proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Discuss political and Rights of Way issues related to trail riding

proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby gullwingracer » Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:47 am

TRO objection details have been posted up at:

Act Now - TRO Byway 538 & 539 Objection Details

Please write in and object now!!





Hi- I attended the SCC/GBC joint meeting, June 23rd, where this issue came up- here are some notes from that meeting-
briefly then: (brevity is my weak point)
I spoke first, 3 minutes ( and its a very short time I can tell you---) , and could only speak on what I had written- did not go too well, but not too bad either-I did my best-(no other supporters for keeping them open were there, apart from one who made himself known to me later-)

the only other speaker was 'anti', he spoke poorly too, (worse than me I thought)-- rambled, but in the end it made no odds

The councillors had made up their minds- the lead councillor on this issue, Mr Bill Barker, was fiercely antagonistic- I heard him say prior to the meeting and I quote ' he was apoplectic with rage that the item was even on the agenda- he assumed it was a 'done deal', and he was furious it was on the agenda at all'-- end quote- thats what he said, almost verbatim. So a done deal for him then----

So not a good start- he then went on to the effect the lane was to narrow, tree roots too prominent ,18" deep ruts , Silkmore repairs a waste etc, most of points were wrong, exaggerated, and factually incorrect- no matter- he stuck to it- fiercely. Truth was not a player here at all-

Then Hannah Gutteridge made a very short summary of the official council view and policy- she supported the road being kept open and proposed repairs--she says there is budget for this-and advised against TRO--

This was like a red rag to a bull for Cllr Barker-- He said there are no funds for lane repairs, and for this reason, the lanes should be closed- he also said that under no circumstance should this matter go to public enquiry- he was adamant about that( he may have no choice?)

Then about 5 other councillors all said they supported closure for the same reason, ie no funds- one did go as far as to say, the lanes were dangerous, and that it was offensive that the lanes are used for leisure purposes by 4x4's-- ( walkers and horses she did not I assume consider to be leisure use)- but she too supported TRO on funding grounds.

There was no discussion, no exchange of views, they voted and it was unanimous- for closure.

Council policy and the officers views were completely ignored- I spoke to HG after the meeting, and said were they not duty bound to follow her advice- she said the council make the policy and she was ignored, and it was hardly worth doing her job was the feeling I got from her- she is a good person, well meaning, well informed but powerless it seems---there we go---seems all wrong to me-( the advisers and officers have the facts, and should be listened too, sadly not the case.)

They also voted but did not discuss the width limit on '137' the Drove road- the proposed 7' width limit was too wide for Cllr Barker- he said it should be reduced so as to exclude all vehicles---they voted and agreed that too, although they did not specify a width or discuss at all-they vote for what he said, but I do not know what that was- as far as I recall, a precise number was not specified. This took them about 20 seconds to decide. Obviously another 'done deal'

So to sum up- they voted to close and go for TRO on both- all arguments were ignored, they seem to think that the lack of funds trumps all- they do not want to go to public enquiry-
end of notes from the meeting on 23rd June 2010- (the official minutes have yet to appear on the council website- could make interesting reading)

So, the matter will go forward to the next stage, quite soon I am told, and we will be notified- but we will need support, letters from every one of you, more on this later-in the meantime Steve Sharp and myself will lead the 'campaign', and ideas and facts needed will be posted soon- we need possibly some legal advice, if there is anyone out there who can assist? And welcome any assistance from other members please- there is a lot to do-and this forum will be used as the point of contact--- please do watch for notices on this issue: We need to act, or lose these lanes. cheers brian cohen.
Last edited by Steve Sharp on Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
its betta on a beta
gullwingracer
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: guildford

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby Gavinskii » Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:06 pm

Brian,

Thanks for making a representation and also for your report on the meeting.

I do believe this forum is just the place to discuss it, but aren't we at risk of being outplayed by the anti's having a snoop in here?

I think the detailed stuff that follows should be in a "TRF members only" part of the site - just my 2 cents worth....?
Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Gavinskii
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Surrey Hills

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby Viv » Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:55 am

[quote="GavinskiiTTR"]Brian,

should be in a "TRF members only" part of the site quote]

Do we have one of those?

Viv
User avatar
Viv
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Hindhead, Surrey

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby gullwingracer » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:46 am

Gavin- you may well be right-- but I do not know where this 'private area' is- can anyone enlighten? However, I really do not believe any 'anti's' know about the TRF, most have never heard of it, or know about this site, or bother-- but maybe they do? Unless we do have a private member only viewing, how can we discuss this then? We cannot rely on on club meetings alone because most members do not attend, and even 'regulars' (myself included) are not always that regular. (Maybe we need to re-activate the old direct e-mail list for this purpose?) cheers brian
ps by the way I did not receive my own posting on the daily digest format--- but I did get the 2 replies--- why was that? There may be gremlins lurking.
its betta on a beta
gullwingracer
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: guildford

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby gullwingracer » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:50 am

2nd reply- you are right- we do not want to show our hand, but so far all that I have said so far is minuted, and was in originally in a public forum, ie council meetings- as to further plans, well, these will be formulated, discussed etc before going on this site- Steve S. and myself so far are co-ordinating, but please do come on board- bc
its betta on a beta
gullwingracer
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: guildford

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby Gavinskii » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:58 pm

gullwingracer wrote:Gavin- you may well be right-- but I do not know where this 'private area' is- can anyone enlighten? However, I really do not believe any 'anti's' know about the TRF, most have never heard of it, or know about this site, or bother-- but maybe they do? Unless we do have a private member only viewing, how can we discuss this then? We cannot rely on on club meetings alone because most members do not attend, and even 'regulars' (myself included) are not always that regular. (Maybe we need to re-activate the old direct e-mail list for this purpose?) cheers brian
ps by the way I did not receive my own posting on the daily digest format--- but I did get the 2 replies--- why was that? There may be gremlins lurking.



I was hoping one of the "techies" would pick up on this and make the necessary ammendments to the site (if its possible).

The reason you didn't get your own post in the daily digest is to do with your settings - mine work the same way!
Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Gavinskii
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Surrey Hills

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby Gavinskii » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:01 pm

gullwingracer wrote:2nd reply- you are right- we do not want to show our hand, but so far all that I have said so far is minuted, and was in originally in a public forum, ie council meetings- as to further plans, well, these will be formulated, discussed etc before going on this site- Steve S. and myself so far are co-ordinating, but please do come on board- bc


Brian, I applaud your involvement, and already realised that everything you mentioned was already in the public domain (though quite who accurately it is minuted remains to be seen :wink: )

I am away for the next meeting, but have already PM'd Steve on this.

Well done

Gav
Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Gavinskii
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Surrey Hills

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby stevent » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:55 pm

First why don't we put together an 'objection' directory i.e. a long list of lots of good reasons why these TROs shouldn't happen. A kind of template for an objection letter. I'm thinking this could bring together all sorts of things such as Surrey TRO policy, DEFRA Making Best of Byways, past judgments in our favour e.g. one recently in the Peaks was it, where it was ruled the TRO was "irrational", lots of good stuff about trail riding and heritage, improper process etc etc. We can all edit it adding our good reasons why there shouldn't be a TRO. I can make a start on this in the next week or so....

Then, second, we distribute it to all our members and others, to give them something to use when writing a letter to object to the TROs. So much easier if you can just copy and personalise it a bit and then send your letter off.

Third, I suggest we do ring around all our members to get them into action. I think there is only a hard core who check the forum, and only a small minority attend club night. But if we reach out to members they may be more likely to make an effort. Do you have a list of members phone numbers? I would be happy to spend time working through, making a plea to members to write a letter. Do you have old members who haven't renewed, lets reach out to as many people as possible. Calls would need a general script, to get all important information across, and one option is to send the list of objections Get an email address and send through

Completely agree with the line NOT to mention TRF in our respective letters. I think in the past they've lumped them together? I think they will have more impact if they just came from individuals. And of course Steve you can lead a TRF response!

What I'm not sure of now, is what exactly is the process, what is the next step, who makes the decisions, who should letters be addressed to.
User avatar
stevent
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:35 pm
Location: London

UPDATE : TRO on 538 an 539

Postby gullwingracer » Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:22 pm

URGENT UPDATE: Friday 9th July-
message from SCC- received today indirectly-
quote:
The Notice of Intention to make a TRO will be published in the next week. The consultation will last for at least six weeks. He will be able to make further written representations in response to the consultation. Hannah Gutteridge (in the Rights of Way team) and I have already informed Mr Cohen of this. I am also in correspondence with him about other aspects of the process.
end quote

in fact I have not had this information directly, as stated, ( will take that up with relevant bodies) it came to me via another route- the 'he' is I assume myself, and we can all make further representations I think- will clarify that detail-
we will need to act-
we are preparing now a schedule of recommendations from you all- and we need the support, in full, and in time- watch this space for further details-- it will be a couple of weeks before a plan is hammered out---
cheers brian cohen
its betta on a beta
gullwingracer
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: guildford

mailing list for TRO on 538 an 539

Postby gullwingracer » Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:37 pm

Hi- as has been pointed out, the forum is visible to all- we need a direct mailing list to contact you, to co-ordinate dates for writing, suggestions of what to write etc- so to that end, it would be good to have a list of all members e-mail addresses.Steve S will ask, or has asked, Andy Lush if it woul be possible to re -instate the old mass mailing method, but in the event its not, please e-mai me direct, at gullwingracing@yahoo.co.uk with your name and an e-mail address, and we will compile a list for ths special 'one-off ' use only-without being visible to all-
Remember we need to move quite fast here, the notice of intention to TRO has been posted- 6 weeks is all we have- and its holiday season ( good tactics by the opposition here)- support is needed, in bulk.
cheers bc
its betta on a beta
gullwingracer
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: guildford

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby Gavinskii » Mon Jul 12, 2010 2:03 pm

Brian,

I am fairly certain that there is a group email address that used to be held within the Surrey TRF Yahoo Groups. If Steve S still has access to this and can email it to you, that might give you greater access to more people and faster too (as I know there are quite a few members who have not got registered on this forum to date).

It could also act as a reminder to those who haven't renewed their TRF memberships......
Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Gavinskii
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Surrey Hills

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby fallenmikethebike » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:26 pm

This proposed TRO should fail at the first hurdle as it does not meet any of the criteria for such a decision.
However, we MUST act as a unified force to ensure that our rights prevail over the NIMBY'S, AND NOTES [Not over there either] who instigated this.
This could prove the thin end of a very large wedge, with civil liberties issues.
Both of the Byways carry full highway status,SO, how about if a group of like minded, say , golf haters, got together to stop people rocking up to whack their balls about every Sunday morning, or how about stopping people driving to the Cricket Club, or whatever, the implications are endless if this does not fail, it could even be used as a "template" for other area's.
We do have forces on our side for a change, SCC, rights of Way team are not backing this at all, and are equally dismayed that no, compromise offer has been considered.
No other form of protest carries the same weight as an individual letter written and duly posted in, forget emails, or petitions, write a personal letter, with a few succinct points in.
Mike
fallenmikethebike
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:35 am
Location: addlestone

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby stevent » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:14 pm

Mike
You are completely correct about Surrey, I read their report to the Local Committee (Guildford) presented on 23 June (see Steve's post), it is very balanced etc and concludes that a TRO is not justified. However, this proposal has already got over its first hurdle and I do fear that this could go through, we really must come together and protest. I've just checked the Surrey CC page where I think the Notice should be issued and nothing there yet. When I get some time I will try to help with some lines people can use for letters. One court ruling which went our way can be found here, this was a victory for LARA and TRF over the NIMBYs, it found the decision making process was irrational etc

Surrey CC page where notices should appear: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/Rights+of+Way+Public+Notices?opendocument
Local Committee (Guildford) papers:
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/legcom/CouncilP.nsf/f5fb086c73d64f3000256954004aed25/5b322e2d4a4ed04c802577440030a927?OpenDocument

Recent court ruling in our favour - LARA press notice (disappeared from their website):
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=477151
And the ruling:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1425.html

Steven
Last edited by stevent on Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
stevent
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:35 pm
Location: London

Re: Action on proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby gullwingracer » Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:07 am

Hi- Andy Lush informs that no need to gather in all individual e-mails-- he can do this `mass mailing' directly, so will put the notice and request to write through him, soon as the time approaches.
Steve T and I surveyed both lanes again , very recently, on foot, with a long tape-- all recorded, and other evidence gathered. No need here to specify, for reasons already stated, but it will appear in my own report later. We may have inadvertently also turned up a new 'twist', but need to verify and pursue it before I can say more-sorry to be secretive, but in view of gavinskii's observation about privacy, I do not want to reveal my hand too soon. But will keep all informed, as far as possible. cheers bc
gullwingracer
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: guildford

Re: proposed TRO on 538 an 539

Postby Wurls » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:19 am

In the interests of time, as was mentioned above, why not reopen the old mail group we used to use before the forum for the sole use of organising our objections to this TRO.

Can I add that this needs wider discussion than just the monthly club meet. Not everyone can make that.

AndrewB
User avatar
Wurls
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:20 am

Next

Return to Political & RoW

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
This site is hosted by Free-Forums.org - get a forum for free. Get coupon codes.
MultiForums powered by echoPHP phpBB MultiForums