[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:42:13 +0000
Subject: Re: CoCo - BHS
Chris,
I've not seen the document - can expand (briefly) on that?
Thanks
Sue
Chris Marsden wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 03:55:47 -0500
Subject: Further information on HA80 s56
> 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.
> proceedings and the view has to be that, for a variety of reasons, this
I doubt the Law society would!
For that kinda dough it might be worth asking if the OSS or RA would back
you to take that action (if you were a member). The membership cost is
lower than the cost of the action!
If you do take the action. I would think Glass should back you for the
basic costs. You must keep records of all the time you spend (in 1/4 hr
units) and what you did, ie every letter. This cost is reclaimable at
£9-25 hr I think, along with the costs of laying the complaint, and car
parking fees/bus fares for attending court etc. IF you win. The BB does
say it should be done in person, otherwise it may be necessary to be
legally represented.
You could ask solictors what they would charge, and the risks of an appeal
in a higher court.
You could ring other courts, and ask what their view of the costs and
procedure is, (assuming you have a potential s56 in THEIR area).
Chgris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 03:55:49 -0500
Subject: Re: HA80 s56
> It has been through two PIs and looks set for yet another.
Why another PI, is the status on the DM likely to be confirmed?
> >Is it also obstructed, might Westley be the fly in th ointment?
> Yes it is obstructed as well.
Remember Warks tried to claim if obstructed at another point then s56 could
not be used. I am not impressed by that arguement.
> .......
> >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?
Def worth trying Mon Officer.
> 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?
If it looks like going to court, it is advised that you get a confirmation
that the signatory to the s56 is mandated by committee to sign. A simle
letter to that affect Rec Dely should suffice. Co Sol is not good enough if
they have not had that power conferred on them.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:04:08 -0000
Subject: Thank you
Thanks to the anonymous person who sent CoCo papers. Interesting in the
predictability of the responses, with the exception that there is more
support for vehicular use than I would have expected.
I would be prepared to put money on the chance that Plumbe wrote the
response for the Countryside Rights Association. Have sought copy of the
Hants response from the County.
Thank you LARA for a very straight response - or am I biased
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:30:26 -0000
Subject: Re: Blue Book (was: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes)
<<Do either of the authors have email and does anyone know the address
please.>>
btp@freeuk.com
Open Spaces - last known address
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:43:48 -0000
Subject: Re: Re(2): Rights of Way in the 21st Century
<< <<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 did not write this. It was the text about which I was whinging!!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:35:53 -0000
Subject: Re: HA80 s56
Bod
Your schedule gives cause for concern. Would this water and mud bring a
horse to its knees? If not the way is not founderous and you are likely to
fail at court.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:36:40 +0000
Subject: Re: Thank you
In message <bulk.18913.19990316022010@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
>or am I biased
no only perceived bias.
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:28:15 -0000
Subject: Re: Tractor damage
Yes. Cost: 10mm ply is about 15 quid a sheet. About 1 sheet per vehicle
although you could probably do a LR and SJ back to back.
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 99 18:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Thank you
Twas me...plain brown envelope, large writing?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: matt.brookfield@sleaford.co.uk (matt.brookfield)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:55:32 -0000
Subject: RE: UCR's in Oldham
Bod wrote:
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.
Firstly I just joined the rights of way so please be gentle with me. I 'm
based in Lincolnshire.
With regards to Bods commnets above:
I don't legally think they can. If you asked for copies fair enough,
however as it is a public document, then it should be readily available to
everyone to inspect free of charge. I will check this out (for my sins I
work for a Local Authority)
However it would be worth asking when it was decided and on what bases to
charge to look at this map, i.e. is there a Policy voted in by council
members if not then write to the Chief Exce , saying how discussed you feel
about being charged to have a look at publicly owned document you being a
tax payer and all.
The other answer maybe that they are trying to put you off??????
Matt Brookfield (Lincs)
X-deleted-[spamkill: hostnames start w/letter input: %s] M&
```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$
[spamkill: hostnames start w/letter input: %s]
M=6XN8V]M```"`?=?`0```$L`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:49:46 -0000
Subject: Hereford Horse Exhaust
I've just opened my mail and apart from the usual bills this little gem
pooped out:
"Dear Mr.Smith,
Route at Upper Lye
You have enquired about this Council's intentions with regard to this route.
The Council is currently investigating the status of this route and will
decide the appropriate course of action once these investigations have been
completed.
You will appreciate the BBC Countryfile programme has generated a
considerable number of enquiries and we are therefore not in a position to
enter into further correspondence with individual members of the public.
We expect the Council to conclude its investigations in the near future.
Yours sincerely...."
My first reaction is what a load of horse exhaust.
Then. Why if there are to my knowledge two responses to S56 notices, one by
the current CC, and one by its predecessor, stating that the route is a
public carriageway, and maintainable at public expense, do they have to
waste CJM's money investigating its status
I feel a snotty reply coming on. I'll let you know what I say when its
written.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:49:49 -0000
Subject: RE: Rights of Way in the 21st Century
Knowing how much debate there is about byeways, the concept of green &
brown byeways would be a lawyers charter to print more money.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: TimLARA@aol.com [mailto:TimLARA@aol.com]
> Sent: 15 March 1999 19:28
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> 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:
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
> lisa@jmnorr.globalnet.co.uk writes:
> 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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:49:55 -0000
Subject: RE: All reved up with no place to go
Mark posted his message to the list and 'cried on my shoulder' on the same
day.
But Uncle Rob thinks he has found an alternative......
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:49:50 -0000
Subject: RE: All reved up with no place to go
I've had a word with another highways depot in Staffs, suggested a byeway
for sorting that I'd reported as being out of sorts. Result it looks as if
Mark's problem is cured.
I didn't quiet catch what was muttered about Mark's contact, but I think
there was some doubt as to parentage in there...
'My' guy is wandering if he can get us a truck load of scalpings from
somewhere in the county, as he just cleared out his yard a few weeks ago,
and would have kept some back if he'd known we might use it!!
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: TimLARA@aol.com [mailto:TimLARA@aol.com]
> Sent: 15 March 1999 21:10
> << 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.
> Contact your local TRF, GLASS, AWDC, ARC club, and see if they are aware
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:11:18 -0500
Subject: Re: CoCo - BHS
> Chris,
> I've not seen the document - can expand (briefly) on that?
> Thanks
> Sue
See BHS para f.
Hope this helps,
Chris
(OSS)
value out of the ROW budget, e.g. by prosecuting lawbreaking farmers and
landowners and making an example of them, doing the work themselves and
charging the offender.
d. It should be promoting understanding of the history and true status
of paths, emphasising that these are normally not pnvate property but are
publicly owned highways in the same way that roads are. That should reduce
some of the underlying sensitivity of landowners and increase LAs'
commitment.
e. It should generally be seen to be upholdipg the public right to
take a different opinion before an independent arbiter: ROW public
inquiries are one of the few places where an objector is entitled to free
justice.
f. It should be seeking to address the ROW problems that are imposed
upon the HA by the planning system.
g. It should be promoting a low-cost, effective means of ensuring that
paths are opened up, such as spot fines.
h. It should be promoting the clearance of paths under the Community
Service Scheme (i.e. doing the HA's work, not that of the oWner or
occupier).
1. It should not be promoting changes in the law which are costly,
confusing and have an uncertain outcome.
British Horse Society (BHS)
1. A substantial response. Generally supportive, but with some
important exceptions. Welcome recognition of the needs of equestrians and
cyclists. Accept the need for a package of changes, but cannot support the
current package as it stands.
ii. Specific comments as follows:
· The current legislation should be capable of working effectively.
It is only the lack of will within local government to carry out their ROW
duties that necessitates the sort of drastic measures now proposed.
· Elected members must.take much of the blame. Their unwillingness to
allocate sufficient funds for ROW work is exacerbated by their apparent
readiness to appease and placate landowners and neglect the needs of users.
In many -although not all - areas this has created a situation which is no
longer capable of resolution under existing procedures and laws.
41
· The current package of proposals demands disproportionate
sacrifices from users, particularly as regards closing the definitive map
to historic claims. The principle of sonce a highway, always a highway" has
been enshrined in law for centuries, and it is not for this generation to
abandon it.
· Question whether the necessary new money will actually be delivered
over a sufficiently long period. Also question whether lethargic local
authorities wfll implement new arrangements any more effectively than the
current system.
iii BHS would require the following amendments for the package to be
acceptable to them:
a. Much of the new money required should be ring-fenced for the
purpose of getting the definitive map as accurate as possible. This would
enable rapid progress. It might also remove the need to close the map, and
a decision on that should be postponed.
b. The legal processes for recording ROW lack clarity and consistency.
Too many decisions, particularly those concerning vehicular rights, are
flawed. Guidance should be produced by the Comrriission, and adopted by the
Planning Inspectorate, to identify the main sources of evidence and the
weight which should be placed upon them in an Inquiry.
Local authorities should be required to take sufficient action on backlogs;
to act quickly on obstructions; and to act quickly on new claims; To
achieve this, they should be given the duty to impose fixed penalties on
owners and occupiers for certain offences; HASO s56 should be extended to
cover obstructions as we11 as highways out of repair; and applicants should
receive penalty payments from the authority for modification. applications
not determined within 12 months.
d. tandowners and occupiers should be required to ensure and vouch to
the HA that all ROW across their land are clear, usable and easy to find,
and a system of monitoring that has teeth should be put in place.
HAs should be required to use their existing creation powers to create new
paths, e.g. new link paths along road margins. Such creations should be
based on a standard scale of compensation costs. Cycle paths on verges
should be available to horse ;iders and walkers, as well as cyclists. Cycle
tracks made under the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 should be available for horse
riders on the same basis that cyclists can tise bridleways. Progress is
needed on Quiet Roads? with priorities changed to favour non~motorised
users..
f. All UCRs (white roads or unsealed ones) should be reclassified as byways
and shown on definitive maps. All outstanding RUPPs should be reclassified
as byways, as should the many RUPPs incorrectly reclassified under the 1968
Act. Byways should be subdivided into Green (fully unsurfaced) Byways,
which would be open to all non-motorised users and Brown (having a surface
or base of some kind) Byways, which would be open to all users.
National Federation of Bridleways Associations (NFBA)
i. A substantive response. Generally supportive, with some
reservations. Includes many detailed suggestions for improvement.
ii. Specific comments include:
· Would like to see the surveying function - i.e. the legal recording
of public rights - separated from the maintenance function and removed from
HAs. It should be given to an independent authority, answerable to the
Secretary of
State, whose sole function was to ensure that all ROW were legally
recorded.
· (Objective 1) New money is needed, especially for bridleways, which
(unlike cycle tracks) do not currently benefit from other sources such as
"pp and Lottery funding. But also important to ensure that HAs do not
squander resources - many spend more on evading statutory work than on
carrying it out. Support for Recommendations 1.2-1.5.
· (Objective 2) Support proposal to give HAs duty to extend network,
and allocation of resources to multi-user routes. However, current funding
of cycleway initiatives is having an adverse impact on the bridleway
network, through the hard surfacing of many bndleways. This is done with
inadequate consultation, by HAs keen to minimise future maintenance
liabilities. This is now a pressing issue, which needs to be addressed.
Suppport making UCRs fully available, but important also to maintain their
character (and that of other
ROW).
· (Objective 3) Concern about proposal to close definitive map to
modifications based on historical evidence. But at same time, want to see
definitive map brought up to date - including those unrecorded rights not
yet the subject of modification applications - within a reasonable
timescale. Analogy here with commons registration, and risk of loss of
public rights.. Government should not take legal powers to close the map
untfl mechanisms for bringing it up to date are effectively and fully in
pla&e. Support as long overdue a code of practice for researching
modification claims. Should be possible to clarify the evidential value of
specific categories of evidence. Current legal opinions and judgements are
not sufficiently well informed by historic principles and practice.
Proposal to place burden of research on voluntary sector would have merit
if supported by arrangements to help fund and train researchers. Concern
about idea of the
43
HA as judge and jury in respect of modification applications - especially
when they often have an interest in the outcome (e.g. political pressure on
members, future maintenance liability). A right of review is essential.
Public inquiry system needs radical overhaul and the Inspectorate needs to
be made more accountable. Some inspectors not only lack sufficient
expertise or training in law, but also appear to have little appreciation
of the history and origins of ROW. Suggestion of local decision takers akin
to ROW magistrates is interesting, provided they were properly trained and
not prey to local political pressures or interests.
· (Objective 5) Support statutory reclassification of RUPPs as
byways. Need also to c6nsider those RUPPs which were wrongly reclassified
under the 1968 Act. Support Recommendation 5.3, but it should also be
easier for the public to require HAs to take enforcement action.
· (Objective 6) Suppport Recommendations 6.1 and 6.2.
· (Objective 8) Divergent opinions within NFBA membership about
motorised vehicles in countryside: some strongly opposed, others do not
find them a problem. Fear of perceived invasion by motor vehicles leads to
strongest objections to recording vehicular rights on definitive map. This
is one reason for recommending an independent surveying authority. Support
statutory reclassification of UCRs and BOATs as byways.
· (Objective 9) Support for code of practice on crossing points. Too
often, management consists of intervention to prevent access by perceived
undesirables, while requests for removal of obstructions or improvements to
gates go unheeded.
iii. Priorities for change
The following are among a number of suggestions made by NFBA:
a. Remove the surveying function for ROW from local government
b. Amend the Lotteries Act to make the ROW network a good cause.
c. Legislate to protect the character and surface of ROW, including
protection of bridleways, byways and UCRs from wholesale conversion into
hardsurfaced cycle tracks.
d. Require HAs to make their definitive map records fully available to
public inspection, and amend Public Records Act to exempt definitive map
records from the 30 year rule.
44
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:11:07 -0500
Subject: Tractor damage
> <<<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?
Sounds a bit silly to me. There's a rather good book available* that shows
how one can take a lane profile.
Wouldn't that be a lot simpler, much more scientific, not just by reference
to an SJ or Unimog, but to anything?
The lane profile was intended to show the type of historic usage. Slight
modification could show the profile of the used track, for example a
straight measure 10 ft long, placed horizontally (using spirit level)
across the track, marked into 3" sampling points. Use another vertical
measuring device with a specified contact area**, pushed down to a firm
base with a fairly consistent pressure. Record measurements. Then on
plotting the profile onto paper the clearance on common vehicles, and the
wheel suspended bottomed out clearance could also be depicted. If the two
foot + ruts (to the centre) were claimed to be by leisure vehicles, that
will demonstrate the stupidity of the claim - scientifically.
"Oh, but they winch through there!" Winching would only drag a vehicle
through an already out of repair bit of road, (helpfully) planing mud off
the centre, *not* making the ruts deeper where the wheels are suspended!
(Not to condone use in those conditions, but lets look objectively at the
facts)
It would also show the difficulties experienced by pedestrians, horses,
pedal cycles or trail bikes in negotiating such a founderous section. It
would seem a very practical step to take if presenting a s56 action before
a magistrate.
It would allow better, less subjective monitoring of changes in lane
condition with time.
* Ask that awfully ubiquitous Mr Stevens, for £5 I am sure he will fix you
up with a copy
** If a (heavyish) leisure type vehicle weighs say 2000Kg and has tyres 7"
wide and about 7" fore-aft ground contact (depends on inflation, tyre type,
and ground firmness etc) The contact area is about 50sq inches Therefore
ground pressure is 10Kg / sq" (to mix measurements) So if the vertical
measure was 1/2" x 1/2" it would need a downward pressure of 2.5 Kg to
assert a similar pressure, which is all quite convenient.
Chris
ps please metricate, but inches still seem more meaningful as an example.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:11:20 -0500
Subject: Re: E5221- road
> Good news. I spoke to Mr Endall yesterday concerning this
> fence that is in the process of being erected and he told me the council
> have decided not to go ahead with the stopping up application and that Mr
> Marks has been informed but we have not yet but will be. Apparently the
> Divisional surveyor has already been down and agreed the location of the
> road by the cottage but not all the way down to the river. I spoke to him
> and he says it is the owners intention to fence all the way down and when
> he is ready to do so he will agree with him the position of it. Have you
a
> detail map so I can check the position so far as it seems that the e-road
> looks very narrow by the cottage. I need to measure it . The surveyor is
> not going to do anything unless we create a fuss.
Tony,
I only have the map you gave me a copy of. It is A4 with "To Henley in
Arden" in the border at the top. I guess this is the C1903 version of the
25" / mile OS survey of 1880 ish.
This should be perfectly adequate to measure the width of the roads, there
is not likely to be anything else recording the widths.
If I am correct on the origin of the map, and it is a 1:1 copy, then the
widths are measurable as follows. They are the minimum, and approximate,
but are a starting point.
At the top near the 1188 field number, and the brace across the road:
full highway width 6.0mm, with the stream 0.5 mm from Western boundary
and metalled width 1.6mm
I suggest the 'line' is the stream as the whole has the brace (the
butcher's meat hook symbol) for field 1187 combining all four areas of land
near to number 1188, ie the Eastern verge, the made up carriageway, the
western verge, the stream, and more verge to the west of the stream up
field 1188.
Narrowest metalling (1/2 way between 1188 and Gray Mill House, your house)
1.0 mm
I only mention this part as an indication the line is the stream, and to
confirm the measurements are sound, IF the boundaries have not moved.
Measured at the cottage, at the point of the locked gate, measuring from an
imaginary line extending from the southern wall of the cottage, westward, I
estimate the width to be 1.5 mm land with the cottage (1193), then the
unsurfaced highway 2.5 mm, stream, then 0.5 mm.
If this line is the (then) course of the stream, about 1" south of the
cottage on the map, where the Parish boundary is, it broadens out to about
4.7mm max
South of the boundary the strip of land to the west of the stream seems to
be braced to field 354, probably excluding the highway, stream (which may
be 1183) and the bit in the centre which seems braced to 1193. This bit is
all very critical, because some unscrupulous person just might be inclined
to encroach on the highway, or allow (encourage) streams to 'move' to
reduce the width to an impassable width. (A 1690 (?) statute said "all
roads should be at least 8ft wide and as near as possible level" from what
I remember.
The minimum width in this section is 1.0mm
SCALE:-
At 25" / mile, and 63,360 inches / mile
1 inch = 2,534.4 inches on the ground or 211.2 feet.
At 25.4 mm / inch
1mm = approx. 100" or 8.31 ft. or 2.54 Metres on the ground.
> He is hoping it will go
> away but I suppose that is par for the course. Thank you all for your
> efforts so far as I am sure without you the result would have been very
> different
> Tony
It was a team effort, without everyone pulling together they would have
succeeded in giving away a bit more our irreplaceable heritage.
No more road are being dedicated, no sunken lanes formed, every year they
get ploughed, built over, or incorporated into gardens.
Glad we have been able to save this one.
Chris
cc Peter Gatenby OSS
RoW list
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:12:07 -0000
Subject: Adopted and Unadopted Streets
I recently reported on correspondence concerning Ross Lave Lane in Denton.
It was found as a result of looking for carriageways in Andrew Bennett's
constituency. It is a definitive bridleway but also a 'white' on the OS
LR sheet 109. The lane runs from SJ 9056 9371 to SJ 9180 9439 although
the western end is within Stockport MBC not Tameside like the remainder.
The bit in Stockport is a RUPP.
The lane looks like a road and has a hard, made-up surface - mainly of brick
and stone although it is tarmaced around where it crosses the motorway.
I wrote and asked if the route was included on the list of streets
maintainable at public expense and initially Tameside said that it was.
So I wrote back with the following:
Dear Mr Cochrane,
ROSS LAVE LANE – RoW 18/19 DENTON
Thank you for your letter of 9th February 1999.
Since receiving your letter I have visited this route and walked the entire
length including the short section that lays within the borough of
Stockport. I note that the condition of the highway is generally good
although it is obstructed in two places by locked gates – one within the
Tameside area. The surface is made-up and in a sustainable condition
despite flowing surface water.
I would submit, in accordance with government advice, that the fact that the
route is included on the list of streets maintainable at public expense is
very strongly indicative of this route carrying public vehicular rights.
This is further supported by the fact that the route continues as a RUPP
within Stockport Borough (RUPP 107). Therefore, it follows that the
locked gates are illegal obstructions. Furthermore, there is an
unofficial sign at the northern end of the route prohibiting motor vehicles.
I believe that this sign is also illegal.
Does Tameside Council have a policy regarding the public rights that exist
over minor highways included on the list of streets maintainable at public
expense? If so, perhaps you could supply me with a copy of the policy
statement.
I would appreciate your comment on the rights that you believe to exist over
Ross Lave Lane and the above assertions that I have made regarding this
highway.
Yours faithfully
Ian Boddison
Manchester Area Representative
GLASS (Green Lane Association)
They have now replied:
Dear Sir
Ross Lave Lane, Public Right of Way (PRoW) No 18/19 Denton
I refer to your fax dated 4 March 1999
It appears that the contents of my letter dated 9 February 1999 was not
entirely correct. Ross Lave Lane is registered in the list of streets
maintainable at public expense but only a short section is adopted. Ross
Lave Lane is adopted for a distance of approximately 99 metres from where it
meets Town Lane, Denton. The remaining length length is listed as a
bridleway to the Stockport MBC boundary where it then is classed as a RUPP.
I understand that Stockport Council intend to re-classify the section of
Ross Lave Lane that they are responsible for to bridleway in order to have
continuity with the section in Tameside. It follows therefore that
Tameside intend Ross Lave Lane to stay classified as a bridleway at the
present time.
I apologise for any confusion that this may have caused.
Yours sincerely
Engineering Development Manager
If the entire length of the highway is shown on the List of Streets then why
should only part of it be adopted? I am presuming that Tameside use
'adopted' to mean 'publicly maintainable'.
Bearing in mind that this is an urban area, what weight does the inclusion
on the LoS have regarding the existence of rights and what is the difference
(from a point of view of establishing rights) between adopted and unadopted
highways.
Comments please.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:35:27 -0500
Subject: Hereford Horse Exhaust
> The Council is currently investigating the status of this route and will
> decide the appropriate course of action once these investigations have
been
completed.
> You will appreciate the BBC Countryfile programme has generated a
> considerable number of enquiries and we are therefore not in a position
to
> enter into further correspondence with individual members of the public.
Your response might usefully enquire:
a) has the road ever been shown on any Inclosure awards as a public road?
b) was the road shown 'in valuation' on the 1910 Incremental valuation
maps?
c) has any evidence to show the road has been stopped up been discovered?
d) has the council members voted to make a order for BOAT?
e) If so, under what democratic procedure can you now prevaricate?
f) has the Council ever admitted it IS a highway as was also claimed?
g) has the 'Landowner' ever produced any valid deeds or proof of ownership?
h) has the admitted obstructor produced any evidence to cast doubt on it
being a public road?
i) is Mr Brown being truthful in saying "The Council have not been able to
find any evidence it is a RoW"?
As there is now clearly much public interest in this case as you admit, how
long has this been outstanding, and why has it not been dealt with before
escalating to feature on national TV?
As you are unwilling to enter into individual correspondence, public
statements in the name of open government, will be quite acceptable.
;-)
or there again you might find what they say is quite
acceptable.......................
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:35:30 -0500
Subject: Re: HA80 s56
> Your schedule gives cause for concern. Would this water and mud bring a
> horse to its knees? If not the way is not founderous and you are likely
to
> fail at court.
But this is a footpath. So however founderous, it might still not bring a
horse to it's knees!
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:18:46 +0000
Subject: Green Travel
Chris wrote:
>> 3. Nobody is saying that riding horses is bad for the environment, but
they are, about cars. I have never seen a calculation of how many miles to
the gallon a horse does, although we all know there is a %age of every
horses life spent in or behind a motor vehicle.<<
>>Driving down to Paddock everyday to feed Neddy.
And to fence, and muck out and ....
And to pop into town to arrange insurance
And go to suppliers for feed
And the Blacksmith
And the Vets<<
None of this is directly associated with actually using a horse on a PROW
(or any other highway for that matter). But more to the point, it doesn't
necessarily arise anyway. So, for example, I don't own a car (pause for
gasps of horror from other on the list), and either cadge a lift or cycle
to the yard. And more than a few owners are lucky enough to keep their
horses "on-site", so the question of daily travel to and from does not
arise. As for feed, farrier ("blacksmiths" make fancy ironware for
pretentious home owners) and vets, they kindly come to me (for a handsome
fee) as infrequently as possible.
>Thats before you get near a horsebox. There's a few miles travelled by
>vehicle for every mile in the saddle.
Wish that I had one: but I and the majority of other horse owners don't.
That's why you see us riding along a main road trying to reach the relative
safety of a local bridleway/byway before the next HGV hauls into sight.
>>Not that this is wrong, just another part of a perfectly legitimate leisure
persuit, but something some pundits don't take into acount when they say
"How wonderfully 'green' it is to ride a horse!"<<
So sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Besides, how often do walkers and
cyclists use a car to reach the countryside?
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:08:16 -0000
Subject: Re: Copies of letter are sent to this list (was: Re: Fax to HCC -
Countryfile)
>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.
>Bod
We could also do with a list of HAs with either e-mail address or fax
number. I know that I for one will be quicker to type a letter if it will go
by fax than remembering to post it, and if it's by e-mail, it normally gets
done almost immediately.
Is there a website with these contacts?
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:56:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Copies of letter are sent to this list
Matthew wrote:
>>We could also do with a list of HAs with either e-mail address or fax
number. I know that I for one will be quicker to type a letter if it will go
by fax than remembering to post it, and if it's by e-mail, it normally gets
done almost immediately.
Is there a website with these contacts?<<
Most county council web sites include an e-mail address for general
enquiries, which will pass on a message to the rights of way group (often
by the simple expedient of printing it out and putting it in the internal
mail). And those which are not geared up to internet e-mail don't
necessarily look at their e-mail accounts every day. So don't bet on it
being quicker than snail mail.
Some councils do now have universal internet e-mail access, but seem
reluctant to publish the details of individual accounts, probably for fear
of encouraging more public correspondence.
Here are a few which I've found have worked (is anyone interested in
compiling a web page with the details?):
cpittawa@gloscc.gov.uk (Gloucestershire CC general enquiries)
cxcddp@hants.gov.uk (Hampshire CC ROW)
oxcis@dial.pipex.com (Oxfordshire CC general enquiries)
jank@powys.gov.uk (Powys CC general enquiries)
environment@surreycc.gov.uk (Surrey CC Environment (inc ROW))
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:01:32 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: All reved up with no place to go
Which end of Staffs are you?
Worcs is at opposite end from Leek (you've noticed that I expect) but
I could see about something here if it's not too far.
cheers
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 99 07:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Copies of letter are sent to this list
Hugh asks
<<<<d (is anyone interested in
compiling a web page with the details?):>>>
Ive heard of these website thingys...... the answer Hugh is a polite no,
but thanks for these and I'd be grateful for a lot more on the list...
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 26 lines 1563 [forwarded 119 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1150 [content 960 forwarded 114 (cut 5) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990317 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]