Home

Open Letter to Worcester CC:-

Rob Sykes, Chief Exec.

Worcestershire County Council

rsykes@worcestershire.gov.uk

Re: U64612 Guises Lane and U64610 Rosses Lane

Dear Mr Sykes,

Can you help me please with three aspects which concern me over recent TROs advertised for Council Roads at Wichenford.

1. VR         - Voluntary Restraint by users.
2. TRO      - Traffic Regulation
3. Status   - Are the rights of use restricted to one or more classes of user?

VR
Government advice to Highway Authorities for dealing with conflict of interest on byways is given in Making the Best of Byways. Has the Council signed up to this, or if not, what are the policies on managing unsealed roads?

 I have been told the Council  "were unable to reach agreement with all parties as required by the LARA process"

 Who were you unable to reach agreement with? I understood that GLASS and all other identifiable users had given their approval?

 What was the "agreement" requested that they were unable to give, and why was this?

 Is the position in Worcestershire that a landowner, who wants a TRO, ONLY has to refuse to sign up to VR, in the secure knowledge you will immediately give them exactly what they wanted? They are then the erring party, and certainly should not be rewarded - should they? This surely is cocking a snook at Users DEFRA and Government?

 The landowners, (if any) have to agree that they will not seek to take advantage of the lack of use to claim the highway is not necessary. If they refuse, users will not, and should not agree to VR, as the HA may then attempt to use HA80 s116. Is this the only reason the alleged landowners are refusing to sign VR?

Ian Bamforth told Matt Roberts that the VR WAS working. Is Ian  now saying there is evidence it is not? What precisely is that evidence?

TRO

Is the Council concerned with what use HAS occurred, or what might potentially happen? If it is what has occurred, will you please provide ALL the evidence of damage, who provided that evidence, and how was it verified?

 If it is ‘what might happen’, will you please provide whatever proof you hold that there is a real risk that the situation that it is intended to prevent would arise.

 Does the Council start from the premise that:

• the road is available for use by everyone and all forms of traffic (although it may not necessarily be safe or physically suitable)?
• that lawful, reasonable use should be accommodated wherever possible?
• the onus is on the Council to justify the need to take away or suspend potential user’s public rights of way by means of a Traffic Regulation Order?
• Rights should not simply be taken away simply to avoid any maintenance obligations of the Council?
• the Council recognises that horse riding, trail riding, pedal cycling and using other vehicles on unsurfaced tracks are recreational activities (if not sports) which should be catered for if possible?
• the Council should take, and be seen to be taking a positive attitude towards those who enjoy such recreational activities and in the knowledge that generally there will be limited opportunities and locations
• that the standard moves with the times and has to be considered in the context of the 21^st Century traffic, and not just 19^th century traffic.
• that it will not be suitable for all types of traffic, that consideration must be given to the type of traffic that would reasonably be expected to use it, the state of repair that a reasonable person would expect to find it in.
• that the road should be maintained to meet the use which is normally made of such roads throughout the year, and to harmonise with the general character of the road.
• that the road is akin to a BOAT, which has rights for vehicles and all kinds of traffic, but is mainly used for the purposes for which a footpath or bridleway is used.
• that the area is well served by footpaths, and that an alternative footpath ( a “Winter Path”) is available substantially alongside, alleviating the need to walk in this road.
• that 99.5% of RoW in Worcestershire have no public vehicular rights, and that a very substantial majority of those are not available to user’s who seek roads of this nature.
• that there is not a need for a hedge to hedge clearance of ALL vegetation, but a rich wildlife and flora corridor can and should be retained on both sides, whilst complying with the requirements of the Highway Act 1980 to allow proper access for Wind and Sun to aid the surface drying, and for horse drawn of horseless vehicles to pass with care?

What possible justification is there for VR or a TRO on Rosses lane, other than Ms Rendall lives on it?

 Status

Last November Mr Bamforth was going to investigate the status of the highway. I advised him that was not necessary. Can you let me know what the outcome of that investigation was, and how the current ‘research to clarify the status you are undertaking’ differs from that? If it is the same research, why is it taking so long, how many people are working on it. Who is undertaking that research? How many hours have been spent, and what is the cost of that research? Which budget is this expenditure coming from, and do you consider this a cost caused by the legitimate desire of the public to be able to use highways such as this responsibly, or an unreasonable expense caused by the antics of the local Nimbys?

Why is it considered necessary to carry out further research? What cogent evidence has been provided that the status is incorrect? Are you trying to prove vehicle rights DO exist, or that they DO NOT exist?

Do you start from the presumption that Vehicle rights do exist as previously stated by the Council, on this road? Are you aware that I asked on the 6/May/1996 "Could you confirm if all UCR's in the County carry Vehicular Public Rights of Way?" The reply by a Director of the Council dated 23/May/1996 was "All UCRs do have vehicular rights of way." I believe this is clear and unambiguous. You will need positive proof that this position, maintained over many years, is incorrect on this specific lane to justify research, otherwise it is plainly a waste of Chargepayers money.

What conclusions have been drawn from the evidence so far, clearly there is no way the Public who SHOULD be using the way, shall receive unbiased treatment from the Council, therefore an Independent Public Inquiry into the need of any and if so what management should be used. Surely this is as open and fair as possible, any other position indicates the Council has something to hide and does not wish it’s position examined in a proper manner?

I would prefer that this difficulty is sorted out as quickly as possible, in a legally justifiable manner, and in accordance with the Quasia Judical role of the Council. To avoid a complaint to the Ombudsman, it will be necessary to hold a Public Inquiry for the Council to be seen to be fair and acting honestly. I believe a meeting between ourselves, Mr Roberts, and possibly Mr Stevens from LARA, may be helpful first step, would it be possible to arrange this on a Friday afternoon at the earliest date convenient?

 
Yours sincerely,

From WCC:-

> As Ian Bamforth is on leave until next Monday, I thought I should reply to
> your e-mail.  You can of course contact the Chief Executive if you wish
but
> before you do so I would suggest you speak to Matt Roberts.  We have kept
> him informed of developments as we believe this is appropriate given his
> capacity as Worcestershire's GLASS rep.  He can provide you with further
> details but for your information we did seek to achieve a VRA but were
> unable to reach agreement with all parties as required by the LARA
process.
>
> I would emphasise that the TRO is a temporary measure and we are
undertaking
> research to clarify the status and ecological sensitivity of the lane.  We
> hope this initial work will be completed by Spring and we can then
consider
> the future implications depending on the outcome of the research.
>
> If you still require the Chief Executive's contact details let me know.
>
> Kevin Oliver
> Countryside Access Manager
>
Complaints Procedure:-

http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/home/cs-corporate/cs-consumer-relations/cs- cr-corporate-procedure.htm gives the complaint procedure and online form (which you need to go through before Ombudsman will consider anything)

Alternative officers to consider writing to:

Rob Sykes, Chief Exec.

rsykes@worcestershire.gov.uk

Richard Wigginton, Director of Env Services.

rwigginton@worcestershire.gov.uk

Mark Middleton, Environmental Services. (Officer senior to I Bamforth, who has not replied to earlier emails)

mmiddleton@worcestershire.gov.uk

Please use this letter as ideas for a (much more polite) letter than this written in anger to the main culprit behind the TRO, I Bamforth. The senior officers above, are we must assume, neutral, and reasonable, they do need to know our grounds for a Public Inquiry.

Mr I Bamforth Environmental Services Manager, Worcester County Council

IBamforth@worcestershire.gov.uk