"Essjay001" wrote in message
...
Michael Saunby wrote: reams of twaddle
"Essjay001" wrote in message
...
big snip

Micheal
(ae - always)

I suspect you are just being bloody minded. Your diatribe shows you have
little grasp on reality. I am so glad I don't live next door to you.


Different realities that's all. I live a mile outside a very small village
and only have one residential neighbour with whom I share a fairly ill
defined boundary and who has use of my lane to access the highway. The
rest of my boundaries are with fields so the purpose of those hedges and
fences is to either keep stock in, or out, including the one that runs
alongside the highway.

As for the role of local authorities, well I'm involved with various
community initiatives and wherever I get the chance I like to stress that
the role of local authorities is to provide useful services, not to waste
money telling everyone else what their responsibilities are - at least not
until they can show they are discharging theirs in a sensible and efficient
manner.

Though the situation I live in is perhaps very different from most in the
UK, very many of our laws and customs are drawn from ancient rural
practice, so it seems odd that local authorities in urban areas feel that
land owners are responsible for keeping pavements free of obstruction.
It's not my intention to be bloody minded, only show how odd this seems
when viewed from a different perspective.

Your view might be that councils should avoid wasting money. Ok, take that
view, in which case why do they act as an enforcement agency when, most
likely, no complaint has been made by a member of the public? If it were
really the responsibility of the householder to keep the pavement clear
then anyone with a complaint about obstructions should surely be directed
to take up the matter with the responsible householder, not the local
council. Ah, but the council are responsible for pavements - I rest my
case!

Michael Saunby