Teesside Trail Riders

Find us on facebook: Teesside Trail Riders, The Golden Jubilee, Healaugh Park, Yarm, Cleveland, TS15 9XN

Latest topics

» Find us on Facebook
Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:31 am by Admin

» Next meeting August
Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:44 am by Admin

» Monthy Meeting May
Tue May 12, 2015 7:21 pm by rikidooos

» Track near Blakey Lion- Do Not Use. Permissive rights withdrawn.
Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:21 am by rikidooos

» Supreme Court rules against Dorset County Council in rights of way dispute
Wed Mar 18, 2015 3:27 pm by rikidooos

» KTM-IGNITION-LOCK-TANK-PLUG-KEYS
Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:33 pm by rikidooos

» Round 1 of the 2015 NE-XC 29th March. Great Ayton
Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:38 am by rikidooos

» DEADMANS HILL
Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:03 pm by Rod

» New member just joined
Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:58 am by 2wheeldiver


    Objection to the Closure of Seggimire Lane and Tom bell Lane,Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby

    Share
    avatar
    rikidooos
    Admin

    Posts : 538
    Points : 1070
    Join date : 2010-02-16
    Age : 26
    Location : The Great Outdoors

    Objection to the Closure of Seggimire Lane and Tom bell Lane,Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby

    Post  rikidooos on Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:03 pm

    Please read this letter that is being sent to highways to try and keep Seggimire Lane and Tom bell Lane,Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby.
    Tom Bell Lane UCR U2333/9 8783 0723 Seggimire Lane 8793 0551


    If you do not want to lose these green lanes please write to highways asking them to not TRO the lane.
    Please do not just copy the letter or highways will ignore your efforts.


    Dear Sir/Madam,I would like to object to the closure of the above two Unsealed roads on several grounds.
    I have had dealings in the past with the Ugglebarnby Parish Council over the imposition of Temporary Traffic Regulation orders on these Lanes,as representative of the Trail Riders Fellowship,Teesside and North Yorkshire Group.
    The Council refused any help in the maintenance of the said Lanes and refused to meet a delegation from our user group with respect to addressing their concerns over the Lanes,their repair and a program of ongoing maintenance.
    I believe the Lanes were closed at the behest of one Householder,who bought the property knowing full well an unsealed road passed near by.
    Considering there are only two households within earshot of these Lanes,I think closure is unreasonable considering the number of legitimate users the orders adversely affected.Do you not agree?
    As a responsible user group the TRF went along with the closures, in the first instance.I even made notices and erected them on the Lane to remind users the Lanes were closed under a Temporary TRO since no official metal notices were erected at that time.I monitored their effectiveness.
    Since the closures,some five years have past and the lanes have not been repaired.When I contacted the Highways dept the response was"The lanes were closed for self-repair".This is to my mind a complete non-sense.No County Road in the Country will self repair.A minimum level of maintenance is required for any surface to be sustained.
    The lanes have not improved and up until recently little ,if any, effort has been made to keep the lanes clear of vegetation, a task ,the TRF, always carried out(unofficially)while we were using the Lanes, to the benefit of all users.
    This shows that the closure to traffic had no positive overall effect on the Lanes but the amenity, that of a County Road,was lost to legitimate users.
    Since the two lanes, by their narrow nature,are self-limiting in terms of Traffic movement,that is to say no Four wheel vehicles use Seggimire Lane,Tom Bell Lane is only used for access ,it would seem a gross waste of £6000,(the estimated cost to the Tax payer of a TRO),in a time of recession,to prevent say ten motorcycles per week using this facility.
    As responsible users we have encouraged our members to use these Lanes sparingly but we could have encouraged our members to use the Lanes frequently to establish "majority use" with respect to the NERC act Section 68.This is a "Catch 22" situation:Overuse the Lanes and the anti-vehicular lobby call for closure:Use the Lanes sparingly and they ask for closure because there is not enough vehicle useage to justify keeping the vehicular rights.
    This raises the issue about fundamental rights.These ROW were fought for and established over hundreds of years,to dismiss them out of hand is not in the best interests of preserving amenities or upholding democratic rights.
    Closures without recourse to active management by the Highways authority seems to create a Self-fulfilling prophesy:-Closures lead to increased pressure on the remaining Unsurfaced roads ,which in turn leads to an increase in erosion and a subsequent increase in the number of calls for closures.This could be seen as irresponsible behavior on the part of the Highways dept who have a mandate is to maintain the system of roads not close them.
    Is it a matter of expediency rather than a real attempt to address any real problems,on these lanes,due to lack of funding?
    Have you done a traffic survey to ascertain the number of vehicles using these two lanes?
    Over what period of time was the survey carried out?
    Have you figures to show how many walkers/horse riders use these Lanes?
    Is it a case of Noise causing a disturbance in the area?
    If so that would imply a constant flow of Traffic down these Lanes.In reality this does not occur.Ten motorcycles per week,on average,pass along the lane in less than ten minutes.Ten minutes of "disturbance" in a day is not a lot to tolerate,always assuming there is someone out there to be disturbed.This of course, presumes perfect weather conditions.ie No wind to disperse the sound.Hardly grounds for closure,wouldn't you agree?
    May I point out that all our TRF members have legal bikes ,which conform to the Government imposed noise levels.A £60 fine awaits anyone using a motorcycle with a noise level exceeding 98 db.
    As to surface "damage" it is well documented that Agricultural vehicles and water do most to disrupt the surface on unsealed roads not that motorcyclists are entirely blameless.Some rutting does occur in isolated sections ,where it is particularly soft ground due to poor drainage.
    Then again this is a County Road ,not someones front garden lawn or a Nature reserve,as some would want you to believe or expect it to look like when they decide to take a walk along these vehicular Lanes.This is a rough unsealed road not a town pavement.
    It must also be remembered that not all walkers and horse riders object to vehicular use on these Lanes only a vociferous minority who by Law have walking rights on these roads but do not want to share them with other Lawful users.Instead of avoiding confrontation by using the other 98% of PROW in terms of non-vehicular routes(footpaths and bridleways)they choose the few remaining vehicular routes(less than 5% of PROW) knowing full well they may meet a vehicle and object to their Lawful presence.
    It is always assumed or implied by the anti-vehicular lobby that all unsurfaced roads are "damaged" ,by vehicular use, along their ENTIRE length. An assertion that is incorrect and easily verified by inspection..There are several short sections along Tom Bell Lane and Seggimire Lane that need attention.
    The entrance to Tom bell lane at the Ugglebarnby end is prone to flooding during wet weather.As is a twenty foot section approx 100yards from the entrance,just after the intersection with the crossing used by the Farmer to drive his cattle across the lane from one field to another.Water runs off the fields into the Lane and gathers in a depression flooding the lane.This is not a problem related to vehicular use it is one of adequate drainage.Nothing that two days and a few tonnes of hard core could not remedy.
    Have you any plans to rectify the drainage problems that cause the flooding and may I suggest most of the erosion on these Lanes?
    The TRF have the man power and resources to help you in this task, if you will consider accepting our help,at little cost to yourselves.A few tonnes of plaining's from the next resurfacing job, near to the Lanes ,could make a vast difference,all we would ask is that you deliver it to the Lanes and we will distribute the hardcore and sort out the drainage in the few difficult sections.
    How many complaints have you recieved concerning objections to vehicular use on these two lanes?
    Who were the objectors?
    Were they the same people,submitting multiple complaints?
    What evidence have you got that would substantiate these claims or are they just hearsay evidence with no real factual basis?
    If safety is an issue when was the last time an accident was reported on this Lane?
    has there ever been an incident between a vehicle and another user group?
    Has any vehicular user reported an injury sustained on these lanes or complained about the lack of maintenance?
    Responsible Trail riders,such as members of the TRF, ride these Lanes with care and know the minor risks associated with riding unsurfaced roads.
    I know these Lanes have been used illegally,by locals youths,during the TRO period.I,myself,observed one underage rider,on an old trials bike,using the lane, one evening ,while I was walking the Lane.
    Unless you Police these Lanes 24/7 you are not going to deter illegal use of these Lanes by imposing a TRO.TROs only only penalizes the legitimate motorcyclists who are licensed, insured and treat the Lanes with respect.
    It is also a fact that there are many alternative PROW ,in terms of footpaths and bridleways, in this area that people averse to meeting traffic,on an unsealed road,can use.There are no such alternatives for vehicular users.
    Have you considered a number of alternatives to a Permanent TRO:-
    A TRO imposed on four wheel vehicles only,allowing use by Motorcycles.
    A Seasonal TRO e.g.during the Summer when pedestrian use may be higher.
    A Weekend TRO when use is generally higher than during the week.
    A permit system where vehicular users can apply for a permit to use the lane.
    Tom Bell Lane has no differences in elevation and would be easily sustained with minimal drain and hard core provision.
    Seggimire Lane has a steep gradient and would benefit from a one way system, downhill,from the Dean Hall end to the Throstles Nest end,as a means of minimizing erosion.The TRF would willingly pay for the signs and abide by that provision and help maintain the drainage.If you accept our offer of help then that could be tried over a period of five years and see if there is an improvement.
    There are many reasonable ways to address any contentious issues, over the use of these two Lanes ,without resorting to a Total Ban.
    I trust you will take these comments into consideration when deciding on your future course of action ,with respect to these two lanes.
    I would not like to see time and money wasted on a Public Enquiry but if closure is recommended,without good reason,since Unsealed County Roads are a finite and increasingly scarce amenity in this area.
    Yours sincerely *************************************************************

    Send objections to:

    Area Manager
    Whitby Highways Office
    Cholmley Way
    Whitby
    North Yorkshire
    YO22 4NQ

    area3.whitby@northyorks.gov.uk




    Do not forget to ask for an acknowledgement.
    avatar
    rikidooos
    Admin

    Posts : 538
    Points : 1070
    Join date : 2010-02-16
    Age : 26
    Location : The Great Outdoors

    Re: Objection to the Closure of Seggimire Lane and Tom bell Lane,Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby

    Post  rikidooos on Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:08 am

    Your ref:

    Nick West B.Tech., C.Eng., M.I.C.E.
    Area Manager
    Highways North Yorkshire


    Area 3 – Whitby Office

    Our ref: A3. 0794

    Cholmley Way,

    Whitby, YO22 4NQ

    Contact: Mr L Parker

    Tel: 0845 3669 503



    Fax: 01947 820314



    e-mail: area3.whitby@northyorks.gov.uk

    www.northyorks.gov.uk






    6th December 2010





    Dear Sir/Madam,



    CONSULTATION RE. PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON TOM BELLS LANE AND SEGGIMIRES LANE, UGGLEBARNBY



    Thank you for your response to this consultation.



    Your response is appreciated and the Highway Authority will consider the issues you have raised at the end of the consultation period. It is not possible at this stage to provide detailed answers to the points made in the responses received. If however it is decided to proceed with the above proposal then you may be contacted to discuss your observations or concerns.



    If it is decided to proceed with the proposed TRO all of the responses received, whether supporting or objecting to the proposal, will be considered and will be reported to a meeting of the North Yorkshire County Council Coast & Moors Area Committee, The Committee will decide whether to proceed with, modify or abandon the proposal.



    Members of the public may attend the Committee meeting and make a statement or ask questions subject to various conditions. The date and venue of any applicable Committee meeting together with conditions regarding public access will be advised if applicable.



    Yours faithfully,







    L Parker

    Improvement Manager



    Highways and Transportation
    NYCC Area 3 - Whitby Office, Cholmley Way, Whitby, North Yorkshire, YO22 4NQ
    Tel.: 0845 872 7374 Fax. 01947 820314
    avatar
    Rod

    Posts : 62
    Points : 80
    Join date : 2010-04-18

    Re: Objection to the Closure of Seggimire Lane and Tom bell Lane,Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby

    Post  Rod on Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:18 pm

    I got an identicle reply yesterday afternoon, lets hope enough people objected to make a difference.
    avatar
    rikidooos
    Admin

    Posts : 538
    Points : 1070
    Join date : 2010-02-16
    Age : 26
    Location : The Great Outdoors

    Re: Objection to the Closure of Seggimire Lane and Tom bell Lane,Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby

    Post  rikidooos on Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:59 pm


    Miff

    Posts : 88
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2010-02-17
    Location : Malton

    Re: Objection to the Closure of Seggimire Lane and Tom bell Lane,Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby

    Post  Miff on Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:03 pm

    cheers Rich, I got my generic reply by email the other day.

    let's keep up the pressure folks !

    Miff

    Sponsored content

    Re: Objection to the Closure of Seggimire Lane and Tom bell Lane,Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:10 am