Paul D said:

My email sent a few days ago ...

Hi,


I wish to register my objection to the proposed TRO's on the following routes.

U569 Great Moor Lane. SE94709-89431 to SE95324-89091 and
U618 Darncombe Keepers Cottage DarnHolme - Cum - Langdale End
Broxa-Cum-Troutdale. SE90794-87441 to SE91659-90066
U2420 Forest Road, U2422 Cowgate Rigg
U8122 Thorn Howe, Harwood Dale.

I regularly use these routes when I visit North Yorkshire with my family, enjoying the routes as recreational drivers. If vehicular access is lost to these routes I and many more people will be deprived of yet another facility which we can enjoy and will simply put more pressure on other routes to accommodate the numbers of people, individuals not necessarily affiliated to motoring groups, who can also benefit from vehicular access.

I urge you to consider those of us who are not group members so don't normally have a voice to express our concerns about TRO's being applied to the little existing Byways and other routes with vehicular access.

I object to each of your 'reasons', I think they're excuses, sopecifically as follows.

a/ for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or

What danger? Do you have evidence that there is an actual danger? If so could you send me details of recorded accidents etc that applly. I suspect this is a 'percieved' danger, not actual, proven danger.


b/ for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or

What damage? Do you have evidence that there is any actual damage? Why can this damage not simply be repaired? I was under the impression that these routes were Byways which are rarely maintained so some damage will inevitably occur, but why should this be a reason to close the route?

c/ for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians), or

d/ for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property, or

e/ (without predudice to the generality of paragragh (d) above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot, or

f/ for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs

I'm sorry, but these are hardly objective reasons for applying a TRO on these routes. A 4x4 by it's very nature of wide footprint tyres probably does less damage than any horse with a similar weight and much smaller footprint. Where damage has been done by irresponsible users, then use the law to prosecute those causing actual damage, not the perceived damage that some people think happens. Don't apply a TRO as you're then tarring everyone with the same brush and alienating people who do nothing wrong and indeed actively work with communities to improve and mend Byways that others can then use.

As a recreational 4x4 user, horse rider, bicycle rider and walker I object to the closure of any routes to a particular section of the people who use it. I believe your reasons for applying a TRO are subjective, due mainly to 'bad press' and short-sightedness of people who don't have the full facts before them, or close their eyes to them.

We already (as 4x4 drivers) have precious little amenity to access the countryside, especially when some of us are disabled and simply can't use horses or bicycles to get to these out-of-the-way places other than by 4x4, and removing any of this access degrades the amenity offered to the area and to people who love and travel to the area for this amenity.

I believe these routes must be left open for the common good.

Regards,

Paul Draper

Click to expand...