Proposed permanent traffic regulation order - Chute

[LiquidLAN]

If you've attended the 2010 Hogroast and took part on either the intermediate or advanced ride outs then you've probably ridden this route, so please take some time to have a read and help out if you can.

I've received the following email from David Flippance of the Wiltshire TRF, they are currently trying to fight this action.

Hi All,

We discussed this upcoming Public Inquiry at the August meeting, we now have a date.

If you have objected you should be getting, or already got, the above so sorry to duplicate.

Local TRF with ‘National’ support are putting a ‘pack’ together to object and will be attending the Inquiry. This doesn’t mean that you don’t have to attend, any support as TRF members or individuals should be encouraged.

There’s a mass of Forum activity on the National TRF website should you need any further information.

Regards
David

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached information regarding an independent public inquiry for a proposed permanent traffic regulation order on byways open to all traffic Chute 34 and 36. The inquiry is to be held on 23rd and 24th Novemeber 2010 at The Memorial Hall, Ludgershall. Details of timescales regarding deadlines for statement of case and proof of evidence are included in the attached letter.

Regards,

Ali Stewart (Mrs)
Rights of Way Officer

Anyone who wishes to write and object, you’re support would be gratefully received. Anyone who can attend the meeting would be even more gratefully welcomed, you can be sure those trying to force the TRO will be in full attendance.

Start date letter - page 1

Start date letter - page 2

Notice of Inquiry

Map of location

Any questions or more help needed, please feel free to give me a shout.

 

[Jay B]

Sorry only scanned this - what should I do to help the cause?Is it a letter and what should it include any templates or idiots guides would be welcome.As you know this is a superb route that would be very sadly missed.

Thanks in advance

Jay B

 

[LiquidLAN]

Hi Jay,
No worries, I only posted the thread today.

Initially we need to get letters out, I need to confirm who to and by when, but I'll let you know as soon as I get the info.

The thing we are really going to need to do though is get some attendance to the meeting on the 23rd and 24th November. Apparently this has been a bit of a coup for Wiltshire TRF as this is the first time Wiltshire County Council has been made to have a public enquiry on such things.

It's important that the pressure is maintained and as you said its a superb route, one that a lot of us have enjoyed and will need to fight for to keep open.

 

[LiquidLAN]

Hi Jay,
I don't think it was particularly clear in the attachments that I was sent, but the person you need to write to is Ali Stewart @ Wiltshire Council

Contact point:
Ali Stewart
t: 01225 756178
e: [email protected]
w:
Rights of Way,
Department of Neighbourhood and Planning,
County Hall,
Trowbridge,
BA14 8JN.

 

[DollyRocket]

I may be missing something obvious - but - there is no explanation to WHY they want to put a TRO on it? Is it damaged beyond repair or is there an influential councilor who has a house that runs alongside it?

 

[LiquidLAN]

I may be missing something obvious - but - there is no explanation to WHY they want to put a TRO on it? Is it damaged beyond repair or is there an influential councilor who has a house that runs alongside it?

To be honest I'm not sure why they are proposing a TRO on this one. I rode it with Jay as part of the prep for this years hog roast and as far as I can see there's absolutely nothing wrong with this section of byway. It seemed perfectly sound and passable to me.

There was a section further on that ran into the back of East Grafton, that I though was pretty horrible even on a trail bike, but that's not the area they are talking about.

Maybe you should write to Ali Stewart and ask her? After all it's her responsibility to ensure all this information is available to you the general public and of course time spent answering your questions is time that can't be put towards implementing other TRO's for what ever reason...

 

[Aloonatic]

I thought all roads not covered in black top (and one that is in Leeds) were closed to motorcycles?

Good luck swimming against the tide

 

[LiquidLAN]

I thought all roads not covered in black top (and one that is in Leeds) were closed to motorcycles?

Good luck swimming against the tide

As I understand it there used to be two classifications for byways we could legally ride on

RUPPs and BOATs
I can't find the correct definition, but a RUPP was a Road Used mainly as a Public Path and a BOAT was a Byway Open to All Traffic.

This might help explain it a little more

For a lot of reasons, not all valid or it seems correct all RUPPS where reclassified as Restricted Byways, limiting access to motorized vehicles, but BOATS are still open to legal use. TROs are a way to managing or restricting the use of these legal byways.

As for swimming against the tide? It seems from this thread and the turn out I witnessed for the Hogroast ride outs that there are a good number of people who actually enjoy the chance to get out into the country side, explore, experience and test themselves.

Sadly talking to a number of neighbouring TRF groups it seems that the only way some of them are able to do this now is either riding in support of horse events or by taking their bikes over to Europe or North Africa.

We have a network of byways in this country that we are allowed to use and a good number of people enjoy using legally. If you enjoy the chance to do soemthing a little different then I'm afraid you've got to get off your ass sometimes and do something to fight for your rights to do that.

There are wins to be had - some byways have been lost, but some have remained open to motorbikes while being closed to 4x4s, not great for everyone, but better than nothing surely?

 

[MrIFan]

but some have remained open to motorbikes while being closed to 4x4s, not great for everyone, but better than nothing surely?

Not really. Once closed to 4x4s how long do you think before they push for a totally restricted byway? And when they do the TRF will have lost a good 50% of the voices that could have been called on to keep the lane open.
There are a few lanes that are impassable by 4x4 for one reason or another and on those I agree, any access is better than none. But not a good tactic in the long run in my opinion
The only way forward is for the TRF and Glass, and all the other clubs/organisations, both 2 and 4 wheel based to stick together and fight a united front.
The only bright bit on the horizon at the moment is the new coalitions view on getting rid of petty laws and bureaucracy. Won't be holding my breath though

 

[LiquidLAN]

Not really. Once closed to 4x4s how long do you think before they push for a totally restricted byway? And when they do the TRF will have lost a good 50% of the voices that could have been called on to keep the lane open.
There are a few lanes that are impassable by 4x4 for one reason or another and on those I agree, any access is better than none. But not a good tactic in the long run in my opinion
The only way forward is for the TRF and Glass, and all the other clubs/organisations, both 2 and 4 wheel based to stick together and fight a united front.
The only bright bit on the horizon at the moment is the new coalitions view on getting rid of petty laws and bureaucracy. Won't be holding my breath though

agreed, sorry I wasnt trying to suggest that one group should suffer over another. I have to agree totally with you that we all have to work together as its the only sensible tactic

personally I'm not massively in favour of 4x4's off road, but if I expect to exercise my rights, then there has to be a tollerance of others to exercise theirs

the point I was trying to make is that its not totally inevitable, there are sometimes some wins to be had even if they are only small ones.

Sadly I'm not sure how much hope there is regarding the new coalitions views, following another thread somewhere, I have written to my local counciler, mp, etc and the response I got was there are no plans to repeal any of the actions that have lead to the current closing of so many of our byways... it seems to me that we just have to fight harder to keep the ones that do remain.

 

[LiquidLAN]

The following link is to some of the original supporting documentation for this TRO

Chute final preliminary consultation comments.pdf

It is a bit length, but please take time to read through some of the "supporting documentation" and some of the objections.

It seems that while the document is written in favour of the TRO, there does appear to be a sentiment that if you are not part of something like the TRF then you are part of the problem.

It is really up to you guys to get off your asses and do something to help prevent this and further TROs being implemented.

As a minimum all you need to do is write or email Ali Stewart stating your name, address and that you object to the proposed TRO on Chute Byway 33 & 32 and Ludgershall 30 A-B, giving a few simple reasons for your objection.

 

[GrinningGSer]

Objection sent to Ali Stewart. This looks an interesting area. I'll add it to my list of to do's

 

[LiquidLAN]

Objection sent to Ali Stewart. This looks an interesting area. I'll add it to my list of to do's

Excellent!

To be honest I've only recently discovered the area Jay B and Nathan seem to know it better, but there are some lovely route up there heading north of the Hog Roast grounds. All seemed perfectly reasonable and passable to me, funnily enough the only bit that didnt doesnt seem to be of any interest to the local TRO crew...

 

[GrinningGSer]

This is the Chute byway in discussion here. To the west is another interesting track, but trailwise says that the furst SE section has no vehicular access

 

[Losttheplot]

This is the Chute byway in discussion here. To the west is another interesting track, but trailwise says that the furst SE section has no vehicular access

Just found this post...

If this is the track i think it is, it's the one with a log placed across the south entrance. I think it was placed there to deter motorcycles, but in reality just encourages more wheelies to clear it.

This had has TRO's on it before, but i really don't see the need? I'll get my objections made today.

 

[Losttheplot]

Objection sent in!

 

[LiquidLAN]

This had has TRO's on it before, but i really don't see the need? I'll get my objections made today.

Yep there was a temporary one put on last year or a bit longer ago while they did some repair work I believe.

Reading the documentation above the main reason for the perminant TRO appears to be NIMBYisum... heavily flavoured on the grounds of safety because bikers and 4x4ers are such an aggressive lot...

Thanks for the support let's keep it rolling guys.

 

[GrinningGSer]

Well any excuse for a fantastic day out with strife and the dog, plotting waypoints and planning for a future ride, What a stunningly beautiful area this is:

Anyhow, off topic. We pulled up at the Chute northern end and was approached by a charmingly delightful farmer, who invited us to park up in his field. What a gentleman ! He then proceeded to tell us about the aweful motorcyclists who , "Ride too fast and fall off all of the time and I dare not let the children walk in the lane!" 4*4's were not his concern at all- motorcyclists were most definately his complaint.

So everyone has their point of view. If loads of bikes are tearing around at great speed, in big numbers, then he has a point.

Chute , he told me, has been closed for two years:

The going is easy at the northern end

but tough for anything other than a pogo at the southern end

There are loads of alternatives in this area, which I have now waypointed, but the point of this thread is that we are gradually losing our right of access and, if things continue, then we will only have tarmac left to ride.

 

[LiquidLAN]

Nice one mate, very well put

We pulled up at the Chute northern end and was approached by a charmingly delightful farmer, who invited us to park up in his field. What a gentleman ! He then proceeded to tell us about the aweful motorcyclists who , "Ride to fast and fall off all of the time and I dare not let the children walk in the lane!" 4*4's were not his concern at all- motorcyclists were most definately his complaint.

Sadly, that's where I can't help but feel that "we" on UKGSER are a little bit to blame - maybe not riding too fast, though I know we can all twist the throttle a bit too much sometimes, but on the large groups front I'm sure even a load of BMW's can seem a bit intimidating when they are rumbling down a track at you.

Help is needed from more of UKGSER on this one, but also as a group I think might need to start looking at the way we run things and maybe encourage a code of conduct that will enable us to enjoy these track for a good while longer.

edit: interesting the sign is still up, I thought all the repair work was now complete....

 

[GrinningGSer]

Help is needed from more of UKGSER on this one, but also as a group I think might need to start looking at the way we run things and maybe encourage a code of conduct that will enable us to enjoy these track for a good while longer.

Well, for starters, many on here are responsible and are seen to restrict numbers on offroad rides, but others are a free for all. The TRF advise small numbers.

Is there a consensus on this? I'd certainly start by suggesting no more than FIVE on offroad rides, especially the bigger heavier GS's, but this needs support of the masses and the club as a whole

One of the things that I like about this site is the enjoyment that everyone gets on rides and the freedom from rule makers