Jump to content

Malthouse Lane, Pirbright Common - Write now or LOSE IT


ChrisW70
 Share

Recommended Posts

Originally the Guildford Local Committee wanted to put a seasonal TRO on BOAT 529, due to a small amount of damage in a couple of stretches of the BOAT. (Basically regular wear, mid sized ruts, nothing too bad).

On the 18th June 08, Surrey CC RoW department recommended to Guildford Local Committee that BOAT 529 should be repaired. And that a TRO was not required. They had the budget and planned to carry out the work in the summer.

Guildford Local Committee voted against the recommendation and recommended a permanent TRO.

Guildford Local Committee are very anti-vehicle, and this prejudice is clearly recorded in the minutes of their committee meeting.

Repairs to the BOAT were completed on 14th July.

However, official notification that they propose to put a permanent TRO to BOAT 529 has now been issued.

The reasons stated are the usual generic reasons, nothing specific.

Please write to Surrey County Council objecting to the proposed TRO. Because now the BOAT has been repaired there is absolutely no legitimate reason to apply the TRO.

Send your objection to:

Debbie Spriggs

Countryside Legal Team Manager

Surrey County Council

County Hall

Kingston upon Thames KT1 2DY

Full details can be found here:

http://online.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/s...ht?opendocument

Please take a few minutes to send an objection in; whats 5 minutes now compared to losing this lane forever (and many more to come no doubt)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have made my objection as follows:

**My address here**

Debbie Spriggs

Countryside Legal Team Manager

Room 365A

Surrey County Council

County Hall

Penrhyn Road

Kingston upon Thames

KT1 2DY

13-08-08

Reference: DS/3/1/10 - BOAT 529 Pirbright

Dear Ms Spriggs

I write to object to the making of a permanent Traffic Regulation Order to restrict use by motor vehicles on the above mentioned Byway Open to All Traffic. It is my understanding that the surface of the BOAT has been repaired by Surrey County Council's Rights of Way department and that no further problem exists which might necessitate the making of a legitimate TRO.

Please record my objection to this TRO.

Yours sincerely

Christopher Watts

I was sore tempted to add this paragraph but decided not to:

I would further draw attention to the suggestion that BOAT 529 Pirbright is “unsafe and impassable for partially sighted walkers, those in wheelchairs or with pushchairs and less able walkers. “. There are many parts of the British countryside which are similarly not safe for all users but I am sure that nobody would wish to see them all metalled with concrete ramps for pushchair and wheelchair users.

I hope many more object too - please do not copy my letter directly but by all means use it as a template.

Cheers

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objection emailed today direct to Debbie Spriggs at Surrey CC with a Word document attached. I put a "read receipt" on the email to make sure.

Why not send her a quick email with your objection...? Should only take you 5mins :rolleyes:

I don't want to put her email address on here but here's a clue: firstname.surname @surreycc.gov.uk ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest otchie1
Objection emailed today direct to Debbie Spriggs at Surrey CC with a Word document attached. I put a "read receipt" on the email to make sure.

Why not send her a quick email with your objection...? Should only take you 5mins :rolleyes:

I don't want to put her email address on here but here's a clue: firstname.surname @surreycc.gov.uk ;)

Mines in the post. I get to vote these fools in (or out) so I can write what I like :-)

Debbie Spriggs,

I must object to the proposal to turn yet another length of BOAT in to a bridleway and residents only access lane.

To my knowledge there has never been a accident between a 4x4 being legally used on a BOAT and a pedestrian, equestrian or cyclist so to suggest that the TRO is required for 'safety' is simply to hide behind the term for convenience. All vehicles used on a BOAT must be MoTed, taxed, insured and driven with a full licence – no different from any other stretch of road. Drivers must abide by all the laws of the road including any posted speed limits although the reality is that cyclists usually proceed faster than 4x4 drivers.

There has never been an issue with partially sighted walkers ever using the BOAT for access or recreation; they invariably stick to the 1000s of miles of FOOTPATHS in Surrey that are expensively levelled and maintained for the exclusive use of pedestrians.

I have extensively used the BOATs in Surrey and have never seen a single wheelchair or pushchair in use. I have seen plenty on the specially constructed 'easy access' FOOTPATHS but this is not a footpath, it is BOAT.

The maintenance of byways need not be expensive. The ancient practice is simply to distribute rubble over the surface which is rolled in by the users. This practice has been revived in counties like Wiltshire where council contractors are required to dispose of some of their suitable rubble this way as a condition of contract. The resulting surface has better drainage, less likelihood of rutting due to surface water run off and therefore less mud.

Yours,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's mine!

Reference: DS/3/1/10 - BOAT 529 Pirbright

Dear Ms Spriggs.

I am writing to formally state my objection to the making of a permanent Traffic Regulation Order to restrict use by motor vehicles on the above mentioned Byway Open to All Traffic.

This BOAT did have surface damage in some parts, however, these have no been repaired by Surrey County Council's Rights of Way department. As someone who has lived around the area for all my life, and used many of the byways both in vehicles and as a cyclist without any of the confrontations or safety issues described, I do not see the need for a TRO.

It seems clear to me therefore that no further problem exists which might necessitate a TRO, and as such the implementation of this order should not go ahead.

Please record this therefore as my official objection.

Yours sincerely

Edward Fry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got this as a reply.

Dear Mr Nicolson

Re BOAT 529 Pirbright TRO Proposal

Thank you for your email.

Your objections to the proposed TRO will be reported to the Guildford Local Committee on 8 October 2008 when Members will be deciding whether or not to proceed with the making of an Order.

Yours sincerely

Debbie Spriggs

Countryside Legal Team Manager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got this as a reply.

Dear Mr Nicolson

Re BOAT 529 Pirbright TRO Proposal

Thank you for your email.

Your objections to the proposed TRO will be reported to the Guildford Local Committee on 8 October 2008 when Members will be deciding whether or not to proceed with the making of an Order.

Yours sincerely

Debbie Spriggs

Countryside Legal Team Manager

Same letter received today in the post.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, went and had a pootle down the lane on Saturday. The repair work that's been done is really good, the lane was better drained than at lot of the main roads that are nearby!

Absolutely nobody on it. Really can't see why the TRO is needed. Really hope they don;t close it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

JUST GOT THIS:

Boat 529 Pirbright TRO Proposal

Further to previous correspondence, my report asking Members to decide whether or not to proceed with the making of a TRO will now be going to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on Wednesday 15 October at 10.30am at County Hall.

Please note members of the public are not allowed to address the committee on specific rights of way matters but are welcome to attend. If you like more details about the committee please contact Michelle Grieve, Democratic Services Officer on Tel. 020 8541 9126 or email michelle.grieve@surreycc.gov.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
JUST GOT THIS:

I got this, looks like a councillor is being un-democratic,

The SCC Local Committee for Guildford considered this at its meeting on 18th June. The Committee decided that it wished to make a permanent TRO (previously a seasonal TRO had been consulted on) and this was advertised for a statutory consultation period on 8 August. That consultation period closed on 8th September and SCC officers are currently analysing the range of comments received.

SCC's Standards Committee has referred a complaint about member conduct in relation to the consideration of this item at the 18th June meeting for investigation.

It is likely that it will be several months before that investigation is concluded and the investigator's report considered by the Standards Committee. In the circumstances the Council's Constitution allows the Pirbright TRO application to be determined by the SCC Planning & Regulatory Committee. It is now confirmed that this item will be on the agenda for the meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee at 10.30am on 15th of October 2008 at SCC County Hall, Kingston. Members of the Committee will be sent copies of all the responses from the consultation before the committee date.

The procedure for SCC's Planning & Regulatory Committee does not allow public speaking for Rights Of Way/BOAT applications. The meeting will be held in public as with other SCC Committees.

If you require any further information, please contact Debbie Spriggs, Countryside Legal Team Manager on 020 8541 9343.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Good news indeed

Notification has been received that the planning and regulatory Committee resolved NOT to make a TRO on their meeting dated Oct 15th.

So far as it is understood, the decision was taken away from the local committee which requested the TRO (ignoring SCC Legal Dept's advice that it was unnecessary because repairs were about to be carried out and it did not meet the criteria for imposing a TRO) because of a complaint that certain members of the committee had an interest in the decision - some of the land belongs to SCC - and should therefore have withdrawn from the meeting and the discussion. The decision as to whether to impose a TRO was taken by the Planning and Regulatory Committee. Presumably they were presented with the Legal Department's advice that a TRO is unnecessary now the repairs have been completed, their opinion that the criteria are not met, plus some 50 objections which were received.

It is quite clear from their initial report that SCC legal department (ie Rights of Way officials) have not been in favour of the TRO from the outset, but they are obliged to go through the procedure of public consultation when requested to do so by the local committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy