RIGHTS OF WAY WATCH
Riders have Rights
Government to close gap in central rerservation of the A3 even though BHS says it 'is vital for horses'.
"An absolute carve up," says Bob Milton
Local riders objected to the gap being closed.
The British Horse Society objected to the gap being closed.
Even Surrey Countryside Access Forum objected to the gap being closed.
They maintained, "The crossing provides a link between Bridleway No.68 Thursley and Bridleway no. 115 Witley and also Bridleway 101b Thursley and Bridleway No. 117 Thursley.
If the gap is closed, as proposed, the bridleways will become cul-de-sac paths ending either side of the A3. Bridleway 101 Thursley also meets the A3 at a point within the proposed scheme.
If traffic were to be re-directed over the bridge at the Thursley Junction, alternative paths would have to be provided if the rights of way affected are to remain connected. These alternative paths would add a minimum of some 2.4 km to the journey, which is a significant distance for certain users and may not be considered reasonable. "
The Secretary of State has now said No.
The row continues
Says John Whitaker
I have it in mind that I might write to Ewing (The Inspector who conducted the Public Inquiry) saying We apppreciate that he has set out the factors behind the decision in great detail to avoid any suggestion that he has failed to take into account any relevant factors and taken into account any irrelevant factors ( the legal test for an adminstrative decision - the so-called Wednesbury rules) but he does not seem to have taken into account that his information about accidents in para 8 n, which seems on the face of it persuasive, does not distinguish NMUs, for which the picture given to us by his office is rather different from that described in his letter which relates to all users, and can he explain why NMU data was not taken into account in considering the effect on NMUs of the proposals .
Comments Bob Milton
Please include specifically the lack of obvious response to the LAF as statutory adviser and per the requirements of the guidance from NE which includes his department and the Secretary of State, the lack of legitimate legal infrastructure in the area for NMUs especially horse riders which he has ignored.
All his arguments may hold for vehicles but not for NMUs, he has taken generic recommendations as gospel without any supporting evidence , the lack of legal assessment for disability, equality and access and finally he has ignored the division of the commons and the connectivity.