Problems in Wales.

[Roger Fairclough]

Roger, I'm not a "green laner" and I'm not even in the UK to experience it.

However, I do support maintaining the road system we have because it's a slippery slope for older less used roads, as you very well know and you are actively campaigning hard against closure of these less-used rights of way.

Just look at Beaching in the 1960's when he decimated the Railway Networks. Because the railways are not public rights of way and not Queens Highway, the general public had little say in the railway debate.

These roads are public rights of way and are the Queens Highway .

It's only a thought, but it is of course important to be lobbying the right people. A local authority with very tight budget constraints will have little option if there's no money in the pot, despite their feeble efforts to allocate some of the budget to these worthy projects, will be able to do very little however much they are lobbied.

I'm a member of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) and it may be beneficial to express your concerns and objections to them. And, although it sounds twee and pompous, I would also suggest a letter to the Queen, it is her "highway" after all and she does have strong views on civil liberty and maintaining heritage, which essentially is what this is all about.

The problem is, although I would be pleased to open a post on the CIHT forum (of which I'm a member), because I have no idea of the terms you're using (GLASS, TRF, TRO, CROW, NERC) and even less idea of the process and procedures behind local authorities' obligations to maintain rights of way and their "escape routes" such as closures, if I did post an objection to the closures, I would enter into a subject I know nothing about and I would be lost to a continuing discussion.

It sounds as though I might be one of the millions that "tut tut" and say "what a shame", and end up doing nothing about it.

However, I'll gladly write a letter to Mark Stafford-Tolley Head of Legal Scrutiny and Democratic Services (Law and Governance), County Hall, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5LG (plugging the address again) but I do think it may be beneficial for you to lobby the CIHT :

The Institution of Highways &Transportation
6 Endsleigh Street
London
WC1H 0DZ
UK

Good luck and success in at least slowing down the demise of these precious roads and rights of way.

As a PS, how would I go about joining GLASS?

pm on it's way Clive.

Roger

 

[Towpack]

For anyone who thinks fighting for rights of way is pointless........
http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/news/current-news/disappointment-at-chapel-gate-court-ruling

 

[OG.]

For anyone who thinks fighting for rights of way is pointless........
http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/news/current-news/disappointment-at-chapel-gate-court-ruling

Pointless maybe not. Ill advised at times? Thats another matter.

 

[Towpack]

Pointless maybe not. Ill advised at times? Thats another matter.

How's that then?

 

[Roger Fairclough]

Pointless maybe not. Ill advised at times? Thats another matter.

"Ill advised"

Please explain. When was standing up for your rights not a good idea?

Roger

 

[OG.]

Some battles are not worth fighting. Take the episode of the TROs in the Yorkshire Dales. They were overturned by the court and within a month or two were back but this time with a more cast iron foundation. The only people to win there were the lawyers.
This one in the Peaks is similar. The TRO had another 3 months to run. Was it worth fighting for 3 months? Personally I see that as a waste of money and feel it would have been better to wait and see what happened at the end of that 3 months. I realise it takes time to get these things through the legal system but in that instance it was an experiment being conducted by the PDNP so have the TRF just alienated the PDNP by forcing them to cut short the experiment? Lets not forget the purpose of the experiment was to investigate the effects vehicles have on the trail and surrounding land. By running the experiment for 18 months they would hopefully have been able to see that the prime cause of damage was natural and not vehicular. Historically the PDNP has been in favour of vehicular access so should we have fought that particular TRO?

I personally don't believe so and fear we may have lost more than we won.

 

[Roger Fairclough]

If a situation affects you personally, then it must be worth the fight. If you take the complacent attitude that it isn't, then you have no right to criticise either the people who do fight, or the ultimate result of their endeavours.

The idea of a TRO is for the council to apply to the courts for a period of time to repair a damaged or worn out carriageway. The courts/council will apply a time period for this work to be carried out. The experimental TRO on Chapel Gate was ostensibly to see if Mother Nature could effect some sort of natural recovery. The section in question is downhill and subject to water erosion, and as such no amount of time will see it's natural recovery. In fact the exact opposite will, and did, occur. A few years back the council did repair the track but the next winters rains destroyed the track again. This was because the council did not repair the track properly. The situation we have now is a direct result of that situation. The council have ample proof that a badly repaired base layer, on sloping ground, subject to serious amounts of water run off, is a recipe for further natural damage.

We fight for our rights because those rights are not God given. If we don't fight, each and every time, the councils will take it that we are not bothered, and will act accordingly.

Roger

 

[helen07]

I'm Welsh living under the retarded common sense of the vale of glamorgan council . 99% of roads here desperately need repair but they have no money , because they spent it all on "pretty" bollards dotted about the place for no reason at all , perhaps they think tourism will boom because people will travel from all over the world to see a bollard designed by a 5 year old to look like a jigsaw piece at a cost of 20 odd thousand ? Most recently they spent about 10 million on a bus lane that will allow buses to overtake perhaps 4 cars in deadlocked traffic morning and evening rush hour . So dumb is this even bus drivers dont use it !

I would not be at all surprised if the vale of glamorgan council ordered us to drive on the pavements next week because the roads are slippery with snow . From them this would be typical common sense .

 

[OG.]

Sorry Roger - I can't agree with the fight each and every time attitude. This is not a war - its politics. The art of politics is to know when to say something and when to hold back.

The Chapel Gate experiment will have (in my view) succeeded in proving that vehicles do not cause damage. That piece of information could prove valuable in future actions. Instead of allowing it to complete naturally the TRF went and challenged it and risk alienating the PDNP who up until now have been defenders of our rights.

Your view of what a TRO is for is also flawed. TROs can be imposed for a number of reasons - the favourite of which is 'to improve the amenity of the area' - one I find somewhat specious but it seems to be the prime reason for most of the Yorkshire Dales TROs.

 

[Roger Fairclough]

Sorry Roger - I can't agree with the fight each and every time attitude. This is not a war - its politics. The art of politics is to know when to say something and when to hold back.

The Chapel Gate experiment will have (in my view) succeeded in proving that vehicles do not cause damage. That piece of information could prove valuable in future actions. Instead of allowing it to complete naturally the TRF went and challenged it and risk alienating the PDNP who up until now have been defenders of our rights.

Your view of what a TRO is for is also flawed. TROs can be imposed for a number of reasons - the favourite of which is 'to improve the amenity of the area' - one I find somewhat specious but it seems to be the prime reason for most of the Yorkshire Dales TROs.

Then we will agree to disagree.

Roger

 

[Roger Fairclough]

I'm Welsh living under the retarded common sense of the vale of glamorgan council . 99% of roads here desperately need repair but they have no money , because they spent it all on "pretty" bollards dotted about the place for no reason at all , perhaps they think tourism will boom because people will travel from all over the world to see a bollard designed by a 5 year old to look like a jigsaw piece at a cost of 20 odd thousand ? Most recently they spent about 10 million on a bus lane that will allow buses to overtake perhaps 4 cars in deadlocked traffic morning and evening rush hour . So dumb is this even bus drivers dont use it !

I would not be at all surprised if the vale of glamorgan council ordered us to drive on the pavements next week because the roads are slippery with snow . From them this would be typical common sense .

Warwickshire CC spent £40,000 to replace a flood damaged footbridge but because they had to incorporate ducts for fibre optics cables, the bridge had to take normal road traffic loading i.e.40 tonnes. The fact that the width of the bridge is less than the width of a truck seemed to escape them. When I asked if the fibre optic company had paid towards the cost involved, they said no.

Roger