TRF Forums

TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.
Page 1 of 3

Author:  KentWR [ Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:  TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

Hi all

Received the following from Richard D.
Richard is a member of the AWD club and has been representing all MPV users regarding this matter.
I think it will be discussed at tomorrows TRF meeting.

Good Evening all,

Hope you had a good Christmas and New Year. Have just received the long
awaited notification of the proposed Experimental TRO (banning all motor
vehicles and horse drawn carriages) on the Holly Hill Byways network (MR45A,
NS245, NS221, RS221 and Chapel Lane (UCR)).
The original idea of a permanent TRO to be then lifted 3 years later has
been dropped as KCC have accepted they can't be trusted to remove it after
the 3 years. The revised Order is for 18 months and will enforced with
horse friendly barriers at the start of each byway and the Chapel Lane UCR
in Medway.
There will be limited access on 2 days every month for those users who
have applied for a permit. There will be a maximum of 8 4x4s (no mention of
cars though Chin) and 16 motorcycles per day but larger groups, if properly
marshalled may be accommodated.

Only one permit per group is required, but the group leader must list all of
the vehicle registration numbers, drivers/riders names and is responsible
for the conduct of the group.

The original proposal (the 'Rosegarth' scheme) would have the gates left
open all day a couple of times a year. As we believed this may be abused
instead combination locks will be fitted in place of the normal key locks on
the 'open' days, the combination will be changed each month and only permit
holders will be given the combination number.

I have scanned in and attached as a PDF the most relevant pages from the
consultation letter (the original is 16 pages!). It should also be put on
the Kent CC PROW web site soon to.

As the TRO's are being made by 2 different local authorities comments on the
Tonbridge and Malling and Gravesham Byways (MR45A, NS245 & NS221) to Graham
Rusling at KCC (details in letter attached) and Medway byway RS221 & UCR
Chapel Lane to:

Medway Council
Regeneration, Community and Culture
Civic Headquarters
Gun Wharf
Dock Road


Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) RS221 & Chapel Lane (part) Halling
(Prohibition of Driving) Experimental Order 2012.

All objections/ representations should be in by the 1st Feb 2012.

If you have any more questions please get back to me.


Richard D.

Author:  KentWR [ Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

KCC are doing a bit of a dirty trick here. The permit system proposed for Holly Hill is for TWO days a month for only 16 motorcycles.

We are objecting and asking for a permit system like Bredhurst and Lenham.

Here is a draft letter. You have to send it to Kent CC and Medway. so called democracy in action; not.

Put it in your own words.

Mr M Overbeke

Head of Regulatory Services

Invicta House



ME14 1XX Date:

BOAT MR45A, NS245 and NS221 Experimental Traffic Regulation scheme

Dear Mr Overbeke:

I wish to object to the proposal. My concern is about the detail of the permit system. To restrict motorcycles to only TWO days per month between the hours of 09:00 and 16:00 is unreasonable. The choice of days you make may not be acceptable to me for family reasons or because of my employment.

I can understand the reasons for having to have temporarily TRO’s on these roads because of the damage that has been caused by four wheeled vehicles trespassing and damaging the adjacent land and SSSI. As far as I’m aware, motorcyclists on road legal trail motorcycles have not caused this damage. We are again being penalised for a crime we are not committing.

I would like to see a permit system identical to those used successfully on the BOATs in Bredhurst and Lenham.

Yours sincerely

ALSO TO >>>>>

R. Cooper

Director of Regeneration

Community and Culture

Civic HQ

Gun Wharf

Dock Road


ME4 4TR Date:

Author:  KentWR [ Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

Admin any chance of moving this to the TRO section?

Also I cannot seem to upload a copy of the TRO as your file size limited is 256k!!

We need to move quick on this as once a TRO comes into play it will shut down the best byways in Kent and kill the whole byway network...

Author:  Red [ Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

Can we email? or just letter to person and address noted.

For us in Sussex it might only be a twice in a year use of pigrims way, but a most enjpyable time, and palnning for this year has already been discussed and permits requested.

Letters must be done soon, I am just going to refresh my mind with the actual locations.

Author:  Tony Bliar [ Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

Medway council
Adam Taylor
Highways Responsive Maintenance
Civic Centre

Kent county council
FAO Graham Rusling
Invicta House
ME14 1XX

Quote cas/gdr/12/bwg5&6

Remember to state that you are objecting otherwise your letter may be deemed as a comment.

Objections have to be in by the 1st of Feb.


Author:  barbara [ Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

please excuse my lack of knowledge of this area
i have been to Kent once helping with a LTD near Dover and thought the lanes i rode great a bit of everything and was hoping to do a return trip with friends soon so when i saw this post i felt you needed my support.

could you let me know what town these lanes are near so i can pinpoint them.

how does the permit system work on Bredhurst and lenham and how does this differ from the one proposed here

it may be an idea to post this and cambs trf site and other areas we can all send protest letters
thankyou barbara

Author:  Tony Bliar [ Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

The network of lanes that are effected are here ... 64645&lm=0

The difference between the Bredhurst/Lenham TROs is that this proposedTRO limits our use to two days per month, maximum 16 bikes per day. And they have not even mentioned what days will be available to us.

Motorcycles are not the problem, the problem is rogue 4x4 drivers leaving the byway and driving in the woods, joyriders dumping and burning out cars and flytipping.
What is required is that the access points are gated and locked. The council can only put in locked gates to enforce the TRO.
The fairest and least restrictive TRO would be for cars only and an exemption for permit holders, that way the good guys that drive 4x4s can still use the network of lanes.


Author:  prelive [ Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

Bushwhacker wrote:
Admin any chance of moving this to the TRO section?

Also I cannot seem to upload a copy of the TRO as your file size limited is 256k!!

I've moved this. Upload limit is far greater than that - see Oxford TRF newsletters for an example. If you send it to me I'll upload it for you.

Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.

Author:  StevenT [ Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

This is really bad news. I will get Surrey TRF on the case, I used this lane recently on a recent run. We don't have long to object. Surely the least restrictive is a permit scheme like Bredhurst and Lenham, as others have suggested. I want to get hold of the official documentation - if anyone can send it to me spt1506 at
Has anyone tried to discuss this with KCC, and see if there are alternative ways forward?

Author:  StevenT [ Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TRO - HollyHill Kent Objections Needed.

Official documents are here - on the Surrey TRF Forum (no upload limits on that..!) ... html#p5321

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group