http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0162/amend/pbc1621103a.pdf
Not sure what this means can someone enlighten me
Not sure what this means can someone enlighten me
In simple terms anything that doesn't have a 'proper' Byway classification is automatically downgraded to Restricted Byway with no chance of consultation, appeal, discussion whatever.
Some Byways may also be downgraded without consultation as above.
Well, that's how I understand it ..
Bastards ...
Some Byways may also be downgraded without consultation as above.
Well, that's how I understand it ..
Bastards ...
Jonnyb1990
Well-Known Member
I believe this is the ramblers associations attempt to get parliament to close all BOATS,
Pumpy
Active Member
Seems to be saying unseals ways that are not on the definitive map as rights of way, but are on the list of streets, and where no established right for mechanically propelled vehicles exists, will be closed to vehicles/redesignated in 12 months.
An unsealed way is a track with no hardtop.
I have no ideal of the ramifications tho!
From the TRF ...
"The TRF are discussing this here: TRF Forums • Login
We contacted the MP, John Hemming, and he states that this is a "probing amendment". From Wikipedia:
"In legislative debate, a probing amendment is an amendment tabled by a legislator without the intention of seeing the amendment carried. The purpose of proposing the amendment is to provide an opportunity for discussion of a specific point."
So it looks like this isn't actual planned legislation -- merely a device to ensure that discussion takes place. Since this amendment would significantly increase regulation and cost, which is exactly what the deregulation bill is trying to minimise, it seems likely that this is indeed simply to spur discussion."
Hmmm ... needs seriously looking at, this might be a way to leverage _actual_ closures more easily.
"The TRF are discussing this here: TRF Forums • Login
We contacted the MP, John Hemming, and he states that this is a "probing amendment". From Wikipedia:
"In legislative debate, a probing amendment is an amendment tabled by a legislator without the intention of seeing the amendment carried. The purpose of proposing the amendment is to provide an opportunity for discussion of a specific point."
So it looks like this isn't actual planned legislation -- merely a device to ensure that discussion takes place. Since this amendment would significantly increase regulation and cost, which is exactly what the deregulation bill is trying to minimise, it seems likely that this is indeed simply to spur discussion."
Hmmm ... needs seriously looking at, this might be a way to leverage _actual_ closures more easily.
