[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:53:09 -0000
Subject: Re: They're at it again!!!!!!!!
beneficiary in such a case would be the landowner>>
A legal remedy should only be available to those 'with clean hands'
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 05:29:03 -0500
Subject: Public Carriage Road from Heronfiled, 116.
By email:
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: environment@solihull.gov.uk
23/3/99
Dear Mr Keneth,
I have been engaged in a protracted battle to prevent the stopping-up of a
road in Warwickshire. Whenever entrenched anti-access or biased views are
taken against one class of user - contrary to DETR advice, co-operation can
be withdrawn, working relationships can suffer.
Please, please learn by the stupid mistakes of Kent, Bucks Hereford &
Worcester and Warwickshire and abandon this action now. Large amounts of
correspondence is generated, financial risks are undertaken by councillors
in taking the matter to court, if it all backfires, as occurred in the
examples cited.
So if you want contacts within other councils that have aborted similar
fruitless exercises, I will be pleased to supply to you. Obviously large
numbers of people do know of these roads, know of obstructed roads and are
willing to maintain the status quo. IF you are intent on rocking the BOAT,
you will find those people are quite willing to stand up and be counted,
will investigate other similar roads and be less tolerant of your failure
to 'assert and protect' knowing the underhand tricks (HA80 s116) you prefer
to get involved in, looking for other areas of mismanagement and waste.
It is quite surprising what comes out of the woodwork.
Will you please supply further details of your proposed actions on the
Public Carriage Road from Heronfield to
Chadwick Lane (also known as Public Footpath M168), and whether we should
be gearing up for a fight or not.
At this early stage, and as your email is probably not included within you
mail monitoring system, please
a) acknowledge receipt,
b) advise of your stated response time scales
c) advise of your Monitoring Officer's name and contact details
d) supply forms for BOAT DMMO applications, unless you wish standard
pro-forma sheets to be used.
I am aware of the reluctance of magistrates to close old roads for
landowners benefit, having had the advice of Making the Best of Byways made
available to them. This is even more the case when a DMMO is pending to add
to the DM.
As I am sure you will appreciate the adverse affect of lots of publicity,
the sooner this nonsense can be ended the better.
Chris Marsden
Orleton Manor
Orleton
Ludlow
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 05:32:14 EST
Subject: Dorset problem & Warks solution
Dorset are proposing to close a lane as unnecessary (HA80 s116).
The lane runs through the middle of Charminster, just to the east of St Mary's
Church, and round the back of Bridge Cottage (1 East Hill). It follows the bed
of a river. It is claimed that the route is dangerous as children will fall
into the river. Therefore the new owners of Bridge Cottage want to gate off
the ends of the route - giving them an enclosed courtyard. But Bridleway
rights will be retained. No land is being used for stock or even agriculture,
so they will not actually be lawful gates - ie the whole thing is a muddle.
But this being Dorset, that won't stop them. The solicitor who has made the
application is a relative of the purchaser. It is not explained how reducing
the status will keep children out of the river, but I understand that the only
children they are worried about are their own (or grandchildren).
Please write saying how much you need the route, how unhelpful this process
is, how much it gets in the way of spreading the load initiatives, etc. And
how it contradicts the claim made under oath, by Mr Slade of DCC, that the
UCRs in Dorset will continue to be available for recreation. (this was at
another s116 case. DCC are making a habit of this).
Dorset Ref: JLC RW/S14D Mrs Jane Cheeseman
County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester DT1 1XJ - 01305 251000
Warwickshire seek Voluntary Restraint
E 5341 Aston Cantlow to Newnham Road (UCR) - GRs: 140602 - 158603
This unsurfaced road is soft, and includes a steep hill. It is popular with
dog walkers, who do not like ruts (all together - Aaaaahh). I have suggested
that a footway along the awkward bit could be constructed, including steps to
discourage cyclists & trail riders from riding along it. There is enough
width. I also suggested that LARA volunteers could help with the works needed.
WCC agree that this is sensible, but meanwhile they suggest that VR will help
demonstrate our willingness to help, and give the route a chance to dry out.
Nearby VR (Stoat Lane Gt Alne) has been very successful in showing that co-
operation works.
I need the agreement of local user groups, and e-mail is the quickest way.
The suggestion is for all motors to be covered by VR, for two months (ie until
June 1). Could we reasonably ask for motorcycles not to be included? Or might
a VR for uphill traffic be better (ie a voluntary one-way street, downhill
traffic only) ?
Please, Warks users, let me know pronto if VR is agreed, and if so, what
version might work best. I would also like a volunteer whose phone number can
go on the signs (so that users in doubt can check that it is kosher). Finally,
does anyone wish to help with erecting the signs and checking now and then
that they are in place (spares will be provided)?
Cheers, Tim Stevens
LARA, PO Box 20, Market Drayton, TF9 1WR - 01630 657627
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:12:38 -0000
Subject: Bolton MBC response to s56 schedule
Eventually Bolton MBC replied to my schedule for FP26.
I think they are trying to stall the issue in the hope that the Inspector
will make a decision before I take it to court. Or maybe they are just
thinking that I won't go that far.
Note they refer to my fax of 16-3-99 - that was the reminder to the fax of
11-2-99
Dear Mr. Boddison,
FOOTPATH 26, WESTHOUGHTON
I thank you for your faxed letter of 16th March 1999.
Having instigated the Section 56 procedure you will of course be aware why
it was relevant to ask for your views on why you considered the portion of
highway described in your notice to be "out of repair." Your schedule has
been forwarded to the relevant section of the Highways Department. You
will also of course be aware that the question of the route of the footpath
has yet to be finally resolved and so, until this happens, you will
understand that the Council must be cautious about further expenditure of
Council taxpayer's money on this particular matter.
Yours sincerely
Mrs S Stone
Solicitor
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:08:25 +0000
Subject: Re: NF
In message <bulk.18469.19990323150854@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
><<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)
The Angel is really pretty good. The intelligentia don't like it; the
scrotes don't like it; i do like it. The welding is something else - do
you think they'd do the sills on my 2CV?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:53:29 -0000
Subject: job opportunities in rights of way
today's Guardian 24/03/99
British Horse Society at Stoneleigh, near Coventry = Legal & Technical
Officer in their Access and Rights of Way Dept @ £20000 + benefits -
immediate availability
Lincs CC = Legal Orders Asst, £11493-13971.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:12:16 -0000
Subject: Re: Dorset problem & Warks solution
Tim,
I have spoken to Nick Bishton about Aston Cantlow-Newnham hill recently. It
is always a quagmire in its centre, the two ruts now being down to the hard
core, and the only damage is through the hooves of horses (and tramplers).
In my view, it is just as entertaining descending the hill, as going up! and
there is even less likelihood of damage from vehicular use that way. One way
working as a temporary measure is OK by me, it is what I did the other week
when I led over this route. Works on a path to the side would also be a good
measure, GLD project - better still if we incorporate Grey Mill Lane works
into the same day. It is nearby - less than a mile away.
I'd be happy to deal with the signs, too.
Richard Hawker
From: TimLARA@aol.com <TimLARA@aol.com>
Date: 24 March 1999 10:36
Subject: Dorset problem & Warks solution
>Dorset are proposing to close a lane as unnecessary (HA80 s116).
>The lane runs through the middle of Charminster, just to the east of St
Mary's
>Church, and round the back of Bridge Cottage (1 East Hill). It follows the
bed
>of a river. It is claimed that the route is dangerous as children will fall
>into the river. Therefore the new owners of Bridge Cottage want to gate off
>the ends of the route - giving them an enclosed courtyard. But Bridleway
>rights will be retained. No land is being used for stock or even
agriculture,
>so they will not actually be lawful gates - ie the whole thing is a muddle.
>But this being Dorset, that won't stop them. The solicitor who has made the
>application is a relative of the purchaser. It is not explained how
reducing
>the status will keep children out of the river, but I understand that the
only
>children they are worried about are their own (or grandchildren).
>Please write saying how much you need the route, how unhelpful this process
>is, how much it gets in the way of spreading the load initiatives, etc. And
>how it contradicts the claim made under oath, by Mr Slade of DCC, that the
>UCRs in Dorset will continue to be available for recreation. (this was at
>another s116 case. DCC are making a habit of this).
>Dorset Ref: JLC RW/S14D Mrs Jane Cheeseman
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
>This unsurfaced road is soft, and includes a steep hill. It is popular with
>dog walkers, who do not like ruts (all together - Aaaaahh). I have
suggested
>that a footway along the awkward bit could be constructed, including steps
to
>discourage cyclists & trail riders from riding along it. There is enough
>width. I also suggested that LARA volunteers could help with the works
needed.
>WCC agree that this is sensible, but meanwhile they suggest that VR will
help
>demonstrate our willingness to help, and give the route a chance to dry
out.
>Nearby VR (Stoat Lane Gt Alne) has been very successful in showing that co-
>operation works.
>I need the agreement of local user groups, and e-mail is the quickest way.
>The suggestion is for all motors to be covered by VR, for two months (ie
until
>June 1). Could we reasonably ask for motorcycles not to be included? Or
might
>a VR for uphill traffic be better (ie a voluntary one-way street, downhill
>traffic only) ?
>Please, Warks users, let me know pronto if VR is agreed, and if so, what
>version might work best. I would also like a volunteer whose phone number
can
>go on the signs (so that users in doubt can check that it is kosher).
Finally,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Seymour, Gareth" <gareth.seymour@sihe.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:52:48 -0000
Subject: Week in week out BBC1
Last nights program focused on the Right to Roam and on disputed ROW.
The main voice for the land owners and the CLA was non other than Julian
Salmon. He did not give any impression that he himself was against
access in the countryside and just spoke out against the RTR. He could
not see how the system could be made to work and how to keep walkers to
the selected area. The general opinion was how do you decide what are of
land is suitable for general roaming and how do you make people aware
that certain field my be out of bounds.
The disputed ROW mentioned included the aggressive Mr Evans near
Rhayader who has put off a school in Bath from bringing its pupils on
Duke of E. trips to mid Wales. Secret filming brought out his true
colours !!. Also there is another family who have restored a mill on the
Dee into a dream home and although there is no footpath on the DM there
is plenty of historical photos and evedence. They believe the addition
of the footpath to the river would knock 100,000 pounds off their
property.
Have it taped and will watch it again. May therefore bring up a few
points in the future.
ttfn
gareth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:02:43 -0000
Subject: Rubberman
Hi
someone recently claimed to have a photo of a white land rover parked
outside a house on Cambridgeshire. Could I have a copy please, for my Name
and Shame Page.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:46:11 EST
Subject: Re: They're at it again!!!!!!!!
I will be asking them, shortly, why they are using the power in HA80 s116 to
avoid the duty in WLCA81 s53. This applies particularly because this is on the
DM&S as footpath, so nobody can argue that it is not a WLCA matter.
Do Solihull have a liaison meeting with motorists or all users? If so, who
goes? It seems that either they have no policy for recreational motoring
(despite having a large manufacturer of relevant vehicles in their area) - or
if they have, managers like G Kenneth know nothing of it. This too is
something we should address.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:46:08 EST
Subject: Re: Area RoW Officer
In a message dated 23.3.99 23:09:54 GMT Standard Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
<< 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?? >>
I am fairly sure that any claim that a single Discovery used on a road was
'extraordinary traffic' would bring the CLA and NFU rushing to our aid. They,
after all, use lots more of them that we do. You would be more likely to
succeed against use with a pony and trap. Or, what would be really
extraordinary, a smiling rambler.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:01:32 EST
Subject: Re: Rubberman
In a message dated 24.3.99 13:40:28 GMT Standard Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
<< someone recently claimed to have a photo of a white land rover parked
outside a house on Cambridgeshire. >>
Would a white Disco in Herefordshire do instead?
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:39:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Rubberman
In message <bulk.9099.19990324072131@Land-Rover.Team.Net>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 24.3.99 13:40:28 GMT Standard Time, Dave@hants-
>lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
><< someone recently claimed to have a photo of a white land rover parked
> outside a house on Cambridgeshire. >>
>Would a white Disco in Herefordshire do instead?
Disco? Man, I wasn't hip in the '70s, but now I just love the Bee Gees
and that John Revolting guy. Hoi! Mother! Where's me distress flares?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:06:54 -0000
Subject: RE: Area RoW Officer
I thought said person frequented Herefordshire, but then they keep moving
the boundaries don't they?
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: Dave Tilbury [mailto:Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: 23 March 1999 22:05
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
> Sent: 23 March 1999 22:05
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:06:52 -0000
Subject: RE: Berkshire NGLD
Sorry using mine in Staffordshire. We could do with a few more bodies up
here, anyone feeling like a nice day out shovelling and pruning please mail
me direct ASAP for details.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:06:55 -0000
Subject: RE: NF
I though B&B meant something quite different. One has a 'Z', and the other
a 'K'...
Seriously though Dave, do you have any idea of timescales for this
monumental transformation?
Can we start the 'Keep Babtie out' campaign now?
Referring back to one of the earlier mails, there are quite a number of
railway crossings, so the Railway Maps could be a very good source of
information.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: Dave Tilbury [mailto:Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: 23 March 1999 22:36
I'll arrange B&B (Bed &> Beanfeast)
> Dave Tilbury
> Sent: 23 March 1999 22:36
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:06:57 -0000
Subject: RE: Dorset problem & Warks solution
Is this one of the lanes we had a look at last year Tim?
I which case there are several people who will have attempted to drive it in
the last few months.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: TimLARA@aol.com [mailto:TimLARA@aol.com]
> Sent: 24 March 1999 10:32
> Dorset are proposing to close a lane as unnecessary (HA80 s116). The lane
> Sent: 24 March 1999 10:32
runs through the middle of Charminster, just to the east of St Mary's
Church, and round the back of Bridge Cottage (1 East Hill). It follows the
bed of a river. It is claimed that the route is dangerous as children will
fall into the river.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:49:09 -0000
Subject: Re: They're at it again!!!!!!!!
No forum for them - they attend the one we - and you last week - do at
Warwickshire CC, so far as I know. So do the other metropolitan boroughs
which administer parts of what was Warks but then became West Mids County,
e.g. Coventry
From: TimLARA@aol.com <TimLARA@aol.com>
Date: 24 March 1999 13:50
Subject: Re: They're at it again!!!!!!!!
>I will be asking them, shortly, why they are using the power in HA80 s116
to
>avoid the duty in WLCA81 s53. This applies particularly because this is on
the
>DM&S as footpath, so nobody can argue that it is not a WLCA matter.
>Do Solihull have a liaison meeting with motorists or all users? If so, who
>goes? It seems that either they have no policy for recreational motoring
>(despite having a large manufacturer of relevant vehicles in their area) -
or
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:14:58 EST
Subject: Re: Dorset problem & Warks solution
In a message dated 24.3.99 19:08:49 GMT Standard Time,
rob@archenland.demon.co.uk writes:
<< s this one of the lanes we had a look at last year Tim? >>
No, it is just outside Dorchester and we were fairly well north of that.
You would remember, it is an along-the-river ford, ending in a village centre.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 19 lines 882 [forwarded 98 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 623 [content 462 forwarded 93 (cut 5) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990325 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]