Good news?

Sounds like a minor victory .. TRO NOT followed through yet due to 'workload' ..

Just received this email ...
---------------------------------------------------------------
"CONSULTATION: PROHIBITION OF MOTORISED VEHICLES
? U2424 FOREST ROAD, U2422 COWGATE RIGG & U8122 THORNE HOWE, -
HARWOOD DALE
? U618 DARNCOMBE - KEEPERS COTTAGE, DARNHOLME-CUM-LANGDALE END AND
BROXA-CUM-
TROUTSDALE
? U2334 SEGGIMIRE LANE, ESKDALESIDE-CUM-UGGLEBARNBY
? U569 GREAT MOOR LANE, HUTTON BUSCEL

Further to the consultation exercise recently undertaken on the above routes, I am writing to inform you of the current situation and the proposed action to be taken.

The consultation received a large number of responses and was clearly going to require significant resources to pursue the necessary negotiations and reports required to complete the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process. The Area Highways Office at Whitby cannot at this time give the matter sufficiently high priority in order to be able to allocate sufficient resources to this issue. It has therefore been decided that this consultation exercise will not be pursued further.

Since the commencement of this consultation exercise, the County Council has produced a draft policy document for the Management and Maintenance of Unsurfaced Unclassified Roads (UUR’s). This was presented to the County Council’s Environment and Heritage Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 21 October 2009 and will shortly be released as part of a public consultation exercise prior to adoption by the County Council. The policy sets out a strategy for identifying, assessing and managing all UURs. The above routes will therefore now be considered as part of this process which is being managed by the Highways Asset Management group based at County Hall, Northallerton.

I trust this clarifies the situation and would like to thank you for your response to the consultation."
-------------------------------------------------------------


So it seems that no matter what the TRO, if enough people write or email with a reasonable argument against a TRO then hopefully the councils might just take the same view .. that enough people don't want a lane (or lanes) TRO'd and that they should be brought under their "Management and Maintenance of Unsurfaced Unclassified Roads" policy.

So if you know of any current TRO's being planned send an objection in to the council and post on here where others can also send objections in. Doesn't matter if you live near or far, just that you send an objection in!

Just a little bit of effort from everyone might just allow us to keep what little we have ...

They is all North York Moors int they. Think the Broxa one is known as well stuck woods

Yup, North Yorks .. Dunno local name of them but it sounds about right .

I've heard rumours (and they are only that so i've found so far) that a LOT of TRO's are on hold due to budget constraints Yaaaayyyy !

Aint that a bit short sighted?
I might be naive, but surely if a lane needs a TRO to recover and it aint TRO'd then the obvious next step is further damage and permanent closure?

The Mad Hat Man said:

Aint that a bit short sighted?
I might be naive, but surely if a lane needs a TRO to recover and it aint TRO'd then the obvious next step is further damage and permanent closure?

Click to expand...

i was more digging at the "pre-emptive" kind of TRO's - y'know - that ones that DON'T need doing - Sorry Shoulda made that clear - the joys of posting on here in a layby

I have no idea whether the lanes you are talking about "DONT need doing" but assuming you are correct - then surely this is what you autta be doing (maybe more of us as well?

I have no problem with seasonal TRO's, but the issue for me is that many TRO's that start as seasonal never get replaced so the TRO continues until someone at the council realises and hey presto we get a bridleway or restricted use byway (In practice very similar things)

I suggest we fight all TRO's to keep lanes open, but follow a voluntary code of not driving lanes when they get far enough gone that they can't be driven by, say, a 'normal SUV style vehicle .. Freelanders, X-Trails, etc etc

The other side to this is that if we don't oppose TRO's then many councils will assume that Byway status is not necessary, so they can then (on paper at least) save an amount of money by not having to repair a byway, maintain it's signage etc etc .

Problem is, Paul, that voluntary things dont work - you will always get idiots ragging it up - I seem to remember a post by Medusa where peeps used logs to drag themselves thru a destroyed lane.
I think the best way is to communicate to the local highways department - if they realise that we are responsible, then they might start listening.

Fair point, a knob will drive a lane with 3 foot ruts that's flooded just 'cos they can ... whether it's TRO'd or not.

Good point about letting the HA know. I've reported a couple of local lanes that got very rutted (farmers using them) and which were un-driveable by normal stuff .. and they have been repaired (Dug out, rock-filled and stone-chippings .. not ideal but works) without a TRO, so yes, keeping a tame guy on hand at HA might help ..

I guess a lot of it too is perception. If we help them, in turn they might help us. If all they ever see is problems then they might just read the signs and come to the wrong conclusions .. the conclusions that a normally very well-represented section of community (Bobble hat brigade) might just point to 4x4's for blame ..

Mind, it's he same old argument ... yes we're responsible, but Joe Bloggs with his souped-up defender might not be and it's the minority of ****wits that give everyone a bad name.

Which only makes it more imperative that we engage our local councils more. We need to let them know that there are people driving green lanes responsibly and that we're prepared to stand up for our rights .. to get them un-blocked, kept open and driveable, and that information is disseminated that tells the bobble-hats that we can drive them! My local council, when it did it's most recent Public Rights of Way report, only consulted local driving clubs (Not Doncaster Defenders, or Doncaster Landrover Club or other 4x4 clubs) and thus part of their document says "No driving takes place on existing green lanes other than for fly-tipping"!!!!!!! I'm going to the next Rights of Way public forum, which should have been 12th Nov but is now re-scheduled, to tell them differently ..

In my view it just means that more of us 4x4 drivers should get in contact at every opportunity with the council and Highways Department.

As an aside - i reported some broken signs from our Recce over the weekend this morning - got this back thisarvo....

"Thank you for contacting Hampshire County Council by email, regarding missing byways signs. The details have been forwarded to the Area Rights of Way Officer and will be dealt with in accordance with Hampshire County Council's agreed priorities for the maintenance of the rights of way network."

we wait and see.........

I got a similar response to some problems I posted with Hants CC 6 months ago. I suspect "agreed priorities" is council speak for "no chance of hearing about that ever"

possibly - but they cant complain if peeps drive restricted byeways if there are no signs?

That's true; and I suppose, to be fair, when we went out a few weeks ago there were some new-ish signs up, so maybe they do sort that stuff out.

Paul

Can you let me know when you are going to that meeting and if I can make it I will join you