Please Object NYMNP

[Terranosaurus]

U569 Great Moor Lane. SE94709-89431 to SE95324-89091 and
U618 Darncombe Keepers Cottage DarnHolme - Cum - Langdale End
Broxa-Cum-Troutdale. SE90794-87441 to SE91659-90066
U2420 Forest Road, U2422 Cowgate Rigg
U8122 Thorn Howe, Harwood Dale.

Reply by the 10th July.


The County Council has been asked to implement the following traffic control measure at the above locations.


Proposed Measures
Prohibition of motorised vehicles except for access to premises or land adjacent to the roads.


Reasons
a/ for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or

b/ for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or

c/ for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians), or

d/ for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property, or

e/ (without predudice to the generality of paragragh (d) above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot, or

f/ for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs


The letter continues to state that if there are no significant objections the scheme will be implimented within six months.


Mr Les Parker
Highways North Yorkshire
Area 3 - Whitby Office
The Garth
White Leys Estate
Whitby YO21 3PD

Objections to be in by 10th July 2009

Or email: [email protected]

Or Tele: 0845 8727374

Shouldn't matter two hoots how far you live away, write as an individual as they have a habit of lumping all people from one organisations into just one objection rather than individual.

 

[lacroupade]

Terra can you give us a bit of a steer about how we phrase our objections? i.e. is the route regularly driven by vehicles, what level of foot traffic is there? etc.. And useful to know from Oceleot if there have been any proposals to carry out maintenance.

And whats driving the council here - is it just the expense of maintenance or are the bobble hats up in arms?

 

[Terranosaurus]

Tbh I don't know these lanes personally but from what I hear they are a bit of a mud bath.

The damage has been done by a small number of people from a certain club and also latterly by the now defunct Langdale Quest. In its later days LQ ran it Black runs down some of the local lanes. Mainly innocent paying members of the public thought that like the other parts of LQ they were on private land rented/leased to LQ by Forestry Enterprises and drove them accordingly, this massively increased traffic over a few weekends did much of the damage.

I have spoken to the GLASS rep for this part of North Yorkshire (mines further west) and we both believe that the ideal outcome would be for a short term (12-18 months) TRO in order to let the lanes recover and time for them to effect repairs and hopefully take on volunteer labour too and then reopen. If need be perhaps seasonal or one way TROs need to be considered but this should be on a evidential basis at the moment they are not really citing any reasons, they are just listing the reasons that they are allowed to use.

er's my opening gambit to them

Mr Les Parker

I have been made aware of 5 proposed TROs in your area and would like further details please. The roads in question are as follows


U569 Great Moor Lane. SE94709-89431 to SE95324-89091
U618 Darncombe Keepers Cottage DarnHolme - Cum - Langdale End
Broxa-Cum-Troutdale. SE90794-87441 to SE91659-90066
U2420 Forest Road, U2422 Cowgate Rigg
U8122 Thorn Howe, Harwood Dale.

1: Could you please supply National Grid references for the start and end of those roads not so annotated please.

2: The list of "reasons" I have been sent is simply a list of the reasons that may be used, it does not state any evidence in how these reasons apply to the roads in question. Could you please explain further as to how each of these reasons apply to each of these roads in turn.

3: Has any consideration been given to the use of voluntary labour in repairing these roads. There is available a large number of individuals and clubs that could be drawn on to do such work, many with much experience in assisting other bodies in these works and with the relevant skills and insurance already in place.

4: Has any consideration been given to the use of seasonal or one way orders so as to avoid the use of the roads during the wettest of weather and/or avoid potentially more damaging uphill use. There are examples available throughout the rest of the country where such arrangements have and are working.

5: I would remind you that Prohibiting Motor Vehicle from the roads does not absolve the Authority from its responsibility to maintain the road at that level.

6: I would also like to draw your attention to the recent case in the High Court (Leeds) where YDNP had 4 of its orders over turned for essentially not following the correct procedure. I trust that the correct procedures will be complied with in the case of these 5 roads.

 

[lacroupade]

Good stuff - thanks for the pointers.

 

[extreme-4x4]

count me in terra

 

[Terranosaurus]

As I say thats just the opening gambit - need more info can then object better. For now give em plenty of work to do so that it becomes hard work putting these orders through, might make em think twice in future.

 

[lacroupade]

OK just emailed this: suggest that this note and Terras SHOULD NOT be copied verbatim cos it will look like a conspiracy, but should help form the basis of an objection in your own wording. Doesn't need to be clever or wordy, just put your own thoughts...as Terra says, getting the letter or email at all is the major thing.

Get on with it!

Sir

Ref proposed TROs:

U569 Great Moor Lane. SE94709-89431 to SE95324-89091 and
U618 Darncombe Keepers Cottage DarnHolme - Cum - Langdale End
Broxa-Cum-Troutdale. SE90794-87441 to SE91659-90066
U2420 Forest Road, U2422 Cowgate Rigg
U8122 Thorn Howe, Harwood Dale.

I understand that the council is proposing to implement orders in respect of the above routes to prevent their use by vehicular traffic.

As one who has enjoyed responsible use of these routes, I wish to make formal objection to this course of action, especially since it is not clear exactly why these closures are being proposed. Although I am aware that some damage has been caused by a small minority of irresponsible users in certain areas, I am sure the council is well aware that there are a large number of individuals and voluntary organisations that have the resources and are only too happy to provide significant assistance in terms of carrying out maintenance and repairs (with the councils approval) in order to secure the long-term future of these routes for all who wish to use them.

My experience elsewhere in the country has been that it is perfectly feasible for users from all walks of life (ramblers, cyclists, motorcyclists, 4x4s etc..) to co-operate and co-exist in terms of their recreational use of these scarce resources and I would urge you to explore all possible alternatives to outright closure.

I believe that with the right combination of dialogue with responsible users, whether private individuals or countryside user groups, together with a sensible action plan for both recovery of these routes where it is necessary, as well as their ongoing use, it will be perfectly possible to maintain their availability within reasonable limits. Where there has been any significant damage, perhaps a temporary short-term closure order might be appropriate, allied with some planned maintenance using voluntary resources. There are also numerous options to help minimise future degradation which I am sure you are familiar with.

So I hope you will give my objection your most careful consideration; to this end your formal acknowledgment of this communication would be much appreciated.

Kind regards

PAUL LOVEGROVE

 

[ocelot]

done...........

and posted the info on the crag forum.............

Cheers for spotting that, good to know that you're looking!

Regards

 

[Terranosaurus]

Thanks those that have objected - everyone else come on. You don't need to be an active green laner or even ever have gone green laning or intend to. This is an erosion of our rights, you may one day wish to do these lanes, maybe you'll (god forbid) become disabled as a result of an accident or severe arthritis in later years, would you at least not want the option of being able to enjoy some of the countryside without being confined to the relatively busy tarmaced roads.

 

[Terranosaurus]

Some ammunition to object with.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page19802

 

[lacroupade]

Excellent link; seems to clearly imply that the local authority should give voluntary measures a clear shot at things before going any further.....so maybe someones response should reference this link and ask what voluntary measures are proposed BEFORE further action is considered!!!

 

[Terranosaurus]

Excellent link; seems to clearly imply that the local authority should give voluntary measures a clear shot at things before going any further.....so maybe someones response should reference this link and ask what voluntary measures are proposed BEFORE further action is considered!!!

Oh mine will - as I said my first email is just that a 1st. Have already chased it up as have ad no reply.

 

[lacroupade]

me neither?

 

[Terranosaurus]

Policy is upto 20 working days for a reply but as I want a reply so I can object constructively I am going to hassle them till I get one. Phone call before days out.

 

[extreme-4x4]

i did mine snail mail:doh

maybe i should email them too... i can argue more often then

 

[bensonsnuts]

I objected ....keep em going in :thumb2

 

[bensonsnuts]

Received an acknowledgement today :augie

 

[Terranosaurus]

Received an acknowledgement today :augie

Yes you and everone else it would seem. We all received the same non answer reply, even those that had asked specific questions in order to be able to make a proper reasoned objection.

So they will be getting my full objection tonight.

 

[lacroupade]

Me too - be interesting to see what the Neath one produces (I'm sure you reciprocated for us Terra? ) as I suspect this might just be the standard response - after all I don't see why they'd feel the need to be responding to specific points in your objection - thats for the Committee surely, so providing what you've said covered the bases it should be good enough?

And I don't think the reasons for closure vary that much, so neither do the responses, i.e. loss of amenities, availability of volunteer resources to provide maintenance to save council cash, etc..

And in case you'd forgotten to mention it, the '2%' issue is worth a mench....i.e. only 2% of ROWs in England now permit vehicular access (less than 1.5% in Wales), preventing disabled folk from getting out, yadda yadda yadda...

 

[Terranosaurus]

Have't yet Lacroupade but I will - been pretty busy writing for this one to date.

Reply to their reply

Mr L Parker

Despite 3 emails and a phone call, to which I was ensured I would recieve a call back, I have still not received a staisfactory answer to any of my previous enquiries, including such an essential matter as to confirm the location of 3 of the roads in question through the use of national grid references.

The below generic reply is not sufficient and you can be assured I will be taking the matter up with the council. As a North Yorkshire resident (and to be honest even if I were not) I do not think I am asking questions that are either unusual or unreasonable. Answers to these questions should surely be available as a matter of course for such a proposal.

I look forward to seeing you at the meeting of the County Council's Yorkshire Coast & Moors Area Committee, when I trust the motivation and reasons for the proposals will be made public.

You will be receiving my objection to the proposals forthwith.

Yours sincerely

Simon Bentley

Email to my local Councillor as I live in North Yorks and have also forwarded him everything else I have sent and received.

Dear Mike

As a resident of your ward I would like to draw your attention to the current (ends tomorrow 10/7/09) consultation with regard to proposed Traffic Regulations Orders in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park (details in below reply from NYCC highways).

Whilst I appreciatte that the matter is not relevant to this ward it is highly relevant to the council as a whole. You may or may not be aware of the recent case in Leeds High Court in which 4 such orders made by Yorkshre Dales National Park were over turned. As well as the expense in making the orders, the defense of the same and subsequent costs ran into a likely six figure sum (£50,000 of court costs alone), all because a non elected council official didn't follow the correct process and gave in to pressure from a rather vocal minority who have managed to get themselves overly represented on non elected council panels.

From the very outset this current consultation has been carried out in a very clandestine way. I have so far failed to find any mention of it on the Councils website nor have I nor anyone else I know seen mention of it in any of the likely places, nor on the roads affected themselves.

I trust that NYCC will not be following the same line in this new matter and that council tax payers money will not once again be wasted in the defence of orders that should never have been made in the first place.

More personally I am dismayed at the generic response I got to my earlier emails and the lack of any personal reply to my telephone call despite being assured that I would be receiving one. As well as the below response from Mr L Parker I will forward you my initial email separately.

If you would like to discuss this matter further please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

Simon Bentley

And my objection

Mr Les Parker

I would like to object most strongly to the proposed TROs Phohibiting MPVs on the below roads

U569 Great Moor Lane. SE94709-89431 to SE95324-89091
U618 Darncombe Keepers Cottage DarnHolme - Cum - Langdale End
Broxa-Cum-Troutdale. SE90794-87441 to SE91659-90066
U2420 Forest Road, U2422 Cowgate Rigg
U8122 Thorn Howe, Harwood Dale


Firstly I would like to address the clandestine manner in which this alleged consultation has been undertaken. To my knowledge there have been notices placed in any of the places one would normally expect to see them, nor on the lanes themselves nor can I find any mention of them on the councils own website - surely this in this day and age this along with the roads themselves ought to be the primary location for any such notices. What information that has been available has had to be circulated amongst interested parties by ourselves, requests for further information, even such simple things as confirmation of the location of the roads in question have been left unanswered. Even a phone call to which I was assured I would receive a reply has also gone unanswered.

So on to the alleged reasons. No real reason or justification has been forth coming, simply quoting the reasons by which a TRO can be made as defined by the DEFRA guidelines does not constitute a reason nor good practice. But since it is all I have to work with I will, now I have done my own research to ascertain the location of the roads in question, rebut them.


a/ for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or

Without specific reasons or any history of accidents, and I am aware of neither, it can only be assumed that the very presence of vehicles upon the roads is being taken as being dangerous. In which case should the council not be considering closing all roads within the county to MPVs so as to avoid "danger to person or other traffic". This is clearly nonsensical, if the council has good reasons these should have been made plain as part of the consultation as none have been given a reasonable person can only assume that there are non.

b/ for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or

As with the above I can only assume that the very presence of vehicles is being given as likely to do "damage to the road or to any building on or near the road". As there are no buildings on, and none that could reasonably be assumed to be near any of the roads, then it must only be the road itself that is in question. However the Council has a Duty to maintain all roads in a manner that will support traffic, if the council is failing to do this then that should be corrected, however it is not a valid reason fo rthe proposed TRO's.

c/ for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians), or

I fail to see how closing a road to one sort of traffic can facilitate "the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic", perhaps a TRO for a speed limit might do this but exclusion of one kind of traffic immediately makes a nonsense of the word "any".


I will deal with "reasons" d/, e/ & f/ collectively

d/ for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property, or

e/ (without predudice to the generality of paragragh (d) above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot, or

f/ for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs

The area despite being with the North Yorkshire Moors National Park is not an area of outstanding natural beauty or similar it is a commercial forestry operation with all that that entails. The passage of heavy machinery and a cyclically changing landscape as areas, grow are felled and then replanted in succession are all part of the life cycle of such land. All of the roads are also in the area of the forests historically and currently used for motorsport activities. I fail to see how the occasional passage of even small groups of MPVs can compare to the regular usage by up to 180 rally cars and all the associatted support vehicles of roads that run close by or indeed intersect the roads in question nor to the vehicles used on a day to day basis in forestry areas be they for inspection or planting and felling process.



In conclusion it would be my proposal that NYCC conclude this consultation without action and begin a real consultation on the future of these and other such roads in the area. A culture of management rather than exclusion should be put in place. There are plenty of bodies who would be only too willing to assist in the setting up and continuation of such procedures and to provide manpower and expertise where appropriate.

Following the recent High Court Judgement against Yorkshire Dales National Park I feel we are a crossroads. We could continue down the path of confrontation and litigation with its inevitable high costs to all concerned or we could take a path of conciliation and co-operation. The vast majority of MPV users are highly responsible and more than willing to help but there are, as in all walks of life, the irresponsible who sully the formers name. Unfortunately the rogue element would not be the ones to suffer from any restriction in the rights of way network as they have little respect for it or private property and will simply move there activities elsewhere, potentially to more sensitive areas.

I urge NYCC to take the later route and work with the MPV community to the betterment of all.


Regards


Simon Bentley