TRF Forums

sorry womble i cant recall any refrence numbers i did it online plus to be honest i also thought it had been done already as we knew this has been blocked for some time so considered my email overkill

tony yes can meet to demolish. This weekend ?

Could you hold fire until the Council have acknowledged the blockage? It will be better for everyone (except the owner of the bales) in the long run if we do. After that, I suggest that a bike-width gap could appear, so the Council still have to meet their duties, but we can still exercise our rights of way in the meantime.

I think there may be more to this than meets the eye.

I've been told that the land owner was initially happy with the permissive arrangement because he got the route that he wanted but the ramblers are kicking up a stink because they don't want that route. it's essentially parallel to Peddars FP so they don't really benefit.

It has been suggested that the obstruction is the landowners "response" and as such is primarilly aimed at the ramblers but thats neither here nor there. It is quite illegal regardless of motive and can be dealt with by way of s130A if necessary.

I also thought that this was being dealt with as a result of BLROC & GLASS complaints so I haven't got very involved up to know but your quite right Hornet, enough is enough. Keep up the good work Womble and I'll have a word with NCC as well.

In the mean time can you hold off taking any "direct action"?

You do have a right to remove enough of the obstruction to pass and ordinarilly I would suggest that you do exactly that (once it's been reported) but remember, most of this route is permissive and that permission is coming from the very person who I believe is responsible for obstructing the lane. If this can be dealt with without upsetting the landowner too much it will be to our advantage.

Of course if it can't be done that way then bugger em but we should at least try.

Watch this space, I'll talk to them tommorow as well.

Cheers

Richard

Quick update on this.

The following is my inquiry to NCC yesterday and their response recieved today.


Dear Mr Mills

It has been brought to my attention that part of the Brettenham/Bridgeham Byway that was subject to the recent TRO/permissive access arrangements is obstructed.

I also understand that a number of users have already raised this issue with the authority but no action appears to have been taken.

Understandably this is causing some frustration among users. Despite having previously been persuaded that the unauthodox permissive arrangement was a good idea this on going problem is inevitably starting to undermine confidence in this approach.

Are the authority taking any action in relation to this matter?

If so can you outline to me what the problems are here and what exactly you are doing to address them?
Regards

Richard Sugden

Trail Riders Fellowship



Richard,
Thank you for your email.
The problem has largely been caused by the Ramblers Association, who objected to the TRO proposal but then went further than that in suggesting we were incorrectly applying the legislation and would apply for judicial review if we continued. This has stalled the proposal, the TRO has not been made, and as the agreement was to provide the alternative route subject to the TRO being in force, we are left with a stalemate. On the one hand we face action by Natural England if we open the existing route because of nature conservation reasons, and a legal challenge if we process the TRO. We have been in communication with solicitors acting for the RA over the last 9 months, the only progress we have made is that they seem to be backing off a bit, and I have now arranged a meeting with the RA in early September to try and resolve this matter.
Because of the time lapse we will no doubt have to re-advertise the TRO application even if the RA agree not to pursue their legal challenge. I have warned the landowners that we may have to go back to the drawing board in a worst case scenario.
I will keep you informed of any progress.

Regards,

David

I will continue to persue this matter with the council and if necessary enforcement action can be taken but as you can see from th epost above, for the momment at least we are seen as the good guys and it's the Ramblers who are being seen as causing trouble.

It would be good to maintain this but not at th eexpense of our access of course.

I think we can probably sort this out without upsetting the landowner.

Once again, watch this space.

Cheers

Richard

I've talked to Tim and David at NCC and I asked them about why the other end wasn't blocked. As the blockage is nothing to do with NCC they did not comment, at all, which was probably very wise of them.

I suggest that, if you want to ride this lane, you should do so from the farm end riding northwards. When you get to the bales, I believe that you are legitimately allowed to bypass the obstruction, so head to the right and follow the route that other bikes seem to have taken.

I'm still in two minds about interfering with the bales because this is the landowner's response to grief being raised by the RA and we are currently being seen as good guys.

id like nothing more than to remove this obstruction but as trail riders are being seen as "the good guys" i shall bask in the glory, polish my halo, and let the matter play out via whatever meeting produce








goes out still rides lane cuts through hedge it feels a bit naughty

Hornet, feel free to go around the obstruction as Womble suggests, you have every right to do so. No need to feel "naughty"

Also, I'm not suggesting that this issue get left alone by the way, I will be pushing NCC to get the obstruction removed I just think it's better to get it done through the authority than do it ourselves because we could find ourselves in a battle with the landowner.

I've seen this sort of thing happen before. We remove bails, he erects fence, we remove fence, he parks large piece of agricultural equipment etc, etc you know how it goes, round and round and round just causing agro.

As I said before, watch this space but I think ultimately this might need to be resolved by a legal diversion order rather than the permissive agreement which obviously hasn't worked. In that case keeping th elandowner on side will be vital to getting a result that benefits us.

Cheers

Richard

I got a message back from NCC today about why nothing had been done about my report of the problem on 13th July. Apparently there is a manual link (i.e. a human) between the web form and the Environment mailbox and they are going to look into improving the system in future.

I suggest that, when reporting problems on the NCC countryside access website, you should note the reference number and the date (I just emailed myself with the details) and you should also call the telephone number and talk to a human, just to make sure that the problem is properly logged and solidly entered into their system.

Er dont want to sound too cheeky been a newbie but is the drz still there ?