TRF Forums

It is currently Wed May 23, 2018 5:55 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:18 am 
Offline
650 cc Monster

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 8:38 pm
Posts: 1746
Location: Bury, Lancs
back off road wrote:
Just had an update from Peaks National Park and thought i'd post it here. It does say voluntary but please use ya head and do as they ask or they will no doubt close it.

Staying on the Right Track
Vehicles in the Countryside in the Peak District National Park




Update – October 2010

Notice of Voluntary Restraint - Minninglow/Gallowgate Lane
This update is to inform vehicle users of this restraint, which comes into force on the 1st November and ends on 31st May 2011. A copy of the site notice is attached with this edition of our newsletter. The restraint is in place to allow the unsurfaced lane time to recover over the winter period after repairs have been carried out at a local farmer’s expense. Landowners are involved and support this voluntary restraint order, which has been carried out and approved through the LARA process and with the help of the Peak and Derbyshire Vehicle User Group.

We would be grateful if you could spread news of this restraint and if you have any questions obviously don’t hesitate to contact us (rightsofway@peakdistrict.gov.uk) or 01629 816296. The lane is shown on the map below by a black line. It lies in the south of the Peak District National Park between GR SK 197 576 to SK 222 565.


Don't suppose it does any harm to remind people but this was posted on 9thOct - just further up the page.

I hope it is well signed as this is a popular lane for quads, 4x4 and bikes.

_________________
Beta XTrainer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:10 pm 
Offline
125cc

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:00 pm
Posts: 193
just thought id raise it again as this weekend is the last chance to ride it till next year

_________________
BYE BYE GONE ENDURO RACING


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:26 pm 
Offline
125cc

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:28 pm
Posts: 177
Can anyone help with a link to the location of this? Google can't cope with grid references. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:57 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:13 am
Posts: 1419
Location: East Angular
The grid references are in the links I posted further up the thread. But this is the same lane that we discussing at the time, so I'm a bit confused about what you want?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:09 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:13 am
Posts: 1419
Location: East Angular
A topic from the members' area about Seggimire Lane and Tom Bell Lane in Eskdaleside - viewtopic.php?f=75&t=3498

I've copied it below because it should be available to all, not just TRF members:

Please read this letter that is being sent to highways to try and keep Seggimire Lane and Tom bell Lane,Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby.
Tom Bell Lane UCR U2333/9 8783 0723 Seggimire Lane 8793 0551

If you do not want to lose these green lanes please write to highways asking them to not TRO the lane.
Please do not just copy the letter or highways will ignore your efforts.

Dear Sir/Madam,I would like to object to the closure of the above two Unsealed roads on several grounds.
I have had dealings in the past with the Ugglebarnby Parish Council over the imposition of Temporary Traffic Regulation orders on these Lanes,as representative of the Trail Riders Fellowship,Teesside and North Yorkshire Group.
The Council refused any help in the maintenance of the said Lanes and refused to meet a delegation from our user group with respect to addressing their concerns over the Lanes,their repair and a program of ongoing maintenance.
I believe the Lanes were closed at the behest of one Householder,who bought the property knowing full well an unsealed road passed near by.
Considering there are only two households within earshot of these Lanes,I think closure is unreasonable considering the number of legitimate users the orders adversely affected.Do you not agree?
As a responsible user group the TRF went along with the closures, in the first instance.I even made notices and erected them on the Lane to remind users the Lanes were closed under a Temporary TRO since no official metal notices were erected at that time.I monitored their effectiveness.
Since the closures,some five years have past and the lanes have not been repaired.When I contacted the Highways dept the response was"The lanes were closed for self-repair".This is to my mind a complete non-sense.No County Road in the Country will self repair.A minimum level of maintenance is required for any surface to be sustained.
The lanes have not improved and up until recently little ,if any, effort has been made to keep the lanes clear of vegetation, a task ,the TRF, always carried out(unofficially)while we were using the Lanes, to the benefit of all users.
This shows that the closure to traffic had no positive overall effect on the Lanes but the amenity, that of a County Road,was lost to legitimate users.
Since the two lanes, by their narrow nature,are self-limiting in terms of Traffic movement,that is to say no Four wheel vehicles use Seggimire Lane,Tom Bell Lane is only used for access ,it would seem a gross waste of £6000,(the estimated cost to the Tax payer of a TRO),in a time of recession,to prevent say ten motorcycles per week using this facility.
As responsible users we have encouraged our members to use these Lanes sparingly but we could have encouraged our members to use the Lanes frequently to establish "majority use" with respect to the NERC act Section 68.This is a "Catch 22" situation:Overuse the Lanes and the anti-vehicular lobby call for closure:Use the Lanes sparingly and they ask for closure because there is not enough vehicle useage to justify keeping the vehicular rights.
This raises the issue about fundamental rights.These ROW were fought for and established over hundreds of years,to dismiss them out of hand is not in the best interests of preserving amenities or upholding democratic rights.
Closures without recourse to active management by the Highways authority seems to create a Self-fulfilling prophesy:-Closures lead to increased pressure on the remaining Unsurfaced roads ,which in turn leads to an increase in erosion and a subsequent increase in the number of calls for closures.This could be seen as irresponsible behavior on the part of the Highways dept who have a mandate is to maintain the system of roads not close them.
Is it a matter of expediency rather than a real attempt to address any real problems,on these lanes,due to lack of funding?
Have you done a traffic survey to ascertain the number of vehicles using these two lanes?
Over what period of time was the survey carried out?
Have you figures to show how many walkers/horse riders use these Lanes?
Is it a case of Noise causing a disturbance in the area?
If so that would imply a constant flow of Traffic down these Lanes.In reality this does not occur.Ten motorcycles per week,on average,pass along the lane in less than ten minutes.Ten minutes of "disturbance" in a day is not a lot to tolerate,always assuming there is someone out there to be disturbed.This of course, presumes perfect weather conditions.ie No wind to disperse the sound.Hardly grounds for closure,wouldn't you agree?
May I point out that all our TRF members have legal bikes ,which conform to the Government imposed noise levels.A £60 fine awaits anyone using a motorcycle with a noise level exceeding 98 db.
As to surface "damage" it is well documented that Agricultural vehicles and water do most to disrupt the surface on unsealed roads not that motorcyclists are entirely blameless.Some rutting does occur in isolated sections ,where it is particularly soft ground due to poor drainage.
Then again this is a County Road ,not someones front garden lawn or a Nature reserve,as some would want you to believe or expect it to look like when they decide to take a walk along these vehicular Lanes.This is a rough unsealed road not a town pavement.
It must also be remembered that not all walkers and horse riders object to vehicular use on these Lanes only a vociferous minority who by Law have walking rights on these roads but do not want to share them with other Lawful users.Instead of avoiding confrontation by using the other 98% of PROW in terms of non-vehicular routes(footpaths and bridleways)they choose the few remaining vehicular routes(less than 5% of PROW) knowing full well they may meet a vehicle and object to their Lawful presence.
It is always assumed or implied by the anti-vehicular lobby that all unsurfaced roads are "damaged" ,by vehicular use, along their ENTIRE length. An assertion that is incorrect and easily verified by inspection..There are several short sections along Tom Bell Lane and Seggimire Lane that need attention.
The entrance to Tom bell lane at the Ugglebarnby end is prone to flooding during wet weather.As is a twenty foot section approx 100yards from the entrance,just after the intersection with the crossing used by the Farmer to drive his cattle across the lane from one field to another.Water runs off the fields into the Lane and gathers in a depression flooding the lane.This is not a problem related to vehicular use it is one of adequate drainage.Nothing that two days and a few tonnes of hard core could not remedy.
Have you any plans to rectify the drainage problems that cause the flooding and may I suggest most of the erosion on these Lanes?
The TRF have the man power and resources to help you in this task, if you will consider accepting our help,at little cost to yourselves.A few tonnes of plaining's from the next resurfacing job, near to the Lanes ,could make a vast difference,all we would ask is that you deliver it to the Lanes and we will distribute the hardcore and sort out the drainage in the few difficult sections.
How many complaints have you recieved concerning objections to vehicular use on these two lanes?
Who were the objectors?
Were they the same people,submitting multiple complaints?
What evidence have you got that would substantiate these claims or are they just hearsay evidence with no real factual basis?
If safety is an issue when was the last time an accident was reported on this Lane?
has there ever been an incident between a vehicle and another user group?
Has any vehicular user reported an injury sustained on these lanes or complained about the lack of maintenance?
Responsible Trail riders,such as members of the TRF, ride these Lanes with care and know the minor risks associated with riding unsurfaced roads.
I know these Lanes have been used illegally,by locals youths,during the TRO period.I,myself,observed one underage rider,on an old trials bike,using the lane, one evening ,while I was walking the Lane.
Unless you Police these Lanes 24/7 you are not going to deter illegal use of these Lanes by imposing a TRO.TROs only only penalizes the legitimate motorcyclists who are licensed, insured and treat the Lanes with respect.
It is also a fact that there are many alternative PROW ,in terms of footpaths and bridleways, in this area that people averse to meeting traffic,on an unsealed road,can use.There are no such alternatives for vehicular users.
Have you considered a number of alternatives to a Permanent TRO:-
A TRO imposed on four wheel vehicles only,allowing use by Motorcycles.
A Seasonal TRO e.g.during the Summer when pedestrian use may be higher.
A Weekend TRO when use is generally higher than during the week.
A permit system where vehicular users can apply for a permit to use the lane.
Tom Bell Lane has no differences in elevation and would be easily sustained with minimal drain and hard core provision.
Seggimire Lane has a steep gradient and would benefit from a one way system, downhill,from the Dean Hall end to the Throstles Nest end,as a means of minimizing erosion.The TRF would willingly pay for the signs and abide by that provision and help maintain the drainage.If you accept our offer of help then that could be tried over a period of five years and see if there is an improvement.
There are many reasonable ways to address any contentious issues, over the use of these two Lanes ,without resorting to a Total Ban.
I trust you will take these comments into consideration when deciding on your future course of action ,with respect to these two lanes.
I would not like to see time and money wasted on a Public Enquiry but if closure is recommended,without good reason,since Unsealed County Roads are a finite and increasingly scarce amenity in this area.
Yours sincerely *************************************************************

Send objections to:

Area Manager
Whitby Highways Office
Cholmley Way
Whitby
North Yorkshire
YO22 4NQ

area3.whitby@northyorks.gov.uk

Do not forget to ask for an acknowledgement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:35 am 
Offline
300 cc

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:22 pm
Posts: 684
School Lane, Great Hucklow in Derbyshire.The newly made BOAT,is subject to a proposed TRO for a complete vehicle prohibition.I will post the details on here later for letters of objection (I need IT help from my missus) we only have untill dec 19th to object. :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:23 pm 
Offline
400 cc

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:44 pm
Posts: 1463
Please post details ASAP.

The 19th of December is plenty of time as long as we act now and don't mess about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:18 pm 
Offline
300 cc

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:50 pm
Posts: 571
Richard Sugden wrote:
Please post details ASAP.

The 19th of December is plenty of time as long as we act now and don't mess about.


Attachment:
School Lane TRO.pdf [351.51 KiB]
Downloaded 420 times


Nothing short of unbelievable there apparent reasons to justify a complete ban :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:38 pm 
Offline
400 cc

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:44 pm
Posts: 1463
Thanks for that but I note that the deadline for responses is not the 19th Dec but the 10th. However, I don't think we should worry about that too much, we should be encouraging as many objections as possible regardless of whether they make the date or not.

What we all need to know now though is what position the TRF are taking with regard to managing this lane. I know it well and I know that there are some issues with its condition and use. Some kind of restriction on access might be appropriate. The obvious suggestion would be to close it during school hours/term time. Apparently there is a local agreement wit residents not to use the road at these times so something similar might work.

But what position have the local TRF Group taken? Who is co ordinating the response? It makes sense for us to decide for ourselves what the real problem might be and how it might best be dealt with, we can then put foreward an alternative traffic management plan. Membes/other trail riders can then express their support for that alternative (assuming they do support it). Much more constructive than just objecting etc.

The key though is for someone to take a lead. So come on, someone in the local groups or PDVUG etc must be co ordinating a response lets hear from them.


Cheers

Richard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Index of current proposed TROs
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm 
Offline
400 cc

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:44 pm
Posts: 1463
Phoned Dawn Bryan at DCC today to inquire about certain details in this consultation document but she wasn't at work due to the snow.

I'll try again tommorow and let you know what I find out.

Regards

Richard


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group. Color scheme by ColorizeIt!