[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 99 11:04 BST
Subject: Re: Public carriage road from Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, Solihull
Well, here we go for my 'gut' reactions...
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. >>>>>>
Nice reply - Surely the *Director* of Environmental Services ' must have
a certain amount of discretion in resonding to short-notice criteria, eg a
30-day legal reqquirement?
Not-do nice reply - Gissyer job description pal and we'll show you where
it tells you otherwise...
<<<<<IIt is important that the organisation that you represent and indeed
your ownpoint of view is known to Officers and the Committee when it is
consideringthe matter. >>>>>
Nice Reply...' the TRF is etc etc and Lara is etc etc '
Not so nice but preferred reply ' Your reply implies that you would have
to be assured that a complaint came from an 'approved' source before it
was considered, retract this before I tell the Monitoring Officer to stand
on yer neck'.
<<<<Let me emphasise that the Council wish to be fair to all interested
partiesand fulfil its statutory obligations in a proper and fair manner>>>>
Sio why havent you done so....get yer a*rse in gear NOW!
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
implyingthat you need Committee approval to perform a routine duty
required of yourCouncil by the Highways Act 1980, and I am affronted by
your prevaricationon this matter. I presume that you are the responsible
officer on behalf ofSolihull Metropolitan Borough Council who has the duty
to respond to suchnotices as part of the description attaching to your
post? I did make itclear 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
highwayinto proper repair within such reasonable time as may be specified
in theorder.
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,
thedetermination of the status of the highway is made at an English court
oflaw – Quarter Sessions in 1877, and (presumably) a Magistrates’ Court if
aStopping-up order is sought at some future date – and your Council can
onlymake 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+++++++
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 99 12:49 BST
Subject: To Protect and Assert
This was a phrase which crooped up re: HAs duties wrt Public usage of RoW.
Being of unsound mind and ample body, I promptly forgot the
reference...would someone please quote me the original reference in its
entirety, particularly 'who' is supposed to protect and assert.
TVM...
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 99 12:49 BST
Subject: Re: West Berkshire Council
On the principle that you can't hit a moving target, WBC are moving the
responsibility for RoW from one dept to another.
WEF 12th April, Mr. Paul Hendry Countryside Officer of WBC Countryside and
Environment will be taking over as Client Contact for Babtie & Co., a
function currently held by Mr. Bruce Lousely.
I will be contacting Mr. Hendry to give him details of the help that
motorised user groups are able to offer in his new responsibilities.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:11:08 +0100
Subject: london gazette notices
OK all you budding gazetteers - your chance has come!
www.london-gazette.co.uk gets you into the copies for yesterday and friday
last week. From there you can look up the relevant sections - I suggest
TRANSPORT + PLANNING + ENVIRONMENT + ENERGY + OTHER NOTICES as the usual
suspects - but the draw back is that you have to stay on line to plough
through each section looking for suspicious packages, which you then need to
investigate (in my case, I send them to the individual area reps + GLASS on
a national basis).
I guess there is still a role here for the paper based edition to play, i.e.
it is cheaper for me to look through that and extract only those required
and either forward the electronic ones, or paper copy for those still using
snail.
By the way, I notice that the electronic form of publication claims to have
CROWN COPYRIGHT, whereas I can find no such mention on the paper based form!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:57:21 +0100
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert
I think you are referring to Highways Act 1980 S130 Protection of Public
Rights of Way page 339 in the Blue Book
(1) It is the duty of the highway authority to assert and protect the rights
of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the
highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.
(2)Any council may assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and
enjoyment of any highway in their area for which they are not the highway
authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.
(3) Without predujice to subsections (1) & (2) above, it is the duty of a
council who are a highway authority to prevent, as far as possible, the
stopping up or obstruction of:-
(a) the highways for which they are the highway authority, and
(b) any highway for which they are not the highway authortiy if, in their
opinion, the stopping up or obstruction would be predjudicial to the interest
of their area.
(4) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, it is the
duty of a local authority to prevent any unlawful encroachment on any roadside
waste compromised in a highway for which they are the highway authority.
(5) Without prejudice to their powers under section 222 of the local
government act 1972 a council may in the performance of their function under
the foregoing provisions of this section, institute legal proceedings in their
own name, defend any legal proceedings and generally take such steps as they
deem expedient.
(6) If the council of a parish or community or, in the cae of a parish or
community which does not have a separate parish or community council, the
parish meeting or a communtiy meeting, represent to a local highway authority-
(a) that a highway as to which the local highway authority have the duty
imposed by subsection (3) above has been unlawfully stopped up or obstructed
or
(b) that an unlawful encroachment has takenplace on a roadside waste
compromised in a highway for which they are the highway authority,
it is the duty of the local highway authority, unless satisfied that the
representations are incorrect, to take proper proceedings accordingly and they
may do so in their own name.
(7) Proceedings or steps taken by a council in relation to an alledged right
of way are not to be treated as unauthorised by reason only that the alleged
right is not found to exist.
Does that help you?
Michael Dyer wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:31:36 +0100
Subject: Re: widths
<<HA80 s116 is only about stopping up because a route is unnecessary.>>
s116 is widely used to stop up part of the highway in cases such as being
discussed, and quite rightly. If a highway is 60 feet wide and has a 20
foot sealed carriageway close to one boundary it could be said (and often
is said) that a 20 foot wide strip of land adjacent to the other boundary
is unnecessary.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:48:52 +0100
Subject: aggression
I must say that I find the aggression in many of the letters to local
authorities a source of concern. There may be situations where you are
actually fighting the Officer to whom you address the letter but in most
cases you are addressing a complaint to someone whose job it is to deal
with it. If they are an experienced RoW Officer they may well sympathise
with you complaint but for a dozen reason cannot instantly comply (remember
that their employers are the Members and it is the Members who probably own
land/friend of landowner/sympathise with landowner/etc.).
Sure, it's their job to 'preserve and protect the public's rights ...' but
in many cases if they did they would swiftly be out of work.
I would never flinch from sending in a politely worded complaint but I have
found that when that doesn't work a chat before tossing the toys out of the
pram can be very effective. Face to face, or on the phone, you will hear
things that will never be put in a letter.
At the end of the day those doing the complaining want results. Results
will not be achieved if you make an enemy of the person you are asking to
resolve your problem.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bill Richards" <bill@trf.freeuk.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:22:48 +0100
Subject: Re: SES
>>only clue on these 80mm dia. disks is "SES endurance".
>Sarf eastern sodomisers?
Sarf eastern signposters
Bill.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:37:05 +0100
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert
PART II-HIGHWAYS AC T 1980-PART IX (s. 130)
Protection of public rights
Protection of public rights
130.--(l) It is the duty of the highway authority to assert and protect the
rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any high-way for which
they are the highway authority, including any roadside
waste which forms part of it.
(2) Any council may assert and protect the rights of the public to the use
and enjoyment of any highway in their area for which they are not the
highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.
(3) Without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2) above, it is the duty of a
council who are a highway authority to prevent, as far as possible, the
stopping up or obstruction of-(a) the highways for which they are the
highway authority, and (b) any highway for which they are not the highway
authority, if, in their opinion, the stopping u p or obstruction of that
highway would be prejudicial to the interests of their area.
(4) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, it is
the duty of a local highway authority to prevent any unlawful encroachment
on any roadside waste comprised in a highway for which they are the highway
authority.
(5) Without prejudice to their powers under section 222 of the Local
Government Act 1972, a council may, in the performance of their functions
under the foregoing provisions of this section, institute legal proceedings
in their own name, defend any legal proceedings and generally take such
steps as they deem expedient.
(6) If the council of a parish or community or, in the case of a parish or
community which does not have a separate parish or community council, the
parish meeting or a community meeting, represent to a local highway
authority-( a) that a highway as to which the local highway authority have
the duty imposed by subsection (3) above has been unlawfully stopped up or
obstructed, or (b) that an unlawful encroachment has taken place on a
roadside waste comprised in a highway for which they are the highway
authority,
it is the duty of the local highway authority, unless satisfied that the
representations are incorrect, to take proper proceedings accordingly and
they may do so in their own name.
(7) Proceedings or steps taken by a council in relation to an alleged right
of way are not to be treated as unauthorised by reason only that the
alleged right is found not to exist.
So there you have it - The Highway Authority - which is in most cases the
County but could be a metropolitan borough etc. So the 'authority' must.
It is down to that authority to decide which department will deal with
which aspect but over all it must be done - prior to the exercise of a
POWER, which I guess means that RoW protection must be prioritised before
education, police, health, street lights and all that other fancy stuff
they keep their useless minions toiling over.
In all seriousness many LAs spend one hell of a lot on crap like
shrubberies on the roadside verges but neglect RoW. (e.g. In a green space
over the road from me, that was once an easy maintenance grass field, the
Borough have installed a skate board park - this, is in the middle of a
conservation area - a kiddies play area in Mcdonalds colours and in between
.... a sensory garden for the elderly. Wankers!)
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Peter Dowson" <Peter.Dowson@softwareag.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:20:06 +0100
Subject: Re: SES
According to the web, an SES Endurance is a sink made by the Midano Company
Ltd.
Why they would want to nail one to a post is beyond me.
Peter Dowson
Staffs
From: Bill Richards <bill@trf.freeuk.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: SES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 99 16:15 BST
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert
Many thanks to derek.sue, this will help me a lot
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:34:03 EST
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert
In a message dated 30.3.99 12:51:43 GMT Daylight Time,
doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
<< particularly 'who' is supposed to protect and assert. >>
HA80, s130 requires the Highways Authority to 'protect and assert the rights
of the public to the use and enjoyment of all highways for which they are the
HA, including the roadside waste.
Ditto to prevent the stopping up or obstruction of the same.'
Or words to that effect.
Other authorities have a power to do this, too, but not the duty.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:34:02 EST
Subject: Re: Public carriage road from Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, Solihull
I have been in touch with the Solihull Monitoring Officer, and she will be
getting back to me.
I have said that two things are (it seems to me) going wrong -
They are using a power (HA 80 s116) to avoid doing a duty (WLCA 81 s 53)
They are failing to respond properly to time limited applications (HA80 s 56)
In consequence, they are liable to costs they should not need to incur (eg
Crown Court costs), and so is LARA (as I am having to advise all the members
about what to do, he said, hoping that no-one would notice this slur on the
competence of those involved).
I will let you know what she says. Meanwhile, I suggest you all keep the
pressure on, and keep copies of everything in case we need to go on to the
Ombudschappie. Perhaps you might leave the Monitoring Officer to me, for now
at least, and we can do a nice/nasty routine if appropriate...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:47:49 +0100
Subject: RE: SES
I've heard of taking the kitchen sink with one, when one goes on holiday,
but having it nailed to a post by A.N.Other prior to a quiet activity in the
countryside is a new one...
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: Bill Richards <bill@trf.freeuk.com>
> To: <row@playground.sun.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 6:22 PM
> Subject: Re: SES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:00:09 EST
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert
In a message dated 30.3.99 15:03:05 GMT Daylight Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
<< and in between
.... a sensory garden for the elderly. Wankers! >>
A bit of prejudice, here, I think. Elderly wankers need, nay deserve, sensory
gardens, I say.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:30:23 +0100
Subject: Ross Lave Lane
After being told that only part of the route is adopted I have drafted this.
Comments please......
By fax to: 0161 342 3911
Dear Mr Cochrane,
Ross Lave Lane, PRoW No 18/19 Denton
Thank you for your letter of 9th March 1999. I am grateful that you
qualified the Council’s position regarding maintenance of this lane and its
inclusion on the list of streets maintainable at public expense.
However, your letter does raise a couple of questions.
Firstly, you state that the entire length of Ross Lave Lane is included in
the list of streets but that only a section of approximately 99 metres is
listed as being adopted. I can only assume that, in common with the
majority of highways engineers, you are taking the term ‘adopted’ to
indicate a level of maintenance rather than as being indicative of the
Council’s liability to maintain the highway. If this is not the case
then why is the unadopted section of this highway still included on the list
of streets if you believe that you have no duty to maintain it?
I am further concerned that there should be a public maintenance
responsibility for a distance of 99 metres from Town Lane. Although I
have not measured this section of the lane, there appears to be no feature
on the ground at a point 99 metres from Town Lane which the public at large
would benefit from having a maintained highway to access unless they also
had a maintained highway to continue along as far as Reddish Vale eg the
entire length of Ross Lave Lane. The only feature that appears to exist
around this point is the privately owned Hyde Hall; If this is the extent
of maintenance responsibility then surely this is to the exclusive benefit
of the owners of this property and not the general public. I fail to
understand how this route can only be publicly maintainable for a short
section at one end when I have been unable to find any evidence of the route
ever having been anything other than a through road between Denton and
Reddish Vale.
I fully accept that the standard of maintenance on a minor highway such as
this is substantially lower than much of the surrounding network but would
suggest that the entire route is, none the less, still maintainable at
public expense. With this in mind, I therefore conclude that the locked
gates along the lane constitute an illegal obstruction to this public
carriageway and would ask that you assert the public’s rights by arranging
for their removal as is your duty under the Highway Act 1980 section 130.
Many thanks for your continuing assistance with this matter.
Yours faithfully
Ian Boddison
Manchester Area Representative
GLASS (Green Lane Association)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:10:22 +0100
Subject: Bicycle TRO
I spotted a no bicycles TRO t'other day on a bridleway and thought "That's
Unusual" !!!
It was in North London probably within Barnet or Totteridge. The reason
I thought it strange was that bicycles only have a concessionary right to
use bridleways so should not need any further regulating.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:57:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Public carriage road from Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, Solihull
Noted, and agreed.
RJH
From: TimLARA@aol.com <TimLARA@aol.com>
Date: 30 March 1999 16:42
Subject: Re: Public carriage road from Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, Solihull
>I have been in touch with the Solihull Monitoring Officer, and she will be
>getting back to me.
>I have said that two things are (it seems to me) going wrong -
>They are using a power (HA 80 s116) to avoid doing a duty (WLCA 81 s 53)
>They are failing to respond properly to time limited applications (HA80 s
56)
>In consequence, they are liable to costs they should not need to incur (eg
>Crown Court costs), and so is LARA (as I am having to advise all the
>I have said that two things are (it seems to me) going wrong -
members
>about what to do, he said, hoping that no-one would notice this slur on the
>competence of those involved).
>I will let you know what she says. Meanwhile, I suggest you all keep the
>pressure on, and keep copies of everything in case we need to go on to the
>Ombudschappie. Perhaps you might leave the Monitoring Officer to me, for
now
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:42:11 +0100
Subject: Re: aggression
Dave,
As a former Local Govt Officer who spent a lot of the working day
communicating with enquiring public over 32 years, what you say is true in
that they will say to your face what they cannot put in writing.
However, it is usually the written form which you need, so where's the
comfort in that? (to plagiarise the Southern Comfort ad)!
RJH
From: Tilbury <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: 30 March 1999 14:03
Subject: aggression
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:38:51 +0100
Subject: Re: What we did for NGLD
alan kind wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------35362EDE6200" ]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:42:50 +0100
Subject: They re at it again
Hi folks,
attached is a missive to Solihull please feel free to plagarise if
anyone thinks it is suitable.
Cheers,Mike
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Solihull letter.to netwps.wps"
ÐÏࡱá΢š
Dear Sir
Public carriage road, Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, public footpath M168
1. I understand from a friend who lives locally that your authority is
intending to make an order under HA 1980 s116 to stop up the above way as your
authority
allege that it is unnecessary.
2. May I first say that as a regular visitor to friends in North Warwickshire
and as a user of all public rights of way in Warwickshire and Solihull that I
find such a proposal is unacceptable. The relevant section makes allowance for
aggrieved persons to appeal at magistrates court and I would like you to treat
this letter as notice that if your authority makes such an order I would so
appeal.
3. I would be most grateful if you could respond to the following questions
concerning the procedures which your authority has, or is proposing to adopt in
this matter.
4. I understand that evidence has come into the possession of the authority
which indicates that Fp M168 is a way of different status. effectively
fulfilling
the requirements of WLCA 81 s53 (3)(c)(ii). If this is correct why is your
authority not pursuing its duty under WLCA 81 s53 by processing a modification
order.
5. I understand that there are gates erected across this public carriage road
which may effect the outcome of proceedings at 4 above due to the recent
Nettlecombe case. If this is the case can you assure me that your authority
will pursue its duty under HA 80 s130 (1) and (3) in order to ensure that the
way
may be used by the type of user permitted to its use.
6. Could you please tell me if there has been an application from a member of
the public or other body, to your authority, requesting a stopping up order and
if not is the proposal being pursued autonomously by your authority.
7. If the proposal is being pursued autonomously by your authority could you
please tell me how you can justify pursuing a power before the duties outlined
above.
8. Lastly could you please include in your reply details of your authority’s
monitoring officer.
9. I look forward to your reply and I would like to thank you in anticipation
for your assistance in this matter.
Yours sincerely
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 99 22:42 BST
Subject: Re: Slurs
Tim has made himself a Catch-22
<<< hoping that no-one would notice this slur on the
competence of those involved)>>>
If we hadn't noticed, we'd have been incompetent, and would have missed
it, but but since we are competent enough to notice, why hope we wouldn't.
Be, that is.
Or words to that effect....
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:39:39 -0500
Subject: CoCo CCP 550
CoCo say 24/3/99 their RoW 21c is now on their web site. I looked
yesterday but could only find their proposals. (CCP 543)
Anyone seen them electronically yet?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:39:37 -0500
Subject: Stopping Up - Objectionable Letter.
Re Stopping up In Solihull.
Dave thought the numbered paragraphs were a bit strong. So I have
renumbered them! (There is no truth in the rumour I am trying to talk
them out of taking a vote for a 116 by leaving them no time!
I hope this may be an 'exportable model' for other HAs contemplating the
unthinkable? Do these HAs *have* to take seriously every request they get
to stop up a road, even from obstructors?
Comments welcome, is there anything I've missed?
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
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
29/3/99
Dear Mr Kenneth,
Re: A Formal Complaint, and Information Request.
Thank you for your prompt reply to my email of 23/3/99.
1. I had however asked if you would supply further details of your proposed
actions on the Public Carriage Road from Heronfield to Chadwick Lane (also
known as Public Footpath M168). Can you now do this please.
2. What in essence is the report to be presented to Committee on 12 April
1999?
3. Will you please confirm the precise routing of this road, and to what
extent footpath M168 coincides with the road. (The Landranger indicates the
path may follow a different route to that on the ground at SP198 749. Is
this a limitation of the scale of mapping, or is it an anomaly?)
4. Am I correct in the assumption that the public road, proposed to be
stopped-up, exits through the large, remotely operated electric gates of
Dial House (NGR SP 1955 7495)? (The following is based on that assumption)
5. Could you please advise if this road is included in the List of streets?
6. Do you consider Roads shown on the List of Streets to carry rights
higher than a footpath? If so precisely what?
7. What Rights are proposed to be stopped up?
8. Is this in the Landowners interest, is he/she in favour of this, and
will it be of benefit to him/her?
9. Is it likely the property value would rise substantially if a road
through the garden was closed down (legally)?
10. Is there any concern by the council, or expressed by the landowner,
for what type use might be made of the road, if correctly recorded?
11. Can you please advise in what way this stopping-up is in the public's
interest?
12. Is the affected landowner offering any inducement, financial or any
kind to the Council to make this application?
13. On 23/3/99 I asked if you would please "c) advise of your Monitoring
Officer's name and contact details" You say "N/A", does this mean ‘Not
Available’: the council does not have one? If so would you have a form
for complaint to the LG Ombudsman, I might use please?
14. Or, if it means ‘Not Applicable’, is that because you have not even
considered you may have erred?
15. When I last visited M168 on 27/3/99, a dry day, following several dry
days, the footpath was wet, muddy, very slippery and a narrow ‘U’ shape.
Walking in the centre was very difficult, yet straddling from the sides
resulted in frequently slipping down, a common occurrence judging by the
numerous marks of boots sliding.
16. Whilst this is not uncommon on footpaths, it is less likely on a road.
Here is a prime example of a road, the first part improved by the owners
of Dial House, the next section between fences un-improved, but both are
far more commodious than the length of footpath past Dial House.
17. Please do not underestimate the importance to be attached to the
downgrading, and the net loss to RoW. A clear objective of the
Countryside Commission and the Government is to prevent this.
18. I would suggest you have no business conniving with the landowner, to
fail to sign, to allow an unauthorised, misleading "Private" sign, to
allow intimidating gates that are remotely lockable - and were at the time
of my visit. (Previously I have observed them left open)
19. It might be great fun for the owners of Dial House to watch the Hoi
Polloi struggling, single file, along a narrow footpath, but why should the
public be dispossessed of the ability to stroll side-by-side down a
pleasant, virtually traffic free country lane?
20. And all this so that the landowner may legally acquire what they have
already taken by stealth and deceit?
21. There is no way in Christendom that anyone can claim that by
restricting pedestrians to the footpath only it is more commodious for
them. Therefore on this point alone, how can you swear in court it is not
necessary for the public?
22. The public have the choice now in law, to use a narrow footpath or a
wider road, - even if they do not in practice, - due to the selfish and
illegal actions of a ‘Private Stopping-up Action’.
23. The Planning Inspectorate are very reluctant to divert ways (quiet
correctly) for privacy, and NEVER if the alternative is less commodious.
24. I would assume the local R.A. group have drawn this to your attention,
however, to ensure this is not overlooked, I Propose sending a copy to the
R.A., along with the OSS, CTC, TRF, GLASS, LARA, BHS, and BDS, CSS, and
IPROW.
25. I am serving a notice under 1980 HA s56 for this same road at NGR SP
200 749. Can I assume remedial action can be agreed before indictment?
(Please advise if a printed copy is desired, however, I will be quiet
prepared to accept a response, and proposal for making the road good, by
Email) The s56 does NOT refer to any of the several obstructions.
26. It would seem the normal scapegoats of horses and vehicles are not to
be blamed in this instance? (On account of the kissing gate!) Perhaps true
multi-user might be beneficial in dispersing the silting-up?
27. After the abandonment of an application of a similar application for
Grey Mill Lane in Warwickshire, on all fours with this, substantial, and
perhaps unwelcome publicity might be saved if you and other HAs would
consider their duty to the public in preference to deference to local
dignitaries or estates. It is hoped the specialist press, at least, will
draw attention to the undesirability of ‘inappropriate’ use of s116, here
and elsewhere.
28. I did ask on 23/3/99 that you did not proceed, as you have not
indicated this is to be so, time in preparation will be claimed as costs
in the cause, if this goes to a Magistrates Court.
29. Has the existence of this "hidden road" been disclosed to potential
users? If so, how?
30. If this has not been disclosed, how can any officer of the council
truthfully swear before a Magistrate that the road is unnecessary?
31. What possible proof can you have (see Harvey v Truro below, para 63)
that it is not likely to be used in the future, after you HAVE undertaken
your STATUTORY DUTY?
32. Perhaps you could say if you regard the council as an "under performing
Highway Authority" (See CoCo CCP 550)? If not, how would you justify that
denial, considering your failure to assert and protect, enforce on
obstructions, the under signing, lack of promotion, misleading signs,
etc.?
33. Secondly without promotion, or even making such information available,
how do you expect the public to show the necessity for the road in the
usual way, i.e. by use?
34. Thirdly even by extracting the information from you, can use be
expected with intimidating, remotely controlled lockable gates, and
‘Private’ signs?
35. From this I conclude your proper course for action is to remove the
obstructions, remove the misleading signs, make the information available
as "Other Routes with Public Access or as a BOAT on the OS maps, signing
has been carried out in accordance with Making the Best of Byways, record
on the Definitive Map, then wait say three years before considering whether
any use is being made. Do you agree?
36. I am sure you will be able to supply the court with cogent reasons why
you have failed in your duty to assert and protect the public’s enjoyment
of this obstructed highway.* Perhaps the Council would be kind enough to
rehearse that argument to me now, so that I may consider my contra
submission should this find it’s way to court.
37. * Lord Justice Lane's dictum (in R v Surrey CC ex parte Send PC, 1979)
sets out the law as follows - 'The local authority must at all times act
with the object of protecting the highway and of preventing or removing any
obstruction, and, more broadly speaking, of promoting the interests of
those who enjoy the highway or should be enjoying the right of way and the
county council must likewise operate against the interests of those who
seek to interrupt such enjoyment of the highway'
38. Would you state whether you are aware of the obstructions, if so, when,
and what your response has been to your legal duty?
39. Please let me know your council’s policy regarding assertion, and
regarding obstruction to minor highways.
40. Does the council accept these gates are a statutory offence under the
Highways Act 1980 s.137?
41. Further will you confirm whether this application was made by the
person who has erected the gates, would it not create the possibility for
embarrassment to the council (following the ruling of Robinson v Adair)
that a person should not benefit by their illegal actions?
42. Do you consider allowing obstructers to gain a stopping-up of a highway
they no longer wish the public to use, by their illegal actions, could
encourage others to obstruct, and therefore your duty to enforce more
difficult?
43. Would you please advise of the landowners names and addresses that
would be affected by a BOAT DMMO application on this road.
44. Does the road to be stopped-up include bridleway rights? Are those
rights currently being deliberately suppressed? How are horses to negotiate
the kissing gates? What do equestrians do on reaching Dial House, when
confronted with a stern warning sign unusually pointing out they must NOT
ride or lead a horse on the footpath, but the gate ahead is marked
‘private’?
45. Are you aware that if CoCo’s ‘Recommendation 6’ is accepted by
Parliament, your past actions could in the future lead to compensation
payments?
46. Is this road also shown on the DM&S as a footpath for most of it’s
length? If so, is it signed at the highest status, as is best practice, a)
as a warning to other users of what traffic may lawfully use it, b) to
avoid inadvertent ploughing or de-hedging, and c) to enable prospective
users to know the rights they enjoy?
47. If this is shown on the DM&S, yet you are aware that higher rights
exist, why have you not undertaken your duty to ensure the DM&S records the
public’s rights accurately?
48. What will the alternative route be for those wishing a leisurely,
relatively traffic free route, on unsealed roads?
49. I am concerned you are carrying out a power, before a duty, What you
are doing is using a power TO AVOID doing a duty (correction of the DM),
that is doubly wrong, and which is patently Ultra Vires.
50. Whether this application is made by the council or the applicant, the
same applies: that one should only go before the courts with clean hands.
It would seem neither the council has nor the owner of Dial House can claim
this.
51. Will all councillors who personally know the owners of Dial House, play
golf, belong to the same clubs, or Masonic Lodge, etc. be asking Lord
Hoffman’s advice on disclosure?
52. You will be aware (I hope) of the Government’s advice on s116 Stopping
Up Orders : the Secretaries of state consider that authorities should make
use of the other powers available unless there are good reasons for not
doing so.' Would you kindly advise me what those good reasons are?
53. As a stopping-up is generally considered a ‘last-resort’, would you
please advise of the other methods you have tried, and what the result
were?
54. I assume you have cogent reasons for promoting the stopping-up, using
scarce resources, would you please detail. Even if underwritten by an
applicant, (which of course will doubtless be cited to the court by many as
an indication it is primarily for the applicant’s benefit - a non-valid
reason for the stopping-up), there may still be financial costs to the
council (and thus possibly councillors ultimately), in administration,
and dealing with correspondence such as this. Please note this is a matter
the District Auditor and the Ombudsman will have to determine.
55. Are you using the power of s116 to avoid your duty under s130 s132 s149
and other sections?
56. If not, please explain. This explanation will be forwarded, along
with these complaints to the D.A.
57. Please confirm the address of your auditors, if it is not: 2nd Floor,
No 1 Friarsgate, 1011 Stratford Road, Solihull B90 4EB
58. In what way can the Council demonstrate they have asserted and
protected the PUBLIC’s rights?
59. Would you agree with me that the duty to assert and protects in the
HA80 s130 is a DUTY?
60. Would you agree with me that the power to make application to stop-up a
road is only a POWER?
61. Would you agree that you have to undertake a DUTY, before a POWER? I
would refer you to a House of Lords judgement of 20 May 98, R V East Sussex
County Council, ex parte Tandy, in which, giving judgement, Lord
Browne-Wilkinson said, "Parliament has chosen to impose a statutory duty,
as opposed to a power, requiring the local authority to do certain things.
In my judgement the courts should be slow to downgrade such duties into
what are, in effect, mere discretions over which the court would have very
little real control." "It is not for the courts to adjust the order of
priorities as between statutory duties and statutory discretions." Still
less is it appropriate for a council official to adjust the order of
priorities, decided by parliament, between the power to make a stopping-up
order and the duty to protect public highway rights.
62. 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….. 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."
63. Harvey v Truro Rural Council (1903) 2 Ch.638 by Joyce J. who in his
judgement said "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 has 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."....
64. Have you considered R v SoS for Env, Ex P Barry Stewart (1980) where Mr
Justice Phillips held far more substantial obstructions were of a
‘temporary’ nature, ‘It seems to me quite intolerable that an admitted
highway…. for it to be considered good grounds for stopping up [due to] ….
obstructions … that to allow such a ground would be an encouragement to
those who would obstruct the highways. I would have thought that they [a
very much more substantial obstruction] could be of only the most marginal
importance’.
65. These points, along with the DETR advice, and the Countryside
Commissions castigation of some Highway Authorities, for not promoting the
"Hidden Network" and under performing HAs in asserting user’s rights will
be made quite robustly before the Magistrates, and an application for costs
will be made.
66. The Countryside Commission’s recommendations to Government 4, 5, 23, 29
in CCP550 are particularly relevant.
67. As you will be aware in Bucks, the decision to apply for s116’s was
overturned when officers advised councillors they were personally liable to
costs if they proceeded.
68. Will you please ensure this letter and enclosures are brought to the
attention of Committee Chairman before the meeting of 12/4/99, and advise
me, accordingly. Due to the complexity, you may consider sending a copy to
committee members before 12/4/99.
69. As the Parish have a veto on s116 applications, would you please ensure
the Parish Chairman is made aware of all the points raised in this letter.
70. Do you have any other s116 applications in the pipeline that are also
on ‘green lanes’, and thus clearly contrary to DETR advice? Do you
anticipate using s116 regularly in the management of RoWs?
71. I enclose a paper from Bucks CC, that gives a clear insight into the
practicalities of using HA80 s116.
BUCKS C.C. Draft Policy for the Classification and Management of
Unmetalled
Unclassified County Roads
· Where UCR's are also shown as bridleways or footpaths on the Definitive
Map, this does not preclude the existence of higher rights.
· The incorrect recording as footpath or bridleway has left some routes
vulnerable to the removal of hedgerows on one or both sides and ploughing
out as part of large fields.
CURRENT SITUATION
10
Legal
Since its revision in 1994, the unmetalled, Unclassified County Roads have
been recorded on the County's Section 36 List of Streets as maintainable
highways. These routes are now known as Unclassified Unmet-alled Roads and,
prima facie, carry vehicular rights. By recognising these rights and our
duty to assert and protect them, we can remove much of the uncertainty and
many of the traditional problems which have beset our unsealed highways.
Following enforcement action, should it be proven that vehicular rights do
not exist, we can rely on S. 130(7)HA80, which says that, 'Proceedings or
steps taken by a council in relation to an alleged right of way are 'not to
be treated as unauthorised by reason only that the alleged right is not
found to exist.'
13
As has been stated above, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 places the
highway authority under a duty to keep the definitive map and statement
under continuous review. This entails a duty to modify the map and
statement to take account of an event as soon as reasonably practicable
after it occurs. Section 53(3) sets out the events which give rise to
modification of the map and statement, of most relevance here are those in
53(3)(c): The discovery by the authority of evidence which (when considered
with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows -
(i) that a right of way which is not shown in the map and statement
subsists or is reasonably alleged to subsist
(ii) that a highway shown in the map and statement as a highway of a
particular description ought to be there shown as a highway of a different
description; or
(iii) that there is no public right of way over land shown in the map and
statement as a highway of any description, or any other particulars
contained in the map and statement require modification.
There are several important principles contained in this section of the
Act:
14
Firstly, there is the duty to modify the map and statement if the evidence
suggests that this is necessary. The Act allows no discretion in this
matter; if we find evidence that the map and statement should be modified,
then the duty arises. Any further actions, such as seeking a stopping up
order, cannot circumvent the duty to make a definitive map modification
order (DMMO).
15
Secondly, this modification must be carried out as soon as reasonably
practicable. It is doubtful that this gives an authority the leeway to wait
for external events to take place before acting and is more likely to be
calculated in accordance with the workload falling on the Authority.
16
Thirdly, and very importantly, it is explicit in this section that it is
only necessary for rights to be reasonably alleged to subsist in order to
necessitate the making of a DMMO. The burden on an investigating authority
is not one of showing conclusively that rights exist, but is the lesser one
of showing that it can be reasonably alleged that they subsist. If it
appears to us that it can reasonably be alleged that rights subsist, we
must proceed to make a DMMO. Recent experience with the investigation of
the status of our UCR's has shown that in perhaps half of cases there is no
conclusive evidence of vehicular rights. However, the recording of the
UCR's on the County Road Register and in the Countyts List of Streets as
Unclassified Unmetalled Roads (UCUM), is sufficient on its own to raise a
presumption that such rights subsist. In the absence of substantial
evidence to the contrary, our starting point in the legal assessment of
such routes must be that they carry vehicular rights. Investigation also
shows that the main usage of the routes areas bridleways or footpaths, but
no conclusive evidence against vehicular status, we must make DMMO's to
show the routes as Byways Open to All Traffic (BOAT's). Here we have a
significant difference in the legal position in Bucks compared to most of
the Country: Prior to 1981, if our UCR's had been shown as RUPP's on the
definitive map a suitability test could have been applied and conclusive
evidence would have been needed to show vehicular rights. Now there is no
suitability test, status is to he determined only on the evidence, and the
legal presumption must be that vehicular rights subsist on our UCR's, with
conclusive proof being needed to show otherwise!
17
The Definitive Map is only setup to record footpaths, bridleways, BOAT's
and RUPP's. Section 56 Wildlife and Countryside Act l981 says that the
Definitive Map is conclusive evidence of rights of way recorded on it,
however, this is without prejudice to the existence of any other rights of
way. it is therefore quite possible to have, say, a bridleway shown on the
Definitive Map running over the same ground as a UCUM recorded in the List
Of Streets. It is only once we have discovered evidence that the UCUM
should in fact be recorded on the Definitive Map as a BOAT, Bridleway or
Footpath that we need to investigate with a view to making a DMMO.
30
In its 'Checklist of Specific Measures for Proactive Management', Entec
include the following as important management measures;
'Ensure definitive map and list of streets are consistent with each other'
and
'Properly define the legal status of all routes and accurately record on
the definitive map and list of streets where appropriate.
Magistrates' Court Stopping up Orders
Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 enables a highway authority to apply
to a magistrates' court for an order to stop up a highway of any
description, other than a trunk or special road. This can only be done on
the grounds that the highway is unnecessary. The Countryside Sub-Committee
has recently resolved to seek stopping up orders on UCR's rather than make
DMMO's. This course of action is thought to be at odds with the duty under
S.53 Wildlife And Countryside Act 1981 to modify the definitive map and
statement, it also does not sit comfortably with the Department of the
Environment's advice in Circular 2/93 that, 'While it is recognised that
there may be circumstances where it is appropriate to use the magistrates
court proce-dure.... the Secretaries of state consider that authorities
should make use of the other powers available unless there are good reasons
for not doing so.' Generally, it would seem that the Government is
suggesting a three tier approach to problems, with liaison, voluntary
restraint and practical measures being in the first tier, TRO's in the
second, and stopping up orders as a last resort.
43
Stopping up orders should be considered to be inappropriate on public
rights of way for the reason that, if paths are unused, it would appear
that a case can be made that they are unnecessary, but why should scarce
resources be spent on stopping up unused rights? If the rights are being
exercised it is less obvious that they are unnecessary and the stopping up
applications may fail. Generally, stopping up is only suitable for the
removal of rights from, for example, redundant stretches of sealed roads.
44
Stopping up orders are very blunt instruments which can adversely affect
parties who might otherwise be welcomed onto unsurfaced routes, the obvious
example being carriage drivers. We noted earlier that in our Countryside
Recreation Strategy we undertook to endeavour to provide for legitimate
countryside users where this did not conflict with environmental needs, yet
by seeking the removal of vehicular rights we would be depriving
environmentally neutral users of what is already a scarce resource for
them. Further-more, we should bear in mind that routes carrying vehicular
rights can be disproportionately important for disabled users. Lega
lly UCUM's, BOAT's and other carriageways should be ungated and undisturbed
by cultivation. As such they should have reasonable all weather surfaces
and offer the best potential for access to the disabled on a generally
hostile network. Good examples of this better access provision can be found
on several of the UCUM's which the Council is currently seeking to stop up.
If the stopping up goes ahead and the routes are subsequently subjected to
ploughing and /or gating, these routes will be barred to most disabled
users. Most access to the countryside by people with ambulant disabilities
is by means of electrically powered wheelchairs or 'buggies'. These
vehicles generally have reasonable off-road capability, but are severely
hampered by soft ground and stiles or kissing gates.
46
As the umbrella group for off-road vehicle users, LARA has been
very proactive in the development of Voluntary restraint agreements
nationally, and now have an established mechanism for their use which has
been tried with some success in many counties, including Berkshire and
Oxfordshire. In Berkshire, for example, requests for voluntary restraint
are regularly used to prevent damage to the surface of byways and are
generally well observed. The advice from Berkshire is that voluntary
restraint agreements are a very simple, quickly applied solution to
specific problems, which are at least as effective as Traffic Regulation
Orders but at a small fraction of the cost.
53
Policy Proposals: In the event of problems occurring with vehicular usage
we will
a seek practical measure to alleviate the problem
b) if necessary, in conjunction with LARA we will seek voluntary restraint
agreements
c) if a) and b) above fail, we will consider the necessity for a Traffic
Regulation Order
d) generally stopping up orders will not be sought as they are expensive
and inappropriate.
Summary
It is difficult to see any justification for the imposition of stopping up
orders; they are likely to cost at least as much as TRO's to administer a
cost which is hard to reconcile against the lack of damage or abuse which
is implicit in a route being unnecessary. The removal of legitimate public
rights and the subjecting of routes to legitimate ploughing and gating are
further high prices to pay. The advice from Government is that authorities
should make use of the other powers available unless there are good reasons
for not doing so. Possible legislative changes were considered but these
are unlikely to provide a solution to problems in the short term, and
cannot absolve us of our duties under S53 WACA 81.
59
Finally, it is noted that Ordnance Survey are carrying out trials to show
UCUM's on their maps.
60
In adopting this policy the council are mindful of their duty under The
Highways Act 1980 to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use
and enjoyment of any highway for which it is the highway author-ity.
I have omitted certain paragraphs for brevity, not to be deliberately
selective, the whole of the report is available if required.
In view of all of the above, I hope you will reconsider the stopping up of
this road.
Your sincerely
Chris Marsden
To : Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council,
PO Box 19, Council House,
Solihull, West Mids,
B91 3QT,
TAKE NOTICE that I, Christopher John Marsden of Orleton Manor, Orleton,
Near Ludlow, claim that the way described in the Schedule hereto is a
highway maintainable at the public expense.
AND TAKE NOTICE that a portion of the said way at grid reference SP 200 749
and being a distance of 30 metres or thereabouts is out of repair.
AND TAKE NOTICE that I hereby require you pursuant to sub-section (1) of
Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 to state:
(a) whether you admit that the said portion of way is a highway
maintainable at the public expense, and
(b) whether you admit that you are the authority liable to maintain the
said portion of way.
Dated 30th March 1999.
CHRISTOPHER JOHN MARSDEN
SCHEDULE
Full Highway, shown on the List of Publicly Maintainable Streets, Near
Temple Balsall, Solihull, at grid reference SP 200 194, running from
Heronfield to Park Corner.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:33:48 +0100
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert
>Being of unsound mind and ample body, I promptly forgot the
>reference...would someone please quote me the original reference in its
>entirety, particularly 'who' is supposed to protect and assert.
Mick,
If you never remember anything else, commit this to memory...
Chant it each night before sleeping.
"(1) It is the duty of the highway authority to assert and protect the
rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they
are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of
it.
(2) Any council may assert and protect the rights of the public to the use
and enjoyment of any highway in their area for which they are not the
highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.
(3) Without predujice to subsections (1) and (2) above, it is the duty of a
council who are a highway authority to prevent, as far as possible, the
stopping up or obstruction of -
a) the highways for which they are the highway authority, and
b) any highway for which they are not the highway authority, if, in
their opinion, the stopping up or obstruction of that highway would be
predujicial to the interests of their area."
[4-7 ommitted]
It is notable that this is the first section within Part IX of The Highways
Act 1980 (Lawful and Unlawful Interference With Highways and Streets)
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:49:59 +0100
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert
>which aspect but over all it must be done - prior to the exercise of a
>POWER, which I guess means that RoW protection must be prioritised before
>education, police, health, street lights and all that other fancy stuff
>they keep their useless minions toiling over.
Not quite - provision of education, police and health are duties also (not
sure about street lighting but I suspect that is a power [or uses power -
Ed])
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:46:36 +0100
Subject: Re: aggression
>I must say that I find the aggression in many of the letters to local
>authorities a source of concern. There may be situations where you are
Dave,
I cannot fault what you are saying but we are seeing something recently that
I have not seen within the RoW movement - maybe you have, I know you have
been fighting our cause for a lot longer than I and I am quite willing to
bow to your experience.
We are seeing a situation where a few select but important routes* are being
targeted by persons from various areas of the country most of whom are
unlikely to have a continued input in that area.
Yes, if a council officer gets 40 aggresive letters then that does our cause
little good but 38 polite enquiries backed by a couple of detailed, well
reasoned and fairly aggresive letters helps to show the level of interest
that there is in the RoW network.
Upper Lye was a case in point - my letter simply said 'please tell me if
this is a highway, one bloke said it is and another said it wasn't'. No
letting on that I know that they have answered a s56 or that I have ever
heard of CJM before he became a TV star! Not to say I wrote a good
letter but it formed PART of an overall abalance and that appears to have
achieved some results.
When writing to your local HA I fully agree with your posting unless you are
dealing with a very anti-access authority like Trafford. But for
'remote' correspondence where it is the shock of the volume and diversity of
mail that provides a great catalyst for action a few aggressive letters are
a positive ingredient.
Cheers,
Bod
*Not just imortant individually but important to force an authority to
reconsider policy or to prove that there is interest in a general area.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:41:33 +0100
Subject: Solihull Letter
By fax to: 0121 704 6114
FAO: Mr G Kenneth
Dear Mr Kenneth,
PUBLIC CARRIAGE ROAD and FOOTPATH M168
I understand that it is the intention of Solihull MBC to apply to the
magistrates court for an order to remove public rights from this route
pursuant to section 116 of The Highways Act 1980. I am very concerned
that you should even be considering this course of action as the route is
currently obstructed to all users except walkers. It therefore follows
that it is impossible to determine whether or not the route is unnecessary
for the public; this being an integral requirement of the above legal
procedure.
Having recently walked the route I fail to see how it can be considered
unnecessary. In fact, I would consider it to be a valuable assert and an
important part of the recreational minor highway network. Furthermore,
I do not believe that there would be any benefit to the public at large from
the removal of public rights from this highway; on the contrary, it would
be solely the occupiers of Dial House who would benefit from any such order
as they currently do from illegally obstructing the highway.
Can you please tell me why this action has been instigated; was it at the
request of the occupiers of Dial House? Additionally I would be
grateful if you could supply me with a copy of the portion of the Definitive
Map and Definitive Statement that refer to this route.
I can fully understand your apparent reluctance to accept that carriageway
rights exist over this highway in view of the obvious time that has elapsed
since such public rights appear to have exercised. However, I also
consider that an attempt to alleviate the problem by stopping up the highway
is neither desirable nor legal.
I am assuming that the intended stopping up order, if effected, will
extinguish all public rights over the route, including use on foot. Could
you please confirm if this is indeed the case.
Many thanks in advance of your assistance with this matter.
Yours faithfully
Ian Boddison
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Lisa" <lisa@jmnorr.globalnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 07:11:57 +0100
Subject: Re: CoCo CCP 550
You can find it there it just isn't easy. Go to Our Work. Then
Commissioner's Meetings and working papers. I heard they were posting the
final to everyone.
Lisa
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:01:20 +0100
Subject: Re: Bicycle TRO
In message <bulk.23237.19990330115307@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Bod
<bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>I spotted a no bicycles TRO t'other day on a bridleway and thought "That's
>Unusual" !!!
>It was in North London probably within Barnet or Totteridge. The reason
>I thought it strange was that bicycles only have a concessionary right to
>use bridleways so should not need any further regulating.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 11 lines)]
>Cheers,
>Bod
Interesting indeed. Bicycles 'right' on bridleways is expressed in the
Act to be subject to any 'regulation or order', so a TRO is quite in
order - if necessary.
But - if the TRO was 'no bicycles' then a tricyclist or velocipedist
would not be comitting any criminal offence - would be merely a civil
trespasser!
Where was this order?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:12:42 +0100
Subject: EDM response
I know I'm regarded as a bit eccentric; an old tossa; etc., but my views
are built on experience - something some of you nippers have yet to gain.
Once again I was right when I predicted the response from my MP. In
defiance I raise my two fingers!
"Dear Mr Tilbury
Thank you very much for writing to me to tell me about the issues of Early
Day Motion 24, which is obviously a matter of great personal concern to
you.
I am most grateful for your comments on this matter and found the issues
you raised on 'the other side of the argument' to be deserving of a
reasoned response. I will therefore be investigating the matter further
and will get back to you as soon as possible.
In the mean time, if I can be of help over any other matter, please feel
free to get in touch again.
Dictated by David Chidgey and signed in his absence."
I think I might write and offer further assistance on the subject.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 31 lines 2185 [forwarded 147 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1671 [content 1487 forwarded 144 (cut 3) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990331 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]