[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:24:52 -0000
Subject: Training course and website problem
I've lost that email re the training course in Wales - I think Tim sent it.
Can anyone help - 2 interested.
On the web-site - I can't 'go get it' in areas. I get:
line 108, char 1, error invalid procedure call or argument.
Leighton Lane - Shropshire - with National Green Lane Day in mind - is there
any newson this one?
Cheers
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:26:44 -0000
Subject: training course
sorry, found it now!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:39 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: New laner in Hayling Island
Do any of the List participants live neaer to Hayling Island than I do? A
potential laner has contacted me by EMail.
TIA
Regards
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:53:19 -0000
Subject: DMMO query Abbots Bromley, Staffs - advice please
This one has been put in (I'm a consultee) for a Bridleway, but included in
the evidence is the statement that full highway status has not been claimed
due to the 1910 finance act not showing it as separate from taxable land.
LIST OF EVIDENCE
1, Deposited railway plan - a,'Public bridle road @ south end. b, shows
"Public Road"
2, Inclosure award. Plan shows it as an exist road, but not set out in
writing.
3, Tithe Map - un-taxed lane
4, 1 inch O.S. reprint - shows route
5, 2inch and 25 inch O.S. - shows route
6, Greenwood & Teesdale map - shows it as a 'crossroad'
N.B. All these maps only show the bottom length of the route from the parish
boundary. Evidence from the other sources shows either end of the route as a
public road and bridle road.
The claimant thinks the evidence points to the route being "a public
Bridleway/byway".
I have driven the south end of the route upto the first of two fords - the
second being on the previously mentioned parish boundary. The route was
clearly defined over most of that length and most of it is used as access by
the farmer.
7, The Parish survey shows the existing Bridleway as a R.P./C.R.F. ????
Above the parish boundary - the existing DM shows the route as "Old Lane"
(name) tk (track)
QUESTIONS
1, should the submission be as a BOAT
2, Can anyone who goes in Kew regularly, help?
3, The DMMO is for a Bridleway - can it be amended through my comments as a
consultee to BOAT, or does it need to be re-submitted?
4, Presumably, as this connects onto a Bridleway, a DMMO should be
researched and submitted for that as well?
5, Greenwood & Teesdale map - Crossroad = BOAT (definitive) - can anyone
(Tim / Derek Tilbury) shed some light on the precedent that set this, so I
can quote it?
6, Denning case re. 'No such thing as a No Through Road' - can anyone
expand, as above.
7, Meaning of CRF, RP on Parish survey?
I would be most grateful for your help and if indeed I am asking some
fundamentally straight forward questions - rest assured that your responses
will be absorbed and understood as part of my training and I won't ask them
again.
Thanks very much for your time.
P.S. I will (in relation to question 3) contact the applicant before
objecting or considering an alternative submission.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:07:21 -0000
Subject: Staffs wholesale down-grading in 1968/72
Am I correct in thinking that if a BOAT was downgraded and the County
Council cannot provide in addition to the order - satisfactory evidence to
explain the downgrade - that this can be challenged (how?)?
How much - if anything - should I be charged for a copy of this info?
Considering that there is approx. a 10 year backlog on DMMO's, has anyone
got any good ideas to get them to re-visit their previous decisions?
Thanks as always.
N.B. Bod - your books are on their way to you via Rob
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 17:20:59 EST
Subject: Re: Tintern PI
Chris,
In a message dated 28/01/00 you wrote:
<< A CRF is a non statutory term, it does NOT appear (I understand) in the
49 Act, I think it was in the Hobhouse report, >>
It didn't appear in either. RUPPs (and CRF/Bs) were definitely a
post-Hobhouse invention. Actually RUPPs were a late Draft Bill version
inclusion - dreamed up, I'm fairly sure, by the barrister draftsman. Hobhouse
talked of Footpaths, Bridleways and Driftways in his report. I think that the
fairly late-stage dropping of Driftways is what triggered the initial
invention of HUPPs (Highways Used as Public Paths) in November 1948. HUPPs
became RUPPs in February 1949, and the Bill's First Reading was in March - to
give some flavour of hurriedness of their genesis. It would seem that CRF/Bs
were a OSS/MHLG (Ministry of Housing and Local Government) invention - I have
not uncovered any trace of their conception yet.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 17:21:29 EST
Subject: Re: Gloucester DMMO appl.
Chris,
Following on from your message dated 25/01/00 :
<< Has anyone seen the FA maps, and recall if excluded from hereditament, for
the old cobbled road, through Abbey Passage Farm" down to the ferry / old
ford at TinternSO 530 002 to 538 003 (approx) and onwards towards Brockweir
and thence to Bigsweir. >>
And my first reply, I managed to get into Glos RO on Friday. I can confirm my
first reply re FA1910 info. and add:
Abbey Passage Farm is shown as Hereditament 554 and was part of the Sedbury
Estate.
Townsend Farm is shown as Hereditament 544 and was, again, part of the
Sedbury Estate.
Both Hereditaments were in the Woolaston Tax Parish.
Glos. RO only has the 'Domesday Book' for Woolaston (ref. D2428/1/85). This
doesn't have much detail, and doesn't list any deductions for either
Hereditament. PRO's Field Book may well have more info (ref. IR 58/33137 - I
think)
I also had time to quickly examine the 1815 Tidenham Incl. Award.
The road past Townsend Farm to approx grid ref. 539 004 was shown with a
brown wash - as other roads - but no number, on Map D.
Abbey Passage Slipway was numbered 724 (again on Map D). It had no
description, and an area of 18 perches, but was included as part of the Farm.
A rapid skeg through the handlists pulled up the following references that
may contain further useful info:
D1430 b/13. Hewelsfield - Brockweir Bridge - Papers on the Lawsuit
concerning the Ferry and Proposed Bridge. 12 Vols of evidence, and Plan and
Section of the Bridge.
D1430 b/14 Photos of the Village, before the Bridge was built, 1906-7.
D1430 b/33 Plan of the Road from Hewelsfield to Brockweir, 1882.
Q/SR/1837C/4 Plan of Roads to be Stopped Up and New Roads.
Q/RUm14 Plans of Improvements to the River Wye from Hereford to Tintern,
1805.
Q/RUm90 Plans for the St. Arvan's to Redbrook Turnpike Road, 1823.
Q/RUm355 Plans for the Wye Valley Railway, 1865.
Q/RUm402/2 Ditto, 1874.
Q/RUm407 Ditto, 1875.
I'm afraid that I won't have time to look at these for you in the near future.
Regards
Charlie.
P.S. I'm afraid that I was also unable to get time off to attend the
Magistrates tomorrow - pity, as it would have been interesting.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@longsight.screaming.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:35:26 -0000
Subject: Re: Tintern PI
> << A CRF is a non statutory term, it does NOT appear (I understand) in
the
> 49 Act, I think it was in the Hobhouse report, >>
> It didn't appear in either. RUPPs (and CRF/Bs) were definitely a
> post-Hobhouse invention. Actually RUPPs were a late Draft Bill version
> inclusion - dreamed up, I'm fairly sure, by the barrister draftsman.
Hobhouse
#
Does Hansard go back that far?
Or was there an equivilent?
Would it be worth while tracing the story through these resources?
NO - I am not volunteering !!!!
Cheers,
Bod
Only one more year to the really *BIG*
party at the end of the second millennium
Cheers,
Bod
Only one more year to the really *BIG*
party at the end of the second millennium
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:43:27 -0000
Subject: Re: Hastie
can you tell me what this case is about? ta
-- [Digesting Forwarded Message ] --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:37:39 -0000
Subject: Re: s56 Lt Wenlock & TROs
heard anything more recently?
-- [Digesting Forwarded Message ] --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:45:08 -0000
Subject: Re: Cross Roads
me again - I'm after help re. crossroads. ta
-- [Digesting Forwarded Message ] --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:21:57 -0000
Subject: Re: LA Forums
but do you get 4 grey haired r's taking over 65% of the agenda. I think
there may be a contract out on me after I gate crashed the last one and
embarrassed them into agreeing for me to be there, despite the fact its "not
open to the public"!
-- [Digesting Forwarded Message ] --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:26:19 -0000
Subject: Fw: GLASS: responce from D.C.C.
I don't believe I ever found out about this
-- [Digesting Forwarded Message ] --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@longsight.screaming.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:36:17 -0000
Subject: Re: LA Forums
> but do you get 4 grey haired r's taking over 65% of the agenda. I think
> there may be a contract out on me after I gate crashed the last one and
[ truncated by lro-lite (was 7 lines)]
> Date: 09 May 1999 09:25
> Subject: LA Forums
Andy,
I thought I got out of date occasionally X-)
Cheers,
Bod
Only one more year to the really *BIG*
party at the end of the second millennium
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@longsight.screaming.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:51:18 -0000
Subject: Re: GLASS: responce from D.C.C.
> From: Andy Bailey <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
> To: frankelson@felson.freeserve.co.uk <frankelson@felson.freeserve.co.uk>
> Date: 14 May 1999 20:29
Are you going through your old mail by any chance Andy???
Cheers,
Bod
Only one more year to the really *BIG*
party at the end of the second millennium
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:02:42 -0000
Subject: Re: Coppice Lane, Brereton - Staffs
where is this criminal offence if we close the gate from?
-- [Digesting Forwarded Message ] --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:13:01 -0000
Subject: Re: GLASS: responce from D.C.C.
Yep. And what are you doing, prey tell?
-- [Digesting Forwarded Message ] --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 17 lines 0 [forwarded 16 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 451 [content 351 forwarded 16 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]