Representation Letters - Planning Applications

This data was entered into the form at http://www.salisbury.gov.uk/planning/developmentcontrol/planning-applications/2009/1527/submit-comment.htmI agree to the disclaimer above YesI wish to ObjectName Andy TaskerAddress Sandford LodgeWembdonSomersetPost Code TA67QBTelephone no inputComments Dear Sir/Madam,Although I do understand the importance of the site at Stone Henge I wish to raise myobjection to the proposed TRO's on the BOATs in the area.Could the Council consider options before imposing the TRO's. Since the introduction ofthe NERC Act byways with legal MPV access have been drastically reduced in numbers.This makes the remaining byways with MPV access extremely valuable and a publicrecourse that need to be protected.I wont recite Act and section as I am certain that the relevant Council RoW Officers knowthat the Council has a statutory duty in law to protect all users rights, including those ofMPV user groups.I note that in this plan the A303 wont be closed, covered over or diverted and will remainin place and possibly be widened to a duel lane at some point in the future.It is noted that all the BOATs that are subject to a proposed TRO are further away fromthe site than the A 303 and these BOATs have far less traffic.I note that a new pathway/road will be constructed along the closed A344 from the newvisitors centre to the site and this will cross the BOAT (Byway 12 on the plan) to the Westof the actual site.There were no previous recorded problems or issues with the use of Byway 12 when itcrossed the busy A344 with it’s high speed traffic (National speed limit) from bothdirections. Why would there be an issue now with it’s proposed new visitors pedestrianpaced use?Why would there be an issue with Byway 12 continuing to be kept open with it’s relativelyslow speed traffic. It is bother further away from the site than the A 303 and has slowerand less frequent use.If the reason is to prevent any crossing of traffic over the path of the new visitorspedestrian and land train route along the old A 344 then in the scope of the constructionproject it would be entirely possible to put an underpass under the byway for the newvisitors land train and pedestrian traffic and thereby separate the two traffic flows entirely.This proposal with the excavation along the line of the existing A344 would negate anyissues with excavations in the heritage site and be a very low visual impact.As I assume the old A 344 will be dug up, then any cost is further reduced.

The design of any underpass could also allow for any relevant and requiredstorage/civil/drainage/power facilities to be kept under the ground level and furtherenhance the area.If no underpass is deemed necessary then all the better. A simple gate or restriction wouldallow for a reminder for the byway users to give way to pedestrians. There would be no lineof site issues and there would be no obstruction to the view from either road.I also wish to raise my objection to the proposed TRO’s on the other byways in the samearea. Why are they to be the subject of a TRO? If the A303 remains open then there is novalid reason for the TRO. Access to the new site will be along the new route along the oldA344 and visitor access will be separate from any other traffic.All the other byways are further away from the site that the A303 that will remain open.The A303 will totally overshadow any other use of any of the byways in the area bothvisually and audibly. There is no possible cause to close or restrict access to any of thebyways in the area.The only reason for doing so would be to create a countryside park and the TRO legislationas it stands does not allow for this as an excuse. The proposed TRO’s used as part of theplan for the new site layout does not meet with the current legislation and would not bepermissible under the current rules and guidelines.However everyone does realise the importance of the site and the intention of the proposalsand what they are trying to achieve.Can the Council first apply the rules and guidelines concerning the implementation of theTRO legislation and look at alternatives to closure first. I have not as yet seen anything tosuggest that this has been done and as such any TRO would be unlawful.Would the council consider a proper consultation with the various MPV user groups?I understand that this is a requirement under the TRO legislation and any proposal cannotbe legally implemented without this happening first.Would it be possible to allow the Byways to the South of the A303 to remain open.Also would it be possible to provide an alternative route North of the A303. Would thelandowners be approachable with the Councils involvement to look to provide a permissiveroute that could retain a usable route for MPV users, even if away from the site. Thiswould prevent any legal action over improperly implemented TRO’s and retain accessroutes for MPV users. This could be seen as a proactive and helpful move by the Councilfor all concerned. The proposed routes could be either a simple strip of land along a fenceline or existing field access tracks. There would be a benefit to all concerned. I can also seethat MPV users groups would then work with landowners and the Council to helpmaintain such routes.Please remember that responsible and sustainable use of the legal vehicle access bywaynetwork is a right and not a crime. The Council has a legal requirement to protect andpreserve access rights for MPV users to the same extent as any other user group. Yet it canbe factually demonstrated that the Council has failed time and time again to protect these

ights. As the legal access network is reduced those MPV access rights get more valuableand rare. They should be protected. To favour one group over another is illegal, as hasbeen demonstrated in recent Court Actions.I fear that if the Council does not listen to the MPV user groups in particular then it mightwell be the case that they have no other alternative than to take matters to Court thatwould sadly delay this project and cost everyone time, effort and money.Talking cost nothing, listening is free. Understanding is your duty.If you wish to be emailed a copy of your comment, tick this box YesEntered Thu Nov 12 2009 12:59:48 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)