| |
BR 32 FOLLOWS AN ANCIENT HIGHWAY
CC AGREES ITS A THROUGH ROUTE, NOT A CUL-DE-SAC
BUT THE DM SHOWS A 30M GAP AT "WAYSIDE"
We submitted a Modification Order in 2004 to close the gap.
CC returned it 2 years later, saying, "not necessary"
So in 2010 The DM still shows it as a cul-de-sac. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
1. This is Cardinham Definitive Map
Look at the N end of BR32 below. It seems to stop 30m from the road
But its a through route for the following reasons
.jpg)
1. Access
The owner never refuses access
2. Signage by CC: -
a) "Bridlepath". On road at the N end
of BR32 pointing intoWayside. b)"Bridlepath. Cardinham 3/4 m" On
road at S end of of BR32.
3. The Definitive Statement: -
a) Does not say it's a cul-de-sac.
b) Termination "From road S of
Cardinham"
4. Documentary evidence with CC
a) Maps1809 on- show through route
b) CPC 1894 on - maintenance.
5. Ordnance Survey Maps: -
Copy the DM and show cul-de-sac
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
2. Documents kept by CC, prove FP32 goes through Wayside
|
|
| |
2.1 .jpg) Ordnance Survey Map. Old Series 1813.
This shows the obvious continuity of this ancient highway from Lostwithiel, through Cardinham, and continuing to the north.
The Tithe Map, 1823, shows the same through route.
While this is not direct evidence of a through right of way, it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
THE OS DID NOT RECORD A GAP AT WAYSIDE
|
|
| |
2.2. Cardinham Parish Council Records 1894 to 1953.
These confirm that over this period CPC regularly reqired the District Council to clear and maintain this through route. Records confirm that the DC responded as requested.
NB. Bridlepaths were the reponsibility of the District Council (predecessor to CC)
As distinct from footpaths, which were the direct responsibility of of CPC.
CPC DID NOT RECORD A GAP AT WAYSIDE
|
|
| |
2 .3 Highways Map 1929
Bodmin Rural District Council. South District
This is the official record of highways. Signed, R .H. Webber, Surveyor.
The public status and continuity of the highway which comprises BR 32 was plainly recognised.
CC DID NOT RECORD A GAP AT WAYSIDE ON THIS MAP
|
|
| |
2.4. Highways Map 2004
Cornwall Council(Current at time of Modification Order)
This shows CC recognised FP 32 as a highway.
It is designated identically to other unclassified
unclassified roads in the vicinity.
CC DID NOT RECORD A GAP AT WAYSIDE ON THIS MAP
|
|
| |
2.5 CONCLUSION.
The DM deliberately misleads. The Gap at Wayside implies a cul-de-sac. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
3. Modification Order Application to CC. |
|
| |
3.1. With massive evidence and CC's agreement that BR32 is a through route, we thought CC would welcome this uncontentious Application to add the missing 30m to the DM.
That's what The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 S52(2) is for!
|
|
| |
3.3. CC refused to consider the Application, and returned it.
The Senior Legal Assistant''s letter deliberately avoids the issue.
He does not acknowledge that the DM is both misleading and
ridiculous by clearly showing 96% of BR32 as bridledlepath and omiting 4%, i.e. depicts it as a cul-de-sac. |
|
| |
This paragraph does not explain
WHY the DM ever depicted BR32 as a cul-de-sac : -
WHY it shows bridleway rights over 96% of BR32 which lies on the unclassified road
WHY it does not show bridleway rights over 30m (4%) which lies on he same road.
WHY you should have to consult a highway map as well as the DM!
That the unclassified road is not evident on the ground or on any public maps
The letter continues:
The issue is not signage, The DM wrongly represents a through route as a cul-de-sac
The letter continues:
That's dead right.
It is a "matter of principle" Public paths have been lost because they were cul-de-sacs
CC was seriously incompetent in producing a Definitive Map portraying 19 cul-de-sacs, on RoWs, while none of the Definitive Statements confirmed it.!
And why would CC wish me to be "...diverted from my pursuit of this matter"????
The letter continues:
Again he deliberately misses the fundamental point that the DM is wrong.
His reason for doing nothing is fatuous.
Why does he not suggest removing BR32 entirely from the DM if it really is superfluous?
That would be logical
The letter continues:
This is untrue. He did not find my MO Application regarding the cul-de-sac on FP 1 at Cardeast "a more productive application"
CC sat on it for 6 years then refused it.
I had to appeal to the Secretary of State, who ordered CC to grant it!
The letter ends:
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|