[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 06:22:32 -0500
Subject: Babtie / Oareborough Hill
17 March 1999
Mr C Marsden c/o Babtie Group Ltd
Orleton Manor School Green
Nr Ludlow Shinfield, Reading,
SY8 4HR Berkshire
RG2 9HL
Our Ref: P/014001/13/24/25/NC
Your Ref:
Please ask for: Nick Clark
Direct Line: 01189881 596
Tel: 01189881555
Fax: 01189881666
Dear Mr Marsden
WEST BERKSHIRE COUNCIL
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
CHIEVELEY RUPPs 13 AND 18
I thank you for your e-mailed letter of 7 March.
I consider the malority of the damage along the lanes, as well as to
adloining land and fencing, to have been caused by 'recreational' rather
than agricultural vehicles. There is however, a short section of lane which
is used by the landowner as a 'staggered crossing' to land on the eastern
side. Use of the lane by the landowner is otherwise only occasional, and
generally is in response to requests for rescue from 'off-roaders' who have
become stuck.
Repair works for the lanes are scheduled for the summer months.
I thank you for your interest in this matter, Yours Sincerely
N Clark
Public Rights of Way Adviser
This letter has been prepared by Babtie Group Ltd. acting as planning and
transportation consultants on behalf of West Berkshire Council
Direct contact points for West Berkshire Council are: Mr B Lousley 01635
42400
nc
17103,99
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:25:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Ownership
> > They say they cannot divulge details they may or may not have because
of the Data Protection
> > Act. Is this correct?
> We never give out details of landowners nor of complainants as a
> matter of policy; there are occasions where such information would
> lead to intimidation or violence and it is safer to have a blanket
"We" may not give it out, but the new Hereford since independence from the
24 year partnership with your county, recently sent a copy of a letter of
my complaint re encroachment of the highway at Orleton 24 years ago to the
obstructors successor.
A local resident built new wall 3 - 5 ft out onto highway, G Randall said,
well leave NTR sign in garden as a token, but we may have to tell you to
move wall back.
New Owners, a local est. agent asked for PP for a new house in their
garden. (As they do!) Randell's dept looked at 1903 map, 1970 map (several
years before encroachment) and said to planning cttee I see no
encroachment! (Good ole Nelson!) No on site visit.
PP approved.
Then turned round to pp applicant you gotta take your wall back 3ft.
So if I'm found face down in the Teme, you know where to start looking.....
Parish are livid, Ombudsman etc. PP may not have been granted if they knew
true size of plot.!
Something to be raised with Env Dir when we meet.........
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:25:23 -0500
Subject: Reasons to deny BOATs
Has anyone any ideas why some L/O or local residents seem to prefer BOATs
are either not recorded, under-recorded or obstructed? (Apart from
Nettlecombe on proposed BOATs)
I have 8, but there must be many others.
Thanks,
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 08:25:20 -0500
Subject: Babtie / Oareborough Hill
What did Babtie lie, sorry Reply:
"I consider the majority of the damage along the lanes, as well as to
adjoining land and fencing, to have been caused by 'recreational' rather
than agricultural vehicles. There is however, a short section of lane which
is used by the landowner as a 'staggered crossing' to land on the eastern
side. Use of the lane by the landowner is otherwise only occasional, and
generally is in response to requests for rescue from 'off-roaders' who have
become stuck."
So they were caught out by saying No tractors use it, then "Oh it was only
to pull off-roaders[sic] out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now Babtie is a Ltd co. They have directors who have influence on how a
company is run and the policies. They Have a duty to shareholders to make
money.
Things may not be what they seem of course, but.
I wonder if anyone can do a search, who ARE the directors, and major
shareholders? There couldn't be any possible conflict of interest could
there?
What did CoCo say about this 'conspiracy' in Berks / Hants / Wilts?
(Annex 3 para 3b)
"123 "Unsolicited" Responses.... assessed by an independent consultant ....
are a useful reminder .. of the wide opposition ... rehearsal of familiar
themes expressed on vehicular rights of way .... do not introduce any new
factors.... It would be wrong to regard them as as representative .....
nor are the responses a good indicator of overall balance ... ** a
disproportionately high number of responses - around one third - appear to
be from local organisations or individuals that are strongly opposed to the
use of off-road[sic] vehicles in the countryside. Many of these are also
from the narrow, geographical area of Hampshire, Berkshire and Wiltshire.
** Conversely, only a small minority of responses were from vehicle user
groups or their individual supporters."
And they expect us to believe them?????????????
How about a high level meeting between vehicle groups and the DETR, CoCo,
CLA, Highway Consultants, and decide if that was caused by "Off roaders
being pulled out by tractors" or the tractors in the first place? (How
would they have got stuck if it had been in-repair and tractors had not
wrecked it to start with?) Also the management proposed could be
scrutinised by people that know what they are doing, the sort of people
that gave the MBoB advice, and some unbiased RoW officers from other
counties that are not affected by local NIMBYs?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: BurgDM@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:38:47 EST
Subject: Test message
My last mail about NGLD insurance didn't seem to make it all the way to the
list, so this is a test to see if it was an isolated problem.
Darren Burgess
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: BurgDM@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:48:08 EST
Subject: NGLD Insurance - try again...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 22:13:02 +0000
Subject: Name and shame, who is in your area
In message <bulk.26336.19990319160220@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
>Dave
Is there any way of finding out who in our area is a member of GLEAM?
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 01:51:40 -0000
Subject: Re: Babtie / Oareborough Hill
Chris
I sent a load of pictures concerning OH to you almost a week ago, but I
haven't heard any reply, can you let me know whether you have received them
or not?
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 8 lines 329 [forwarded 9 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 281 [content 207 forwarded 9 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990321 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]