Surrey Hills Board

[Muzzman]

Thanks Brian,
I'll make sure it gets out there.

Murray.

[Muzzman]

It's on the Facebook page now Brian.

Thanks, Murray.

[HuskyAndy]

Post removed

[GDAS]

deleted

[silvergull]

While its true this is a proposal is from the cycling lot, the real underlying issue is in my view the re- classification of fhe AONB into a National Park. This is proposed in the SH aonb newsletter, Autumn issue, just come out. This would enable the new NP to bypass current TRO regs, as they have in the peak district,the lake district, and the south down and possibly other places, as well as bringing in more central funding to enable to put these exclusive routes into action. National parks can also bypass planning issues, as they become their own planning authority. So this needs to be watched, and blocked all the way, if vehicular rights are to be maintained. bc

[ScruffyDroid]

I must day thanks to Brian for bringing this up. I'm not certain why you are no longer a TRF member?

I was under the impression that if proposed changes are to be made to BOATs all "interested parties" have to be consulted? This would include all users of the Byways. National TRF really do need to be engaged, and announce how they will deal with this issue.

Barry

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Bullet51]

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by this proposal as it was flagged in my reports on the Surrey Hills Byways Working Group meetings of 16th January and 1st June. The concept of a long distance cycle route from Box Hill to Leith Hill, including Wolverns Lane has been around for some time. Yes, Wolverns Lane is under threat which I know Brian flagged-up during his tenure as ROR Officer but there are currently no intentions to issue a TRO by Surrey CC.

There are two issues with Wolverns Lane

• Damage by 4x4’s – repairs are being carried out over the next few weeks which has led to the temporary closure of the lane during the course of the works. Proposals are being considered for the installation of gates with a permit system. We will support initiative this if a gap is left to enable cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists to pass, unimpeded by the gate. The gate and permit system has worked well in Kent in reducing illegal, antisocial and damaging activities. This will be discussed again at the next Surrey Hills Byways Working Group Meeting on 5th October. Dealing with the 4x4 problems in this manner will take significant pressure off our use of the lane and ensure a TRO is not required.
• Creation of a cycle path. – whilst the intentions have been debated and reported on for sometime, funding was not forthcoming but judging by this document from Cycling UK - https://mk0surreyhillsnfif4k.kinstacdn. ... enways.pdf
Matters seem to have moved forward. I will ask for further info at the next Surrey Hills Byways Working Group Meeting on 5th October. The main issue affecting us is the perception that motorcyclists ride at excessive speed down Wolverns Lane and will not mix well with the cyclists. The only defence we have is to ensure we do not ride at excessive speeds



Surrey CC advise me that as a consequence of the repair works currently being carried out :

‘Concerns have been raised that once the surface is improved motorised vehicles will be able to travel faster than they can at the moment. As you know the speed limit is 60 mph but this would be an unsafe speed on a multi use BOAT. We would like to avoid any type of TRO and we were thinking of an advisory speed limit. This would not be enforceable and wouldn’t be a legal change. The idea is that we would place wooden ‘Share with Care’ signs with the advisory speed limit thereon. I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this and if you think it is a worthwhile thing to do, what speed limit would you suggest, given the route is well used by cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians?’

I am planning to respond and suggest the TRF Code of conduct of 25mph as an advisory speed limit.

Our sport has been under pressure for many years and that is not likely to change. Surrey CC are very supportive of all Byway users and really do not want to TRO any more lanes but they need us – the entire trail riding community to work with them to find solutions to their very real problems. If that means riding more slowly and sharing with more users then I would suggest that is a small price for us all to pay to retain the best lane in Surrey. Management of the relationships with all Byway users is a local issue and not something National TRF can help with.

The only slightly longer term issue of the Surrey Hills becoming a National Park is potentially a terminal threat to our sport in Surrey. We will no longer be able to rely on Surrey CC’s support, I understand that TRO’s are very much easier for a National Park Authority to obtain and they do not have a great record for supporting trail riding.

[GDAS]

many thanks John for your most helpful update and explanation. Though I'm not sure I'm a fan of your use of the word 'sport' to describe our motorcycle trail riding activity. I've always understood that the term 'sport' implies competition, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[silvergull]

The reason for my departure was the result of a lengthy string of abusive forum posts, around last August, in which the club officers were heavily castigated by a group of members, and while other officers may have been okay with this, I was not. It was time for me to quit.

I must day thanks to Brian for bringing this up. I'm not certain why you are no longer a TRF member?

I was under the impression that if proposed changes are to be made to BOATs all "interested parties" have to be consulted? This would include all users of the Byways. National TRF really do need to be engaged, and announce how they will deal with this issue.

Barry

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk