email objections to:email@example.com
My objection letter:
Dear Mrs Gutteridge,
I wish to submit an objection to the proposed TRO's on byways 538 and 539 on the following grounds.
The proposals to TRO these lanes conflict with Surrey County Councils byway policy and advice given by the countryside access team.
The process to date hasn't been fair and impartial as required by Human Rights legislation when determining civil liberties. Specifically, cllr f. Harrison lives on byway 539. The aforementioned councillor appears to have been the driving force for these proposed TRO's in recorded parish council minutes.
Surrey County Council has a duty to perform a "balancing act" under section 122 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. There is no evidence that this duty has been performed.
I request that the TRO proposals be reffered to an independent committee or public enquiry so as to afford a just process on determination that's unnaffected by vested interests and prejudice.
I also wish to register a formal complaint with regard to the process to date.
These TRO proposals have been approved and driven by councillors that aren't in a position to provide a fair and impartial process as required by the Human Rights Act. Surrey County Council has failed to identify and address this breach of human rights, caused by the flawed procedures, that allowed these proposals to be approved.
I'm also dissatisfied that a significant amount of public funds has been spent on establishing an expert countryside access team whose time and efforts were requested only for their expert report to be disregarded by the councillors approving this TRO proposal. The process which empowers councillors, who are not in a position to be impartial, to approve TRO's, also creates potential for decisions to be made effectively before the countryside access team submit expert advice, and reports, in conjunction with the Surrey CC TRO policy. This not only exposes the requisition of expert reports as a waste of public funds but the commissioning of a TRO policy as well.
Rights of way management is an extremely complex and technically demanding subject. Do the councillors that approved this TRO proposal have relevant and sufficient qualifications in rights of way management? If not, why have they been allowed to disregard the Countryside Access team's reccomendation?
I currently have the right to exercise my civil liberty to ride a motorcycle on byways 538 and 539. If this liberty is removed by process that is then judged to be incompatible with article 6 of the Human Rights Act I shall seek legal advice with a view to civil proceedings for compensation for subsequent, unlawfull, deprivation of liberty. I would remind individual councillors that they would be potentially liable to proceedings if it's ruled that they have acted, or failed to act, in a way that breaches Human Rights Act.