goonarmy

goonarmy

Beer tester
LZIR Despatch Agent
see below:
Surrey County Council Byways Open To All Traffic
No’s 538 (Part of D.250) & 539 (D.257) (West Horsley)
Proposed Traffic Regulation Order 201-


In accordance with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 section 14, Surrey County Council is informing you of the additional notice and statement of reasons in relation to the proposed modifications.

The effect of the proposed Order is to prohibit all motorised vehicles including motorbikes as well as horse drawn carriages over 1500mm (4ft 11ins).

The Modifications include a width restriction enforced by using gates with a 1500mm gap meaning that almost all horse drawn carriages will still be able to use the byways.

If you wish to object formally to all or any part of the modified measures or make any representations, please follow the instructions given in the final paragraph of the notice.

If you have made any formal objections or representations previously to the proposal they will be carried forward.

You may have received this email previously, please refer to the revised orders attached with this email.

Kind regards,

Hannah




Hannah Gutteridge
Countryside Access Officer
(County Hall)
Tel: 020 8541 8941

 
That int a reply - that's a statement of intent. I have already objected to that, but no reply to the objection.
That ^^^^^ is not a reply to anything
 
I know that. That is a general notification, but yu said yu had a reply.

If that is a reply - what was the q, coz lots of peeps have been sent that.
 
Last edited:
didnt ask a question, i objected to the proposals, which a got a reply, and then got sent this which tells us the lane is gonna be width restricted.
 
So they proposed to TRO it, you objected, and they revised the TRO to allow horse drawn carraiges under 4'11" wide?

Lets see what you sent for objections.
 
at least the horses will still be able to use it, which i think its fair, afterall, they dont cause any damage to the byways and the carriages are probably not heavy enough to cause damage either....

there's plenty of byways about, im sure there will be some around that will allow motorised vehicles...

at the end of the day, the horses were here long before motorised vehicles, so they should have more rights to this ancient roads.
 
paul_c said:
So they proposed to TRO it, you objected, and they revised the TRO to allow horse drawn carraiges under 4'11" wide?

Lets see what you sent for objections.
Click to expand...
Dear sirs,
I am writing to object to the proposed TRO's ref: DS/HG/3/1/72/H12
The reasons for the TRO's appear unfounded, I have listed the reasons and my argument against them below:


  • Avoid dangers to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or to prevent the likelihood of any such danger arising;
There is inherent danger to those using the route, as with any route. Is there any recorded notable accidents or injuries on this route? I suspect not.


  • Prevent damage to the road or to any building on or near the road;
The road has existed as such for a considerable length of time and is fit for purpose. Also regular maintenance by the council and road users would prevent this damage. Insurance is required by all mechanical vehicles using the road, which at a minimum will cover any third party damage to buildings. This is effectively a "non-issue".

  • Prevent use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicles in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property;
Unsuitable vehicles would not and do not use the road due to their nature. Sufficient signage and traffic management will ensure this.

  • (without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (d) above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is especially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot;
If the road cannot be walked or ridden then there will no possibility of the road being driven. Regular maintenance and inspection of the road surface by the council and the road users will ensure this.

  • Preserve or improve the amenities of the area through which the road runs.
Preservation will require a proactive stance by the local authorities highway department regardless of if the road receives a TRO or not.

Feel free to contact me to discus the above.

Regards,

Goonarmy.
to which they replied:

Dear Mr Goonarmy

Thank you for your email.

I shall include your comments and objection in the report going to Guildford Local Committee in December.

Kind regards,

Hannah

Hannah Gutteridge
Countryside Access Officer
(County Hall)
Tel: 020 8541 8941


 
Please note that there has been a change to the meeting details for the
petition on Rights of Way.

A response to the petition will now be given at the meeting of the Planning
& Regulatory Committee on Wednesday 7 September at 10.30am at County Hall,
Kingston.

Petition information - Surrey County Council - Petition to: We call upon Surrey County Council to improve the objectivity, impartiality and integrity of decision making on Rights of Way issues, by introducing a Code of Best Practice in Rights of Way issues, similar to the
 
that width wont stop the motorbikes , they are being descriminatory against us 4x4's :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DavidSally
Help needed to stop the closure of a lane
Replies
0
Views
978
DavidSally
DavidSally
Bump
Some great lanes in Derbyshire about to be lost for ever :mad:
Replies
2
Views
1K
JoelC
JoelC
C
Surrey UNJUST TRO Proposals - Object NOW!
Replies
2
Views
1K
goonarmy
goonarmy
Patman1200
More lanes lost forever in Hampshire
Replies
8
Views
1K
The Mad Hat Man
The Mad Hat Man
C
Northants Seasonal TRO Proposals
Replies
0
Views
1K
ChrisW70
C