Good to see more positive posts, but a little perplexed
Lots going on since the last time I was on.
Some really good suggestions, which it would be nice to see happen and then some that perplex me for various reasons. Or is it me, I have had a couple of glasses of red.
Canal Side West features heavily one way and another. Roy’s, quoting safety as an issue and then stating “ It is not for me to say whether the concern is a valid one or not, but the concern was expressed”
If every neurotic half thought out idea was broached and reported on this site it might get quite tiresome and definitely not very productive.
Another observation/criticism, Roy seems very keen to direct traffic down another dead end road on the opposite side of the cut. which is narrow and has parking issues, although he is not keen on increasing traffic/parking (fishing) on his side of the bank.
I am really,really loathed to admit it, but I find myself seeing some truth in Jack Russell’s NIMBY post. (A well chosen name by the way)
Another ( Sorry Roy) Could you explain the logic on your volume versus speed argument ?
Now I am not renowned for my puzzle solving ability and this one really has got me.
It is nearly 0.5 km longer to go from the main road bridge via CSW to the Thimblehall Lane accom rd junction than via the main road. that's nearly 35% further. So why would you want to go down a narrow lane in car/lorry/ambulance or fire engine ?
Sorry Roy, I have Just reread your post and have another question. What are the people on CSE going to do it the road is blocked by a serious fire or do we need to have look at the possible serious dangers and health implications of living down dead end lanes and more importantly cul de sac’s ! Perhaps we could look at joining all village dead ends/cul de sac's together with link roads to afford better safety ?
Some questions ( Sorry if they have been answered elsewhere)
Does anybody know when the annual parish meeting is scheduled, I guess it will be the next one so it is before the April 7th closing date for electoral candidates ?
Do we still have a water bailiff ?
Do NPC control fishing south of the Main Road Bridge ?
Is it true that the speed signs on the main road are going to placed in more effective positions further out, where parked traffic doesn’t impede them from working correctly ?
Regards BB
- Wortnep's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Responses to you questions
We have had at least three public meetings over the years about CSW traffic and the accommodation road and I chaired the last one. There are those who want the accommodation road opened and those who want it closed. Probably the main arguments for closing the road put forward are to stop youngsters using the loop round CSW and Thimblehall Lane as a race track and to stop people coming out of the pubs driving round to Thimblehall and thus avoiding the main road where they are more likely to be breathalysed. I cannot recall people arguing about the potential volume of traffic but there was strong concern about the speed of traffic. On this matter I have met with the police, and they also told me that the concerns reported to them by residents about CSW concerned speed on this narrow road and drug dealing on the Brickyard site.
Reasons for wanting to have the road open are many. One family on CSW north of the motorway want it opened because for them it is a shorter route to CSW (south). For some, they prefer to drive round the block than turn round (there are limited turning points). The council refuse wagon used to use the road every week. Some want it opened as a matter of principle because they believe the closure to be illegal. Also, there is an argument that if an emergency arises it is better to have two routes in and out of CSW than just one.
This is what people in the village have said at the different meetings, and it is for the Inspector appointed by the Environment Agency to decide the final outcome later this year when the case goes to appeal. In the last judgement the Inspector appointed instructed that an order be made to classify the route as a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT).
I have no problem with people fishing from the CSE bank. But, I do have a concern about parking on both banks, but in particular on CSE. CSE has fairly wide and reasonably well maintained verges that CSW doesn't have. I consider that these are an attractive feature of the village and do not want to see them turned into a muddy quaqmire by being used as a car parking area for fishers. My suggestion to the PC is to make it a condition of the fishing permit to park in the car park on CSW. I also point out that residents on CSE have been asked not to park on the verges by the PC. In general all residents abide by this request and as a result the verges are in good condition. It would be perverse for the PC now to allow fishers to park on these verges and wreck them in the process. It is not a case of NIMBY but more Not In My Village. Yes, I would prefer the village to be more attractive to the eye, not less attractive.
You are right that both CSE and CSW are at present cul de sacs. The fact that CSE is one doesn't have any bearing on the situation on CSW, they are separate issues. In CSE we do have the slight advantage that the verges are generally wider and we do seem to have more off street parking that we use. Yes, we could have an accommodation road put in to connect CSE to Stoney Lane, but the cost would be prohibitive and personally I would prefer this to be a bridleway than a road.
On speed signs, I find it annoying to have "slow down" flash up when driving below the speed limit.
Hmmm !!! A dinnertime CSW fact setting attempt/response
As a resident of CSW, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Wortnep’s and Roy’s recent posts. I feel that it would help both if they furnished themselves with some more real information.
Wortnep, I broadly agree with most of what you have written and it is mostly well thought out and logical.
Although I find Roy’s views on the accommodation road very weak and disjointed.
Roy (RH) There are those who want the accommodation road opened and those who want it closed.
Aside from it being a trite meaningless statement which could be applied to most things from margarine upwards.
Like : ( There are those who like margarine and those who don’t)
Roy omits the fact that over 95 % of CSW residents want the road to remain a dead end to motor traffic and for the illegal gates to be removed and for it to be designated as an official Bridleway.
There used to be two permanent Highway Agency dead end signs on CSW, one at the main Rd end and the other next to no 37 CSW (The derelict house).
Presumably that indicated that the accommodation road was not an official recognised highway. The fact that HDAA were able to illegally block it off with such ease would seem to back this up, I can’t imagine this being done on any other lane in the village.
RH. Reasons for wanting to have the road open are many
Roy please could you list some substantial reasons. The few you have listed are very weak e.g. One family north of the motorway are inconvenienced by having to drive further than they used to have too and the bin lorry has to turn round ! I believe the bin lorry has to reverse all the way down CSE ?
RH Also, there is an argument that if an emergency arises it is better to have two routes in and out of CSW than just one.
No ! There is a very weak flawed point of view based on a disordered and ridicules idea. I think if these are genuine worries then the affected people need move out of any village to larger conurbations where they are more likely to be or feel “safer” with lots more road access available.
RH This is what people in the village have said at the different meetings.
No. This is a very selective view of what some people have said in the village. I am very surprised that your thinking on this issue fits hand in glove with the NPC’s badly conceived and disjointed thinking.
i.e.
There is a verge parking problem down CSW, so make sure every one parks on the narrow road, creating an even narrower lane, and ignore/reject repeated possible resident subsidised road modifications to create safe parking.
Now lets create two parks for children at either end, then put a cycle track in the far one to attract young cyclists and put then some benches down the bank and then lets reopen it to needless traffic.
This is probably one of the most disjointed lunatic ideas I have had the displeasure in being affected by.
Quote from Newport Hub by Webmaster and NPC chair Gordon Shields
“The parish has many excellent and diverse walks through rural countryside leading to the Humber in one direction and the Wolds Way in another, following the original towpath of the canal. Within the village there are shorter walks and nature trails ESPECIALLY around the Brickyard Nature Adventure area.”
The fact that it is the main promenading/dog walking area and a safe cycling route into the village for many of our youngsters, which has in excess of 14 blind exits straight onto the road. On any weekend you will see many youngsters on there first stabilised bike learning their road craft under the watchful eye of a parent. Where else in the village can this happen ?
Roy you have mentioned car parking issues and the narrowness of the road, so why would you want to increase traffic flow in such an area ?
The view of many residents in the village about the reopening of the accommodation road to traffic.
Is that it has been instigated by someone who doesn’t live in the village supported by Local and Parish councillor's who chose not communicate and to ignore affected residents views. So is this really some personal mini political battle involving two polarised views and is really about protecting various committee members large egos from being damaged on either side.
I have very sad prediction to make. Which is that if the NPC continue with this perverse disjointed thinking and pursue opening CSW to thorough traffic then a young person WILL be injured or worse. To paraphrase Adrian (Abpest) "the insurance company aren’t going to like that” and any reasonable claims lawyer would have no difficulty finding a very easy and productive paper trail leading to the individuals and groups involved.
Drugs and The Old Brickyard Car Park.
To clarify a point which regularly gets a mention. The main issue is with drug taking and not drug dealing in the OBY car park, which means that you have car drivers travelling up and down CSW under the influence of a narcotic and often drink as well.
As one of the side effects of the main drug smoked/taken is a sudden increase in hunger, so the said drug takers drive back into the village to counter the “Munchies”. When food is sourced then they come back down to the OBY car park
The police are largely uninterested and choose do do patrols at between 8am and 4.30pm and surprise, surprise there are no incidents taking place between these times. It has been suggested that if they put a little time into stopping and breathalysing one of these drivers and impounding their car and prosecuting them. It would go a long way towards resolving the problem.
Regards and thanks taking the time to read all this this ! :-)
Tony J
( I didn't realise I could type so fast !!!!)
Reply
Tony,
First of all, it is of no consequence to me personally whether the accommodation road remains open or shut.
The legal position is that if there is evidence that the road has been used by all types of traffic for more than 20 years anyone can apply for the road to be formally classified. The problem with the road started when the PC asked for it to be repaired, following which ERYC took it off the list of streets without reason, something they are not allowed to do. Indeed they claimed that it had never been put on the list, but there were enough earlier copies around to disprove the point. Following this HDAA claimed ownership of the land on which the road runs, but they have failed to prove that they own it. ERYC say that they do not know who owns it. It was certainly purchased when the motorway was constructed and there would appear to be no evidence that it has since been sold on. So, my best guess is that it is owned by whichever agency owns the land on which the motorway sits, but it may not have been formally transferred from one agency to another.
ERYC did argue to the Inspector that there is insufficient evidence that the road existed for road traffic, but they have resurfaced it, compensated someone for damage to their car due to a pothole, repaired the fence when a car went into the canal, they have their street furniture on it and their dustcarts used it weekly. The EA Inspector didn't agree with them and said there is sufficient evidence.
I don't know where you get the figure of 95% from, but at the last meeting I felt that there was not such a large split. It certainly was not as high as 95%.
The arguments that I put forward in my text are not my arguments but those I recall being put forward by people in the village. It is not for me to either support or dismiss their arguments on either side.
I don't think I have said anywhere that I want to increase traffic flow - what I have said is that at the meetings traffic flow has not been the issue but the speed of traffic has been. If you wanted to argue the case, it is possible that traffic flow would be decreased with the road open because some drivers going to the far end of CSW could return via the accommodation road rather than drive back along it. Therefore you could be challenged to prove that the nett effect would increase traffic flow. In fact, when the road was opened, I often drove round rather than turn round and retrace my route.
I was not aware that the residents had proposed a residents subsidised alteration to the road layout. What was ERYC's response? (ERYC are responsible for roads, not the PC).
I am not sure where you have got the view that NPC are pursuing the opening of the road. Yes, some years ago parishioners complained to the PC about the plans to close the road, but all of the work to formalise the status of the road had happened between members of the public (not me except to ask a question of ERYC as requested at the last meeting), ERYC and the Environment Agency. Parish councils have absolutely no jurisdiction on this matter, so all they can do is appeal one way or the other and, at the last meeting, they took what appeared to me to be a neutral position. What I will say however is that early on the representations to the PC from the villagers was to stop the HDAA from closing it and only much later did I hear objections raised. Gordon may wish to comment on this.
I agree with you entirely about the Brickyard Project. However, it would appear that the massive investment is so poorly used that I doubt it adds even 1% to the traffic flow. Possibly the largest influence on traffic flow from that area is from anglers using the motorway pond.
There are a couple of points where I would disagree with you. I know that CSE is a cul de sac, and the reference to it is both irrelevant and trite!
I believe that access for emergency vehicles is an important consideration. As Adrian pointed out we have had the problem on CSE. Your argument that perhaps older people who have lived here much of their life should move if they are concerned about emergency vehicle access is, I believe, not worthy of you.
Finally, I think we do need to understand what opinion is in the village as a whole on the access road and we do need to consider whether to have it opened will substantially increase or even decrease traffic on the basis of what I have written above.
My view for what it is worth is that it will make very little difference overall to traffic flow but it could encourage boy racers back again to speed "round the block". This is possibly the strongest arument either way because I have witnessed these "time trials" in the past. However, even if it is a bridleway, the problem could still return.
Roy
CSW
It took me a while to work this statement out:-
'One family on CSW north of the motorway want it opened because for them it is a shorter route to CSW (south). '
I could only visualise them driving under the motorway bridge, as do several motorcyclists, then I worked it out ( dumbo! Me that is ). This family go past the greenhouses, turn left on to Thimblehall, turn left on to the accesss road to accommodation road then on to CSW.
The access road to and the accommodation road are in a terrible mess, so it must be quicker to take the very slightly longer route ;o)
So if the accommodation is reopened who will pay for the extensive repairs required to make the accommodation road safe?
Surely not the NPC!!!
Adrian ( ABPEST ).
Good debate now!