Inspectors at Public Enquiry Say No to Stonehenge Byway 12 TRO

[Firefox]

[h=6]Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 – Public Inquiry 20 September – 4 October 2011

The County of Wiltshire (Stonehenge World Heritage Site, Parishes of Amesbury, Berwick St James, Durrington, Wilsford cum Lake, Winterbourne Stoke and Woodford) (Prohibition of Driving Order 2010

Please find attached a copy of the Inspector’s recommendation made following the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) public inquiry. The Council will now consider the Inspector’s recommendation and a final decision on whether or not the TRO should be implemented will be made by the Council in due course. By reason of the inquiry being formally closed on 4 October 2011 the Council is unable to accept any further representations from any person or organisation on the facts or any other matters on which the Inspector heard evidence at the inquiry.

The Inspector recommended that the proposed Traffic Regulation Order be made but subject to modification so as to apply to the A344 only.

The recommendation will be placed on the Inquiry website
About the Inquiries | Wiltshire Council on Tuesday 22 November 2011.

Yours faithfully,


Peter Harris

Principal Traffic Engineer

Traffic and Network Management

Wiltshire Council[/h]

So it looks like the Byway will be kept open to traffic, unless WCC go against the enquiry decision. Common sense has prevailed... or has it? Watch this space.

 

[Rubbertramp]

Good news!
Looks like someone has taken notice of our representations. It remains to be seen though if English heritage have WCC snugly in their pockets....let's hope not.

 

[Firefox]

Well we'd like to claim some credit, but this news was all down to the inspectors at the public enquiry which happened before we got onboard. I think the recent representations made to WCC have been useful though, because it shows them there are a lot more people out there who do still care, and if they do go against the enquiry verdict, there will be uproar, and they will almost certainly have to face judicial review plus a fight to every court in the land if they persist with this madness.

I hope it's focussed their minds that they will be wasting a lot of public time and money due to the mounting opposition to this and has shown them they are not going to get it through by the back door as they first thought.

 

[Firefox]

The conclusion of the public eqnuiry in full

7.69 I conclude that in respect of the A344 it would be expedient to make the Order for preserving or improving the amenities of WHS. I further conclude that making the Order in this respect would accord... with the duty of the local authority to secure the expeditious, convnient and safe movement of vehicular and of other traffic (including pedestrians) having regard to the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to make a Stopping Up Order under s.247 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to the effect on the amenities of the WHS. Accordingly in this respect the Statutory grounds for implementing the proposed TRO would be met.

7.70 I conclude in respect of the BOATs that it would be expedient - in the sense of 'convenient and practical'_ for the authority to make the Order for preserving or improving the amenities of the WHS. In my view it would not be expedient in
the sense of 'suitable and appropriate', but i accept that this may not be the appropriate test in this instance [4.9]. In coming to the conclusion that it would be expedient as indicated i have had the regard to the limited benefits of the Order that could not reasonably be achieved by other means, and to the substantial loss of Amenity to recreational motor vehicle users. Moreover, in this case I do not consider that the duty of the local authority to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicluar and other traffic (including pedestrians), having regard to the effect on the amenities of the WHS and other relevant matters, would be fulfilled. Accordingly in this respect the statutory grounds for implenting the proposed TRO would not be met.

Recommendation.
I recommend that the proposed Traffic Regulation Order be made, subject to modification so as to apply to the A344 only.

7.70 is the relavent bit.

He's saying that the loss to recreational motor vehicle users outweighs convenience for the local authority, which means he's recommending that byway 12 and the other BOATs be kept open for traffic.

 

[Channa]

7.70 is the relavent bit.

He's saying that the loss to recreational motor vehicle users outweighs convenience for the local authority, which means he's recommending that byway 12 and the other BOATs be kept open for traffic.

He might have reached a satisfactory conclusion our side of the fence, but he wouldn't win any plain English awards would he ?

Channa

 

[Firefox]

He might have reached a satisfactory conclusion our side of the fence, but he wouldn't win any plain English awards would he ?

Channa

He certainly wouldn't!! Which is why I added a quick translation for those too busy to plough through the verbiage.


Going onto the fuller conclusions to the report of which I have sped read nearly 100 pages, this inspector seems very thorough.

Archaeology:

- 69 -
7.66 I recognise that the BOATs cross a number of archaeological features, and
that most or all of these have been damaged. I fully recognise the
significance of damage to such irreplaceable heritage interests. However,
there is scant evidence that such damage has in the past been, or more
importantly would in the future be exacerbated by, recreational use of
these routes as opposed particularly to agricultural vehicles that could not
be excluded by the TRO from using them. Again the level of recreational
use is significant. It seems to me that the potential for addressing such
matters other than through the TRO has not been fully considered.

OK, he pays lip service to the archaeological interests, while recognising that future damage is unlikely from recreational traffic as opposed to heavy axles (farm traffic) which would still be using them. A spot on conclusion which blows a huge hole in the anecdotal archaeological argument put forward by a typical English Heritage stooge who would have been better employed pushing pieces of broken pot jigsaw puzzle around in a museum than trying to comment on highway loadings at the enquiry.

7.67 For the reasons indicated above I consider that the effect of use of the
BOATs by motor vehicles, other than for the purpose of parking near
Stonehenge, has negligible effect on the settings of other Ancient
Monuments. Similarly there is little evidence of an adverse effect on nature
conservation interests.

7.68 In the light of the above factors and all other material considerations, I am
not persuaded that the gain to the overall amenity of the WHS would
outweigh the loss of amenity of motorised users, and consequently I
consider that the TRO should not be implemented with respect to the
BOATs.

He doesn't like parking on the Byway, espec in the area of the stones which leads to some very important paragraphs

7.63 I consider that parking on the BOATs is detrimental to the setting of
Stonehenge and the visual amenity of the WHS. The concerns of groups
such as the Druids and Pagans about what they see as the introduction of
restrictions on parking on the Byways are understandable. However, it
seems that there is no right to do so in any event and hence no such right
would be negated by the TRO.

7.64 Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that there are no alternative means of
addressing the issue of parking more directly without also adversely
affecting other users of these routes. Examples of such means might
include more rigorous enforcement of existing legal powers to prevent such
use (though I recognise the difficulties involved), making and enforcing an
Order specifically prohibiting parking on the relevant lengths of BOATs,
and/or physical measures such as reducing the widths of the BOATs.

The real crux of the issue. He pays lip service to the interests of those parking such as druids, but says that parking [in sight of the stones] could be restricted by various means to preserve amenity of the stones, rather than close the byways. That's bad news for us, but there other parts of these byways away from the stones which could be used for our purposes on occasion.

If WCC accept the report, it could be a Pyrrhic victory in that parking restrictions may be attempted to be enforced near the stones, but there would be no reason to enforce such measures remote from the stones, where there was space, which could still be a window of opportunity.

If WCC don't accept the report, something will hit a fan and there is bound to be a judicial review and further battles.

All in all, a balanced report. He gave ground to no one and probably reached the right conclusions.

 

[donkey too]

So what ever happens at the end of the day, if I stick a large notice on my van saying "THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL VEHICLE" I am gonna be all right camping there? After all what constitutes an agricultural vehicle?:mad1::fun:

 

[ourglenard]

I think that Thanks are due to Firefox for his dogged efforts in '...ploughing thru' the verbiage..' as He puts it & translating & keeping the rest of Us up to date. Many Thanks M8!

 

[Channa]

The real crux of the issue. He pays lip service to the interests of those parking such as druids,

It would be an interesting argument, I reckon there are enough druids they could legitamatly argue discrimination on grounds of religeon/ ethnic minority etc etc ;;

channa

 

[vindiboy]

Am I the only one who thinks that Stonehenge is just an over rated pile of stones ?

 

[kangooroo]

Am I the only one who thinks that Stonehenge is just an over rated pile of stones ?

Probably not. On my last visit, I did the touristy-bit and went through English Heritage's turnstile just incase there was anything more to see to add to the 'visitor experience'. There wasn't.

It is a very good camping spot, though!

 

[Firefox]

It would be an interesting argument, I reckon there are enough druids they could legitamatly argue discrimination on grounds of religeon/ ethnic minority etc etc ;;

channa

The argument goes that the authorities are still letting them worship and attend solstices etc, but the right to park outside one's own "church" with a motor vehicle is not necessarily an ancient right of their religion. Indeed there are many people who can't park outside their places of worship due to other considerations.

 

[Rubbertramp]

So what ever happens at the end of the day, if I stick a large notice on my van saying "THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL VEHICLE" I am gonna be all right camping there? After all what constitutes an agricultural vehicle?:mad1::fun:

Bruce,... I have a farmer friend who has a muck spreader....when would you like him to come round?

 

[Firefox]

Agricultural vehicles have the right to pass and repass. Camping is not included in that, unfortunately, otherwise I am sure we would see a few poptop coachbuilt muckspreaders doing the rounds :lol-053:

 

[kangooroo]

Just received my response from Wiltshire CC:

Wiltshire Council's position is that we will now be considering the Inspector's recommendation and a final decision on whether or not the TRO should be implemented will be made in due course. By reason of the inquiry being formally closed on 4 October the Council is unable to accept any further representations from any person or organisation on the facts or any other matters on which the inspector heard evidence at the Inquiry.

I would add that your comments are similar to some of those raised during the formal objection period and thus considered by the Inspector when he held the Inquiry.

I will add your name to those to be advised, in due course, of the Council’s decision

Peter Harris
Principal Traffic Engineer
Traffic and Network Management
Department of Neighbourhood and Planning
Wiltshire Council
County Hall
Bythesea Road
Trowbridge,
Wiltshire, BA14 8JN
Tel: +44 (0) 1225 713285
Fax: +44 (0) 1225 713309
Email: peter.harris@wiltshire.gov.uk

 

[Firefox]

I received similar emails.

I wonder if it would be best to leave them make the right decision and not stir things up with any protests this weekend. We can always continue the campaign if they go against the public inquiry decision. I think that by protesting now we could be either probably wasting our time, or on the other hand stir them up by thinking those that use the Drove do in fact present a continuing threat to the amenity of the commercial tourist operation.

The ball is in their court, so let sleeping dogs lie to use two colloquialisms at once!

 

[kangooroo]

I've been having similar thoughts.

If we protest with placards, what exactly are we protesting against? At present, the public inquiry has recommended the Byway remains open so we could effectively be protesting against a closure that isn't actually proposed.

I feel all activities on the Byway, including our camping and that of the existing residents, should be as low-profile as possible in this potentially sensitive period while the future of the Byway is being considered.

I don't think we should be protesting against a decision which hasn't actually been made!

If WCC take a different stance to that of the Public Inquiry, then that's a different matter - but it hasn't happened yet and might not happen at all.

 

[kangooroo]

The latest update: Good news for the byways!

Here's the latest, hot from the press....


The Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport has now considered a report prepared following the receipt of the Planning Inspector’s report. He has accepted the Inspector’s recommendation and has decided that the traffic restriction should be made to apply only to the A344 and not the Byways. This order will now be sealed in due course to be operative at a date appropriate to the overall development.

The report can be viewed by following the link below and the decision will come into effect on 2nd January 2012. (Please note that some of the appendices attached to the report are very large as they contain copies of letters received as a result of the original advertisement).

Decision - HT-047-11 - Stonehenge World Heritage Site - Traffic Regulation Order | Wiltshire Council

Peter Harris
Principal Traffic Engineer
Traffic and Network Management
Wiltshire Council

 

[Firefox]

Good catch. I was wondering if they would move on this before Xmas and the solstice. It seemed sensible to do so to prevent more bad feeling from those already sceptical about WCC's commitment to its road users.

 

[kangooroo]

And the latest update.....

WILTSHIRE COUNCIL
ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984
THE COUNTY OF WILTSHIRE (STONEHENGE WORLD HERITAGE SITE, TOWN OF AMESBURY AND PARISH OF WINTERBOURNE STOKE)
(PROHIBITION OF DRIVING) ORDER 2012
(previously advertised as The County of Wiltshire (Stonehenge World Heritage Site, Parishes of Amesbury, Berwick St James, Durrington, Wilsford cum Lake, Winterbourne Stoke and Woodford) (Prohibition of Driving) Order 2010)​

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on 17th January 2012 Wiltshire Council made the above mentioned Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 the effect of which will be as follows:

1. To revoke The County of Wilts (Airman’s Cross, Winterbourne Stoke) (One-Way) Order 1965, The County of Wiltshire (A344, Amesbury) (Prohibition of Right-Hand Turn) Order 1992, The County of Wiltshire (A344, Amesbury) (One-Way Traffic) Order 1992 and The County of Wiltshire (A344, Amesbury) (40MPH Speed Limit) Order 1993

2. To introduce a Prohibition of Driving to all motor vehicles at all times with an exemption for access to the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Visitors’ Centre Car Park during variable hours on the following length of road: -
A344 – from the Airman’s Corner junction eastwards for a distance of approximately 130 metres

3. To introduce a Prohibition of all motor vehicles at all time on the following lengths of road: -
A344 – from a point approximately 130 metres east of the Airman’s Corner junction to its junction with Amesbury BOAT 12

The above Order will exempt vehicles issued with a valid permit by English Heritage or their agents on behalf of Wiltshire Council under the terms and conditions of the Management Scheme agreed between the Highway Authority and English Heritage.

The previously advertised prohibition of driving on various byways will not be progressed following the decision by the Cabinet Member based on the recommendation of the Inspector following the Public Inquiry.

A copy of the Order and plan may be inspected at the offices of Wiltshire Council, County Hall, Trowbridge during normal office hours.
Any person aggrieved by the Orders and desiring to question the validity of the Orders or of any provision contained in the Orders on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the relevant Section of the above Act or on the grounds that any requirement of that Section or of Part III of Schedule 9 of the Act or any regulation made under the said Schedule, has not been complied with in relation to the Orders may, within six weeks of the date on which the Orders was made, make application for the purpose to the High Court.

The Order will come into operation on 9 October 2013.