[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:19:39 -0000
Subject: NF
Well, with the New Forest a national park, what chance of recovering the
roads denied to us by the Forestry Commission since the sixties?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:42:57 BST
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
> << After the meeting he put his opinion to me privately. He believes that
> the damage is deliberate and is caused by the anti-vehicular land owner. >>
.......
> What a shame the chap lacks the integrity to say so out loud.
> Funny how keen such folk can be to repeat anti-motoring opinion, but not pro.
> It is just as well no-one needs to assert or protect anything, ennit?
Well we are now suggesting this lane for GLD99 :-)
The reaction is that the LO is an aggresive chap but that Geoff
Funnell (Stockport RoW officer) is going to see him today(?) to try
and persuade him that some volunteer maintenance would be in every
body's interest.
Let's see if it works
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Seymour, Gareth" <gareth.seymour@sihe.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:56:34 -0000
Subject: Week in week out
Just in case any of you living in paradise, ie. Wales or are lucky
enough to pick up BBC1 Wales and have not seen the trailer...Week in
week out tonight is about access to the countryside and aggressive land
owners.
Will inform you of anything of interest tomorrow.
Bye for now,
Gareth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:45:37 -0000
Subject: They're at it again!!!!!!!!
You remember the case of E5221 Grey Mill Lane in Warwickshire, and the part
you have played in getting the proposed stopping up dropped? Right, that is
a feather in our collective cap, and justice is slowly coming our way.
But, now we have Solihull Metropolitan Borough seeking to do the same thing
with a road which time has forgot. In January, they sent a letter to TRF at
the national PO Box, and Richard Marshall fielded that with a holding reply,
and passed it on to WM TRF. We have looked at it and the back ground is:-
*Quarter Sessions declared it to be a Public Carriage Road in 1877
*so called "local knowledge" says it has not been used by vehicles since
about the beginning of this century, and that it is stopped up
*there used to be another road joining it to form a "T" across the local
landowner's estate, and this second road disappears from later OS maps,
whereas the first one is on 1831 editions and right through to recent times.
I reckon the second road is the likely closed road, if any.
I wrote a letter on 16 February, setting out our position that it is still a
public carriage road with vehicular rights, and requiring them to confirm
this under Sect 56 Highways Act 1980, within one month. If anyone requires a
copy, please e me direct.
Their response dated 16 March, reads:-
"It is now my intention to report this matter to the Transport and Highways
Sub-Committee on 12 April 1999. Meanwhile, as a long period of time has
elapsed since this route was available to anyone other than walkers I trust
that you will bear with me and accept that no action to your notice will be
made until the matter has been reported to Committee. Yours sincerely,
Director of Environment Services" (written by G Kenneth)
I have phoned G Kenneth this morning, and asked why he needs to refer to
Committee, and he tells me the recommendation to cttee is to pursue Sect 116
stopping up on grounds of being unecessary. I suggested he confer with Nick
Bishton of Warks CC to find out what happened in response to Grey Mill Lane,
and I told him that his reply was not sufficient in respect of my Section 56
notice, and that I require a reply to that forthwith.
Please will all of you who did such a valiant job on E5221 Grey Mill Lane,
take up the cudgels again, and write to:-
Director of Environment Services, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, PO
Box 19, Council House, Solihull, West Mids, B91 3QT, for the attention of Mr
G Kenneth,
e-mail address is environment@solihull.gov.uk but I don't know how often
they use it as a preferred means of communication.
Ask him if it is true that the Public Carriage Road from Heronfiled to
Chadwick Lane (also known as Public Footpath M168) is under threat of
closure, and make clear to him your opposition to any such move.
I shall be contacting the Open Spaces Society ( Peter Gatenby) to alert him
to this, also. He did sterling work on Grey Mill Lane, and it is an eye
opener to me just where we find friends and allies. I find it all very
encouraging when we manage to work together, and it certainly helps having
instant communications at our finger tips.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Ian Boddison" <mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:58:49 BST
Subject: Re: Name and shame
> If you care go to the page indicated below, which is not available directly
> from the site, yet, you will find some anti GLEAM propaganda. Is it worth
> me pursuing this 'attack'?
Yes - certainly by filling in the gaps and providing public links
to the page.
> Comments. I don't want to upset anyone.
That's not like you Dave :-)
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 99 10:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Babtie / Oareborough Hill
Does the List think that there would be merit in doing our own analysis of
the repairs needed to OH so tthat we can monitor the process.
I'm looking into my crystal ball, and I see a time when David Effin G
starts thumping the table and saying that 'these 4x4s cost WBC £Xk in 1999
just to repair one lane, lets put a TRO on it.'. If we can show that the
repairs have been OTT OR sufficient to sustain agrivehicles, such
whingeing as only said git is capable of has the potential to be
challenged.
Does anyone have demonstarble qualifications to be an authority in this?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 99 13:13 GMT
Subject: Re: NF
Dave asks
<<<Well, with the New Forest a national park, what chance of recovering the
roads denied to us by the Forestry Commission since the sixties?>>>
IMHO we should try anyway.... even if we get nowhere we can use it in
other arenas to shout 'Unfair!'....
So...
1) By what legal device were the roads closed (Act of Parlt? OiC?
Unilateral decision by FC?2) Do we have a definitive list of the roads
which werte closed at the time?3) Could at least SOME of the roads be used
nowadays without interfering with FC business, without damage, without
contention?4) Do we have any friends at FC?
5) Could we use current govt thinking as a stick to beat them? Open
Access, RoWin C21, MBoB?
Lets go for it.....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:29:48 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Area RoW Officer
Always wanted to be a Rights of Way Officer?
Want to live in an area with lots of excellent varied laning within
45 mins of home?
Able to live on a pittance?
There's a vacancy now: ring Judy on 01905 766879 for application form
or Karen Mitchell on 01905 766786 for details, or e-mail me.
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:33:04 +0000
Subject: Re: NF
In message <bulk.29801.19990323021753@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
>Well, with the New Forest a national park, what chance of recovering the
>roads denied to us by the Forestry Commission since the sixties?
wot? is the New Forest to be a NP?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:56:36 +0000
Subject: widths
Hi
I've got a planning application (nature reserve & car park) adjacent to
a byway (on the D Map). The access road for the car park is to be the
byway. Which is outside the development site. The def statement
describes the byway as follows: - my querie is, how wide is the public
right.(not checked the Inc Award yet) and does it apply to all rights?
Gravel roadway 10ft wide throughout
Length 2490 yards
Awarded as a private carriage road and driftway and bridle road and
footway 40ft wide.
Date of survey - September 1951.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:36:23 -0000
Subject: Re: Area RoW Officer
more details please of the "lots of excellent laning" where are they?
By the way, don't bother with the details of application form etc.
Thanks
RJH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:28:04 -0000
Subject: RE: Babtie
Probably, they are after all a commercial organisation, who have to expend
some time and effort in 'doing their job', and since it is probably 'outside
their normal scope of work' I would be very surprised if they didn't bill
the relevant authority for doing it.
I've just seen a bill from one of our suppliers for work that they are both
contractually and legally obliged to do, so I'm never surprised at
contractors trying to get money for what they are obliged to do. Most
probable place to hide such a charge in that (in)famous heading
"Miscellaneous Expenditure".
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Babtie / Oareborough Hill
> Does anyone have demonstarble qualifications to be an authority in this?
Not qualifications as such, but I can tell you that a single lorry-load of
chippings turned our impassible, wet clay yard into something usable by
normal road cars and bikes, and it has stayed in good repair for 18 months
now.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 99 14:40 GMT
Subject: Re: They're at it again!!!!!!!!
<<<Please will all of you who did such a valiant job on E5221 Grey Mill
Lane,take up the cudgels again, and write to:->>>
Yeah, no worries....
But would someone with more literary skills than I (are you List-ening,
CJM?) post to the list a phrase which may be incorporated to the effect
that 'The enemy was spotted at Grey Mill Lane, and they were ours through
legitimate means - why would you wish to put your individual Councillors
at risk of personal financial loss by making them leap through the same
hoops?'.....
Hey, look at the good side...by this time next year, when a HA near *you*
decides to try its luck, we will have an armful of these to throw at
them.....
LATER.................................
before I send this, does anyone think its too strong and inflamatory?
<<<Please will all of you who did such a valiant job on E5221 Grey Mill
Dear Sir
Please confirm that this is still a public carriage road with vehicular
rights.
If this is not confirmed by your office ahead of any meeting by the
Transport and Highways Sub-Committee on 12 April 1999, I shall take action
for confirmation under Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980, within one
month. This action, as I am sure you will appreciate, will cost me nothing
and a great deal to the BC, so I would urge that this action be considered
in the light of cost-effectiveness.
Please confirm to me that your office has made the recommendation to cttee
is to pursue Section 116 action (stopping up) on grounds of being
unnecessary.
Please will you confirm to me that all the Councillors are aware that they
would be personally responsible for any costs incurred in any action
resulting in illegal acts by a Council Official.
I suggest that you confer with Nick Bishton of Warks CC to find out what
happened in response to Grey Mill Lane. This was a very recent and in my
view very similar situation which was resolved by adherence to certain
well-established and well-documented procedures.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Dyer
<<<Please will all of you who did such a valiant job on E5221 Grey Mill
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:21:24 -0000
Subject: Re: Babtie / Oareborough Hill
Ta
Will ride soon and then start.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:06:16 -0000
Subject: Seen this one?
http://www.rase.org.uk
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:00:42 -0000
Subject: Re: They're at it again!!!!!!!!
Be warned. Many years ago there was a similar request to users to stop
using an old carriageway past the front door of one of Hampshire's
notorious shaggers and supplier of lays to the ***** Family. Users
respected this request but did attend court to object to the stopping up.
Each objector was asked in turn if they had used the lane in the last year
and they all had to say no. The lane was stopped up. The other aspect of
this one was invites to garden parties and days shooting for the
Magistrates - allegedly.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:02:34 -0000
Subject: Re: Name and shame
Thanks Ian. It is only in accessible from the index page at the moment
until the gaps are filled. There is now a serious disclaimer on the
bottom.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 99 10:33 GMT
Subject: RE: Berkshire NGLD
If anyone on teh List lives in/near Wokingham and feels like a
contribution on Sunday mail me, I have details of a worthy and do-able
project....
The one thing we will be short of is some long-handled pruning shears for
overhead work.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:08:29 EST
Subject: Re: widths
In a message dated 23.3.99 17:57:36 GMT Standard Time, derek.sue@virgin.net
writes:
<< Gravel roadway 10ft wide throughout
Length 2490 yards
Awarded as a private carriage road and driftway and bridle road and
footway 40ft wide. >>
Interesting. I think the public right is 40 feet wide, especially if there
have been boundaries of some sort to limit the extent of the route. The public
at some time post Inclosure gained vehicular rights, and unless there is
something to show that vehicles were not able to use the full width, the
preumption is that the whole width was dedicated. OR, big OR, note, the
Inclosure actually meant Public Carriageway, in which case no doubt, 40 ft.
As to the gravel roadway, that means, I suspect, that a metalled carriageway
strip is there, like the tarmac bit of a road with verges.
But as these details are on the Statement, and there has been no legal event,
they can only be changed following advertisement and the possibility of
objections and Public Inquiry. You could also argue that if this use took the
BOAT outside the balance of user definition, then the development should not
proceed. If you wanted to, of course. Perhaps you don't mind this development.
Tim Stevens
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 99 13:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Tilehurst
Tay Road Tilehurst is subject to two S247 stoppitup orders. It was passed
to me to investigate.
After a couple of phone calls, IMHO they have no implications for
unsurfaced RoW users, so I'll not pursue. They relate to a disused
underground carpark in teh middle of a residential area.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:46:30 +0000
Subject: They're at it again
Hi folks, and Richard,
Re the Solihull problem. Could you please provide grid refs and any
physical detail, surface, widths, boundaries, and any other cogent
detail so that those of us who are some distance away can have some meat
upon which to hang the bones of our complaints. Now where did I file the
Warks letters?
Cheers,Mike.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:44:09 -0000
Subject: Re: Babtie / Oareborough Hill
<<I'm looking into my crystal ball,>>
Sounds sound.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:04:50 -0000
Subject: Re: Area RoW Officer
OOoow. Would that provide the opportunity to pursue the owner of a white
discovery for the cost of repair for the extraordinary use of a RoW??
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:36:22 -0000
Subject: Re: NF
<<wot? is the New Forest to be a NP?
Well, you've got your Angel of the Norff, so we get a National Park. Fair
do's squire. If, you'd like to come look at it - stand at the edge mind,
we don't want all and sundry wandering across it - I'll arrange B&B (Bed &
Beanfeast)
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:53:01 -0000
Subject: Re: widths
Is the way bounded by fence or hedge? If it is or not I can see no reason
why the public should not be able to pass and repass over the full width.
We have cases that tell us that anything that impedes free passage over the
full width is an obstruction no matter how temporary.
Seekings v Clarke - 1961 [bb p169] "anything substantially prevents free
access over the whole carriage way is an unlawful obstruction"
Vanderpant v Mayfair Hotel Co (1930) 1 Ch. 138 at 152 it was said,
"An encroachment on a highway is by common law a public nuisance. It is no
defence that the obstruction is made on a part of a highway which is not
habitually or ordinarily used for passage. It is no defense that the
obstruction is in other ways productive of public benefit, and however
reasonable may be the use of a highway by an owner of adjoining premises
the public right is a higher right than his and he must yield to the public
right."
Harvey v Turo Rural Council (1903) 2 Ch.638 by Joyce J. who in his
judgement said "in the case of an ordinary highway running between fences,
although it may be of varying and unequal width, the right of passage or
way prima facie, and unless there be evidence to the contrary, extends to
the whole space between the fences, and the public are entitled to the
entire of it as a highway, and are not confined to the part which may be
metalled. All the ground that is between the fences is presumably dedicated
as a highway unless the nature of the ground or other circumstances rebut
that presumption.... It is an established maxim that 'once a highway,
always a highway'. The public cannot release their rights. Mere disuse of a
highway cannot deprive the public of their rights. Where there was once
been a highway no length of time during which it may not have been used
will preclude the public from resuming the exercise of the right to use it
if and when they think proper. Even if the highway authority had actually
consented to any obstruction or encroachment upon the strip being part of
the highway, such consent could not legalise that which was otherwise
illegal."....
Do you submit? You want more do yer?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:07:26 -0000
Subject: Re: They're at it again!!!!!!!!
I understand what you're saying, Dave.
One difference here, I do believe them when they say that nobody has used it
with vehicle for many years - at least in living memory - but I am declaring
that has been because it has been witheld from the public's knowledge
(inadvertently or otherwise) and that amounts to the same as denying the
public their full rights, purposely or otherwise.
That in turn could lead to public suspicion that collusion to deny the
public their full rights is a possibility, and that, because the only
beneficiary in such a case would be the landowner, such collusion might be
challenged as corrupt. In such a case, surely all councils would wish to be
seen as whiter than white? - i.e. not only operating within the law, but
seen to be operating within the law.
As they would be quick to tell us in a court of law, we cannot gain a right
of way by trespass, so I would contend to them that they cannot deprive us
of our legitimate rights by hiding the existence of those rights. They have
a DUTY to assert and protect the rights of the public, and this comes first
and foremost before any right to benefit private landowners at the expense
of the public. It is not a priority for them to give away land which once
formed part of the highway, thus causing detriment to the public.
Their failure in their duty is now threatened with being compounded by
attempting to stop-up without first declaring to the public openly that
those higher rights exist. Gross dereliction of duty under the Highways Act
1980, in my view. If they want to try to stop-up, then they should attempt
that after they have first corrected the record of the public's right, and
we would fight them then on the level(ish?) playing field.
For what it's worth (probably not much, and I don't know how true it is)
rumour has it that the original attempts to alter this route and its
situation on the ground began in about 1950 when a Mr Harriman owned the
affected property now known as The Dial House, and he wanted it diverted, as
only a footpath, to take the hoi-palloi away from his prize herd of cattle
because of a brucellosis scare. Mr Harriman is reputed to have been in
charge of some minor manufactory called..... I can't remember if it was
Rover/Land Rover/Austin, or what. Perhaps someone out there can shed light
on that, if its relevant.
Mike, and all you others about to pen a letter, the following is my personal
point of view and is open to criticism from all and sundry.
I would only let them know that you are now aware of the proposal, and you
are asking what the truth is - section 56 if you like - asking if they
propose to go to section 116 at committee on 12 April, and making plain that
you will be objecting to any such move at the appropriate court hearing,
just as you would have done for Grey Mill Lane, Little Alne, if push had
come to shove. Mention it by name (grey mill lane, that is), I have, and I
have already suggested they contact Nick Bishton to learn from that
council's experience in such matters, so I leave it to you as to whether you
repeat it.
I wouldn't bother with the undertones of personal liability for
councillors - they're fairly thick skinned as a breed, its a requirement for
being one.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement =========
"Hey, look at the good side...by this time next year, when a HA near *you*
decides to try its luck, we will have an armful of these to throw at
them....."==========
Any further feed back is most welcome.
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:19:43 -0000
Subject: Re: They're at it again
grid ref 195750 to 201753 on OS Landranger 139 Birmingham.
Starts western end through some (electronically operated?) wrought iron
gates passes the corner of beautiful period property The Dial House, between
fences well defined to wooded uphill slope, still well defined, nice gentle
climb to higher level a little bit muddy when wet, past badger setts, to
nice hedged/fenced lane at top to Park Corner, coming out across someone's
lawned part of the highway!.
Links up nicely with Temple Balsall lane to Piercel End, and thus is a
neccessary route for the public.
Nearly all of it driveable even now! Certainly with m/bike, easy
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:40:55 -0000
Subject: Re: widths
<<But as these details are on the Statement, and there has been no legal
event,
they can only be changed following advertisement and the possibility of
objections and Public Inquiry. >>
Correctly there should be a s116 to stop up part of the highway over which
the development is to take place. I guess T&CP act would do.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: winchesterld@cix.compulink.co.uk (Rodney Sabine)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 99 05:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Suzukis
You don't need to measure a Suzuki. If it gets stuck you each get a bumper
and carry it along the lane
Well that's what we do ....
And I remember an occasion when a certain Range Rover got highly stuck and
a certain Vitara didn't .....
Rodney Sabine, Alresford, Hampshire
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 99 07:28 GMT
Subject: Re: NGLD leaflets
Quite a few of you (as well as Joe Public) have asked me to send these out
to yuo.
Tim assures me that they went in the post to me last Friday, but as of
0630 today (wed) no sign...b****y ParcelFarce or whatever....
Bear wity me, they'll arrive soon, I hope.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 99 07:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Stuck Suzukis and Rutting Rovers
<<<<And I remember an occasion when a certain Range Rover got highly stuck
and a certain Vitara didn't ..... >>>
Thanks Rodney for refreshing our memories, its a good job that *that*
particular recollection wasn't allowed to die......;-)
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Lloyd <chris@upandrun.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:12:46 -0000
Subject: EDM thingy
Hi!
I had the local conservatives round tonight drumming up support for the
forth coming local and euro elections. I told them I was unimpressed
with their lot as my MP (con) is a signatory to the EDM and that I'd
written to him about it and he had not replied. They said they'd send
him round to talk to me about it. I need some good examples of what
lowlifes gleam are and how they lie and cheat and are only really
interested in adding to their own property values etc. etc. ad infinitum
blah blah....(bastards!) I don't suppose I'll change his mind but it's
still worth a try!
I'm from the Thames Valley TRF group and live in Basingstoke. I'm a bit
new to all this ROW stuff but have "listened" for a while and would like
to be more active... any suggestions or advice?
Best regards
Chris Lloyd.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 33 lines 1343 [forwarded 30 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 928 [content 788 forwarded 30 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990324 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]