[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:40:49 +0100
Subject: Re: What we did for NGLD
telling us that he'd write to the council praising us>>
This was after holding his head in a puddle for the third time?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:54:22 +0100
Subject: SES
Hi
Red arrow waymarkers have appeared on RoW posts in Hampshire and a RoW
officer and country park ranger are mildly interested in the source. The
only clue on these 80mm dia. disks is "SES endurance".
Any idea who this group is?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:04:35 +0100
Subject: Re: SES
In message <bulk.10051.19990329022200@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hi
>Red arrow waymarkers have appeared on RoW posts in Hampshire and a RoW
>officer and country park ranger are mildly interested in the source. The
>only clue on these 80mm dia. disks is "SES endurance".
SE must be sarf eastern?
Sarf eastern sodomisers?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:27:21 +0100
Subject: Staffordshire - National Green Lane Day Report
Well, its been and gone for another year.
At the allotted hour four of us had gathered at the end of the lane, and
after the usual polite banter set about the pile of stuff the Council had
left us. Jim's little trailer looked quite cute on the back of Mark's SII,
as it was hauled down to the first hole. Gulp. Time for a second trailer
load, and a third, and a fourth. This was a hungry hole. A small
detachment (me) decided to set about some of the surrounding undergrowth.
We were no accosted by the one 'walker' of the day. Hello Bod, the dogs
have multiplied.... Now with five of us the first group of holes really
showed how hungry they are. Alongside the lane we found, part buried, a
collection of lumps of concrete, bricks, concrete fence poles, and bit of
old concrete garage. All went in, with a sort of slurping burp from the
hole.
Some time during the day a small detachment set about digging a drain from
one nearby hole into the ditch, this hole having a firm bottom was left to
dry, now that the water could get away.
So, what did we achieve? A few aches and pains; filling in of a few yards
of well churned mud with stone and assorted rubble; the trimming of some of
the overhanging branches.
And a couple of new GLASS members, thanks to Bod's gentle(?) ribbing....
More of that elsewhere.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:59:13 -0500
Subject: Re: They're at it again
Richard,
> 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
I assume though you have not, there were no ruts! The drainage on the
sunken lane was deplorable, a vehicle 2 or 4 might show signs but the
improved drainage can but help.
The kissing gate lifts off to allow bikes to pass.
Can you re-check the NGRs at East/North end, and you say comes out across
someone's> lawned part of the highway!. I think this comes out on a tarred
road with lawns at the side, at 203 751, not across the lawn itself? (Which
would be the case if it came out nearer 201 753
Do their UC roads have vehicular rights? This was presumably in Warks
(judging by the FP signs) before some bright sod mucked them about, so did
theirs have V Rts? If not did they have equestrian rights? If either they
have not asserted them. I assume the road goes either on the tarred drive,
or straight across the lawn, Either way the gates prevent any use. Do you
have the CC map of precisely where it runs? What rights are the reserving,
any? There is an awful winter path alongside. The Tramplers Association
should be up in arms about this.
For info, the path alongside is muddy, even for walking boots, so people
have been trying to straddle the path, on the drier sides, but they slope
down, I fell against the rail fence several times, and the slip marks
indicate many others have done the same.
Are they closing the whole length, is it paid for by the applicant, and the
whole length being closed? It is totally unacceptable to close it. I saw
it with Bod on Sat.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 16:07:12 EST
Subject: Re: SES
In a message dated 29.3.99 11:26:06 GMT Daylight Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
<< Red arrow waymarkers have appeared on RoW posts in Hampshire and a RoW
officer and country park ranger are mildly interested in the source. >>
Let me guess - they had never seen a red waymarker before?
Could SES be the name of a plastics maker, and endurance the name of the
product?
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:00:42 +0100
Subject: Public carriage road from Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, Solihull
Had this reply from Solihull today, via e-mail
>>J.K.WILSON M.A.(Oxon), Dip.T.P.,M.R.T.P.I.
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
P.O.Box 19 Council House
Solihull West Midlands B91 3QT
Tel: 0121-704 6000 Fax: 0121-704 6929
Mr R.Hawker
7 Poverty
Astwood Bank
Redditch
Worcs.
B96 6DP
Please ask for Mr G.Kenneth
Your ref: Direct Line: 0121 704 6429
Our ref: GWK/3/108 29 March, 1999
Dear Mr Hawker
Alleged Public Carriage Road – Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, Solihull and
Public footpath M168
Thank you for your letter of 23 March 1999 concerning the above.
As you know, as a public authority, officers can take no action unless
authorised to do so. In this case the issue will be reported to the
Transport and Highways Sub-Committee to enable Members to consider the
matter. The matter will be reported at the earliest date following the
completion of our investigations.
It is important that the organisation that you represent and indeed your own
point of view is known to Officers and the Committee when it is considering
the matter. Your letter of 16 February 1999 will be given to Members to
consider. If you have any further matters you wish to raise, please advise
me.
Let me emphasise that the Council wish to be fair to all interested parties
and fulfil its statutory obligations in a proper and fair manner, especially
in this case where there are many competing, contrary yet reasonable
viewpoints.
Yours faithfully
Director of Environment Services<<
This is my draft reply, any comments please?
+++++++++
Dear Mr Kenneth
Public Carriage Road – Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, Solihull, and Public
Footpath M168
I would like to thank you for your letter dated 29 March, a copy of which
you e-mailed to me that same day. However, you are clearly wrong in implying
that you need Committee approval to perform a routine duty required of your
Council by the Highways Act 1980, and I am affronted by your prevarication
on this matter. I presume that you are the responsible officer on behalf of
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council who has the duty to respond to such
notices as part of the description attaching to your post? I did make it
clear in my original letter to you, that it was intended for that officer.
You are reminded here that you have a duty under section 56 of the Highways
Act 1980 to respond to my notice within one month – time expired on the 16
March 1999 – after which time, I, as Complainant may apply to the Crown
Court for an order requiring your Council, as Respondent, to put the highway
into proper repair within such reasonable time as may be specified in the
order.
Please respond now to my notice dated 16 February 1999 served upon your
Council.
With due respect to your Council’s Transport and Highways Sub-Committee, the
determination of the status of the highway is made at an English court of
law – Quarter Sessions in 1877, and (presumably) a Magistrates’ Court if a
Stopping-up order is sought at some future date – and your Council can only
make an application for an order, as I understand it. That is when a
referral to a Committee would come into play, and it in no way takes
precedence over performing the statutory duty of the Council required under
the Highways Act 1980.
If it is the intention of the Council to proceed towards a stopping-up,
then, first, you will need to be open about it’s status as a public
carriageway (not change the label to “alleged” just to bolster your
argument), and, second, you will need to make clear in any response to
notices under the Highways Act 1980 what your Council’s intentions are with
regard to maintenance.
Yours sincerely
Richard Hawker
TRF member of the LARA Steering Committee+++++++
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:47:30 +0100
Subject: Re: They're at it again
I stand corrected on the GRs, and perhaps I used a modicum of poetic licence
in describing a road across lawns, but not too much.
It was in Warwickshire (Meriden RDC? pre 1974) I believe, as was Solihull
itself, I also believe, at least as far as highways authority is concerned.
The rights attaching are pretty well beyond doubt - that is why the trouble
arose in the first place, they found it for themselves, so far as I know,
i.e. Quarter Sessions in 1877 declared it a Public Carriage Road! Nobody has
yet loudly claimed to have found any legal stopping up - only a reputed
local knowledge that it was stopped up to vehicles in about 1900. Who this
putative centenarian is with such unimpaired memory, I don't know, maybe a
relative of HM Queen Mum, do you think?
When you talk about the gates stopping any use, I presume you refer to the
Dial House end, and there I think it looks pretty clear as a line through
the wooden gate, touch the corner of the old house itself, and probably
straight up the drive through the wrought iron gates. These gates probably
have tighter controls than B Gates' wallet.
I have to admit, I haven't thought about what exactly they are keeping open,
I have only concentrated on what they intend to close!
Presumably, AND THIS IS ONLY MY GUESS WORK, they are proposing the closing
of all the vehicular rights, and probably all the bridleway rights (that was
a reason for a Mr Harriman wanting horses [brucellosis scare] away from his
prize herd of cattle around 1950 and thus the diverted winter path, so the
rumour mill goes) closing the footpath across the Dial House if still
extant in legal terms, and ratifying the diverted (winter?) path if that
wasn't done properly in the first place 1950ish by Meriden RDC.
Nice lane though - glad you walked it?
Richard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:50:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Public carriage road from Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, Solihull
I would like to thank you for your letter dated 29 March, a copy of which
you e-mailed to me that same day. However, you are clearly wrong in
implying
that you need Committee approval to perform a routine duty required of your
Council by the Highways Act 1980, and I am SADENED by your prevarication
on this matter. I presume that you are the responsible officer on behalf of
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council who has the duty to respond to such
notices as part of the description attaching to your post? I did make it
clear in my original letter to you, that it was intended for that officer.
I took the liberty of suggesting one change which makes the whole seem a
little less aggressive - but you know me - always the one to run from an
argument. I know I'm always on about it but Lane's comments in Send are
mightily on our side in such matters.
Richard Hawker
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:03:13 +0100
Subject: LO does not want 'his' road maintained (was: Re: Tractor Damage to
Lanes)
>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.
Geoff did see him and got chased off his land :-(
He then looked closer at the files and tells me that last time SMBC tried to
carry out any work on the BOAT, the LO came out and attacked the Council
workers. They needed police protection to allow them to carry out the
works.
Needs following up :-)
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:19:31 +0100
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,
Walked it with CJM t'other day.
All OK as above but then not quite sure from description.
> to
>nice hedged/fenced lane at top to Park Corner, coming out across someone's
>lawned part of the highway!.
No idea where the lawn is although we came out at Park Corner.
Does it follow the FP shown on the OS LR?
If so - your NGRs are a bit out.
Is there a FP around Dial House as well as the UCR or that section just an
(illegal) diversion to the 'real' route?
>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
You mean easy except for the obstructions :-((
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:38:49 +0100
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
Interestingly eight out of ten signs (that expressed a preference) had
labelled themselves as being WCC signs.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:24:20 +0100
Subject: Re: widths
>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.
HA80 s116 is only about stopping up because a route is unnecessary.
T&CPA90 s247 is about stopping up (or diversion) to allow for development to
take place. The only test is effectively whether the highway or the
development is more important. s247 is just as effective at stopping up
a highway as s116 and, in some ways, it is easier to implement.
Please - let's try not to forget the differences
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:35:07 +0100
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.
Is it a DM FP for all its route?
RH's NGR's seem to suggest that the FP and UCR follow different courses for
most of their lengths - can someone confirm one way or t'other please.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:15:16 +0100
Subject: Re: Alleged Public Carriage Road/Public Footpath M168 : Heronfield to
Chadwic...
>And 10 is an unnecessary threat. If you know of other problems, you should
>attend to them independent of this case. Its like saying 'Have you stopped
>beating your wife and if you don't answer I will report your scabby dog to
the
>RSPCA.'
News travels fast Eh? I did not think that even you Tim would know of
the new (scabby) dog with the broken leg that was dumped on my doorstep last
week.
Those scabs are costing me a fortune to have the dressings changed every
three days - but at least it is the RSPCA that are doing it so Tim shouldn't
report me :-))
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:19:50 +0100
Subject: Re: Staffordshire - National Green Lane Day Report
>And a couple of new GLASS members, thanks to Bod's gentle(?) ribbing....
>More of that elsewhere.
Success is the important factor.
Subtlety isn't!!!!!
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:53:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Alleged Public Carriage Road/Public Footpath M168 : Heronfield to
Chadwick Lane,
><<Is ths a tad strong?>>
>I feel the numbered paragraphs is a bit aggressive. Otherwise, we need to
>know.
No I do not think it is too strong.
We need to present a case that is coherent but does not consist of a set of
identical letters so Chris' letter which is aggressive, but not too much so
(remember they said N/A) complements a few others nicely.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 05:26:26 +0100
Subject: Re: They're at it again
>I stand corrected on the GRs, and perhaps I used a modicum of poetic
licence
>in describing a road across lawns, but not too much.
......
>i.e. Quarter Sessions in 1877 declared it a Public Carriage Road! Nobody
has
>yet loudly claimed to have found any legal stopping up - only a reputed
Thank you for the clarification Richard.
I will have a letter faxed by the end of today (Tuesday)
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 18 lines 944 [forwarded 73 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 660 [content 509 forwarded 73 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990330 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]