TRF Forums

Surrey TROs
Page 3 of 5

Author:  Sven [ Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

Steve Sharp wrote:
Thanks Sven, excellent video!


From counting the comments, messages, questions and other communications the objection letters are WELL into double figures from the video.

I'm pulling my finger out and writing mine today.

Author:  Steve Sharp [ Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

Thats great news, thanks.


Author:  jonpaul1st [ Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

email objections to:


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.

Yours sincerely

Author:  Steve Sharp [ Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

Thanks John, good letter.

Author:  Sven [ Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

That's not a good letter, that's a fan-flippin-tastic letter. Nice one John.

Author:  Red [ Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

Well written, lets see about the reply.

When writting these types of letter, should we be requesting a reply within a certain time or a least confirmation of receipt?

Well done, a good basis of a template for future letters

Author:  Richard Sugden [ Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

If you have questions to ask, then ask them and insist that you get a reply. If you don't then chase them up!

And there do appear to be plenty of valid questions to ask in this case.

Also remember that you don't need to wait until after they've robbed you of your legal rights to make a complaint. If you think there may have been maladministration here (ie they're failing in their duties or abusing their powers) then use th eformal complaints proceedure to hold them to account!

I've Emailed a few questions myself. i'll post te answers I get when I have them.



Author:  jonpaul1st [ Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

Cllr F Harrison declared interest at horsley parish council meeting.

This declaration should've been relayed at the committee stage.

It appears that this hasn't happened.

Also worth noting that Cllr C French lives very close to Silkmore Lane - no declaration of interest.

Even if the Cllr's wanted to be impartial the nature of their position - vocationally and geographicaly - compromises their ability to be so.

By all means they should be involved in requesting TRO's. They shouldn't be allowed to impose them though.

This case has "legs". It has the potential to expose current procedures, and ALL TRO's generated by them, as incompatible with Human Rights requirements.

As said before - it's like a school board comprising predominantly of BNP members deciding that a muslim girl can't wear a veil to lessons.

The successfull ruling in Gorbeck illustrates that these appeals for objections and member's involvement are about so much more than the mileage of a given lane. We are now strengthened by the gorbeck ruling as demonstrated by objections lodged against this TRO.

Get stuck in!!!!!

Author:  Steve Sharp [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

This is an excellent example of how undemocratic the whole TRO process is... I wish we could somehow change the process across the country, because this has happened many times before, not just in Surrey but across the country..


Author:  blacktiger [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Surrey TROs

Objection sent tonight. Good luck.

Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group