In message , Tom
Anderson writes
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Ian Jelf wrote:

In message
,
Boltar writes
On 19 Feb, 18:27, MIG wrote:
I am wondering what legislation allows street parking anyway. I mean,
you can't store other furniture in the street that you can't fit in
Its called road fund tax. You don't generally find funiture driving
down the road.

The Christmas before last I was doing an evening Ghost Walk in Oxford.

As the group and I crossed over the Oxford Canal, a procession of
motorised office furniture (desks, takes and one filing cabinet)

'takes'?
"Tables". Sorry; long day. (Taunton then Bridgwater!)

drove across the bridge, all driven by people dressed as Father
Christmas.

File under 'normal for Oxford'.
Quite!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On 20 Feb, 12:20, Adrian wrote:

So how come the house across the road from me was refused planning
permission for a second vehicular access to the road? How come there's a
development going on at the moment just down from me which has had
vehicular access restrictions placed upon the site?

Quite possibly because some local authorities have planning guidance
which restricts the number of parking places per dwelling. "In and
out" driveways tend to potentially provide more parking spaces than a
single driveway.

Ealing is an example: "The maximum parking provision for each
residential unit indicated in the Appendix will be applied on the
basis that it does not result in sites being developed with an average
of more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling. This is
in order to reflect the guidance in PPG3 paragraph 62":

http://tinyurl.com/37tcbt

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.sheds.]
Mizter T said:
On 20 Feb, 15:42, (Sn!pe) wrote:
MIG wrote:
Crossposted to uk.rec.sheds.

For some reason I read that as "Composted ...".

By all accounts, two-year-old compost is wonderfully friable.

I think we at utl should crosspost to uk.rec.sheds more often! After
all, the major London termini station buildings are referred to as
trainsheds...

But have the trains there got leads with the plugs cut off ? Are there
_canoes_ ? Don't the spiders find it all a bit stressfull ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:46:29 +0000, (Sn!pe)
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

I think we at utl should crosspost to uk.rec.sheds more often! After
all, the major London termini station buildings are referred to as
trainsheds...

Waterlood of rubbish, eh? It makes me charing cross.

Euston me with your puns.

kevallsop ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

So how come the house across the road from me was refused planning
permission for a second vehicular access to the road? How come there's
a development going on at the moment just down from me which has had
vehicular access restrictions placed upon the site?

Quite possibly because some local authorities have planning guidance
which restricts the number of parking places per dwelling. "In and out"
driveways tend to potentially provide more parking spaces than a single
driveway.

Nope. They have exactly the same amount of parking space as they would
have with an in-and-out drive.

The planning permission for the second vehicular access was specifically
refused on road safety grounds - apparently pedestrians would find it
"confusing" having too many entrances, despite two accesses meaning there
would still be a lower density than most other similar length stretches
of this same road.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:15:05 +0000
James Farrar wrote:



On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:46:29 +0000, (Sn!pe)
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

I think we at utl should crosspost to uk.rec.sheds more often! After
all, the major London termini station buildings are referred to as
trainsheds...

Waterlood of rubbish, eh? It makes me charing cross.

Euston me with your puns.

They cannon go on much longer someone will have to be victorias.

--
C:WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/

On 21 Feb, 09:56, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:15:05 +0000

James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:46:29 +0000, (Sn!pe)
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

I think we at utl should crosspost to uk.rec.sheds more often! After
all, the major London termini station buildings are referred to as
trainsheds...

Waterlood of rubbish, eh? It makes me charing cross.

Euston me with your puns.

They cannon go on much longer someone will have to be victorias.


When will some saint ban crass puns?

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:15:05 +0000
James Farrar wrote:


On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:46:29 +0000, (Sn!pe)
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

I think we at utl should crosspost to uk.rec.sheds more often! After
all, the major London termini station buildings are referred to as
trainsheds...
Waterlood of rubbish, eh? It makes me charing cross.
Euston me with your puns.

They cannon go on much longer someone will have to be victorias.

Mornington Crescent!
--
Michael Hoffman

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

James Farrar wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:46:29 +0000, (Sn!pe)
Mizter T wrote:

I think we at utl should crosspost to uk.rec.sheds more often! After
all, the major London termini station buildings are referred to as
trainsheds...

Waterlood of rubbish, eh? It makes me charing cross.

Euston me with your puns.

They cannon go on much longer someone will have to be victorias.

Yes, you can bank on that. It'll be a monument to cross-posting.

Richard

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, J. Chisholm wrote:

Where I used to live some idiot insisted on parking his (almost)HGV on
the footway. Apart from the damage and difficulty in getting past with
prams/pushchair etc, the water main beneath the path eventually failed.

Now if only it were worth suing such idiots.

Why isn't it? If the damage is worth less than 5000 UKP (which seems
likely), the council could do it via the small claims process. That's
simple and quick, and the court can't award costs, so even if the
council loses, it doesn't cost them anything other than the wasted time.
Being a large organisation who would be launching these cases quite
often, they could run the operation very cheaply, and pretty solidly, so
they should do well at it.

tom

Hopefully someone in a LA will read this and take up your sensible
suggestion. I suspect the problem will be that they'll need to prove (on
the balance of probability-this being a civil matter) that the damage
was caused by the property owner and not some random builder working on
an adjacent property who happened to park his 7 tonne truck on the pavement.

Jim