4th October Representation To Councils

A complaint against the proposed creation of a footpath along a section of West Drove South

Dear Sir,

I believe plans to put in place a footpath along a stretch of this country lane are ill-conceived, were a sop to residents in connection with unwanted construction in the area and will patently be a costly white elephant for much of the time. I elaborate my concerns thus:

ONE

The proximity to very significant shrubbery and small trees is an untenable long term site to place a footpath because of plain to see maintenance problems. The fabric of the path will be subjected to root pressures that will sooner or later create trip hazards. The foliage grows back at such a rate so as to make any use of the footpath a struggle or worse unusable. These scenarios will mean users walking in the road, no question about it. Can the council say what maintenance schedule they are prepared to embark upon to eliminate these possibilities? Attached are images showing the high re-growth of foliage between last spring and the present.

TWO

The site has historically serious drainage issues. I draw the readers attention to the attached images supporting this fact. With the introduction of a footpath the congregation of surplus water will be shifted to the extent that it will present the user of the footpath with the danger of being drenched inadvertently or otherwise by road users. This is a problem heightened by the information that road user has to take in whilst in the knowledge that 40mph is the safe road speed by order of the legal limit on this one track country lane thus leading to the danger to path users being spotted too late.

THREE

There are dangers presented to the user of the footpath once introduced that are not present now.

Firstly at leaf fall there will be very significant detritus affecting the footway to the extent that it will become a safety hazard whereas presently leaf fall congregates upon the unused grass verge or is dispersed by vehicle use of the lane. Is the council prepared to commit to a policy of high intensive leaf fall clearance on health and safety grounds at this site or will the authority be happy for pedestrians to not use the path they intend to spend council tax money on and to walk in the road alongside?

Secondly the path will present a very strong possibility of injury to path users, especially in darker winter months, from unseen twigs and branches of shrubs and trees protruding onto the pathway. Unless a policy to implement lighting to assist users is instigated I can envisage eye injuries and aggravation from the twigs that will again prompt the people on foot to take the easy option of walking on the road.

FOUR

Weeks of totally unnecessary disruption for residents. So this will be the price residents have to pay for council intransigence. What are your plans to keep traffic moving at this end of West Drove South whilst allowing pedestrians? Will the councils adopt the ever so laissez faire mode that they so profoundly displayed with the construction of affordable homes when children being walked to pick up the school bus or going home from the head of the road were subjected to dodging very large lorries on a daily basis or the constructors showering them with dust? We’re talking construction at the narrowest point of a one track country lane – how are you going to minimise inconvenience whilst you build this white elephant?

FIVE

At a time when Eric Pickles, Communities minister, is trying to control local government spending why is this madness of the West Drove South “mistake” now going to cost council tax payers unnecessary money for such a worthless project? The planning has been “faulty” and should now draw back on cost grounds before it is too late.

SIX

Existing street parking – where does it go – are there going to be cars mounting this pavement because of irresponsible parking? Will some homeowners not be able to have visitor parking? Are there going to be yellow lines introduced? Emergency services, large agricultural vehicles – what about them?

SEVEN

What confidence can residents have that with the building of this footpath that all members of society will be empowered by it not inconvenienced? Will a double buggy or wheelchair be able to use its complete length without resorting to the road because of street furniture?

Additionally the issue of bus access is an unsolved conundrum in my view. The school bus – a small bus – is unable to negotiate West Drove South because of a lack of turning facility. I have a letter from Fowlers confirming that in no way will they provide bus access in this lane. The upshot of this is that whilst every single child on the Shepeau Stow Primary School bus run has a pick up and drop off at their home ensuring a very high degree of safety, we as residents of West Drove South are forced to take our children to the end of our one track lane to get on it! And now it is an SHDC given to disadvantage more residents they have planned for in West Drove South. Is it going to be council policy for wheelchair and double buggy users to use the road all the time or some of the time as I have described elsewhere herein? Is it to be council policy for residents to drive children to the end of the road when the footpath is unavailable? The council provision for the disabled needing to use public or school bus transport – this could be clearly construed as discriminatory depending the answers here.

EIGHT

Why are the council choosing to disadvantage road users unnecessarily in this way? There will be increased road traffic trying to cope invariably with increased pedestrian traffic avoiding the footpath thereby increasing risks to all involved on a one track country lane when the footpath is not viable. Is this a sensible way to contribute to road safety? Is this indicative of attitudes at local government level towards areas starved of resources already, doing things on the cheap, cowboy fashion and holding local opinion in contempt?

What research has been carried out into all these matters? Mr X, Head of Planning, SHDC, disingenuously remarked in previous complaint correspondence (clearly designed to more than a little irritate) that it did not matter that I had not been involved in the planning process for the affordable houses as ALL the issues that I would have raised “WERE CONSIDERED” with the 5 planning process objections the council received!!! So, with that in mind, you will already have the answers to the above and therefore a speedy response is expected by yours truly! I suggest that Steve Williams was wrong begging his pardon along with much else in his correspondence which can wait for a “name and shame” airing at a later date.

So instead of ivory tower planning authorities having all the answers they are again showing their ignorance and arrogance in actually making problems worse. They charge ahead without thinking things through, without talking to ALL the people involved and end up doing what they intended in the first place come what may with the consequences of council tax payers enjoying the privilege of their competence issues.

Why not show a smidgen of humility and start displaying some common sense. Take residents with you instead of putting their backs up. But I’m not holding my breath.

This solution is worse than the problem. The problem is one that SHDC & LCC has created. This is the powerful message that John Hayes MP will be presented with when he visits the residents and me having accepted my invitation to do so hopefully later this month when his schedule permits.

Click HERE for a PDF containing images referred to in the above