Message	Sender	lines	Subject
1	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	20	Re: West Berkshire Council
2	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	46	Re: They're at it again
3	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	24	Ross Lave Lane
4	"Andy Bailey" [andy@snow	7	Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t.
5	"Andy Bailey" [andy@snow	53	Fw: LANES UNDER THREAT IN DERWENT RESERVOIR AREA OF DERBYSHIRE
6	TimLARA@aol.com	39	Re: aggression in letters
7	TimLARA@aol.com	35	Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t.
8	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	16	Re: CoCo CCP 550
9	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	22	Re: Public carriage road from Heronfield to Chadwick Lane, Solihull
10	Susan Jeggo [derek.sue@v	13	Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t.
11	BurgDM@aol.com	9	Re: To Protect and Assert
12	"Rob Smith" [rob@archenl	22	RE: To Protect and Assert
13	"Rob Smith" [rob@archenl	23	RE: Bicycle TRO
14	"Rob Smith" [rob@archenl	15	RE: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t.
15	"Rob Smith" [rob@archenl	24	RE: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t.
16	doghouse@cix.compulink.c	40	Press release
17	doghouse@cix.compulink.c	15	Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. Wi
18	doghouse@cix.compulink.c	43	Re: West Berkshire Council
19	Hugh Craddock [hugh.crad	28	RE: Bicycle TRO
20	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	259	Solihull Part 3
21	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	123	Solihull Objection Part 2
22	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	247	Solihull 116 objection Part 1
23	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	28	LARA/CLA Rapid Response Scheme (was: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!)
24	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	36	Re: Bicycle TRO
25	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	18	Re: Bicycle TRO
26	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	35	Timings that are accepted for Green Lane Day (was:Re: re. Most
27	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	21	Cars can disturb nests but maintenace cannot (was: Re: Fw: re. Most
28	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	15	Re: To Protect and Assert
29	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	15	Replying to messages in such a way that it night make some sense to
30	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	14	Re: Bicycle TRO
31	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	14	Re: To Protect and Assert
32	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	15	Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t.
33	"Bod" [bod@bod1.freeserv	22	Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. Wi
34	Susan Jeggo [derek.sue@v	11	land ownership
	Majordomo		About the digest

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990401 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:02:17 -0500
Subject: Re: West Berkshire Council

> 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.

Can you advise please on the inclinations to V/acceptance by either / both
of these gents.  Is RB def a glum person?  I am aware that her presence at
their AGM and many comments strongly support that view.  Would a more
real-life approach be obtained from BL or PH, or anyone else in babtie or
WBDC?

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:02:18 -0500
Subject: Re: They're at it again

> 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.

Yea saw the Warks FP signs. Did I mention that before?

> 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?

Perhaps a relative of the same chap Geof Brookes had as a witness at a FP
DMMO last week. Said he had used this footpath for 86 years!  Ee' were 92.

> When you talk about the gates stopping any use, I presume you refer to
> itself, I also believe, at least as far as highways authority is
the
> Dial House end, and there I think it looks pretty clear as a line through

No I was thinking of the kissing gate, but that lifts orf easily, so tis
possible.

> 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.

Looking from Lane/Winter path junction, there is a depression in the grass,
which indicates the line MAY have been direct, rather than round the edge
of the house.  Could equally be landscaping. No matter.

> Nice lane though - glad you walked it?
> straight up the drive through the wrought iron gates. These gates

Muddy incline was not a lot of fun in walking shoes. Was that your s56 bit,
or did you do the whole to test status?  I had forgotten you had done one,
but mine is ready to go off, to make their day. 

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:02:16 -0500
Subject: Ross Lave Lane

> Ross Lave Lane, PRoW No 18/19 Denton

> 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.
> carriageway and would ask that you assert the public’s rights by
The HA is the HA for all highways, whether or not they have adopted it.  If
it is pre 1835 they can adopt it without any completion certificate.  So if
you can prove it predates the D&C map etc, they should have a *duty* to
maintain and Assert & Protect,   if post 1835 just to Assert & Protect.

I think.

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[digester: Removing section of:  Content-Type: multipart/alternative; ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:32:11 +0100
Subject: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. 
Wildlife
	charset="iso-8859-1"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[digester: Removing section of:  Content-Type: multipart/alternative; ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:32:31 +0100
Subject: Fw: LANES UNDER THREAT IN DERWENT RESERVOIR AREA OF DERBYSHIRE
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Date: 26 March 1999 15:15
Subject: Fw: LANES UNDER THREAT IN DERWENT WATER AREA OF DERBYSHIRE

This message didn't come back into my in-box via the major domo thingy. =
Does this mean its not receiving mail from me? Did you get this and the =
other 2 messages I sent that day? Have a good green lane day, Andy.
href=3D"mailto:bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk">bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk</A>&gt;=
<BR><B>Date:
</B>26 March 1999 15:15<BR><B>Subject: </B>Fw: LANES UNDER THREAT IN =
DERWENT
WATER AREA OF DERBYSHIRE<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>This message didn't come back into =
my in-box via
the major domo thingy. Does this mean its not receiving mail from me? =
Did you
get this and the other 2 messages I sent that day? Have a good green =
lane day,
Andy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>-----Original =
Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>Andy Bailey &lt;<A
href=3D"mailto:andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk">andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk</A>&gt;=
<BR><B>To:
</B>R.O.W. &lt;<A
href=3D"mailto:MajorDomo@Land-Rover.Team.Net">MajorDomo@Land-Rover.Team.N=
et</A>&gt;<BR><B>Date:
</B>24 March 1999 12:16<BR><B>Subject: </B>LANES UNDER THREAT IN DERWENT =

RESERVOIR AREA OF DERBYSHIRE<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>TO WHOMEVER IS CO-ORDINATIONG
ACTION.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I'm willing to go up and get a =
ticket from these
mobile police on motorcycles <STRONG>if</STRONG> this is the most =
appropriate
course of action (i.e. non-payment of fine and subsequent court
appearance).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Your comments please. Who will help =
with the
defence work in court? Should this be a co-ordinated action on each lane =
under
threat?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Andy, =
Stafford.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_004E_01BE7B6A.2A57CEA0--

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:58:57 EST
Subject: Re: aggression in letters

My view is that an aggressive letter, as a first approach, is going to do
nothing but annoy the recipient. It will get a least useful and most unhelpful
answer. But it is better than nothing.

What is better is an innocent-sounding enquiry, asking for information,
perhaps saying that such and such a problem was noted. It would perhaps not
help to state at this stage why you are interested - then the authority cannot
be influenced by prejudice (except against the public in general, of course).
It helps to make it clear that you are aware of the legal position, and that
you will be expecting a full response not a fobbing off letter.

It also helps enormously, in my experience, to re-read your letter from two
different points of view. First, put yourself in the authority officer's
shoes. Have you told him all he needs to know about the problem? It is no use
saying 'I went down the road from Westly the other day and it is in a
frightful mess.' Give grid refs, dates, route number, status, direction of
travel, anything that might help, (without saying why you were there or how
you travel), etc. Second, consider your letter as evidence in a court case or
public inquiry. Would you be happy to have it read out? Does it make any claim
that is not supported by good evidence? Have you exaggerated anything that
might devalue the real point?

If you feel that LARA could usefully set out some guidelines for writing to
the HA, the Chief Exec, the Monitoring Officer, MPs, etc, please let us know -
ideally through your club rep to LARA. Then it will go on the list of jobs to
do. Perhaps what you need is an 'Action Pack' with regular updates on
techniques, examples, etc? It could also include advice on lane clearing,
obstructions, confrontation management, dealing with meetings & committees,
etc. How should such a folder be funded? Should we also try to arrange
training days in each region? Who for, and who pays for it?

Cheers, tim Stevens
LARA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:58:59 EST
Subject: Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. 
Wildlife

In a message dated 31.3.99 11:33:40 GMT Daylight Time,
andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk writes:

<< Whilst trying to arrange clearance of a UCR north of Rugeley recently, I =
 was advised to contact the E.A. re. the most appropriate time to do the =
 clearance, with respect to Wildlife.
 Has anyone any similar experiences / comments / observations?
 Andy, Stafford >>

Yes, the date of Green Lane Day was discussed in France when the end of March
was first mooted, and european enviro-groups said that was much the best time
of year. The same discussions, with Eng Nature, RSPB, and CLA, were done
before LARA promoted the idea in the UK. They agreed.

Any date is a compromise, and it is not merely wildlife that needs to be
considered. The day length and wetness of mid winter make access more
difficult, and it can be a disaster for any hibernating creature which is
disturbed. March is before the lanes green-up, making it easy to see what you
are about, and promoting safety for clearers. Any birds whose nests are
already started will be disturbed, but the advice is that early-starters are
often unsuccessful and will have another go later, perhaps too late. So,
disturbing them can actually help promote a good 'litter' of fledglings in
good time to grow up fully before autumn.

Please let me know if this response does not satisfy the enquiry.

Cheers, tim Stevens
LARA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:16:18 -0500
Subject: Re: CoCo CCP 550

> Commissioner's Meetings and working papers. I heard they were posting the
> final to everyone.
> Lisa

Gee tanks.

Yes I got it posted to me, but wanted to  highlight bits so it was easier
than scanning.

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:16:20 -0500
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. 

How come you get to speak to someone I am told is "N/A"?
Did you use a medium? or:-

Perhaps I was being too nice.  I must be more assertive.

> at least, and we can do a nice/nasty routine if appropriate...

Correction, a nice and very, very nice routine.

;-) 

cj

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:07:04 +0100
Subject: Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. 
Wildlife

Cambridgeshire CC are reluctant to clear over growth between Feb and August
because of upsetting the birds. Anyone know what builds its nest in stinging
nettles etc?
Sue

Andy Bailey wrote:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: BurgDM@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:36:52 EST
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert

Isn't this what it says on the side of LAPD police cars?

DMB

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:45:47 +0100
Subject: RE: To Protect and Assert

Which particular set of senses were you thinking of stimulating with this
sensory garden?

And why should it be restricted to those of more advanced years - age
discrimination I call it.

Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110

> From: TimLARA@aol.com [mailto:TimLARA@aol.com]
> Sent: 30 March 1999 20:00
> A bit of prejudice, here, I think. Elderly wankers need, nay  deserve,

sensory gardens, I say.
> Tim
> Sent: 30 March 1999 20:00

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:45:49 +0100
Subject: RE: Bicycle TRO

A TRO can be applied to anything - I suppose, in principal, to tramplers on
a BW, leaving it open to those who wish to use four legs or two wheels.

Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110

> From: Bod [mailto:bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk]
> Sent: 30 March 1999 19:10

I spotted a no bicycles TRO t'other day on a bridleway and thought "That's
Unusual" !!!
> From: Bod [mailto:bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk]
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,
> Sent: 30 March 1999 19:10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:46:02 +0100
Subject: RE: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. 
Wildlife

I don't know what bird it might be, but the it is a food plant for the
Swallow butterfly caterpillar, which is getting a bit rare these days.
Sounds like excuse number two in the book for "We don't volunteers doing
anything that might improve access to our land".  (Even nice people on
horses)

Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:46:00 +0100
Subject: RE: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. 
Wildlife

In short,
No time is ideal, but in general the early spring is not as bad as some
other times of the year.
One should consider what particular wildlife you are going to disturb.
Vegetation is best caught at the end of winter, after winter die-back has
occurred, and before the spring surge in growth.
If one is concerned about nesting birds, speak to the RSPB, they can tell
you what species nest when; and when the young have fledged.
Small furry animals do not like their winter slumbers being disturbed, and
generally get round to doing what comes naturally in late spring, so early
spring will not be too unpleasant for them.

Comment about 'North of Rugely', I think that you may have hit one of the
nimbys in the CC.  I know, we did on one a bit farther North....

Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 19:01 BST
Subject: Press release

I wrote the following press release, submitted it to Rhoda B for 'script 
approval, and she just now mailed me to say that the facts were correct. 
Please therefore feel free to take this 'epistle' and incorporate it as 
you feel appropriate..

National Green Lane Day (held on March 28th this year) is an annual event 
designed to promote co-operation between users of the countryside and 
those responsible for its maintenance and usability.

Nationally, many examples of such co-operation may be found; the Peak 
District and Exmoor National Parks are renowned for their involvement with 
motorised users, whilst in Hampshire members of the Trail Riders 
Fellowship are helping to restore a bridleway with members of the British 
Horse Society. Nearer to home, Wokingham District Council are 
co-ordinating the efforts of a dozen or so volunteers from 4x4 groups so 
that horse riders and other users find their use of Woodcock Lane more 
pleasant.

These projects offer voluntary help to Highway Authorities; in so doing, 
they save money for Council Tax payers and improve local access to the 
countryside for all classes of user, as promoted in such government 
documents as ‘Making the Best of Byways' and ‘Rights of Way in the 21st 
Century'. They also help landowners fulfill their legal obligation to 
maintain the public Rights of Way which might cross their land.

Highways Authorites and their agents have a statutory duty to ‘protect and 
assert' the publics rights to access on highways, under the Highways Act 
1980 S130 Protection of PublicRights of Way.

No reply was received by the National Green Lane Day Officer from West 
Berkshire Council to his proposals, first offered on 18th January 1999 to 
improve the situation pertaining to Doctors Lane, Hermitage.

:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 19:01 BST
Subject: Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. Wi

I mooted the idea of NGLD2000 to be one month later, for just that reason, 
but Tim says that those reponsible authorities who were consulted in teh 
original NGLD(s) were happy with the timing...so, unless *strong* 
authoritative opinion says otherwise, NGLD2000 will be planned on the same 
basis.

PLEASE pass on to me ANY objections you (=anyone)  gets wrt timing....

:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix) (LARA NGLD co-ordinator)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 19:01 BST
Subject: Re: West Berkshire Council

Chris chomps at the bit ;-)........ we _really_ must give this chap 
Marsden something useful to while away his hours........

<<<<Can you advise please on the inclinations to V/acceptance by either / 
bothof these gents.>>>>

I posted an introduce-myself letter yesterday and asked for further 
contact by end-April. He should not be 'unaware' of PRoW issues, he is not 
new to countryside mattrs.

<<<< Is RB def a glum person?  I am aware that her presence at
their AGM and many comments strongly support that view.>>>

Def member status not known, it would compromise my delicate relationship 
to ask her bluntly,   but then again if she does get this list 2nd-hand (a 
most likely occurence, wouldn't *you* want to know what all those 4x4 
johnnies are up to?)) she knows that I have no hidden agenda and would 
want her membership to be declared. Most likely scenario is that the Berks 
Unseen Hands put pressure on her bosses....

<<<<Would a more real-life approach be obtained from BL or PH, or anyone 
else in babtie orWBDC>>

RB is the *Principal* Countryside Manager, so I guess all RoW stuff would 
go onto her desk anyway.

Best we can hope for is to explain to PH (once in post) that RoW 4x4 usage 
need NOT be a problem, and that the answer is...........

1. Don't make it a problem by unnecessary restrictions.
2. Unnecessary restrictions will invite expensive retaliation through 
legal channels. 3. Objective analysis of motives.
4. Demonstrate that the Berks Unseen have ulterior motives and are known 
to be economical with the truth.5. Accept positive offers of help from 
4x4/2x1 groups. Hell it works 5 miles away in Wokingham.

:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:31:21 +0100
Subject: RE: Bicycle TRO

Rob Smith wrote:

>A TRO can be applied to anything - I suppose, in principal, to tramplers on
>a BW, leaving it open to those who wish to use four legs or two wheels.

Oddly, a TRO cannot be applied to equestrians on a public road OTHER than a
fp, bw or BOAT.  Even temporary orders -- eg to close a bridge for repairs
-- theoretically cannot be used to stop riders.  I think it's a bit of a
historical anomaly, since the Road Traffic Acts have generally overlooked
horse riders altogether (which is why it's also not an offence to ride the
wrong way down a one way street, not carry lights at night etc etc).  I
think the W&CA81 allowed TROs to include reference to equestrians where the
TRO was applied to a right of way.  This means that the only way to
(legally) prevent equestrians using a UCR is to stop it up :-) .

Hugh

--

Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:43:58 -0500
Subject: Solihull Part 3

 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. Legally
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.
________________________
 
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!)

This is similar to the previous posting, but due to the size it was
converted to a file. Hope this is easier to read. Any comments?

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:44:01 -0500
Subject: Solihull Objection Part 2

 
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. Surely if the road is perceived as ‘unnecessary’, there can be no
possible objections raised to it being recorded as BOAT?   Objections to
use and being un-necessary are mutually exclusive.  
 
67. With the costs associated with any path creations,  it seems illogical
to dispose of an existing way, of the highest status, simply because you
omitted to make it’s existence known?
 
68. I am sure the Council wish to be fair to all interested parties and
fulfil its statutory obligations in a proper and fair manner,  however here
I can only see from the competing, although understandable viewpoints, 
that your Council’s proposed action is biased very much in the landowner’s
favour, who can be the only beneficiary.
 
69. The Countryside Commission’s recommendations to Government 4, 5, 23, 29
in CCP550 are particularly relevant.
 
70. As you will be aware in Bucks,  committee’s decision to apply for
s116’s was overturned when officers advised councillors they were
personally liable to costs if they proceeded.
 
71. 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.
 
72. 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.
 
73. 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?
 
74. I enclose a paper from Bucks CC, that gives a clear insight into the
practicalities of using HA80 s116.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:44:06 -0500
Subject: Solihull 116 objection Part 1

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 do
you consider it will be of  a benefit to them?
 
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 muddy 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 recommendation will be withdrawn,  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 with any factual evidence, 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 or if you
had, undertaken your STATUTORY DUTY?
 
32. Perhaps you could say if you regard the council as an "under performing
Highway Authority" (See CoCo CCP 550 Recommendation 4)?   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?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 01:39:09 +0100
Subject: LARA/CLA Rapid Response Scheme (was: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!)

>Please do not forget that there is a LARA-CLA Rapid Response scheme.
>It is designed to allow a quick and informed view, and perhaps resolution,
of
>RoW problems whether caused by the actions of recreational motorists or
>farming activities. (or neither, if they still affect one or t'other).
.......
>The number is 0171 235 0511.

Tim and/or others

Can you expand on how this scheme works please.
Who is on the other end of the 'phone?
When is it manned - 24 hrs - 9-5 - weekdays only?
What practical measures can be taken to address the sorts of problems
reported?
How often has it been used?
Is it lesiure users or commercial interests (eg LOs) that are using it?
Is it rapid - does it have a target resolution time?
Does it have any power to enforce anytrhing?

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:39:56 +0100
Subject: Re: Bicycle TRO

>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!

And strangely I have this very day found another 'no bicycle' TRO but this
time right here in sunny Manchester.     Now when a TRO sign simply has a
bike frame (and wheels) enclosed in red circle, how do you know that the
order does not mention tricycles (or veli-whatnots)?

Strangely the one in Manchester is on a public road (LoS not DM) and there
is much evidence of horses using the route but there are concrete bollards
one end and a locked gate at t'other end.

I only went to loom at this lane as it is a continuation of a UCR named Ford
Lane that runs from one side of the River Mersey to the other.     I thought
there may be some hope of finding a new lane.      Unfortunately most of it
is used by saloons to get to the golf course and the point where it crosses
the river is too narrow to get a car across (and I doubt the bridge would
hold the weight).

I then went and walked another little lane.     It has a 'no motors' TRO
sign at one end and just bollards at the other.    The TRO sign is enforced
by some VERY substantial gates.     However, SLOW is painted on the tarmac
on about half places!    Maybe they are expecting high speed ramblers!!!

I am not sure what to write and complain about in either case.
Go on - throw some inspiration at me please.

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:44:56 +0100
Subject: Re: Bicycle TRO

>Where was this order?

I was returning to the Midlands at about 3am having spent many hours
driving.    Precise location is not my strong point at such times :-(

It is probably on the top-right quarter of LR 176 if that helps.

If I manage to get to the library tomorrow I will look up an NGR as I do
have the maps for that area.

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:03:01 +0100
Subject: Timings that are accepted for Green Lane Day (was:Re: re. Most 
Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. Wildlife)

>Whilst trying to arrange clearance of a UCR north of Rugeley recently, I =
>was advised to contact the E.A. re. the most appropriate time to do the =
>clearance, with respect to Wildlife.
>Has anyone any similar experiences / comments / observations?

I have been confronted on many occasions, both in user forums and directly
by councils, that GLD activities are too late as birds are nesting, plants
are growing, ramblers are getting access to open countryside, small furry
animals are breeding, and other such environmental issues.

I have always counter argued that firstly the highway is more important as,
without it, these lowly creatures would not be able to get to their open
country access and/or breeding site and secondly that extensive consultation
was carried out some years back to establish the best time for such
activities (lane clearance - not breeding) and this consultation included
some leading experts in their field [should that read leading some experts
into a field - Ed].      These experts are experts because they have
expertise and know hat they are talking about.      That is why we cut back
vegetation when ewe do.

This comes from talking to several different folks about the history of
volunteer maintenance on the rights of way network (even before GLD
happened).    However, I could not expand on the expertise that was cal;led
upon to decide that the end of March was the least bad time if I was ever
forced to do so.       Can anyone throw anymore light onto the subject???

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:06:15 +0100
Subject: Cars can disturb nests but maintenace cannot (was: Re: Fw: re. Most 
Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. Wildlife)

>Cambridgeshire CC are reluctant to clear over growth between Feb and August
>because of upsetting the birds. Anyone know what builds its nest in
stinging
>nettles etc?

The seed of the stinging nettle I would guess.

Do they apply the same bird welfare criteria when they decide to divert a
major highway to improve its route for traffic flow.      Or when they built
the A14 trunk road not so many years ago  -  how many birds did that rehome?
and how many nests were disturbed?

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:11:31 +0100
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert

>Isn't this what it says on the side of LAPD police cars?
>DMB

Sorry - I am lost!

What is LAPD and isn't what, what it says?

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:14:16 +0100
Subject: Replying to messages in such a way that it night make some sense to 
some readers somewhere (was: Re: To Protect and Assert)

>Isn't this what it says on the side of LAPD police cars?

If we are replying to something - can we please include at least just a
small, even if only a teeny weeny snippet of what we are trying to be
talking about.

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:20:29 +0100
Subject: Re: Bicycle TRO

>A TRO can be applied to anything - I suppose, in principal, to tramplers on
>a BW, leaving it open to those who wish to use four legs or two wheels.

Anything except horses without a cart or similar vehicular appendage I
believe

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:12:23 +0100
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert

>Isn't this what it says on the side of LAPD police cars?
>DMB

And it is obviously not just me as my speel chucker cannot make sense of it
either.

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:23:41 +0100
Subject: Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. 
Wildlife

>I don't know what bird it might be, but the it is a food plant for the

'but the it...'???????

What is the it?  and is it a it as well as being the it - where is it and
when is it?

Should 'it' be added to our glossary?  or should it not

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:16:47 +0100
Subject: Re: Fw: re. Most Suitable time of year to clear lane growth, w.r.t. Wi

>I mooted the idea of NGLD2000 to be one month later, for just that reason,
>but Tim says that those reponsible authorities who were consulted in teh
>original NGLD(s) were happy with the timing...so, unless *strong*
>authoritative opinion says otherwise, NGLD2000 will be planned on the same
>basis.
..........
>PLEASE pass on to me ANY objections you (=anyone)  gets wrt timing....

I hear it time and time and time again that we are doing this tooo late.

Folks tell me that we could get into legal problems because we are
disturbing nesting birds etc.          I think about the twelfth of never
would be the right date for the RA.

Cheers,
Bod

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 08:22:50 +0100
Subject: land ownership

Last week I posted a message after Cambs CC refused to divulge
landownership details they said the may or may not have. I've just had
the Office Copies from Land Registry.
Three owners: 1) a married couple;  2) a farming estate;
3)Cambridgeshire County Council..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  END OF * LIST DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 34 lines 2225 [forwarded 106 whitespace 0]
 Output: lines 1600 [content 1377  forwarded 106 (cut  0) whitespace 0]