On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>
>>>Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>
>>>>The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>in s.225(3) if -
>>>>"(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>reasonable inquiry."
>>>
>>>Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>
>>No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>snipping again).
>
>It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>throwing out.
>
>>If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>
>Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>offending sign.
>
It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
is causing a hazard or if in a particular case your "reasonable
enquiry" would be an unreasonable expectation.

>>>>For a typical fly-post the "reasonable enquiry" is highly likely to be
>>>>doomed to failure and determinable without having to leave the
>>>>location.
>>>
>>>It doesn't say "after reasonable enquiry by mobile phone stood by the
>>>roadside in the pouring rain for five minutes". That would be completely
>>>unreasonable, especially as you aren't going to be issuing the notices
>>>in five minutes stood by the roadside either.
>>>
>>If the fly-post is causing a hazard then it would be unreasonable to
>>waste time making more than a quick inquiry.
>
>Once again you are conflating traffic and planning laws. The reasonable
>enquiry is for posters which infringe the latter not the former.
>
On a highway, traffic and planning laws will often apply
simultaneously and with many councils investigated and/or enforced by
the same person on the scene.

>>>Details will be taken (in practice a photo of the offending poster) and
>>>delivered to the enforcement officer (who might well be otherwise
>>>engaged that day) at the LA, and typically I'd expect the enquiry and/or
>>>notification process to take at last a week anyway.
>>>
>>I can't see you passing an interview for a job in a council highways
>>department if you seem to be more interested in working for the
>>opposition.
>
>I'm actually working for the planning department, so once again your
>attempt to chaff me by conflating two different sets of rules, fails.
>
>>>>As mentioned before, there is more than planning law involved and a
>>>>Highway Authority can use s.132 Highways Act 1980 (which has no
>>>>requirement to give notice) to remove
>>>>"any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway
>>>>or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway".
>>>
>>>That falls foul of "on or in a highway". Superficially it would prohibit
>>>A-boards on a pavement, and that's clearly not how it works.
>>>
>>It does prohibit unauthorised A-boards on pavements, that is why my
>>local council issues 150 pound tickets for them.
>>https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/19032932.harrow-council-increases-env
>>ironment-fines-extends-pspo/
>
>And there you go again. While that cite doesn't actually mention
>advertising (under either set of law) your implication is that the
>planning department is giving permission for boards which are defacto
>infringements of the Highways law.
>
No it isn't.

>>If you really annoy them (because they can be sued if someone injures
>>themselves on a hazard that is allowed to persist on their property)
>>then you will be prosecuted instead and might get some new ankle
>>jewellery.
>>https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/harrow-firm-fined-51000-
>>dumping-14943045
>>[Harrow firm fined £51,000 for dumping 7.5t of waste in Hatch End
>>playing field... ankle.. tag for 3 months]
>
>More chaff. I've never seen a 7.5t advertising poster. Unless a
>sign-written barrage balloon counts. And that would probably come under
>air traffic control law.
>
No, not more "chaff". The law has developed over the years to combat
clever clogs like you who come up with all sorts of dodgy defences to
support public nuisances.

>>>>s.132(1) also makes it a criminal offence to attach without consent or
>>>>lawful excuse or authority any such thing as above.
>>>
>>>Good luck with that. As I mentioned before it's my understanding there's
>>>one officer in the whole of Cambridgeshire whose role it is to deal with
>>>the sorts of things which do actually infringe.
>>>
>>Maybe your local council needs an incentivising boot up the backside
>>at the next election?
>
>We don't regard the County Council as "local". They are busy moving it
>from an hour away in one direction, to an hour away in a different
>direction.

In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>
>>>>Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>
>>>>>The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>"(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>reasonable inquiry."
>>>>
>>>>Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>
>>>No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>snipping again).
>>
>>It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>throwing out.
>>
>>>If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>
>>Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>offending sign.
>>
>It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>is causing a hazard

That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?

[Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
> Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
> remarked:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>> Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>>
>>>>>> The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>> s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>> in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>> "(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>> (b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>> reasonable inquiry."
>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>>
>>>> No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>> snipping again).
>>>
>>> It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>> throwing out.
>>>
>>>> If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>> fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>>
>>> Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>> enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>> offending sign.
>>>
>> It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>> is causing a hazard
>
> That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
> in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?
>
> [Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]

I went under a railway bridge in Surrey yesterday that had sacrificial
beams. They were attached to the brickwork supporting the bridge and
projected out about 4 to 6 feet by dint of substantial metal brackets. So
somebody thinks this is worth doing.

In message <svgakb$l8m$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:58:51 on Sun, 27 Feb
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
>> Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>> remarked:
>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>>> Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>>> s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>>> in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>>> "(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>>> (b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>>> reasonable inquiry."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>>> snipping again).
>>>>
>>>> It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>>> throwing out.
>>>>
>>>>> If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>>> fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>>> enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>>> offending sign.
>>>>
>>> It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>>> is causing a hazard
>>
>> That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
>> in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?
>>
>> [Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]
>
>I went under a railway bridge in Surrey yesterday that had sacrificial
>beams. They were attached to the brickwork supporting the bridge and
>projected out about 4 to 6 feet by dint of substantial metal brackets. So
>somebody thinks this is worth doing.

And many more people think they aren't worth doing. Especially when
freestanding on the approach road (which is where almost all the "calls
to action" refer to).

But from your description these are the oft-mentioned ones which have
grandfather rights by being deemed to be part of the bridge itself.

Didn't help last time the Stonea bridge's grandfathered beam was bashed
and cracked (I've posted photos several times) because they closed the
underpass for a year to repair.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <svgakb$l8m$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:58:51 on Sun, 27 Feb
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
>>> Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>>>> Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>>>> s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>>>> in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>>>> "(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>>>> (b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>>>> reasonable inquiry."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>>>> snipping again).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>>>> throwing out.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>>>> fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>>>> enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>>>> offending sign.
>>>>>
>>>> It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>>>> is causing a hazard
>>>
>>> That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
>>> in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?
>>>
>>> [Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]
>>
>> I went under a railway bridge in Surrey yesterday that had sacrificial
>> beams. They were attached to the brickwork supporting the bridge and
>> projected out about 4 to 6 feet by dint of substantial metal brackets. So
>> somebody thinks this is worth doing.
>
> And many more people think they aren't worth doing. Especially when
> freestanding on the approach road (which is where almost all the "calls
> to action" refer to).
>
> But from your description these are the oft-mentioned ones which have
> grandfather rights by being deemed to be part of the bridge itself.
>
> Didn't help last time the Stonea bridge's grandfathered beam was bashed
> and cracked (I've posted photos several times) because they closed the
> underpass for a year to repair.

Nothing to do with being grandfathered? If they are part of the bridge it
surely doesn’t matter what their history is?

There’s a Street View here

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3738905,-0.40703,3a,75y,29.31h,102.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sehXHYX6Zv9fhreSVvVXBeg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DehXHYX6Zv9fhreSVvVXBeg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.26599%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

or

https://tinyurl.com/2s3esbdx

As you can see it appears to be doing its job in taking the knocks. So I’d
dispute your implied assertion that they don’t serve a useful purpose.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 14:08:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
>Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>>Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>
>>>>>Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>>
>>>>>>The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>>s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>>in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>>"(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>>(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>>reasonable inquiry."
>>>>>
>>>>>Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>>
>>>>No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>>snipping again).
>>>
>>>It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>>throwing out.
>>>
>>>>If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>>fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>>
>>>Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>>enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>>offending sign.
>>>
>>It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>>is causing a hazard
>
>That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
>in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?
>
>[Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]
>
The two sets of law run together when dealing with fly-posting on a
highway.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 17:31:48 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <svgakb$l8m$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:58:51 on Sun, 27 Feb
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
>>>> Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>>>>> Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>>>>> s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>>>>> in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>>>>> "(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>>>>> (b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>>>>> reasonable inquiry."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>>>>> snipping again).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>>>>> throwing out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>>>>> fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>>>>> enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>>>>> offending sign.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>>>>> is causing a hazard
>>>>
>>>> That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
>>>> in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?
>>>>
>>>> [Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]
>>>
>>> I went under a railway bridge in Surrey yesterday that had sacrificial
>>> beams. They were attached to the brickwork supporting the bridge and
>>> projected out about 4 to 6 feet by dint of substantial metal brackets. So
>>> somebody thinks this is worth doing.
>>
>> And many more people think they aren't worth doing. Especially when
>> freestanding on the approach road (which is where almost all the "calls
>> to action" refer to).
>>
>> But from your description these are the oft-mentioned ones which have
>> grandfather rights by being deemed to be part of the bridge itself.
>>
>> Didn't help last time the Stonea bridge's grandfathered beam was bashed
>> and cracked (I've posted photos several times) because they closed the
>> underpass for a year to repair.
>
>Nothing to do with being grandfathered? If they are part of the bridge it
>surely doesn’t matter what their history is?
>
It does if they project beyond the boundary of the railway although
that could be indeterminate in the likely absence of precise records.

>There’s a Street View here
>
>https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3738905,-0.40703,3a,75y,29.31h,102.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sehXHYX6Zv9fhreSVvVXBeg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DehXHYX6Zv9fhreSVvVXBeg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.26599%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
>
>or
>
>https://tinyurl.com/2s3esbdx
>
>As you can see it appears to be doing its job in taking the knocks. So I’d
>dispute your implied assertion that they don’t serve a useful purpose.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 17:31:48 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <svgakb$l8m$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:58:51 on Sun, 27 Feb
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
>>>>> Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>>>>>> Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>>>>>> s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>>>>>> in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>>>>>> "(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>>>>>> (b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable inquiry."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>>>>>> snipping again).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>>>>>> throwing out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>>>>>> fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>>>>>> enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>>>>>> offending sign.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>>>>>> is causing a hazard
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
>>>>> in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?
>>>>>
>>>>> [Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]
>>>>
>>>> I went under a railway bridge in Surrey yesterday that had sacrificial
>>>> beams. They were attached to the brickwork supporting the bridge and
>>>> projected out about 4 to 6 feet by dint of substantial metal brackets. So
>>>> somebody thinks this is worth doing.
>>>
>>> And many more people think they aren't worth doing. Especially when
>>> freestanding on the approach road (which is where almost all the "calls
>>> to action" refer to).
>>>
>>> But from your description these are the oft-mentioned ones which have
>>> grandfather rights by being deemed to be part of the bridge itself.
>>>
>>> Didn't help last time the Stonea bridge's grandfathered beam was bashed
>>> and cracked (I've posted photos several times) because they closed the
>>> underpass for a year to repair.
>>
>> Nothing to do with being grandfathered? If they are part of the bridge it
>> surely doesn’t matter what their history is?
>>
> It does if they project beyond the boundary of the railway although
> that could be indeterminate in the likely absence of precise records.
>
>> There’s a Street View here
>>
>> https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3738905,-0.40703,3a,75y,29.31h,102.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sehXHYX6Zv9fhreSVvVXBeg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DehXHYX6Zv9fhreSVvVXBeg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.26599%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
>>
>> or
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/2s3esbdx
>>
>> As you can see it appears to be doing its job in taking the knocks. So I’d
>> dispute your implied assertion that they don’t serve a useful purpose.
>

I followed that railway along on Google maps. Quite a number of the bridges
have such beams. Mainly the ones where the bridge deck is metal rather than
brick or concrete. The fact that they are maintained means someone thinks
they have a use. Otherwise they’d be dismantled.

Here’s another one with some interesting support metal work.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3798442,-0.3535612,3a,75y,311.25h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slFnS1IXJyqca6K2BAieHYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://tinyurl.com/yckmywjr

In message <ajnn1h516uvfn57pdka4s102vmia856gcj@4ax.com>, at 20:27:12 on
Sun, 27 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 14:08:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
>>Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>>>Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>>>s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>>>in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>>>"(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>>>(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>>>reasonable inquiry."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>>>snipping again).
>>>>
>>>>It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>>>throwing out.
>>>>
>>>>>If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>>>fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>>>
>>>>Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>>>enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>>>offending sign.
>>>>
>>>It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>>>is causing a hazard
>>
>>That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
>>in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?
>>
>>[Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]
>>
>The two sets of law run together when dealing with fly-posting

They run separately, and as I've explained in the past there's very
little head-space for safety infringements, it's all about planning,
the vast majority of the time.

>on a highway.

Define "on a highway", and to what extent "beside a highway" also
qualifies.
--
Roland Perry

In message <svgci4$636$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:31:48 on Sun, 27 Feb
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <svgakb$l8m$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:58:51 on Sun, 27 Feb
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
>>>> Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>>>>> Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>>>>> s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>>>>> in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>>>>> "(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>>>>> (b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>>>>> reasonable inquiry."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>>>>> snipping again).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>>>>> throwing out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>>>>> fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>>>>> enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>>>>> offending sign.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>>>>> is causing a hazard
>>>>
>>>> That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
>>>> in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?
>>>>
>>>> [Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]
>>>
>>> I went under a railway bridge in Surrey yesterday that had sacrificial
>>> beams. They were attached to the brickwork supporting the bridge and
>>> projected out about 4 to 6 feet by dint of substantial metal brackets. So
>>> somebody thinks this is worth doing.
>>
>> And many more people think they aren't worth doing. Especially when
>> freestanding on the approach road (which is where almost all the "calls
>> to action" refer to).
>>
>> But from your description these are the oft-mentioned ones which have
>> grandfather rights by being deemed to be part of the bridge itself.
>>
>> Didn't help last time the Stonea bridge's grandfathered beam was bashed
>> and cracked (I've posted photos several times) because they closed the
>> underpass for a year to repair.
>
>Nothing to do with being grandfathered? If they are part of the bridge it
>surely doesn’t matter what their history is?

Struggling to understand what a one-year closure has to do with that.

https://goo.gl/maps/pdSS6qbJcT398wWK6

>As you can see it appears to be doing its job in taking the knocks. So I’d
>dispute your implied assertion that they don’t serve a useful purpose.

Thanks for posting the link (I have replaced it with an official Google
one, as there are issues with tinyurl - which we should discuss another
time).

Lots of interesting stuff going on; in no particular order:

A shame the sign on the north side of the road has been (at some stage,
repaired now) rotated 180 degrees on its post.

It's 3.8m, so rather high for it to be attracting Luton vans etc.

To give an idea of the scale, this is 3.5m:
<http://perry.co.uk/images/QA-nearmiss-Sept-2018.jpg>

The bridge is immediately adjacent to a road junction, which would make
it tricky for any apparatus on a high vehicle (a solution sometimes
suggested) to spot it, especially if coming along the road parallel to
the railway. And of course such a thing would be a false alarm for a
high vehicle not intending to go under the bridge.

This view has a lot of scrapes underneath <https://goo.gl/maps/798trSWXZ
icrPHQQ8> which suggests that whatever is making those wasn't bounced-
back, and therefore carried on under the bridge, potentially becoming
wedged, or at the very least causing similar scraping on the bridge
itself.

In any event, being so close to the bridge, very few vehicles hitting it
front-on would be stopped in their tracks in the space of two feet.

A vehicle having its top ripped off would still cause the road to be
closed (because of the debris) and the railway too, while it was checked
for damage. They couldn't assume, without seeing it, that *only* the
sacrificial beam had been damaged.

It's grandfathered because the mountings are on the original brickwork
*and* it's no lower than the bridge itself. [Both also true at Esher]

The main call-to-action that beams across the road will warn approaching
vehicles by the noise of hitting them, and thus make the driver brake,
doesn't work for a beam so close.

I'm inclined to think it was an experiment (not least due to the number
of such beams being tiny compared to the number of low bridges) and
don't know if the people who commissioned it regard it as a success or
not. Even if they don't, there is unlikely to be a budget to dismantle
it.

ps The bridge at Esher station is even higher.
--
Roland Perry

On 28/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
> Thanks for posting the link (I have replaced it with an official Google
> one, as there are issues with tinyurl - which we should discuss another
> time).

I'll make a start then. Here's HMG's position on link shorteners:-
https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/link-shorteners-the-long-and-short-of-why-you-shouldnt-use-them/

I never click on tinyurls and the like.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 28/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Thanks for posting the link (I have replaced it with an official Google
>> one, as there are issues with tinyurl - which we should discuss another
>> time).
>
> I'll make a start then. Here's HMG's position on link shorteners:-
> https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/link-shorteners-the-long-and-short-of-why-you-shouldnt-use-them/
>
> I never click on tinyurls and the like.
>

Please - I gave you both the original URL and the tinyurl, just so you
could have the choice. I imagined the first link would cause endless debate
on long line lengths not surviving in the wash, and was fully expecting the
tiny url moans.

Back to the original point, there’s quite a number of bridges I that area
with sacrificial beams, so I don’t think it’s just an experiment.

In message <sviv65$79n$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:01:56 on Mon, 28 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 28/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Thanks for posting the link (I have replaced it with an official Google
>> one, as there are issues with tinyurl - which we should discuss another
>> time).
>
>I'll make a start then. Here's HMG's position on link shorteners:-
>https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/link-shorteners-the-long-and-short-
>of-why-you-shouldnt-use-them/
>
>I never click on tinyurls and the like.

What of google maps shortened links?
--
Roland Perry

In message <svj0is$j5g$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:48 on Mon, 28 Feb
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:

>>> Thanks for posting the link (I have replaced it with an official Google
>>> one, as there are issues with tinyurl - which we should discuss another
>>> time).
>>
>> I'll make a start then. Here's HMG's position on link shorteners:-
>>
>>https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/link-shorteners-the-long-and-short
>>-of-why-you-shouldnt-use-them/
>>
>> I never click on tinyurls and the like.
>
>Please - I gave you both the original URL and the tinyurl, just so you
>could have the choice. I imagined the first link would cause endless debate
>on long line lengths not surviving in the wash, and was fully expecting the
>tiny url moans.
>
>Back to the original point, there’s quite a number of bridges I that area
>with sacrificial beams, so I don’t think it’s just an experiment.

I disagree, it could be a local experiment. I saw signage from Railtrack
- maybe they had someone whose pet project it was.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <svj0is$j5g$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:48 on Mon, 28 Feb
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>>> Thanks for posting the link (I have replaced it with an official Google
>>>> one, as there are issues with tinyurl - which we should discuss another
>>>> time).
>>>
>>> I'll make a start then. Here's HMG's position on link shorteners:-
>>>
>>> https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/link-shorteners-the-long-and-short
>>> -of-why-you-shouldnt-use-them/
>>>
>>> I never click on tinyurls and the like.
>>
>> Please - I gave you both the original URL and the tinyurl, just so you
>> could have the choice. I imagined the first link would cause endless debate
>> on long line lengths not surviving in the wash, and was fully expecting the
>> tiny url moans.
>>
>> Back to the original point, there’s quite a number of bridges I that area
>> with sacrificial beams, so I don’t think it’s just an experiment.
>
> I disagree, it could be a local experiment. I saw signage from Railtrack
> - maybe they had someone whose pet project it was.

If it were a pet project and proved to be of no use I would imagine the
beams would have been taken down as an extra maintenance expense. This
hasn’t happened.

On 28/02/2022 17:25, Tweed wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Thanks for posting the link (I have replaced it with an official Google
>>> one, as there are issues with tinyurl - which we should discuss another
>>> time).
>>
>> I'll make a start then. Here's HMG's position on link shorteners:-
>> https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/link-shorteners-the-long-and-short-of-why-you-shouldnt-use-them/
>>
>> I never click on tinyurls and the like.
>>
>
> Please - I gave you both the original URL and the tinyurl, just so you
> could have the choice. I imagined the first link would cause endless debate
> on long line lengths not surviving in the wash, and was fully expecting the
> tiny url moans.
>
> Back to the original point, there’s quite a number of bridges I that area
> with sacrificial beams, so I don’t think it’s just an experiment.
>

It's just Roland wanted to start a discussion so I thought I'd beat him
to it.

On 28/02/2022 17:26, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sviv65$79n$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:01:56 on Mon, 28 Feb
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 28/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Thanks for posting the link (I have replaced it with an official Google
>>> one, as there are issues with tinyurl - which we should discuss another
>>> time).
>>
>> I'll make a start then.  Here's HMG's position on link shorteners:-
>> https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/link-shorteners-the-long-and-short-
>> of-why-you-shouldnt-use-them/
>>
>> I never click on tinyurls and the like.
>
> What of google maps shortened links?

They fall into the getting people used to clicking on shortened links
category.

Most of us here will know what we're doing but others wont.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:11:48 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ajnn1h516uvfn57pdka4s102vmia856gcj@4ax.com>, at 20:27:12 on
>Sun, 27 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 14:08:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <11ug1h5dn76bnpc5au1pf0bhd8mi0u7s87@4ax.com>, at 06:43:31 on
>>>Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:25:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
>>>>>Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>>>>>>s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>>>>>>in s.225(3) if -
>>>>>>>>"(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>>>>>>(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>>>>>>reasonable inquiry."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>>>>>>snipping again).
>>>>>
>>>>>It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
>>>>>throwing out.
>>>>>
>>>>>>If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>>>>>>fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
>>>>>enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
>>>>>offending sign.
>>>>>
>>>>It is reasonable to make a determination in five seconds if the sign
>>>>is causing a hazard
>>>
>>>That's the wrong law, Highways Law. The stuff about making enquiries is
>>>in planning law. Why do you persist in not understanding that?
>>>
>>>[Snip, more stuff at similar cross-purposes]
>>>
>>The two sets of law run together when dealing with fly-posting
>
>They run separately, and as I've explained in the past there's very
>little head-space for safety infringements, it's all about planning,
>the vast majority of the time.
>
>>on a highway.
>
>Define "on a highway",
>
Not for me to do. It is plain English, bearing in mind that the
"highway" is a 3-dimensional entity from the ground upwards (delete as
appropriate for bridges and similar overhead structures) and extends
from one side to the other including carriageways, footways, verges
etc. If definition is necessary then such is made in a relevant
statute, regulation etc.

>and to what extent "beside a highway" also qualifies.
>
If the relevant statute, regulation, case law etc. does not define it
then it is not for me to define it but for the persons enforcing or
adjudicating it to form a reasonable decision applicable to whatever
case is being considered.

"Adjacent to" will often have variable interpretation or wording,
e.g. -
"‘Adjacent to’ can mean ‘next to’ or ‘adjoining’ or ‘contiguous with’
or ‘close to’ or even ‘near’ which means that most walls or fences
running parallel to a highway will be restricted but the height
restriction also captures the end parts of other boundary walls,
fences or gates close to the highway."
https://prettys.co.uk/newsletters/issues-consider-if-you-are-replacing-your-front-garden-fence-wall-or-gates#:~:text='Adjacent%20to'%20can%20mean%20',gates%20close%20to%20the%20highway.
[https://tinyurl.com/39wfusnn]

Some statutes will fix a distance, e.g. "within fifteen yards" in the
case of s.34 Road Traffic Act 1988 (Prohibition of driving
mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads.).

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <svj0is$j5g$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:48 on Mon, 28 Feb
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>>>> Thanks for posting the link (I have replaced it with an official Google
>>>>> one, as there are issues with tinyurl - which we should discuss another
>>>>> time).
>>>>
>>>> I'll make a start then. Here's HMG's position on link shorteners:-
>>>>
>>>> https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/blog/link-shorteners-the-long-and-short
>>>> -of-why-you-shouldnt-use-them/
>>>>
>>>> I never click on tinyurls and the like.
>>>
>>> Please - I gave you both the original URL and the tinyurl, just so you
>>> could have the choice. I imagined the first link would cause endless debate
>>> on long line lengths not surviving in the wash, and was fully expecting the
>>> tiny url moans.
>>>
>>> Back to the original point, there’s quite a number of bridges I that area
>>> with sacrificial beams, so I don’t think it’s just an experiment.
>>
>> I disagree, it could be a local experiment. I saw signage from Railtrack
>> - maybe they had someone whose pet project it was.
>
> If it were a pet project and proved to be of no use I would imagine the
> beams would have been taken down as an extra maintenance expense. This
> hasn’t happened.
>
>

Here’s another one, this time in Leicestershire

https://goo.gl/maps/sMgVVLyFJpayEyw49

It’s interesting to note that the support structure seems to have been
simply added to the side of the existing bridge supports, a sort of kitchen
extension. So taking additional land. Also the beam seems to be designed to
slide towards the bridge if need be.

This is a bridge that is regularly hit (well I assume the beam) by HGVs.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/02/2022 22:01, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2022 12:02, MB wrote:
>>>> On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>>>> attachment.
>>>>
>>>> We used to use various universities for an annual meeting.  We were told
>>>> at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars with No
>>>> Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing them -
>>>> probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Some warm water normally takes care of that.
>>
>> The hospital I worked in used to do that. One day the departmental
>> secretary left her car “temporarily” on the double yellow lines outside the
>> building and got stickered. She spent the next 20 minutes running in and
>> out with a kettle and various scraping objects.
>>
>> Sam
>>
> Was she a jobsworth?

Only just noticed this, sorry. Yes, she was a bit. She was also a union
official in a not-strongly-unionised setting and didn’t do a lot to make
union membership look attractive.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply