[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:04:09 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: RE: All reved up with no place to go
Rob
If your GLD plans look like falling through, get in touch and I've
got one lined up to do. Office no. 01905 766873
Cheers
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 06:41:04 -0500
Subject: Adopted and Unadopted Streets
> 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.
You could ask them to confirm it was excluded from valuation on the 1910
Incremental duty valuation map. (I guess it was) If it is, tell them that
is very strong evidenc that it is a public, general purpose road. (suggest
they go for a declaration!) All Footpaths and Bridleroads were dealt with
byway of deductions, only surfaced, unproductive, public roads, with parcel
numbers on the OS base map were excluded from colouration. Do they have
the date and court of any stopping-up order? If not please remove their
illegal obstructions immediately. Assuming it will be done in 5 working
days, if you find they are not, then surely it is quite reasonable to abate
on your next bona-fide journey along that way? I would have thought an
accompanied visit would be desirable.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 06:41:08 -0500
Subject: Oareborough Hill
D D Corry
Head of Legal and Administrative Services
West Berkshire District Council
Council Offices
Market Street
Newbury RG14
By Fax to: 0118-988-1666
Dear Sir,
Re: Oareborough Hill
I am reliably informed that the ruts in this track are no more than an
average of 10" (25.4 cm) deep. In the country some mud is to be expected,
and at worst up to 6" (15 cm) might not be considered founderous, over a
firm base. Assuming the width of the ruts is similar to the depth, that
there are two ruts, and if the total length is approx 100 meters, the
minimum total volume of stone, or road planings required is therefore 100 x
2 x 0.1 x 0.254 or 5.08 cu metres.
Could you please advise of the cost of this volume of local stone, and also
of old road planings in the vicinity of junction 13 of the M4. What does
your council do with these, do you sell them (or pay for their disposal),
either way, at what cost per cubic metre? Have volunteers been actively
sought to assist in this work?
Would you also advise of the costs of planning, advertising, consulting,
making the Traffic Regulation Order, signing, etc. etc. and any physical or
other enforcement action you consider necessary. Will this regulation
curtail the primary cause of the quagmire, the continued use of heavy
agricultural vehicles during the winter months, coupled with inadequate
past maintenance? Can you please advise of the expenditure on substantive
(rather than cosmetic) repair work that has been undertaken during say the
last 5 years.
Bearing in mind the advice available to you in Making the Best of Byways,
would you confirm which route you will be taking please bearing in mind one
accords with DETR advice, and the other involves the expenditure of money
with no benefit to the charge-payer.
Yours sincerely
Any comments?
As a postscript to this,
A local quarry is quoting:
For muddy gateways, permanently wet: 6" - 2" Clean stone, average 3-4"
£8.75 ton delivered locally, in 10 Ton loads, about 5 Cu. metres.
For other tracks 3" - dust crusher run £6.70 Ton.
Slight reduction for full loads, 16 Ton, total vehicle weight about 25 Ton.
Interesting?
So for £67 + labour you can have a servicable byway for everyone, or for
£3-4,000 you can have a permanent TRO, with tractors still making it
impassable for everyone! The choice is Babtie's. Which will they do?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 99 12:13 GMT
Subject: HCC & countryfile
Got this today...
Dear Mr. Dyer,
Thank you for your e-mail of 8th March, 1999.
I did not myself see Countryfile but I have no doubt that some of the
relevant staff will have done so. I will look into the points which you
raise arising from the programme and ensure that you receive a reply as
soonas possible.
Yours sincerely
N.M. Pringle
M.J. Davies, Personal Assistant to Chief Executive Tel: 01432 260044
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:16:08 -0000
Subject: Re: Adopted and Unadopted Streets
<<Comments please>>
Have you seen the handover maps? Is it on there and at what status?? What
other documentary evidence is available? Are the gates shown in the Def
Statement?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:03:25 -0000
Subject: Re: Tractor damage
I think there is merit in the plywood profile and photographs. Once made
they can be passed around the country to other trouble spots and a report
produced with few words and lots of pictures to graphically explain the
situation. People do not always conceive figures as shapes. Figures can
be argued about but a graphical representation is more convincing.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:47:07 -0000
Subject: Re: Copies of letter are sent to this list - e-mail
Hugh
The address given:
cxcddp@hants.gov.uk (Hampshire CC ROW)
is that of David Pryke. He is committee sec and has nothing to do with RoW
directly - residing as he does, in County Secs Dept.
For RoW inquiries you should use:
cccsmm@hants.gov.uk
That is Miss Meeks in the RoW dept. All RoW addresses are currently
cccs??@hants.gov.uk
So:
John Tickle (manager) = cccsjt
Mike John (area north) = cccsmj
Liz Giles (area South) = cccseg
Ian Laurence (west) = not known
Peter Watson (central) = cccsph
Barry Lockyer (east) = not known
Do not assume that the initials indicate the address. More e-mail addresses
can be obtained from the Hampshire CC web site.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 99 17:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Planings : was Oareborough Hill
<<<<<<<Could you please advise of the cost of this volume of local stone,
and alsoof old road planings in the vicinity of junction 13 of the M4.
What doesyour council do with these, do you sell them (or pay for their
disposal), either way, at what cost per cubic metre? >>>
Synchronicity! Wokingham District Council have accumulated 1200 (1-2-0-0)
tons of planings for Byway upgrading, and correct me if Im wrong, but
arent Wokingham and West Berks _very_ close to each other....????
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:19:58 -0000
Subject: Hereford response
Almost a 'me too' posting... but as I received an identical letter to
that which Rob got yesterday it looks like they are dealing with this
as a 'standard letter' response. However, they are individually
signed, so someone must take notice of the amount of 'interest'
this item has generated even if its just due to getting a sore wrist
(from writing).
I wonder why Hereford are investigating the status, when we
already know what it is? Also not too impressed with the statement
"not in a position to enter in to further correspondence with
individuals". Do they _have_ to reply? Should we be sending in
individual s56 notices, to which they _must_ reply?
Regards
Mark
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:23:24 EST
Subject: Re: Green Travel
In a message dated 16.3.99 23:22:25 GMT Standard Time, hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
writes:
<< So sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Besides, how often do walkers and
cyclists use a car to reach the countryside? >>
Look, I have a 4x4 and three trail bikes that currently use no fuel at all
whatsoever in the slightest, but that is not relevant either. What I suggested
was that it would be useful to have an average figure, worked out over the
2,000,000 riders' horses claimed to need bridleways etc (BHS, latest press
release). Some of the horses will live in placid retirement in a field, some
will be carted hither and thither to gymkhanas, some will hunt, be hacked,
draw traps, etc, but taken as a whole, many of them will also require some
motoring mileage.
And of course cyclists and walkers use motors too, they are next in line for
the same calculation.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:23:12 EST
Subject: Re: Tractor damage
In a message dated 16.3.99 20:14:09 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< Wouldn't that be a lot simpler, much more scientific, not just by reference
to an SJ or Unimog, but to anything? >>
The object of my suggestion was to enable a photo to be taken, showing the
recreational vehicles simply did not fit the ruts. It was to avoid having to
carry round axles, wheels, etc.
Of course, a drawn profile is better, but for other purposes, including those
you suggest. The photo idea will appeal to the press, a profile is 'more
scientific' so would put them off, but might convince an inspector or
magistrate.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:23:16 EST
Subject: Re: CoCo - report & responses
I note that some of you have the text of these docs in electronic form. Can
you wire me a copy please? Via AOL, rtf seems to survive, as does txt.
Anything mime is garbled.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:23:27 EST
Subject: Re: Oareborough Hill
In a message dated 17.3.99 11:48:29 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< Bearing in mind the advice available to you in Making the Best of Byways,
would you confirm which route you will be taking please bearing in mind one
accords with DETR advice, and the other involves the expenditure of money
with no benefit to the charge-payer. >>
Perhaps you need to find another metaphor - 'which route you will be taking'
sounds as though there are alternatives on the ground, not management options.
How about 'which management option you will be pursuing' or 'which of these
options you will put in place' ?
There are several road, travel, journey metaphors in such everyday use that we
can sometimes trip ourselves up. Only today I said to a BHS officer - when it
comes to byways were are in the same boat. He replied that he sometimes has to
rein in his colleagues. Honest.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:31:40 +0000
Subject: Re: Copies of letter are sent to this list
List of all Authority Web sites at
http://www.tagish.co.uk/tagish/links/localgov.htm
Sue
Michael Dyer wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:23:22 EST
Subject: Re: Adopted and Unadopted Streets
In a message dated 16.3.99 21:14:28 GMT Standard Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< 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. >>
This seems to be a circular argument. Stockport say bridleway to match the
other half, therefore the other half should stay bridleway. Why don't they
follow the rules, and look at the evidence?
What evidence is there that the public only ever needed to use the 'adopted'
length? Or that having got to the end, they turned their vehicles round and
went back? Are there any other obviously used by the public but not adopted
roads in Tameside? Yes, of course there are, so why is this one not public
too?
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:08:28 -0000
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.
I've already sent Chris the relevant photos which Howard kindly sent me,
proving conclusively that this reply was wrong, this included deep ruts and
wonderful shots of tractor treads.
Also, although Mick doesn't know it yet, he and I will be going to have a
play with some red & white surveying poles to take a profile of the lane at
various points (do you think he's going to want a yellow hard hat?)
In the meantime, does anyone already have a copy of the profiles of various
vehicles, or am I about to get arrested for measuring the underside of
Suzuki's in Sainsbury's car park?
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:45:11 -0000
Subject: Re: Oareborough Hill
Berks surfaced the Devils Highway (the dead straight BOAT along the Hants
Berks border) with plainnings from the M4 I believe. Precedent.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:36:01 +0000
Subject: Re: Oareborough Hill
In message <bulk.9089.19990317112152@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
>Berks surfaced the Devils Highway (the dead straight BOAT along the Hants
>Berks border) with plainnings from the M4 I believe. Precedent.
Well, it is gospel true that one optional line for the M4 extension in
the late 1960s was the Ridgeway... That would have solved the problems
in one fell swoop. And it makes it so good for Shoguns...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 99 21:45 GMT
Subject: Blink Failed :-(
Please would anyone who posted to the List between 6pm and 9.30 pm tonight
(Wednesday) either repost or send me a copy.
I remember derek.sue (1) and TimLara (3?) and DT being in there
somewhere..........73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:25:13 +0000
Subject: Adopted and Unadopted
Hi folks,
Adopted is usually used by highways engineers as a term to mean
maintained to a certain standard. It is not usually used to mean simply
that it is publically maintainable. Indeed in engineers speak there
always seems to be a very big difference between maintained and
maintainable. For example when a way is no longer maintained, or
adopted, to use their terminology it may be deleted from the map of
maintained highways. Unfortunately the same map may be regarded by other
people in the council, for the purpose of fulfiling HA 80 s36, as a map
of maintainable highways!
Also, don't forget that if they have a real pukka list of streets,
(doubtful) then it should include the bridleway anyway, along with all
other public rights of way!
Cheers,Mike.
P.S. an interesting justification for reclassifying a neighbouring
authority's RUPP, "so it is the same as the bridleway in the
neighbouring authority".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:57:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Dere Street
> <<<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...
Don't worry Mick. I hope to have a look at the end of the month. My shutter
finger is itching already.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:09:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Planings : was Oareborough Hill
> Synchronicity! Wokingham District Council have accumulated 1200 (1-2-0-0)
> tons of planings for Byway upgrading, and correct me if Im wrong, but
> arent Wokingham and West Berks _very_ close to each other....????
They will need an awful lot of woodchippings to go with that lot.(MBB p28)
They might end up making them all virtually surfaced with that lot! They
can be a major problem to get rid of. They will not be 'well rotted' from
a Motorway, I doubt they are at all suitable. (MBB p27 arisings) But I
think it indicates they are a real problem to get rid of, ('free to RoW
within 10 miles' in Wilts MBB p29) so there is no excuse for allowing a
mess like OH to develop - except to justify a TRO and to give ammo to
antis.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:09:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Oareborough Hill
> There are several road, travel, journey metaphors in such everyday use
that we
> can sometimes trip ourselves up. Only today I said to a BHS officer -
when it
> comes to byways were are in the same boat. He replied that he sometimes
has to
> rein in his colleagues. Honest.
When it came back from the list I re-read it before deletion. I realised I
had said being in mind twice. Thats what comes with tinkering about, then
your mail improved it that litle bit more!
Hoisted with own Petard was a thought that came to mind today, Battle for
Bridleways, (gleam N Herefds) were told at Parish meeting last night, they
can't have a BOAT application THEY want (for field access to their mates
land) as it is obstructed with undergrowth! Ha bleedin Ha.
Used a BOAT we won at recent PI today lots of agri damage at one end, so I
take the field edge path round this 4x4 (tractor) deep gunge. Then round
corners comes tractor with Nitrate sprayer, and follows mud trail into
field. Tells me I should not drive over his wheat. (field edge, no tracks
left) I tells him it was fonderous, no way was I going to try going through
his mud. He says council says he cant repair it since its a BOAT. I says
you can. He backs off and says it's their responsbility. I says yes, and I
will report it, but got a lovely video of his tractor on a muddy lane. I
then pops in to see a friend at end of lane, he says people next door have
a problem with ownership of their lane wondered if we could help. Geoff
Brookes or me. So I calls on them. Now we were opposing each other at the
PI last year, but we still went back and had coffee with them afterwards!
(Brintons, make some sort of carpets!) and we have a jolly good afternoon
there discussing how their lane was supposed to have been sold to them, but
vendors did not have title, and so they do not know who owns it. Can we
help. further along was a priv Occ rd from what I remember. No owner, CC
have tarred it once or twice, wont own up to owning it though.
So now they found BOAT not so bad, and we are useful to help establish
status of 'their' road! Small World.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:09:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Tractor damage
> Of course, a drawn profile is better, but for other purposes, including
those
> you suggest. The photo idea will appeal to the press, a profile is 'more
> scientific' so would put them off, but might convince an inspector or
> magistrate.
Oh, horses for courses! or similar metofor.
c
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:09:48 -0500
Subject: Hereford response
> I wonder why Hereford are investigating the status, when we
> already know what it is? Also not too impressed with the statement
> "not in a position to enter in to further correspondence with
> individuals". Do they _have_ to reply? Should we be sending in
> individual s56 notices, to which they _must_ reply?
They will give a standard reply to s56s and challenge you to do anything
further, so that may not get us much further forward. Asking for details of
the monitoring officer and asking for a reply might kick ass, (- it is a
senior post and in a different dept.) and might prompt a reply to the sort
of questions that were posted here last night.
Investigating status - to see if they can change their mind, & retract s56,
or not make order due to Nettlecombe! IMV
To retract without a 116, they will have ( again IMV) to show a mistake WAS
made in admitting it, by them, and previous Auth, and cast doubt on IA Pb
CR.
Why can't they make the order, it is the Insp that can't confirm it. (but I
think he can 'recomend' they clear obstruction dependent and following on
from his findings) Nowt says they can't make order in any case law AFAIK.
(They are concerned of costs against them if it can not be confirmed)
c
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:06:45 -0000
Subject: Re: Tunshill Lane
>On the foundrous section of the route, I hope, not the obstructed bit. That
>way you will not be en-Westleyed.
Yes the OOR section is unusable by everyone except the most determined of
m/cs.
The obstruction is a seperate nuisence but its removal is all we seek at the
moment. They remove the gate and either dig out the side drain or allow us
to do the diging and there will be no s56 issued.
>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.
As above, an informal threat if a s56 on the boggy section might be useful
to persuade RMBC to unlock the gate - or rather for RMBC to get the tenant
farmer or NWW to unlock the gate.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:23:50 -0000
Subject: Next Step --- Oldham UCRs
Below is a draft letter which I intend to send tommorrow evening.
Comments please.....
##########
By Fax To: 0161 911 4684
Dear Sir,
I recently wrote to Mr Cavanagh in your Rights of Way department enquiring
about ten highways within Oldham MBC area and asking if they were included
on the Council’s List of Streets Maintainable at Public Expense. To make
the answer to my request as simple as possible for the Council I included
names of all the highways along with the grid references of both ends in
each case.
It appears that Mr Cavanagh has passed my request to your Highways
department as they have telephoned me to say that there would be charge of
£30-00 for supplying this information. Can you please confirm that it
is your Council’s policy to charge to supply the public with information
which you are legally obliged to keep available for public inspection.
I would add that The Green Lane Association attempts to work with highway
authorities on the management and, where appropriate, maintenance of the
minor highways network. We have always, in the past, received a very
supportive approach from your Rights of Way department and I am therefore
surprised at the response from your Highways department.
As you will no doubt be aware, there are statutory provisions for a member
of the public to require any highway authority to state whether a particular
highway is maintainable at public expense and whether they are the highway
authority responsible for that maintenance . Such measures are, by
there very nature, confrontational. However, there is duty on a
highway authority to respond to the service of such a notice.
In our experience, co-operation is encouraged by requesting information
informally rather than using statutory powers to demand the information.
We strive to operate in a co-operative, not confrontational, manner.
With this in mind, can you please justify the charge requested by your
Highways department.
Yours sincerely
Ian Boddison
Manchester Area Representative
GLASS (Green Lane Association)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:29:25 -0000
Subject: Stipendiary (was: Re: Further information on HA80 s56)
>Stipendiary - a paid resident magistrate ? Presumably the stipendiary sifts
>the wheat from the chaff.
I knew that some kind soul would take pity on my ignorance and offer simple
explanation of these things that a simple soul like I fail to grasp.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:27:02 -0000
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?
No - the first PI tried to determine the correct route but the LO said that
the route was niether where shown on the DM or on the DS. He claimed
that it was a couple of fields away - just off his land!!!
The inspector said - yes I agree that there is a right of way here somewhere
but have heard nothing to convince me where it is. You lot (HA, OSS, RA,
LO) go away and decide amongst yourselves where you want it to be and then
come back.
Several years later the LO asks HA for a diversion order. This time it
was entirely on his land. The reason for the order is that he operates a
disabled riding school and the horses would be dangourous to people using
the highway - the same highway that he claims does not exist and that has
been there for alot longer than him or his riding school.
OSS object to the diversion order on the grounds the route will not be a
diversion as both ends are moving, it will be substantially shorter than the
original and that the new route will be a field path instead of a made up
surface of the curent path.
Following the second PI the inspector confirms the order but with
modifications. It is the modifications that are now being objected to
because they involve a section of highway that was not mentioned in the
original notices or included in the original order. If the modifications
are made to the order then a section of through footpath will become a dead
end with nothing at the end of it. It is also over another LOs property.
>> >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.
I do think it makes any difference what WCC tried.
It is upto a magistrate to decide.
The route is obstructed by a fence. There would be no point in abating
this as the path immediately beyond is founderous.
>> .......
>> >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 have had a faxed reminder that a reply is waiting.
Me thinks they are playing for time hoping that either six months will
expire or the modification order will be confirmed.
I note your comments about the signatory being authorised by committee.
I think I will write to the Chief Exec and explain the circumstances and ask
him to confirm that Mrs Stone is authorised to sign s56 responses.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:31:02 -0000
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.
Yes I do believe it would bring a horse to its knees. The mud is thick
and at least two feet deep over a large area. I am not a horse rider -
could someone with more experience of horses tell me if two feet of mud is
safe for a horse to travel through.
Also, the schedule is not part of the s56 notice.
The s56 simply said that the way was OOR - the HA asked 'in what way is it
OOR?'
I wrote back saying I was not qualified to judge but since you ask here is a
schedule.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 99 07:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Dere Street, Somme, GLEAM
Re : Dere Street
<<<My shutter finger is itching already.>>>
You can get ointment for that, you put a thin film of it on yer digit....
mail paul@manson81.freeserve.co.uk he is the NERO RoW chappie and will
possibly do you proud...ISTR that he runs a nice boarding house, too....
Re: Somme
<<< I think I had the rare
(for me) forsight to order a second set of prints. I will look them
out.>>>
Much appreciated
Re: GLOOM
<<<<By the way how on earth do you join GLEAM? I can hardly go uo to that
bastard Gardiner's front door and ask for an application form.>>>
PO Box 5206, Reading RG7 6TY, don't forget to ask for your MPs discount ;-)
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 31 lines 1356 [forwarded 97 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 995 [content 805 forwarded 97 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990318 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]