Proposed TRO - LANGRISH BOAT 14 (Butser Hill) Object Now

[Steve Sharp]

Hi,

Hampshire CC are proposing to TRO the excellent Byway at Butser Hill. Below is the covering email notification and I have attached all of the details from the council and objection letter from the TRF RoW Rep Dave Tilbury.

I have asked for the reasons for the TRO as they are not included in the paperwork. Please see new posts below for reasons and more details.

Please object by 13th July, as per below.

Link to council report
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/councilmeeting ... 2885&tab=2

Steve Sharp
Group RoW Rep

OBJECTIONS: All objections and other representations in respect of this proposal must be sent in writing to the Head of Countryside, Hampshire County Council, Room 200, Mottisfont Court, Winchester SO23 8ZF or via email to row.notices@hants.gov.uk no later than 13th July 2011. All objections must state the grounds on which they are made. Persons wishing to make objections or other representations are advised that in the order-making process, objections or other representations may become publicly available and therefore the names and addresses of those persons making objections or other representations may also be made publicly available.


TITLE: The order, if made, will be known as “The Hampshire (Langrish BOAT No.14) (Prohibition of Driving) Order 2011”.


From: "Goodchild, Harry" <Harry.Goodchild@hants.gov.uk>
Date: 10 June 2011 10:07:58 GMT+01:00
To: "Goodchild, Harry" <Harry.Goodchild@hants.gov.uk>
Subject: Proposed Traffic Regulation Order - Langrish BOAT 14


Dear Sir/Madam,
Hampshire County Council proposes to make the above named Order under the provisions of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I enclose a copy of the notice due to be published in the Petersfield Post on 15th June 2011, together with a draft copy of the proposed order and location maps for your information.
Should you have any objections or comments pertaining to this proposal, please submit them in writing to us by 13th July 2011.
Kind regards,
Harry Goodchild
Countryside Service

<<Langrish BOAT14 - TRO order - 2011 05 20_(HF000001684116).doc>> <<Langrish BOAT 14 - TRO Site Notice_(HF000001739269).doc>> <<Langrish BOAT14 - TRO - Plan (20,000) - 2011 05 17_(HF000001634316).pdf>> <<Langrish BOAT14 - TRO - Location Plan (50,000) - 2011 05 17_(HF000001557689).pdf>>

[stevent]

Here we go again. Lets get writing. We need to stop this! Need to know why they are proposing to close it.

[fallenmikethebike]

It seems we have a discussion topic for Weds meeting.
Mike

[stevent]

The report on this TRO is here:
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/councilmeeting ... 2885&tab=2
It's argued that motorcycles are eroding the route. There is already a TRO for motor vehicles with 3 wheels or more, this TRO would ban motorbikes too.
Note:
3.8. Trail Riders Fellowship
The Trail Riders Fellowship has been consulted on this proposal but has
made no comment. "
I'd like to know who they contacted!

[fallenmikethebike]

Yes, yet again the lazy, and least imaginative option of a full TRO has been muted as the big cure all,
5. Compliance with our Policy for the Management of Traffic on
Hampshire’s Public Rights of Way Network and the Use of Traffic
Regulation Orders
5.1. The Countryside Access Team of Hampshire County Council has
published a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) policy which was approved by
the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage in June 2006
(www3.hants.gov.uk/row/making-changes/traffic-regulation-orders/tropolicy.
htm). [color=#00FF00]This policy says that each case will be assessed on its
individual merits and the least restrictive option will be sought after
exploring alternative methods to manage the problems that exist. The
recommendations contained in that policy have been taken into account in
developing this proposal.
5.2. Improvements have been made on two occasions to the surface of this
route to try and resolve the dangerous conditions that exist. However due
to the steep gradient and the high level of use by motorcycles these
improvements have not been sustainable. In comparing this route to other
similar routes nearby that are not used by motorcycles, it is clear that
motorcycle use is a major factor in causing this surface damage, which is
then further aggravated by water erosion. It is therefore considered
appropriate to prohibit use by all motor vehicles in order to maintain this
route in a safe and suitable condition for use by the public. [/color]
How about putting in some surface grips in place when the road is resurfaced, "properly" rather than the half arsed last effort they made of the job?
How about putting in place a one way system that allowed traffic DOWN the hill only?
The wear argument is not tenable as MPVs also wear out metalled surfaces as well.
Repair the road properly, like Surrey CC did on Beggars Lane, which is holding up.
Mike

[jonpaul1st]

Thanks for posting this thread up.

Link to TRF forum info here:

http://www.trf.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=4745

[Steve Sharp]

Thanks for finding out the reasons.

I suggest that you read Dave Tilburys respons on behalf of TRF, gives good insight for objection.

Steve

[Steve Sharp]

Remember to say that majority or all of of the damage is caused by rainwater and not motorcycle use. When it rains the water travels down the steep hill at a high volume.

[fallenmikethebike]

Objection sent.
Riders, this is has already been mentioned a cracking good Byway, it would could prove the thin end of wedge now that this area falls inside of the catchment zone for the new South Downs National Park.
I know it's a cliché,but all Byways are important, and we just can't allow them to be taken away without putting up a strong defence, especially on the spurious grounds cited in this example
Mike

[jonpaul1st]

There was mention of similar lanes in Surrey that have been repaired properly and have therefore held up?

Could you PM with details so I can go and take some pics?

Ta

[fallenmikethebike]

My letter,
Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to register my objection to the proposed order.

I am a legal law abiding Trail bike rider.

I have taken part in numerous voluntary repair schemes local to this lane on the cluster of lanes known as “Five Ways”, where a good relationship has been fostered with local residents through the work on the ground of the TRF.

The newly engineered B.O.A.T.14, was from the outset poorly engineered, and the wearing surface just not engineered sufficiently well enough to be fit for purpose.

The early failure of this surface is testament to several factors, among which are, the amenity value placed on this BOAT by Trail riders who, unlike all other “OFF ROAD” groups are constantly being challenged with the continued use of un-surfaced lanes such as these .Also that the surface was not laid with robust enough “water grips” to shed the inevitable surface Water off the byway to eliminate it’s scouring effects.

The rather unimaginative reach for a TRO as the only solution is also a somewhat lazy approach to issues of this nature, and also contravenes the latest guide lines from DEFRA, et,al, in R.O.W matters.

The disused former BOAT14 could be pressed back into service to provide an alterative route for other than MPV users, thus removing any safety concerns.

The Byway could be made a one way road, thus also reducing risk.

A good example of how to repair a Byway of this nature is to be found in Surrey “Beggars Lane”, B.O.A.T 515 Shere, this was comprehensively reworked a couple of years ago and is now closed to 4 X 4 s, but is still open to Trail Bikes, and has stood up very well to this usage, in no small part thanks to the high quality of the both the work and the foresight of ample drainage ducts to remove excess water safely and quickly.

I would also like o add that the report contains many spurious and non specific items.

The helicopter rescue mission mentioned may have not been so expedient in its mission, but for the passing of an “organised” TRF ride out group, who were able to manhandle the stretchered person over the barbed wire fence to the awaiting helicopter!!!

Could I have an acknowledgment that my objection has been registered, and counted?

Yours respectfully


http://maps.google.com/?ll=51.217583,-0 ... 38581&z=15
I did have photos that I took at the time to monitor wear, but have since lost them into the deleteisphere, as the wear was so minuscule.
Mike

[Steve Sharp]

Beggars Lane as shown on map Mike has provided the link for.

[mrchrisedwards]

lets get this on all the bike forums .... paste your links in ... and login and bump these topics so they look nice and active !

http://londonbikers.com/forums/Topic840826-58-1.aspx
http://www.ktmforum.co.uk/off-road-endu ... t-now.html
http://www.visordown.com/forum/forummes ... 67&V=5&SP=
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/commu ... -id=416091

[fallenmikethebike]

:Hampshire ROW department appear to have been taken aback by the level of complaints at this the consultation stage, lets really surprise them, it could pay future dividends.
Mike

[stevent]

Here is a flyer I've just done, to take to the Croydon 3 Stage event tomorrow. Feel free to adapt and re-use.