The Rights of Way Law Review |
Home | Contents | Contributors | CD-Rom edition | Subscriptions | Training Courses | About us |
| Contents lists:- | s.0 | s.1 | s.2 | s.3 | s.4 | s.5 | s.6 | s.7 | s.8 | s.9 | s.10 | s.11 | s.12 | s.13 | s.14 | s.15 |
7.1: ClosureThe Ramblers' Association v. Kent C.C. Report . . D. Braham Q.C.Ramblers v. Kent C.C.: comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Willmore LL.B. BarristerS.116 of the Highways Act 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. Heath LL.B. SolicitorThe 2026 closure date and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Langham, BarristerR. (Spice) v. Leeds City Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Braham Q.C.Hertfordshire County Council v. S.o.S. . . . . . . . . . P. Petchey, BarristerThe Winchester Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Meager, Barrister,Lecturer in Law, New College, OxfordThe Winchester Case: C.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R.Crail, BarristerClosure for crime prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Crail, BarristerMaroudas v Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Duddy, B.A. (Oxon), B.C.L.7.2: DiversionPublic rights of way and development . . . . . . . . . . M. Williams, SolicitorMinor highways and new roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Sugden Ph D., C.Eng, MICE, MCITA power or duty to make path orders . . . . . . . . . . . M. Orlik M.A., SolicitorThe Patterson case reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. J. Pearlman, LL.B, SolicitorTwo aspects of s.119 diversion orders . . . . . . . . . . D. Braham Q.C.R. (Ashbrook) v. East Sussex C.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. Petchey, Barrister7.3: GeneralCorrecting a public path order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Willmore LL.B. BarristerFinancial costs of changes to the network . . . . . . D. Goode, B.Sc., M.Sc.,Countryside Mapping Manager,
|