looking hopeful but we will see

[back off road]

a bit of good news in the inbox hopefullt the 58 antis dont manage to sway things

Dear All
Further to my email dated 25th January (below), I would like to clarify for those of you who have asked, that Officers propose to pursue the course of action outlined in Option 3 below, but the formal decision in this matter will still be made by the Executive Member, hopefully in March. The current temporary closure is expected to remain in place until the end of May 2012, dependant upon the formal decision mentioned above.
Many Thanks
Vicky Bowskill
01962 846891
Countryside Access Development Officer
Countryside Service
Culture, Communities and Business Services
Hampshire County Council
Mottisfont Court, High Street, Winchester SO23 8ZF
http://www.hants.gov.uk/countryside/row/



Dear All
I am writing to you further to your response to HCCs intention to impose a Traffic Regulation Order against motor vehicles on Cradle Lane, advertised during October last year. We received a very high level of response to this formal consultation with 184 objections to the proposal and 58 expressions of support. Owing to the very strong feelings on both sides of this debate, HCC has considered all the points raised very carefully, weighing them against the Council's TRO policy and the provisions of section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
There is clearly a lot of concern from non-motorised users of this route about the impact, in terms of both surface damage and noise, from motor vehicles using this lane. However, the fact remains that this route is recorded as a Byway Open to All Traffic and motorised users have a right to use such routes, unless restricted by TRO. TROs can only be imposed where other measures to manage the problems that exist have proved ineffective and there is sufficient justification to apply a restriction under both Council's TRO policy and the provisions of section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
It is clear that excessive and inappropriate use by four wheel drive vehicles has caused significant damage to this route in the past and, given the narrowness of the route and the fragile clay subgrade, it appears to be generally accepted that the use of four wheel drive vehicles on this route is unsustainable. However, there has been much debate about whether a responsibly ridden motorcycle actually would do any significant damage to the surface of this lane in light of the high standard of the recent repairs; no evidence has been presented to suggest that they would.
A meeting was held in January 2012 involving the local County Councillors, representatives of Headley and Kingsley Parish Council and representatives of the motorised users that would be affected by the proposed TRO. At the meeting three options were considered;
1. Reopen the lane to all motorised traffic.
There has been a significant amount of local objection to this option from non-motorised users of the route and local residents. Officers are of the view that the level and nature of motorised use previously seen on this lane is not sustainable and would result in a reoccurrence of the damage previously seen. It is unlikely that funds could be made available to carry out further repairs in the foreseeable future.
2. Impose a permanent restriction against motor vehicles with three or more wheels to protect the surface of the lane from further damage, and a seasonal restriction on two wheel motorcycles to preserve the character of the lane, as proposed. A very significant level of objection was received to this proposal from motorised users. Whilst it appears to be generally accepted that use of this route by four-wheel-drive vehicles is inappropriate owing to the narrowness and character of the lane, Officers are of the view that the restriction of motorcycles does not adequately comply with the Council’s TRO policy. In particular, there is currently no evidence to suggest that motorcycles will have any significant impact on the surface of the lane following the extensive repairs that have been made, and there is a possibility that less restrictive options to manage motorcycle usage might be trialled.
3. Impose a permanent restriction against motor vehicles with three or more wheels to protect the surface of the lane from further damage, but impose no formal restriction on two wheel motorcycles. Set up a local team to monitor the impact of motorcycle usage of the route, and work with motorcycle user groups to promote responsible behaviour. Officers are of the view that this option complies with the Council’s TRO policy in that it represents the least-restrictive solution that will effectively resolve the issue of significant damage being caused to the surface of this route. This TRO will be combined with a robust system of monitoring the condition of the surface of this lane in consultation with the parish councils and the relevant user groups to accurately assess the impact of the various user groups.
At the meeting it was agreed that Option 3 (above) would be an acceptable solution to all those present.
In light of the above, it is now proposed to seek a permanent TRO against motor vehicles with three or more wheels to prevent further damage to the newly-repaired surface. A robust system of monitoring the condition of the lane will be put in place to accurately assess the impact of the other user groups on this lane to inform future reviews of the TRO.
Many Thanks
Vicky Bowskill
01962 846891
Countryside Access Development Officer
Countryside Service
Culture, Communities and Business Services
Hampshire County Council
Mottisfont Court, High Street, Winchester SO23 8ZF
http://www.hants.gov.uk/countryside/row/

[fallenmikethebike]

I got the same letter, amongst others.As you say, not quite a clear cut victory, yet, which is why I held of posting up any response.
The redundancy scythe has left had a great swath, through some departments in Hants, and some of the dead wood removed will not be missed. It has also allowed for a more open and new found understanding of the difference between scrotes on their illegal scrote mobiles, and genuine trail bike riders.
Thanks to all those who did respond, numbers do matter on issues such as this.
Mike

[back off road]

Chances are i will not ride the lanes in question unless i am working in the area and can get the bike in the work van , but i feel it is better to support the " local riders " in their quest to enjoy theirselves on the local highways and byways than ignore their plea for help and see another victory for the bobble hats and horsey people , i just hope the locals can string a few sentences together to help complain about the TRO ideas in the Peak District

[fallenmikethebike]

I pay a road fund licence that entitles me to use my road legal Trail Bike on any LEGAL road in Great Britain, [note to snoopers, on the Right of Way, not either side of],which is why I object to every proposed TRO I hear about.I further object to some bigotted knobitalls in bobbles telling me where it is and isn't acceptable for me to ride.It wouldn,t be quite so galling except for when you tally up that the bigots have over 100'000 miles of DEDICATED Rights of Way they can use, without fear of running into a Trail Bike, not including Bridle ways, or National Parks, or Right To Roam Areas,or canal banks, or river banks etc , etc, and YET, where do the MORONS choose to walk, en masse,, yes you,ve guessed it,on the LESS than 4000 miles of Byways and UCR's we have left to use, bunch of cnuts.