Representation Letters - Planning Applications

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