Wield 17 - the dark forces are at work again

[stevent]

I posted up yesterday that Hampshire are intending to make permanent the permit scheme at Bentworth and Wield. This is something I think we can strongly support as the council have sought a workable solution which enables access whilst dealing with the irresponsible and rogue element.

What was unclear to me yesterday however was what the fate of Wield 17 (Rushmoor Lane) was to be. (here is a map to show you which route: http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=464311 ... &A=Y&Z=120)

Well its been confirmed that the Council intend to seek a permanent closure on this route - (here is the council report: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/councilmeeting ... te_ID=1713)

I'm convinced that this is due to this route terminating at the edge of Lower Wield and they don't like the odd motorcycle going past their houses. I cannot see why this route cannot sustain motorcycle use. The route is in top notch condition.

Back in November 2012, Hampshire County Council organised a working party of TRF people to support vegetation clearance and we were ambushed by locals who got the work we had been invited to undertake stopped. Does it seem strange that the council officers caved in?

Well if you're wondering how objective decision making by the council officials is, and the extent to which they're influenced by vested interests, then this might help you make your mind up. Just take a look at the address. http://www3.hants.gov.uk/MarkKemp-Gee/a ... mid=ymcokg

Its the same old story.

HCC officials have not been open about their intentions with us despite us being in correspondence nor have they sought to proactively engage or discuss.

Their recent email did not make clear the intentions to close the route using a permanent TRO. It seems to me that they are operating by stealth, hoping we wont notice.

As far as I'm aware there should be a formal consultation period so we will have the opportunity to have our say.

We can discuss at club night.

[silvergull]

also of note is the declared interests, ie. cpre, countryside alliance, and the hants hunt, then there is the lease on a 4 acre field, it is named, but not sure if it is adjacent to wield 17. From my recollection of the 'maintenance day fiasco' half way up this road, the farmer also drains the field directly and deliberately into the lane.

[smccormick]

Hi

It does smell funny....all other routes are fine and covered by the ETRO apart from 17.

There is no clear reason why and I agree there may be a conflict of interest which should be called out.

What are the next steps? New to this TRO game but am keen to help

If a decision has been made then generally it's not open to a consultation as its done done otherwise it would have been mentioned in the supporting docs?

An appeal is the next logical step and I assume if this is the case there are time limits etc?

Sorry I can't make club night but will keep a eye on this thread.


Steven Mc.

[silvergull]

Its complicated, as it often is:
My understanding is, Wield 17 is excluded from the permit scheme because it was subject to full TRO before the ETRO was made, since the 1990's when all 4 x 4 vehicles ( but not other users) were banned there, whereas the others were not, so its a separate special case. but was included in the ETRO to monitor, observe and assess only. I also understand, (subject to correction, anyone? ) that objections etc have to be made, and many were made, at the time of the ETRO coming in, and unless the ETRO was altered in any terms during the last 6 months of its operation, there is no legal need for further consultation when a decision is made at the end of the ETRO- which is where we are now- I have some 45 pages of minutes etc printed out, which I will bring on Tuesdays night-

I will attempt to explain further on Club Night, and I know Steve T will do the same, as more information of a technical and legal nature is being gathered right now-

I will also use the time allocated to my ( now cancelled ) ride time on Sunday to visit all these lanes, walk them take photos and report back on Tuesday night-

Thanks- confused? you are not alone! bc

[stevent]

Some reasonably good news. Whilst there is still a threat to Wield 17, the council have divorced this from the permit scheme consultation. The following two emails from Hampshire County Council came through on Friday


From: Rights of Way Central <[email protected]>
Date: 18 September 2015 15:12:15 BST
To: Rights of Way Central <[email protected]>
Subject: Removal of Wield 17 from proposed TRO

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re: Proposal to make a Traffic Regulation Order on Bentworth Byway Open to All Traffic Nos. 23, 27 & 28 and Wield Byway Open to All Traffic Nos.17, 19 & 20.

Thank you to those who have contacted me about this proposal. Following feedback it has become apparent that the inclusion of Wield Byway Open to all Traffic 17 in this proposal is causing some misunderstanding. Consequently please disregard Wield 17 from this current consultation. For your information Wield 17 remains closed at this time and we will return to this as a separate consultation process later this year.
I apologise for any confusion caused.

Yours faithfully,

*********************************
Area Countryside Access Manager-Central East (Maternity Cover)
Countryside Access Team, Countryside Service
Hampshire County Council

Email 2.

Thanks for your comments so far on the current proposal. We have no desire for Wield 17 to adversely affect the consultation about the proposal for a permit scheme on these BOATS and it would be unfortunate to lose support for the permit scheme. We are only able to achieve support for our proposals by engaging with stakeholders. Therefore, I think at this stage it would be prudent to remove BOAT Wield 17 from the current proposal and return to it at a later date in order to allow a longer consultation period and discussion with interested parties as per our policy. I would welcome you to submit any additional comments about the permit scheme and would be grateful if as you suggest, you inform your membership accordingly.

In the meantime I will send an update to all other stakeholders and inform them Wield 17 is no longer part of the current proposal.

Regards,

*************************