TRF Forums

It is currently Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:24 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:04 pm 
Offline
200 cc
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 7:21 pm
Posts: 259
Location: North-West Kent
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/s ... endocument

This needs as much publicity as possible so I have posted it here as well.

_________________
Bikes...they're in the blood.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:36 pm 
Offline
200 cc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:15 pm
Posts: 446
Reading this will make you sick.

http://surreytrf.free-forums.org/1-vt498.html

Amazing how they ignore council policy and the ROW team recommendations.

These are the two lanes, video and map:

http://www.qwerf.com/greenlaning/byway.php?id=94

http://www.qwerf.com/greenlaning/byway.php?id=93

_________________
Greenlaning in Sussex, Surrey and Kent interactive guide - click here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:47 pm 
Offline
80 cc

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:35 pm
Posts: 81
I have had an exact same problem in warwickshire. The problem is that as an organisation we are simply not set up to deal with this!

We now have a 6 week window of opportunity and no quick time/recognised contact points/processes to actually do anything. What needs to happen is a change of focus and some money spent on professional advice. The TRO process in terms of road traffic regulation act 1984 lays down requirements that have to be followed.

In this case, the same as Warks, the authorities own officers appear to have prepared a factual and balanced report which recommneded that prohibition was not appropriate in their professional opinion.

The elected members simply voiced bias and unfactual opinions and voted against their own officers! The RTRA Process seemingly allows them to do this! The exception being if the rationale was 'completely irrational as per Wednesbury ruling'.

However, my thoughts switch to s130 of the highways act. Is the decision challengable under s130. Have the authority failed to protect and assert the rights of motorised users?

Is the decison as per s130 HA 1980 challengable, regardless of whether they have followed a process under RTRA 1984. I can't seem to get a definite answer to this point from anyone.

It would seem a nonsense to suggest otherwise, because why even bother with reports in the first place!

Either way it needs gripping nationally. This is a national problem that has been discussed at national meetings for my duration of membership. I have been right through the process with the issue I dealt with, stages 1 to 3, ombudsman etc and it does not sway the bias or decision makers.

I am happy to be contacted by anyone from Surrey to discuss and would urge that the issue is raised through your row rep with national officers.

I am also happy to involved in any work to support the organisation in preparing documentation(I don't purport to be an expert) so we can at last try to get some definite legal advice on these issues.

Authorities need challenging. Failing to repair because they don't want to! Failing to repair because they don't have money! Failing to repair because they have already made their minds up! Removing rights to repair, repairing and then not reviewing/varying prohibition!
A joke and time something positive was done!

Rant over!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:19 pm 
Offline
125cc

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:39 pm
Posts: 184
Location: London
Hey

I'm in Surrey TRF. We're working on this, we have our club night meeting tomorrow, Wed night, a few of us have been putting our heads together, we've been formulating our list of objections and tomorrow will get our plan of action together and then myself of the Surrey TRF co-ordinator Steve Sharp will post that up on here. Plus any questions we need help with.

Thanks for your offer to help, its much appreciated.

I'm sure we have a strong case to stop these TROs but hey I shouldn't hold my breath should I.

Will be in touch on here later this week. You'll find more on the Surrey TRF Forum here:
http://surreytrf.free-forums.org/proposed-tro-on-538-an-539-vt498.html

Steven

_________________
Steven Taylor
Chairman, South London and Surrey TRF
http://www.surreytrf.org.uk/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:57 pm 
Offline
80 cc

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:35 pm
Posts: 81
Steve,

At what stage is the process? I am reading into this that the authority have already advertised the orders?

Bozz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:44 am 
Offline
80 cc

Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 55
Hi All,

I urge everyone to write a letter and object to the proposed TRO's, if we do not object in vast numbers the local council will implement the TRO.

Surrey County Council Countryside Access team have stated that the Byways do not meet the Surrey CC TRO Policy, and recommend that they should be repaired, vegetation is cut back and speed advisory signs are erected instead of a TRO. However, they were overuled by the local council, who are determined to TRO the Byways.

For some reason two threads were started in the TRF forum....I have uploaded all of the detail at:

Board index » Public Forum » TROs - Traffic Regulation Orders » Proposed TROs

Post subject: Re: TRO - West Horsley Byway 538 & 539 Objection Details
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:22 am

If you open up my Guidance document it contains: address, email, reasons to object, guidance… everything in one document.

OR

The link below will also take you to our Surrey TRF site which contains details..

here are two attachements:

One attachment contains all of the official council notification documents: Covering letter, maps, reasons for the TRO, how to object.

One attachment contains the facts, points and guidance, as to why they should not implement a TRO. This will help you write your letter and object to the TRO.

Available from:

http://surreytrf.free-forums.org/act-no ... vt516.html

If you find it difficult to write a letter please just write a few words saying that you object, and state a few main reasons. We must generate as many objections as possible.

Do not hesitate to contact me for any advice, guidance, or to discuss any aspect of this.

Regards
Steve Sharp
Surrey TRF RoW Officer


Last edited by Steve Sharp on Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:38 am 
Offline
650 cc Monster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:34 pm
Posts: 4279
Location: East Sussex
Minutes here from local council committee.

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/legcom/counc ... 0%20v2.pdf

Note that decision to TRO was approved by councilors with vested interests.

As such this process already falls foul of Human Rights Act - right to "fair and impartial trial in the determination of ones civil liberties" (article 6).

The human rights act provides that any conviction based on a breach of an individuals human rights produces an "incompatibility" - i.e. the conviction is unlawfull.

Thoughts on this?

_________________
John Vannuffel

Technical Director


KTM 690 Enduro R

Husqvarna TE250 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:05 am 
Offline
80 cc

Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:44 pm
Posts: 55
John,

Yes you are right. Brian Cohen has attended the meetings, please contact him via the email I sent earlier, he can provide more info than me.

I will also ask him to look at this post and respond.

Thanks
Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:57 am 
Offline
650 cc Monster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:34 pm
Posts: 4279
Location: East Sussex
Thanks Steve - PM sent.

_________________
John Vannuffel

Technical Director


KTM 690 Enduro R

Husqvarna TE250 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Surrey TROs
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:16 pm 
Offline
80 cc

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:03 am
Posts: 47
I don't write letters, I can never be bothered.

But I've written one! Sent by email as oer the details I received, excerpt as follows:

It was with both great concern and great surprise that I heard of the proposed Traffic Restriction Orders for BOATs 538 and 539.

I am a regular user of both Byways, upon which I ride my motorcycle on average once a fortnight.

My concerns on hearing that this TRO has been raised are as a result of the fact that the byways in question have already been assessed by Surrey County Council. As I understand it SCC found that they do not meet the Surrey County Council TRO policy, given that they have assessed the Byways and found them to be of condition 2 i.e. In need of some repair.

Am I correct in my understanding that the TROs are proposed on the basis that they represent a significant danger to users on the route and that these TROs would prevent significant damage to the routes? If that understanding is correct, could someone tell me why there is considered to be significant danger when there are no recorded accidents or incidents on either byway? Surely the lack of incidents suggests that the perceived danger is not actually present in reality? In my experience, the dangers on both of these byways are minimal.

If the perceived dangers, despite evidence to the contrary, are considered significant then where is the justification in closing such routes when the alternative, as identified by the SCC is to invest in repairing the Byways, thereby meeting the duty of care to reduce the risks without the very blunt tool that is refusing access to the route for motorists entirely. Surely adopting this approach and as a result fulfilling the authority’s obligations as set out in Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is the better outcome for all parties?

Whilst on the subject of Section 122 responsibilities, I am far from convinced that an adequate balancing exercise has been undertaken, as required in section 122 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1984. This impression is based on the fact that in the Statement of Reasons for these TROs, there has not been even passing reference made to Section 122 or the necessity to conduct an adequate balancing exercise.

I can only assume that failure to make reference to this legal requirement is in part as a result of SCC having undertaken a balancing exercise of sorts and indeed having come to the conclusion that a TRO is NOT in these circumstances a correct response to the perceived issues.

I’d like to conclude by saying that once the surface and full legal width of the byways are restored then both byways can remain open for everybody’s use and enjoyment, thereby adhering to both the spirit and the letter of the pertinent legislation and conforming with the findings of Surrey County Council.

I would appreciate it if a formal acknowledgement of and response to my letter could be sent to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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!