road verges on rural roads - NERC Open Research Archive ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

degree of polarisation of ideas between the different interests, Highway Departments do receive two basic complaints from the public: either there is too much cutting or too little. These views are expressed either through organisations or by individuals. Organisations (e.g. AA, RAC, CPRE, CPRW, NFU, Naturalists' Trusts) tend to work through the County Highways headquarters, whilst individuals also do this, or else approach the ~rea/~ivisional sweyor direct. However, it should be noted that in any county the number of complaints in any one season may number fewer than a dozen unless a really controversial policy is adopted, such as the non-management policy of Hampshire in 1968, when there may be a great deal of comment both by individuals and by organisations. In general there is greater public pressure for more cutting rather than less, and although much of this is probably related to tidiness in built up areas, there may be an undercurrent of public feeling that tidiness should also be extended into the countryside, allied with concern for safety, more often expressed by country dwellers themselves. Parish Councils are active in demanding high standards, although there appears to be an element of competitive- ness, one Parish complaining when it finds that another Parish's <strong>road</strong>s have been cut before its own. Whilst complaints of insufficient cutting tend to be associated with built up areas or local safety hazards on sight lines, complaints of too much cutting tend to be more concerned with the general treatment of <strong>verges</strong> in the countryside, and the effects of this on natural development and wildlife. The transforma- tion of a lushly growing, colourful area into a brown mulch of cut vegetation calls for a great deal more comment than is ever expressed in formal communications to Highway Departments. It is also, possibly, easier to comment on something that has not been done rather than in the negative sense about something that has been done. For this reason complaints about over-cutting are confined to a relatively small number of correspondents. Whilst the complaints of individuals very often receive more attention than is generally realised, the comments and constructive suggestions of organisations, as representing a greater number of people and often resulting from public discussion, are more valuable to Highway Departments. Farmers represent a special case in the countryside, Because they are responsible for the look of so much of the land (urban dwellers have generally no responsibility in this way) they can be forgiven for being concerned about adjacent areas not under their control. Farmers' interests in <strong>road</strong>sides are shown below under a number of headings with the numbers in brackets of counties in which a particular factor was mentioned by the Highway Department as having been the subject of discussion.
Weeds (22) Physical access to hedges and ditches for management (13) Sightlines to farm and field entrances and safety in general for pedestrians and farm traffic (6) Use for haymaking or grazing (6) Use as potential cultivatable land (including encroachment) (5) Use as areas for dumping (storing) sugar beet, dung, etc. (2) In most counties the NFU (National Farmers Union) handle general complaints on the part of farmers, but in fact only six counties mentioned specific liaison over <strong>road</strong>sides with the local NFU so that it can be assumed that <strong>road</strong>side management is not a very pressing problem with farmers at county level. SUMMARY Table 4 has been drawn up to summarise the principle points dealt with in this chapter, and to suggest the importance that might be given to the various factors.
Page 1 and 2: ROAD VERGES ON RURAL ROADS Manageme
Page 3 and 4: Summary INDEX Chapter 1 Extent and
Page 5: SUMMARY This report is based on vis
Page 8 and 9: and may sometimes be ignored. Counc
Page 10 and 11: - 4 - Using the average figure of 1
Page 12 and 13: explain aberrant results for any of
Page 14 and 15: Table 3. Number of County Highway A
Page 16 and 17: - 10 - The purpose of these remarks
Page 18 and 19: Fire and snow control were other hi
Page 20 and 21: (Conium maculatum) by three countie
Page 24 and 25: Table 4. Suggested prioritiea that
Page 26 and 27: quantity of product but not quality
Page 28 and 29: July 1971 Letter HE 138/4/02 to Div
Page 30 and 31: COUNTY TRUNX PRINCIPAL CLASS 11 CLA
Page 32 and 33: COUNTY TRUNK PlllNCIPlL CLASS I1 CL
Page 34: COUNTY TRUNK, CUSS I, CUSS 11, CUSS
Page 37 and 38: u. Type* of cutting machines uaed i
Page 39 and 40: machines are also more difficult th
Page 41 and 42: for application of herbicide in a p
Page 43 and 44: u9. Use of Ch-isol #prays (MH with
Page 45 and 46: Carmarthen - to liberate machines f
Page 47 and 48: Table 10. Cost per mile per season
Page 49 and 50: 2. Rear mounted flail: multi-swath.
Page 51 and 52: The figures can be compared with th
Page 53 and 54: -. Costa per acre per occasion for
Page 55 and 56: - 48 - The average of 4.97 can be c
Page 57 and 58: flush verges are p
Page 59 and 60: =. Individual couniy specifications
Page 61 and 62: In the building up of verge
Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER 6. HIGHWAY TREE PLANTING; B
Page 65 and 66: BOUNDARY REINSTATENENT Following th
Page 67 and 68: Whether the landowner or the Counci
Page 69 and 70: T ~ 18. ~ policies I ~ for tree pla
Page 71 and 72: Cardiganahire Camthenshire svll of
Page 73 and 74:
l.bl€ 19 (contid) Yorklhire - E$t
show all

road verges on rural roads - NERC Open Research Archive ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?