[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:44:29 +0100
Subject: Re: LANES UNDER THREAT IN DERWENT RESERVOIR AREA OF DERBYSHIRE
ok. ta.
From: Tilbury <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: 02 April 1999 20:59
Subject: Re: LANES UNDER THREAT IN DERWENT RESERVOIR AREA OF DERBYSHIRE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:55:44 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: s116
> Do you mean they have both been to court AND been stopped up? Together?
No, sorry to bring unnecessary stress to your life! I meant proved to
the satisfaction of the landowners. I omitted to indicate the
"q.e.d." was ironic. I told them I was not even prepared to get the
forms sent to them on that basis.
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:48:58 +0100
Subject: Fw: STAFFORDSHIRE
charset="iso-8859-1"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:49:11 +0100
Subject: Fw: DERBYSHIRE - Derwent Reservoir Area
charset="iso-8859-1"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:50:21 +0100
Subject: Fw: Vehicular Rights of Way in Staffordshire
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:49:22 +0100
Subject: Fw: VEHICLE NEEDED!
charset="iso-8859-1"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:50:09 +0100
Subject: Fw: Vehicular Rights of Way in Staffordshire
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:10:30 +0100
Subject: RUPPS IN STAFFORDSHIRE
charset="iso-8859-1"
ANY COMMENTS ON THIS REPLY FROM THE STAFFS. COUNTRYSIDE OFFICER?
There are no RUPPs remaining in Staffordshire. All of the RUPPs in
Staffordshire were reclassified under the Countryside Act 1968.
As far as I am aware, no public paths have been reclassified as BOATs =
since
the early 1980s.
The current Definitive Map, copies of which are held at the Library, was
reviewed in 1989. To some extent, Definitive Maps are continually out =
of
date owing to changes caused by legal events. Legal events are matters,
such as public path orders, which have already taken legal effect and =
been
implemented on the ground. Since 1989, there have been approximately =
200
legal events in Staffordshire. In addition to legal events, there have =
been
a variety of events, such as County and Parish boundary changes which
require changes to the numbering and description of many paths.
The County Council is currently updating its Definitive Map and hopes to
publish a revised Definitive Map by 2000.
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 2:28 PM
> To: Morris, Peter (PED)
> Subject: Vehicular Rights of Way in Staffordshire
>
> Mr Morris,
> Further to your letter to me of the 16th October 1998, signed by G.
> Chapman (Ref: GC/JH 3520), I have the following queries.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 17 lines)]
>
> Mr A. Bailey, 13 Park Crescent, Stafford
------=_NextPart_000_0125_01BE80F8.037E34C0
[ Original post was HTML ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: text/html; ]
[Attachment removed, was 63 lines.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 14:00:49 +0100
Subject: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION TO D.M.
charset="iso-8859-1"
COMMENTS PLEASE ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION I HAVE BEEN SENT FOR =
CONSULTATION. FROM THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON THIS APPLICATION, CAN WE =
REQUEST BOAT STATUS? (AND FOR ADJOINING EXISTING BR's?).
MY REPLY HAS TO BE IN BY THE 5TH MAY:
FROM BLORE PIPE FARM TO BRIDLEWAY No. 49 AT BISHOP'S WOOD, ECCLESHALL =
PARISH.
FROM 770305 NW TO 763310.
APPLICATION BY MR REAY OF STAFFORD (QUITE ACTIVE, HAVE PREVIOUSLY SEEN A =
SIMILAR APPLICATION HE PUT IN LOOKING FOR A BOAT!), FOR BRIDLEWAY.
CURRENTLY NOTHING ON THE RECENT LANDRANGER.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS - "THE BRIDLEWAY ROUTE IS SHOWN ON DEPOSITED RAILWAY =
PLAN Q/Rum/198 (1845) AS 334, 342a, 343a, 358a - HIGHWAY- SURVEYORS OF =
HIGHWAYS.
ALSO SHOWN ON 1 INCH TO 1 MILE O.S. 1834.
ALSO SHOWN AS 'B.R.' ON 2.5 INCH TO 1 MILE O.S. 2nd EDITION 1902. THIS =
INDICATES 'BRIDLE ROAD!"
ENDS.
ANDY, STAFFORD
------=_NextPart_000_0158_01BE80FF.0AF9A020
[ Original post was HTML ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: text/html; ]
[Attachment removed, was 51 lines.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:02:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Lane Numbering
> >computer program. A simple check of 'Is ref i smaller than ref ii, if
not
> >then swap refs', works every time.
> Works every time except when the lanes runs N/S across a letter boundary
-
> then the northern end (and potentially the eastern end) is the start as
the
> letters are lower.
> Works every time except when the lanes runs N/S across a letter boundary
No problem if every 100K sq is treated separately. The question is: do we
break it down into two at the 000 boundary, or record it on the start Sq
only. Either works quite well. The difficulty comes in mapping something
off the edge. I suspect it should be entered twice, and treated as two
lanes.
I have not 'swapped' refs, as I am not too keen on fields entered with
formulae when values could have been entered. So I simply highlight the
"To" end if it is lower than the start, in red (multiply by -1). I can
then reverse the whole block at a time. But on a dedicated program I am
sure it would be done automatically.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:02:41 -0400
Subject: Lane Numbering
> I believe it was Chris' scheme we settled on, with the two character
> sheet ref, 4 digits to give the 1km square, then append a .0 - .9 for
> direction N - S with .5 being East. The start being the most
> Westerly, failing that the most Southerly (if due N-S).
> I would be grateful if someone could confirm if the above is still
> true, or if things moved on whilst I wasn't listening.
> direction N - S with .5 being East. The start being the most
Yes it is the same one. Bill Richards and I did a lot of work, it has been
well proven in use, and several other amendments have been considered and
rejected. It remains un-altered, and is as you describe. The unique
number (the 1/100ths) digit can be added manually when there is an
integration of data for an area.
Not sure where the Question came from to make you doubt it?
I have made a much more detailed specification that I am currently testing,
for recording the primary data on lanes in a compatible format. I can send
you a draft copy if you like, for comment?
Primary data is just 19 fields, 38 characters, and could identify 44M lanes
and 5 Trillion variations, I think that's about right.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 99 17:56 BST
Subject: Re: Volume control.
Andy
Please stop SHOUTING!!!!!! We can all hear you, even if you use the
iddy-biddy ickle letters....;-)
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 99 17:55 BST
Subject: Re: GLD Herefordshire.
In the immediate aftermath of the Dorset trip, I suggested a long w/end
for 14-17 of May...would these dates be acceptable to the majority?
Chris..in the light of your new-found co-operation with HCC (and you may
read into that what you will ;-) would it be viable to get them involved
re: heavy plant? A Kubota could re-instate a *lot* of ditches over a
weekend......
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 99 17:56 BST
Subject: Re: Lane Numbering
Im confused...
Chris and Mark, are your postings currently appearing on teh RoW Listing
wrt Lane Numbering referring to the LDB, or to a
difefrent-but-remarkably-similar project?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:30:29 +0100
Subject: Re: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION TO
D.M.
>CONSULTATION. FROM THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON THIS APPLICATION, CAN WE =
>REQUEST BOAT STATUS? (AND FOR ADJOINING EXISTING BR's?).
We can request BOAT but will not get it without evidence. It will take
more than a route being shown as Bridle Road on an OS map. If you
think that you might be able to find suitable evidence then object to the
modification to bridleway on the basis that the route should really be BOAT.
Then go and look for definite concrete evidence.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:34:17 +0100
Subject: Re: DERBYSHIRE - Derwent Reservoir Area
>I've had no replies to previous mails. Is ANYONE on here knowledgeable =
>of what is happening up there?
I have no idea what is happening but do know that road that runs along the
eastern edge of the reservoir was shown as a motor road on maps around the
1930s. At least south of Abbey Brook.
What else do you want to know?
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:26:24 +0100
Subject: Re: RUPPS IN STAFFORDSHIRE
>There are no RUPPs remaining in Staffordshire. All of the RUPPs in
>Staffordshire were reclassified under the Countryside Act 1968.
You might like to remember that RUPPs reclassified under CA68 still have
whatever rights they had prior to reclassification. The CA68 (and for
that matter the W&CA81) did not alter the status of a route - just the way
it was recorded. Also CA68 allowed RUPPs to go to bridleway on the basis
of suitability, a test which is now obsolete.
>The current Definitive Map, copies of which are held at the Library, was
>reviewed in 1989. To some extent, Definitive Maps are continually out =
>of
>date owing to changes caused by legal events.
Yes but putting it that way somehow detracts from the bottom line which is
that the DM is conclusive that a right of way existed at the relevant date.
Of course legal orders make the MAP out of date but they are an integral
part of the DM&S the map is ammended to incorperate them.
Legal events are matters,
>The County Council is currently updating its Definitive Map and hopes to
>publish a revised Definitive Map by 2000.
We won't have to wait too long then?
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:27:06 +0100
Subject: RE: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION TO
D.M.
Please don't SHOUT, just type slowly so I can read it....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:43:57 +0100
Subject: Re: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION TO
D.M.
>Please don't SHOUT, just type slowly so I can read it....
Just watch my fingers.......
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:37:12 EDT
Subject: Re: RUPPS IN STAFFORDSHIRE
In a message dated 7.4.99 14:03:45 GMT Daylight Time,
andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk writes:
<< All of the RUPPs in
Staffordshire were reclassified under the Countryside Act 1968.
>>
My comment is this -
Under the 1968 Act the suitability of the route for (ordinary) vehicles was
taken into consideration. So, some vehicular routes were recorded as
bridleways. This did not remove the vehicular rights, and you may well find
that the evidence now (or then) available supports those rights. Since 1981,
the sutability test has not applied, so now would be a good time to look
again at the RUPPs that became bridleways in that process.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:37:10 EDT
Subject: Re: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION
PLEASE DON'T SHOUT.
You can object to any proposal to change the DM&S, and if you have evidence
to support your objection you may well succeed. But from what you tell me, I
cannot say whether an objection would be reasonable.
But if you would like to discuss the matter further, (and you have read my
book on research), please give me a ring and I can explain more. If you
haven't read my book, get a copy From here - 01630 657627
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:19:39 -0400
Subject: Sollihul 116 - we are getting there
Had a phone call from George Kenneth this afternoon. My 'detailed'
response has had the effect of them NOT putting it before comittee on
12/4/99.
Some 'advice' from their legal department was 'not of the standard they
expected it to be', and thus they are not sure of the rest of it!!!. They
will be considering what to recommend to comittee, and placing something
before them later. They will be back in touch.
I suggested a chat on the phone might be helpful to get some basic things
sorted.
Was also dealing with LARA locally (RH), and Nationally (TS). Was I acting
lone? Yes, whilst I am a LARA member, this was without any discussion with
LARA!
He said they have a lot of people to satisfy. I suggested that what is
agreed by LARA would probably be satisfactory to me. And the OSS are
likely to oppose the 116 as well.
I think he sees things differently now. Shame each CC has to learn the
hard way.
Is Dorset still making threatening noises?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:19:45 -0400
Subject: RUPPS IN STAFFORDSHIRE
> ANY COMMENTS ON THIS REPLY FROM THE STAFFS. COUNTRYSIDE OFFICER?
Now what was the question?
> There are no RUPPs remaining in Staffordshire. All of the RUPPs in
> Staffordshire were reclassified under the Countryside Act 1968.
But this may well mean that they were reclassified as bridleways only
because it could not be shown that it would cause hardship!. It needs
someone to sit down with all the decision letters and find out the reason
why, then ask them to reclassify them as BOATs under the 81 act. Meanwhile
they are usable - in theory.
> The current Definitive Map, copies of which are held at the Library, was
> reviewed in 1989. To some extent, Definitive Maps are continually out =
> of date owing to changes caused by legal events. Legal events are
matters,
> such as public path orders, which have already taken legal effect and =
> been implemented on the ground. Since 1989, there have been
approximately =
> 200 legal events in Staffordshire. In addition to legal events, there
have =
If you look at the library copy, do you see these 200 legal events? If
not, does he have a copy of the events to see which ones are useful to
users?
> been
> a variety of events, such as County and Parish boundary changes which
> require changes to the numbering and description of many paths.
These are not useful, and that is why we are better off using the Lane Ref
No. and let them worry about their numbers.
> The County Council is currently updating its Definitive Map and hopes to
> publish a revised Definitive Map by 2000.
> require changes to the numbering and description of many paths.
Might be in luck - if it is done. Which users groups get a map in your
area? Might be worth making conact.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:19:51 -0400
Subject: Re: s116
> > Do you mean they have both been to court AND been stopped up? Together?
> No, sorry to bring unnecessary stress to your life! I meant proved to
> the satisfaction of the landowners. I omitted to indicate the
> "q.e.d." was ironic. I told them I was not even prepared to get the
> forms sent to them on that basis.
Arrhhh you meant Quo Erat Demonstratum. I thought you meant Quiet Easily
Done. Thank goodness some RoW officers have more sense than Warks and
Solihull have. :-)
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:19:50 -0400
Subject: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION TO D.M.
> CONSULTATION. FROM THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON THIS APPLICATION, CAN WE =
> REQUEST BOAT STATUS? (AND FOR ADJOINING EXISTING BR's?).
You can request it.
They will probably request you provide your evidence. What do you have?
If the applicant has previously applied for BOATs then he is not anti BOAT,
and he presumably knows what he is doing.
If shown as BR on the 1902 OS, what indicates a higher status? FA1910?
Chris.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:19:48 -0400
Subject: Fw: Vehicular Rights of Way in Staffordshire
> From: Andy Bailey <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
> To: R.O.W. <MajorDomo@Land-Rover.Team.Net>
> Date: 07 April 1999 12:42
> Subject: Fw: Vehicular Rights of Way in Staffordshire
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:37:02 EDT
Subject: Re: STAFFORDSHIRE UCRs
In a message dated 7.4.99 12:52:58 GMT Daylight Time,
andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk writes:
<< Hi, I've now got a copy of the Staffs UCR map. Can all interested =
parties give me a shout so we can arrange a meeting. >>
If it helps, I have a big room with a big table, and only a mile from Staffs.
And in return for not having to travel, I will supply coffe and biscuits. Any
day or evening by arrangement. (Not 14, 17, 22, 24 April)
Tim Stevens 99 Cheshire Street, Market Drayton TF9 1AE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:37:06 EDT
Subject: Re: Fw: DERBYSHIRE - Derwent Reservoir Area
In a message dated 7.4.99 12:52:58 GMT Daylight Time,
andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk writes:
<< Is ANYONE on here knowledgeable =
of what is happening up there?
>>
The problem with answering your query is that it is rather open-ended. What
do you think is going on that shouldn't be? Which routes - BOATs, RUPPs,
UCRs, footpaths, or what?
One thing going on in Derbyshire is an initiative to evaluate vehicular
routes for a potential Hierarchy scheme, and (perhaps in response) DCC signs
saying Bridleway Only No Vehicles or words to that effect.
So, do not wonder why no-one has responded - they all wonder what, exactly,
you mean.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 00:10:30 +0100
Subject: Re: Ross Lave Lane
>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.
Yes but that then becomes a circular argument. The only evidence that
I currently have for vehicular rights is the inclusion on the LoS (even if
unadopted) and that the route is shown on a c1930 OS map as 'other roads'.
The whole reason for wanting them to admit that it is publicly maintainable
is to get them to accept that it is a carriageway.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 00:04:05 +0100
Subject: Bolton continue to play for time on s56
I wrote to Bolton Chief Exec asking if Mrs Stone (Solicitor) was authorised
to sign s56 replies on behalf of the council and asking for him to provide a
copy of the committee minutes where this was agreed.
I have had this reply.
Dear Sir,
HIGHWAYS ACT 1980
I acknowledge receipt of your faxed letter of 30th March 1999 regarding the
above.
Mrs Stone is on holiday until 12th April 1999 and will respond to you in due
course.
Yours faithfully
Pauline Ashton
Senior Legal Assistant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 02:16:16 +0100
Subject: Rochdale Priorities
Just received the minutes from the last Rochdale RoW users forum (which I
missed)
Here is a nice extract:
"3 Matters arising
3.1 GG was concerned that the council was not dealing with enforcement
issues correctly and that the council should put more resources into
enforcement. TW explained that when new blockages were reported they were
dealt with as soon as possible with but long-standing blockages were being
dealt with as part of the ongoing access programmes.
AJ added that a great deal of Officer time was needed to deal with older
cases and in the current financial climate appointing extra officers to deal
with the blockages was not possible."
GG - Gloria Gaffney - Gtr Man. Pedestrians Association.
TW - Tim Wood - Rights of Way Officer, Rochdale Council.
AJ - Andrew Jackman - Principle Engineer, Rochdale Council.
I wonder whether a Duty before Power letter is needed?
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 02:33:24 +0100
Subject: Re: Sollihul 116 - we are getting there
>He said they have a lot of people to satisfy. I suggested that what is
>agreed by LARA would probably be satisfactory to me. And the OSS are
>likely to oppose the 116 as well.
OK so how do you do it Chris?
I have now faxed three letters and not even had an acknowledgement :-((
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 02:37:19 +0100
Subject: Re: STAFFORDSHIRE UCRs
>If it helps, I have a big room with a big table, and only a mile from
Staffs.
>And in return for not having to travel, I will supply coffe and biscuits.
Any
>day or evening by arrangement. (Not 14, 17, 22, 24 April)
That sounds very helpful - but we would expect nothing less from Tim.
And I can vouch for the quality of the coffee and biccies :-)
Count me in if a public showing of this document happens.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 02:42:16 +0100
Subject: Re: DERBYSHIRE - Derwent Reservoir Area
>I've had no replies to previous mails. Is ANYONE on here knowledgeable =
>of what is happening up there?
Can you please explain further where you mean.
Derwent Valley is a huge area and contains several tens of highways
probably over one hundred (including at least one under the reservoir which
supposedly has a TRO on it!).
I have some limited historic documentation for the area but as you ask what
IS going on I assume that that is not what you want. You want
contemporary documentation and the only thing I have in that line is a
LandRanger map and a few consultation documents!
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 35 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 34 lines 1749 [forwarded 105 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 890 [content 697 forwarded 96 (cut 9) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990408 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]