being brought before
the magistrates.
The other advice that was offered was to contact The Law Society as they may
well take the case up on my behalf. We had quite a long discussion about
the merits of voluntary organisations taking 'corporate' action in such
proceedings and the view has to be that, for a variety of reasons, this
should NEVER be done but instead an individual should carry out the action.
Backed, where appropriate by a user organisation.
Is there anyone on the list who either know John Riddle or John Trevelyan
and might be able to get a reference to support their assertion that there
is no charge in laying the complaint. Or has anyone got an email address
for either of them?
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:24:19 -0000
Subject: Tunshill Lane
We had one of our regular laning trips around Manchester yesterday and found
a few interesting lanes. However, the most interesting was the longest
lane in Greater Manchester and one of the most remote, Tunshill Lane.
It starts next to the pub on the A672 at SD 9774 1196 and heads off
north-west. The first section is rocky and uneven but well defined and
an easy drive. After passing the reservoir at SD 969 127 the lane gets
quite narrow between stone walls and then becomes very badly defined over
open country with just the bases of the old walls to follow.
>From here it climbs and is quite wet in places although this is only surface
mud on top of a made up stone surface. The retaining walls on both
sides of the lane have fallen in in quite a few places which makes progress
slow and the driving has to be very deliberate. But that was nothing
compared to what was to come. The left back had fallen in almost
completely with a stone wall to the right. Both the Disco's (Paul
Byron's & Dave Wilson's) were slipping towards the wall and it was VERY
tight. The look of relief on both their faces when they got through
had to be seen to be believed.
Having got past that we saw that the way ahead was VERY wet and boggy so we
started to walk the route ahead. Here we met the NWW Ranger who had seen
us coming down the first section. She has problems with vehicles leaving
the track and deviating across the moorland - but more of that later.
She showed us the next section of the lane which is in the bottom of a deep
cutting but quite exposed. The bottom of the hollow has upto 18 inches
of mud and water sitting in the bottom. The ranger is of the opinion
that this mud is protecting the surface from water erosion and she is
probably right. However it is also causing users (mainly walkers and
m/cs) to cut across the adjacent moorland and that is getting eroded
instead. Under the mud is a hard, stone surface as found on the rest
of the lane and that is not suffering from water erosion. This
waterlogged section has a slight slope on it and at the bottom is a huge
puddle [lake!] with the remains of a side drain all blocked up.
Not far from the muddy hollow is a locked gate across the lane with an open
bridle gate next to it. (SD 9520 1331) I had been told by Tim Wood
(Rochdale RoW officer) that this gate was now unlocked as the previous (anti
access) tenant farmer had emigrated to New Zealand. I was told that the
new farmer was aware of vehicle rights and had agreed that the gate would
remain unlocked but closed. There is no stock to be concerned about so
a gate is not really needed. Beyond the gate the track is in good
condition and further along there is another gate but this one is very
broken. We were told by the ranger that there is a big stone that is
regularly blocking the way beyond the gate but when we passed it was at the
side of the lane.
This lane is a perfect example of how bad things can get when vehicles are
excluded. The hollow is full of thick mud which is causing users to go
around and cause erosion on the surrounding moorland. The track is much
more sustainable being a made up stone surface. The ranger did say that
they (NWW?) allowed walkers, cyclists and horse riders to use this deviation
but not motorists. Then, later, she said that no-one should deviate.
If the drain at the lower end of the hollow was dug out then the water would
have somewhere to go and would wash the surface mud away. This process
would be helped by the passage of a few vehicles. This point was
proven when, on the way back, we crossed through another section with
surface mud (but not nearly as much) and then stopped to let some walkers
past. There was a small stream of mud flowing in front of us which
then went off the track and into the side drain.
The first move must be to get the gate open as this is the only physical
obstruction preventing vehicles from using the through route (or one of them
as there is a junction at SD 9464 1294 and the route heading north-west and
crossing the M62 is open and usable but the route that heads under the M62
at SD 937 123 is too narrow for 4x4's due to silt and vegetation building up
between the stone walls, although it is unobstructed). Then, with the
side drain at the lower and of the hollow dug out properly, the lane will
start to drain and dry out. Some use by vehicles will help to remove
the mud and compact the hard surface and then all users will be able to use
the correct route and will not have to deviate around the muddy section.
Once this starts to happen, the erosion of the surrounding land will cease
and the moorland will gradually start to heal.
The next problem then to address would be the very narrow section with the
steep bank (Dave and Paul are good at driving that bit now that they have
done it in both directions). This would be a good project for a future
GLD or even as a winter project as water is not a problem in this section
and there is very little wildlife as it is very remote.
Then after that there is the overgrown alternative exit from the lane and
then to start rebuilding some of the stone walls and to do some waymarking
and ......................
I think this lane could keep us going for the next ten years for Green Lane
Day projects and, being the jewel in Manchester's laning crown, there should
be no shortage of willing volunteers.
The big problem seems to be the gate (or rather its lock). The RoW
dept. have told me that this has been removed but it would appear from
talking to the ranger that the landowners (North West Water) are fairly much
against vehicular access to their land even if there is a carriageway across
it. It seems that various discussions have taken place over the past
decade between North West Water and Rochdale MBC to try to solve the problem
of the waterlogged hollow but they seem to only talk in terms of finding the
original drainage channels which may be under ground and may have been
diverted at the time of the building of the reservoirs. It seems to me
that they are using complex problems to hind behind and as an excuse to do
nothing. Whereas the solution would appear to be reasonably simple.
And all the time whilst nothing is getting done the condition of the lane is
getting worse.
Initially I am going to write to Tim Wood (Rochdale RoW officer) and ask why
the gate is still locked and what they intend to do to solve the problems of
the waterlogged section. I will also suggest exactly what I have suggested
here and offer him the manpower to carry out the work of digging the side
drain out. Depending on the result of this I may informally suggest
that a failure to remove the obstructing gate is likely to lead to at least
on section 56 notice being served. However, Rochdale are usually quite
happy to talk things through but they are not quite so quick to act.
Like all HAs they are underfunded but I think that this important lane does
need moving up the list of priorities.
If anyone is in the area and fancies visiting it then please do but please
follow your visit with a letter. Or a few general letters asking
about the lane and why it is obstructed would be useful at the moment.
The contact for the Council is:
Mr Tim Wood
Rights of Way Officer
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Electric House,
Smith Street,
Rochdale,
OL16 1YP
Tel: 01706 647474 Ext. 4611
Fax: 01706 864686
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 20:58:27 -0000
Subject: Re: Further information on HA80 s56
From: Bod <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
>If it were bought before Manchester magistrates (every court is different)
>then, as it is slightly unusual, it would have to go before the 'Stripe
>Hendry' [spelling???] for them [him???] to determine whether it should get
>as far as a magistrate.
*
Stipendiary - a paid resident magistrate ? Presumably the stipendiary sifts
the wheat from the chaff.
PB
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:09:52 EST
Subject: Re: Re(2): Rights of Way in the 21st Century
In a message dated 15.3.99 16:10:13 GMT Standard Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
<< <<However, those tracks designated as Rupps (spelling?) were only ever
designed for horses and carts not 4 track vehicles as used aroung my
village. The ruts are so deep they have caused hillside erosion.>> >>
Threre is more to it than this. If they were set out, as you suggest, and you
might be right, for horses and carts, answer this -
All local minor roads were 'not designed for motors', these RUPPs were no
different. So, how come they were not tarred along with the other roads? Could
it be, perhaps, that in the 1920s they were not in regular use by motors?
Could it be that the reason for this was soft ground, steep hills, a ford,
rocks, ruts, etc? So early motorists found it quicker to go round?
What other reason could there be for a cart road not to become a motor road?
And then to become recorded as a Cart Road, but mainly used by walkers, in the
early DM&S process?
So, who is 'to blame' for the modern conditions - ie the soft ground, steep
hills, fords, rocks, ruts, etc? Haven't they been there all along?
Tim Stevens
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:10:01 EST
Subject: Re: All reved up with no place to go
In a message dated 15.3.99 18:23:00 GMT Standard Time, MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk
writes:
<< I need a new (local) project - any ideas? >>
Contact your local TRF, GLASS, AWDC, ARC club, and see if they are aware of a
lane that could do with a sort. And don't forget that the message you get from
eg LEEK might be different from the other end of the county.
There are activities going on in Derbyshire (see Ray Clayton) and Shropshire
(Shropshire Laners c/o Glass) so do not let your enthusaiam or volunteers go
to waste. Or come and help me move my garden shed (full of trail bikes) to
make room for a 4x4.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 21:25:53 -0000
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
My understanding is that Phil Lord covers the whole of what was Greater
Manchester County on behalf of the TRF - I certainly still send him the
London Gazette notices for the area.
Richard Hawker
From: Bod <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: 14 March 1999 23:03
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:50:03 EST
Subject: Re: UCR's in Oldham
In a message dated 15.3.99 20:14:39 GMT Standard Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< I have just had a 'phone call to say that they could provide the
information
but at a cost of 30 pounds! I questioned this on the basis that the List
of Streets is a public document and they agreed that it was available for
public inspection and that could provide the information required but that
they would have to charge due to the time involved. >>
There is a simple answer. Send them 10 s56 letters in the same registered
envelope. They have a duty to tell you but only a power to be awkward.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:50:08 EST
Subject: Re: Further information on HA80 s56
In a message dated 15.3.99 20:14:42 GMT Standard Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< Also there is a charge of 23-50 for laying the information. >>
I am as sure as I can be that this is wrong. There is a charge for laying info
for Judicial Rewiew of a magistrates decision - I have paid it and the case is
heard tomorrow. So perhaps your informant was misinformed.
Confirmation of this might be in your later message about the stipendiary. The
law says it goes in front of the magistrates, so that is what happens. You
might be better off with a stipendiary magistrate, as he will be properly
trained and less inclined to make it up as he goes along.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:50:11 EST
Subject: Re: Tunshill Lane
In a message dated 15.3.99 20:15:02 GMT Standard Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< Depending on the result of this I may informally suggest
that a failure to remove the obstructing gate is likely to lead to at least
on section 56 notice being served. >>
On the foundrous section of the route, I hope, not the obstructed bit. That
way you will not be en-Westleyed. And your concern is not to have a go at
them, but to ensure that their failure to remove the obstruction does not
extend to doing nothing else, and, to ensure that you have a piece of paper
that says 'Yes this is a road' in case you need to abate the nuisance yourself
and the Police are called. But with their co-operation this will not, of
course, be necessary.
But meanwhile, should negotiations with NWW or RMBC run into the, er sand, let
me know in a formal letter.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:17:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Independent Response
> Are these people trying to ban 4x4's?
YES. It is a put up stunt by gardiner and his glum cronies.
if so then the above information
> is probably inaccurate due to their biased viewpoint. (It might seem
> unfair to assume they are giving wrong information because of their
> views, but this always seems to be the case - and has probably been
> proved many times elswhere).
They are not mistaken, they lie. You have to be able to lie fluently to be
a member of the glums. I would suggest anyone in any doubt as to the
truthfullness or otherwise of gardiner pops down to Oareborough Hill and
decides for themselves if tractors have used it in the last few years. And
wheher the field harvested onto through this lane was arried on mule or
4wd. And the track through private woodland is likely to be leisure use.
I think the editor is right about the
> photograph/article point though, and about the rut depth, if his
> claims are true.
His claim is 10". I measured it at 18 - 31" wrt to the centre. He is wrong.
> Having said the above I missed the article, Is it available on the
> web? I would be very interested to see the picture.
> views, but this always seems to be the case - and has probably been
> proved many times elswhere).
No. Although I have been very kindly forwarded some good photos that I
have forwarded onto the PCC. The paper and this editor is, as expected a
waste of space, but the PCC funded and controlled by the press may take in
Independent view.
I can send you one of those if you wish. Another view of the lane by
anyone else in the vicinity would be welcome.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:17:39 -0500
Subject: RE: CoCo - BHS
> I hadn't seen this. I ought to resubscribe, but quite honestly the
volume fo
> traffic that was not about rights of way was getting me down.
This is a big problem, PLEASE everyone, keep volume of off-topic comments
down!
> I might even
> reply to this one. I've never been that happy with this brown/green
byway idea
> and have had my concerns noted at HQ. But that doesn't necessarily mean
I
> disagree with it; it's just that I have yet to decide whether it is a
right way
> forwards.
> Phil
The idea at first sight has some merit, but the difficulty in determining
is which have a surface due to the varying surfaces along the length of a
way is enormous. What is a bed-rock or river bed. Or a bit of stones
thrown down in the gateways, or chewed up by tractors, could be done
deleiberately, as I see the Telegraph today is suggesting large area of
'uncultivated' land is going to have wildlife-destroying fertlising, or
conversion just to arable to keep the trampler out! For every action there
is an unequal and opposite reaction.
Most people would not dream of using most unsurfaced roads in winter. I
was surprised to see how some rupps in berks, the stoned ones were being
used (and VRd by WB), but the unsurfaced rupps were not. Did they know
something about evidence? But I use some restored 30ft wide grass strips
over Mocktree, reinstated 3 years ago after years of ploughing. Some slight
signs of use, but even in the wettest weather it does not break the grass
surface, so long as use is light and follows different tracks every time.
So local management is surely the best option. I see glum says it won't
work, along with TROs, so obviuosly they are scared that it does.
VR (with teeth - if necessary), no completely unsurfaced when wet, but
lets not criminalise it.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 23:55:28 -0000
Subject: Advert
Hi
Have just up-loaded a text that may interest researchers worrying about the
description Cross Road. It is an essay about highway improvement from 1693
and considers Cross Roads - Cross Roads that I recall as main roads as a
kid.
>From the Hants lanes opening page go to Books and reading and follow the
link to DeFoe.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 99 00:13 GMT
Subject: Tractor damage
Someone who wishes to remain a nonny mouse says
<<<But tractors do not have axles which detach, so a comparison is
impossible. What might be better is plywood profiles of the underside of
egSJ, Siii, RR, Unimog, Tractors, painted white and clearly marked with
the typeof vehicle. These profiles could them be placed across the ruts,
to show whatdoes and does not fit. They would be more likely to show
clearly in aphotograph, and be much easier to carry about.>>>
Would this idea have merit?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 35 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 99 00:58 GMT
Subject: Re: All reved up with no place to go
These things are sent to try us........:-(
I'll ahve to give you to RobSmith for local knowledge of alternatives....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 36 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:07:21 -0000
Subject: Striped Henry - any relation to Hooray Henry?
Nice phrase you coined there, Ian!
Coincidentally, there was an advert (very large one, at that) in the
Guardian yesterday, on page 6, which shows a roadworker operating a
pneumatic drill alongside the triangular road sign of the man furling his
umbrella. Only this road sign bears the caption in it "Magistrate". The
spiel that goes with it says:-
It doesn't matter what you do or where you come from, all you need to become
a magistrate are the right personal qualities. If you care about your local
community, are hard working, reliable, can work well with others and have an
open mind (GOOD ONE - ed.), you're the kind of person we're looking for. If
you think you fit the bill (and I thought the Bill fitted everyone - ed) and
you live in England or Wales, call 0845 606 1666 to find out how to become a
voluntary magistrate.
Are you magistrate material?
Bod, how about it, when you're not slapping naughty boys on the wrist, you
could be hearing applications for stopping-up of highways!
Don't delay - act today!
Richard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 37 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 36 lines 1835 [forwarded 96 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1352 [content 1157 forwarded 96 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990316 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]