[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:31:46 +0100
Subject: Re: To Protect and Assert
sensory
gardens, I say.
Sure - but not in between a kids play area and a skateboard park!!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 08:25:02 +0100
Subject: Re: Bicycle TRO
In message <bulk.24224.19990331113143@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Hugh
Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net> writes
>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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 15 lines)]
>(legally) prevent equestrians using a UCR is to stop it up :-) .
>Hugh
True - but don't forget the 'special events act' which took account of
this
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:17:43 -0500
Subject: LARA/CLA Rapid Response Scheme (was: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!)
> 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?
I have used it once, Julian Salmon, a regional sec for the CLA had
obstructed a CR with a 5ft gate. The CC would NOT ask him to remove them.
Spoke Dr Alan Woods, within 14 days it had morphed into a 10ft gate. He's
still not an 'appy Easter bunny.
I would think obstructions should more often go that way as well. It might
provide more interesting stats.
Chris
ps, just rang, please note everyone, include a copy of all your obstruction
reports to:
CLA
>The number is 0171 235 0511.
Fax 0171 235 4696
mail@cla.org.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:17:38 -0500
Subject: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
BBT 1999/3/14 "Playing the Gridiron"
"Cattle Grids are simply not permitted on bridleways and footpaths"
Is this so?
I feel a letter or two coming on.
(first to the infamous harrison alias harrington of contryfile)
Dear Mr Harrison,
I noticed your article in the Post free paper recently, I wonder if you
would identify the location of the road depicted, please. I do not believe
it to be a public road in Herefordshire. To facilitate (or invalidate) a
complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, it would assist if you can
provide any justification for what appears to be a grossly misleading
article.
Would you confirm if you have reported this to the authorities, and if not,
why you have not done so? Or is it that a misleading photograph of
something other than the reader might reasonably suspect it to be, makes
better propaganda?
As you are aware the original application for Leysfield Road was ONLY
submitted after the gates that Mr Brown had "lying around spare" were put
on a public road.
Due to the mis-truths and dis-information i.e. Bridleways Open to All
Traffic [sic] disseminated from you, YOU have directly caused the
submission of the 22 further DMMO applications. Mr Dunlop, who no doubt
got his duff information from you or Mr Brown that I had submitted these 20
or so applications (again quiet erroneously - I have not submitted ANY to
the Council!), is now causing me to consider that making several
applications MIGHT be advisable.
You are causing a great deal of stress to an already beleaguered farming
community that needs assistance, not to be wound up by silly and misleading
statements, resulting in ever more BOAT, Bridleway or Footpath claims!
As your colleagues AND the council agree, there is no vehicular damage to
the unsealed roads of this county, nor is there any increase in usage in
line with the increased sales of four wheel drive vehicles - which seem
merely a status symbol for most!
This is a question of getting proper, legal, rightful access, there is no
question of any users condoning or allowing any mudplugging or other
mis-use of these attractive lanes.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand your wife was one of the
original complainants when the gates were first erected? Has this now been
resolved on a personal permission basis?
I am currently considering a claim for BOAT status from Boresfords to Park
Road, Brampton Bryan. I wonder if you have any information that could
throw any light on this one way or the other?
If you are ever in need of any factual information, to assist you, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
I am yours sincerely,
Chris Marsden.
Dear Mr Eastwood,
I walked in Brampton Bryan Park yesterday. I am was disappointed to see a
Private Road sign at the start of this, but even more concerned that the
sign saying "Bridleway" is
a) painted black on white and thus different to others in the county,
b) does not indicate it is a Public Bridleway,
c) is in very small lettering, considering the distance from the main road
d) is in vertical lettering
Together with the much larger ‘Private’ sign, indicates a suppression of
rights. I understand part of this road, (i.e. at this point) is also a
county road. It is on the County Road Map AND the LoS. There is a pothole
some 60 metres along this road, and to avoid doubt, I attach a s56 notice.
It may be more applicable to Highways than RoW, but as it is dual status, I
will leave you to deal accordingly ;-)
This road then turns into a house in the park after crossing two cattle
grids, with a ‘No Admittance’ sign. However the OS map indicates bridleway
rights continue. Do they? If so surely you have a DUTY to sign where the
bridleway leaves the metalled road? This seems to be a further attempt at
suppression of public rights. I did not see any further waymarking after
this, unless freedom to roam, on Horseback / Mountain Bike / Foot is
granted? If this is the case we should all know, and be very grateful to
the Harleys.
Can you advise if the two cattle grids are shown on the statement? If not,
will you be asking for their removal, or a DMMO to record them?
I believe it is reasonable to allege Public Vehicular rights along this
road.
I give the following as evidence; It is shown on the first edition OS 1"
map. It has cattle grids which can not be permitted in a bridleway, thus
acceptance by the estate it is not a footpath or bridleway, and Coke's
ruling there are only three types of highway. For the first 180 metres by
depiction on the LoS as being maintainable, thus having vehicular rights.
Perhaps you would forward application forms, if you wish HC forms to be
used, and advise if you are aware of any landowners, other than the Harley
Estate.
As I believe a substantial sum of public money was spent recently on the
village hall, also approached along this road, is there any public right
to park in the village hall car park, as this would make a safe and
convenient car park for access to the park? (Our own village does
encourage parking in our VH!)
Yours sincerely,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:17:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Bicycle TRO
> I am not sure what to write and complain about in either case.
> Go on - throw some inspiration at me please.
Personally I would save your time, postage and brownie points for ways that
DO matter!
I wonder if all those bike TROs are properly consulted advertised and
implemented. Seems a waste of money, perhaps they are 'on balance' needed?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:02:12 EST
Subject: Re: LARA/CLA Rapid Response Scheme
In a message dated 31.3.99 23:28:50 GMT Daylight Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< Who is on the other end of the 'phone?
Dr Alan Woods, CLA Access expert (or his sec). The number is the main
switchboard number for the CLA HQ in Belgrave Square. (A bit posher than
Market Drayton)
When is it manned - 24 hrs - 9-5 - weekdays only?
Office hours
What practical measures can be taken to address the sorts of problems
reported?
Landowners and LARA members can be advised about the legal position,
misunderstandings resolved, etc, and advice of future activities given in an
atmosphere of co-operation between LARa & CLA at HQ level so surely at ground
level it can work too.
How often has it been used?
About 20 reports have come to me from the CLA - nothing at all this year so
far. I suspect that if the CLA can deal with problems on its own it does not
involve LARA (as then we would know that a landowner was complained of)
Is it lesiure users or commercial interests (eg LOs) that are using it?
Both, about equally
Is it rapid - does it have a target resolution time?
We have agreed that where possible, a response to the complainant will be made
in 24 hours, explaining what might happen next (site visit, etc).
Does it have any power to enforce anytrhing? >>
No, except by peer group pressure, and eg if 'action bringing motor sport into
disrepute' is caused by RAC or ACU license holders, fines and license
shredding could follow.
Hope this helps
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:28:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Staffordshire
Yes he does. Well what all us Staffordshire folk need to do is agree on a
time and a place. I propose the Stafford Arms, Stafford. NOT on the
following dates: 1st & 3rd Thursdays, 1st or 2nd Wednesday.
I'm not online again until Wed., so if anyone wants to ring me about this -
its 01785 228148. Cheers.
From: Bod <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: 01 April 1999 00:03
Subject: Re: Staffordshire
>>I'VE STARTED A PUB MEET ON THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH, AT THE
EAGLE,
>>A518 NEWPORT ROAD, STAFFORD, NEAR THE RAILWAYN STATION, UNDER THE UMBRELLA
>>OF THE SHROPSHIRE LANERS - ANY USE?
>Does Rob know???
>Yes a Shropshire Laners pub meet is a good start but there is alot to be
>said for having a separate GLASS one. Talk to Rob and include me as
[ truncated by list-digester (was 11 lines)]
>much as you feel you want to. I can help with all sorts of things but do
>not want to be treading on the toes of those who are on the ground doing
the
>work.
>Cheers,
>Bod
>Yes a Shropshire Laners pub meet is a good start but there is alot to be
>said for having a separate GLASS one. Talk to Rob and include me as
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 14:28:58 +0100
Subject: Re: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
Chris Marsden wrote:
> BBT 1999/3/14 "Playing the Gridiron"
> "Cattle Grids are simply not permitted on bridleways and footpaths"
> Is this so?
AFAIK yes.A cattle-grid may only be constructed on a highway which comprises a
carriageway; ie
on a metalled road, or a byway or a RUPP which carries vehicular rights.
Bridleways
and footpaths are excluded from this provision. H.A.1980 S.82(1).Sue J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:19:40 +0100
Subject: Re: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
In message <bulk.14478.19990401031811@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Chris
Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com> writes
>BBT 1999/3/14 "Playing the Gridiron"
>"Cattle Grids are simply not permitted on bridleways and footpaths"
>Is this so?
Yup. Grids are obstructions. The Highways Act permits such on
carriageways with a properly made bypass gate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 14:45:58 +0100
Subject: Re: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
Schedule 10 of the 1980 Highway Act also requires a notice in the local paper
and on-site notice of intention to install cattle grid.
Chris Marsden wrote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:49:56 +0100
Subject: Re: Stopping Up - Objectionable Letter.
<<Do these HAs *have* to take seriously every request they get
to stop up a road, even from obstructors?>>
Most applicants will discuss the possibility of a s116 with the OMA prior
to application and so only those with a chance will be applied for. If an
application is made that stands not a hope in a hot place then the HA will
attempt to talk the applicant out of it.
If the applicant insists, and the application is reasonably made, roughly
within the realms of statute then it will go to committee for
consideration. A Parish can veto a s116 as can a LO.
It is a matter for Member lobbying once scheduled for committee, not
officer baiting.
That makes much more sense than:
It is a matter for Member lobbing once scheduled for committee, not officer
bating.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:54:11 +0100
Subject: Re: aggression
Ian
My comments were aimed at no one writer but the overall tone of letters was
getting aggressive. I think we have sorted it for those 'listening' who
may have gained an impression that the way forward is to write "Look scummy
public servant, I pay you frigging wages and I demand ..."
Now, I have often wanted to .....
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:41:25 +0100
Subject: Re: Press release
That suffered from the editorial scissors quite severely, eh?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:33:47 +0100
Subject: Re: LANES UNDER THREAT IN DERWENT RESERVOIR AREA OF DERBYSHIRE
I received it.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:43:07 +0100
Subject: Re: Bicycle TRO
Re equestrian TRO: I hear what Hugh is saying but can we have an authority
for it?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:49:30 +0100
Subject: Re: land ownership
No3 - Letter to chief exec. When seeking information why is authority
withholding evidence on land in their possession - counter to freedom of
information, etc.
I'll make no further comment on aggressive letters ;-((
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Peter Dowson" <Peter.Dowson@softwareag.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 15:19:19 +0100
Subject: Re: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
There is a cattle grid on the exit slip road of the motorway on the way to
Port Talbot.
Peter Dowson
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:40:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
I know there are some above rishworth going onto and coming off the M62!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:41:52 +0100
Subject: Re: LANES UNDER THREAT IN DERWENT RESERVOIR AREA OF DERBYSHIRE
And what do you know / think about the situation?
From: Tilbury <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: 01 April 1999 15:02
Subject: Re: LANES UNDER THREAT IN DERWENT RESERVOIR AREA OF DERBYSHIRE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:59:41 EST
Subject: Re: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
In a message dated 1.4.99 12:19:32 GMT Daylight Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< Due to the mis-truths and dis-information i.e. Bridleways Open to All
Traffic [sic] disseminated from you, YOU have directly caused the
submission of the 22 further DMMO applications. Mr Dunlop, who no doubt
got his duff information from you or Mr Brown that I had submitted these 20
or so applications (again quiet erroneously - I have not submitted ANY to
the Council!), is now causing me to consider that making several
applications MIGHT be advisable.
>>
It might be more helpful (less agressive) to point this out in these terms -
that it is not the wish of motorists to spend time at Public Inquiries, etc,
but to drive where they are entitled to. Only when their rights are challenged
do Byway applications become necessary. And when evidence to support a new
application uncovers further evidence for the same area, as it inevitably
will, then those routes will also be claimed (lest they too are challenged in
turn).
I do not think it helps to try to discredit anyone involved, as this leads to
personal claims and counter claims - difficult to resolve and anyway
irrelevant to public rights. But you could go on to suggest that in order to
defend rights in the wider area, in face of concerns raised by erroneous and
misleading statements (leave him to guess whose) further research is in hand,
and further claims will be likely. This may not be the outcome that he sought
or that his neighbours wanted either.
It is difficult to avoid slagging off the opposition, but LARA is slowly
building up a reputation (I am told) for fair dealing and an honest yet
conciliatory approach. This will be useful when we seek access to LAFs, etc,
in future, and we need to retain the 'moral high ground' so that those who
rely on lies and personal attacks etc can clearly be distinguished from LARA
activists.
(Local Access Forums).
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 18:38:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
At 14:28 01/04/99, Chris Marsden/Susan Jeggo wrote:
>> "Cattle Grids are simply not permitted on bridleways and footpaths"
>> Is this so?
>AFAIK yes.A cattle-grid may only be constructed on a highway which
comprises a carriageway; ie on a metalled road, or a byway or a RUPP which
carries vehicular rights. Bridleways and footpaths are excluded from this
provision. H.A.1980 S.82(1).Sue J
Dedication might have taken place subject to a grid and gate (or stile),
though I imagine this would need to be in the DM&S. But there do seem to
be plenty of cattle grids on rights of way which are not CRs, in my
experience (not all of them with gates or stiles as an alternative). I'd
feel fairly safe in hazarding a guess that few of them do actually appear
as conditions in the DM&S.
What I suspect often happens is that grids are put down with a gate at the
side without reference to the HA. If the gate is on the original line of
the right of way, and the grid is off-line, then I doubt that there is
anything that the HA could -- or would wish to -- do about it, beyond
authorising the gate in the usual way. The grid <might> be a public
nuisance (cue £50,000 prosecution with jury in the crown court) or the HA
<might> refuse consent for the gate....but how likely is this? Has a court
ever (in recent times) convicted for obstruction of a right of way (not a
CR) with a gate which was not locked and easily opened?
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:40:28 EST
Subject: Re: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
In a message dated 1.4.99 15:19:39 GMT Daylight Time,
Peter.Dowson@softwareag.co.uk writes:
<< There is a cattle grid on the exit slip road of the motorway on the way to
Port Talbot.
>>
An interesting exception to the rule about side gates. As horses, and horse-
drawn vehicles, are not allowed on motorways, there is no need for the gates.
And of course, if sheep could stray onto motorways, and get away from the
area, local social life might be affected...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 19:06:17 +0100
Subject: Re: Bicycle TRO
At 14:43 01/04/99 +0100, Dave wrote:
>Re equestrian TRO: I hear what Hugh is saying but can we have an
authority for it?
That's a bit of a challenge: it's much easier to refer you to legislation
which <does> provide for something, than to refer you to legislation which
does <not>.
However, try the following excerpt from "Review of Road Traffic Regulation
Law", DoT (as then was) Aug 1996:
"3.9. There is an anomaly in the RTRA concerning 'any person driving,
riding or leading a horse or other animal of draft or burden'. At present,
this category of road user can only be regulated on footpaths, bridleways
and byways open to all traffic [s.127], except in London where permanent
orders under section 6 can apply in slightly different cases on streets as
well [Sch.1, para. 11]. The Government believes that this type of road
user should be subject to regulation like other forms of traffic in all
cases, and required to obey traffic signs like other road users [s.36 of
the Road Traffic Act 1988]."
Until the Government gets round to changing the law, long may it continue :-)
You could also take a look at a selection of TROs for CRs (such as one-way
street or pedestrian zone orders) and see how many times you can spot the
words "equestrian", "horse" or "rider". A free bag of manure for each hit
(which will, in any case, be ultra vires].
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 19:25:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Cattle grids on BWs? info request.
> Dedication might have taken place subject to a grid and gate (or stile),
> though I imagine this would need to be in the DM&S. But there do seem to
> <might> refuse consent for the gate....but how likely is this? Has a
court
> ever (in recent times) convicted for obstruction of a right of way (not a
> CR) with a gate which was not locked and easily opened?
All very useful. The second grid is certainly new, and since the bridleway
was dedicated. The road was on the 1835 map, but getting adequate proof
will be much more difficult.
The first 180 m is on LoS, but estate won't take private sign down. CC
will not insist, they do not like to upset these large estates. Too many
relatives worl there or live in an estate house, the ones with the light
blue paint in this case. You see the end of one estate and the beginning of
the next from the decor.
They did ask, but were told the roads private, you prove it. Was not shown
on H/O map, but at about 10m / inch and only 180mtrs small wonder! CC now
say, "we have had student work on LoS so it can't be relied on.
They won't enforce with locked gates on admitted highways, so nothing wil
be done on this. The grids are on the line of the BW.
But if the road is not public, and only BW, why have they just spent
£80,000 of public money on a landlocked (to vehicles) village hall?
They have refused to mark where BW leaves the tarred estate road(BW) after
1/2 m, as the estate don't want any signs. I understand they have a duty
to do so.
Worth following up I think.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 99 07:23 BST
Subject: Re: Press release
Oh yes, indeed, I decided that the two versions should indeed be separate
entities but easily linked IYSWIM
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bill Richards" <bill@trf.freeuk.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 08:40:51 +0100
Subject: Re: Replying to messages in such a way that it night make some sense
to some readers somewhere (was: Re: To Protect and Assert)
>What is LAPD and isn't what, what it says?
Los Angeles Police Department - Assert and Protect.
Obviously never watched CHiPs (Californian Highway Patrol). Ah, that takes me
back!
Nothing to do with RoW, I think the original writer was getting humorous?
>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.
Perhaps some could also remove all the garbage from the letter before sending.
I seem to have plenty that have one line of text amongst all this . . . . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 26 lines 0 [forwarded 312 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 804 [content 640 forwarded 302 (cut 10) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990402 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]