Honda XRV Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Surrey TRO - please write in and object before *31 Jan 2011*UPDATED SEE BELOW

Hi all

Surrey County Council have proposed Traffic Regulation Orders on two byways in West Horsley, to completely ban motor vehicles including motorbikes. If these Orders are made we will never again be able to ride these lanes.

They're doing this AGAINST the advise of their own Rights of Way Department officials! Counsellors with vested interests...

We need as many people to write in to object before the deadline, 27 August. This is the thin edge of the wedge, and could threaten trail riding in Surrey.

Objecting is easy, you can email Hannah Gutteridge at Surrey County Council in RoW Dept, saying you object to the TROs, and giving some reasons why. You don't have to write a novel. [email protected]. Or write a letter. Make sure you get an acknowledgment.

Lots more on the TRF website

Objections you can make:
- The council’s failure to implement the recommendations made in the Council Officials, that measures other than TROs be taken.
- The council’s failure to comply with Surrey County Council TRO policy.
- The council’s failure to consider or implement less restrictive measures in the first instance.
- That the first ground for making the TROs, “significant danger to users of the route”, is exaggerated, that any danger is not greater than on any other route, that measures can be taken to improve safety including cutting back overgrowth as recommended in the Council report, that the route is sufficiently wide to permit passing, and that illegal or dangerous driving should be reported to the police.
- That the second ground for making the TROs, to prevent significant damage to the route, is not valid, as damage is minimal, the lanes are not a category '3' and generally in good condition, and a budget exists to fund repairs.
- The council’s failure to perform its duty under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to conduct an adequate balancing exercise between the case for the TRO and its duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians).
- The council’s failure to mention in the Statement of Reasons its obligations under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
- The council’s failure to adhere with DEFRA guidance Making the Best of Byways
- That the TRO unfairly penalises legitimate legal and courteous recreational trail riders who adhere to the relevant codes of conduct when using green lanes, especially given they can only use less than 4% of Surrey’s rights of way.
- That all users should be treated fairly, including trail riders as well as walkers, cyclists, horse drawn carriage drivers, horse riders and 4x4 users.
- The council’s failure to base the decision for the TRO on robust evidence.


Surrey TRF Member

Premium Member
7,170 Posts

As said, once these green lanes are closed to us, they will remain so forever. THERE'S NO GOING BACK!!

You may not live in Surrey or Sussex, but if they get away with this injustice, it could set a precedent for other councils to follow.

Please, please take the time to pop off an email stating your objections, and why not make a point of asking if any councillors live on Fullers Farm Road and if they are being given preferential treatment??

There are very few Byways remaining in Surrey and Sussex, and if councils are allowed to apply TRO's (Traffic Regulation Orders) completely unchallenged by us, they will continue to do so.

YouTube - ‪Keep greenlanes open‬‎

Don't allow the council to take away your liberties without a fight!

Bob :thumbup:

Premium Member
7,170 Posts
This is what I sent.

Please try and send your own email, referring to some of the reasons in the first post, and make sure you request a acknowledgement it was received.

Dear Hannah

I would like to register my objection to the proposed TRO's being placed on Fullers Farm Road, and Silkmore Lane Byways.

In my opinion the council has failed many aspects of it's duty and responsibilites, and even ignored it's own recommendations.

Although one of the reasons given for applying a TRO is "public safety" I note that there are no recorded instances of accidents on either road, and that both roads will remain open to large agricultural machinery, with restricted visibility and mostly operated by one person. By comparison, a small responsibly ridden motorcycle poses no threat to the safety of the public at all.

You should note that there is a great deal of support for keeping these byways accesible to responisble trail riding motorcyclists, and one of the questions that may be asked in light of the Council's significant failures is whether preferential treatment is being given for any Councillors that may reside in either of these roads?

I would be grateful if you could ackowledge receipt of this objection by return email.

Kind Regards

2 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Hey everyone!

Thanks to those of you who supported last time. Its round 2 now... Surrey County Council have had to re-advertise the TROs and we have another opportunity to object. We got 258 objections last time, and the Council Officials are supporting not making the TROs, but the Councillors ignored all that and voted for them again.

Please spare a few moments to write in to object to these TROs. Deadline is 31 January 2011.
• Suggested grounds for objection are written overleaf.
• Send objections to: [email protected] or Room 365 County Hall, Penryhn Road, Kingston, Surrey KT1 2DY by 31 January 2010
• Include: reference no DS/HG/3/1/72, your name and address, your email address to receive updates and the words “I object to the making of Traffic Regulation Orders on BOATs 538 and 539”.

Here are some of the reasons you can include:

• Surrey CC Countryside Access team have analysed BOAT 538 & 539 and have recommended that the TRO does not meet County Council Policy and the TRO proposals be withdrawn.
• Surrey CC Countryside Access team recommends that other management options should be applied instead of the TRO. These include:
- Repairs to the surface, drainage work and cutting back vegetation to improve sight lines in Fullers Farm Road (and these works have already commenced).
- Advisory speed notices will be placed on both byways to encourage responsible speeds.
- Silkmore Lane may be repaired next year if funding is made available.
• That the stated ground for making the TROs, to prevent significant damage to the route, is not valid in relation to Silkmore Lane, as the lane is in “very good condition” (SCC Official’s Report) apart from the two very short sections of which were ‘deliberately left rough’ by SCC in the past, to discourage fly tipping, when work was completed some years ago.
• That the stated ground for making the TROs, “significant danger to users of the route”, is greatly exaggerated, as it is no greater than any other road, and no official evidence of serious accidents or deaths has been presented in relation to the routes in question.
• Surrey CC has failed to adhere to its own TRO policy.
• Surrey CC failure to adhere with DEFRA guidance Making the Best of Byways.
• Surrey CC has failed to try other management solutions before imposing the most restrictive management solution, a complete ban on users of motor vehicles.
• Inaccurate information was presented regarding the availability of funding for repairs to one of the byways in question, at the June 2010 Local Committee
• That the Police have powers to deal with any alleged illegal activity (and which, if it is occurring, would unlikely be stopped by a TRO).
• The Traffic Regulation Orders threaten trail-riding as a legitimate and historic past-time; and reduced law abiding citizen’s freedoms forevermore.
• That the Surrey County Council Local Committee (Guildford) has failed in its duty to sufficiently scrutinise the proposal to make the TRO, and had it done so, it would not have recommended the making of the TROs.
• That the main proponent of the TROs, a Counsellor on the West Horsley Parish Council, has personal interest as she lives on one of the roads in question and this was not declared to the Local Committee when the decision was made.
• SCC failed to undertake its duties under S.122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
• That if the order is made, SCC have not offered any further opportunity to appeal and therefore the only final legal recourse is to take SCC to the High Court.
• No complaints were received with regards to the condition of the byway before the petition, nor have any reports been made to the police concerning dangerous driving or illegal vehicles.
• Request a Public Inquiry or Independent Committee to obtain a fair hearing due to anti-vehicular views expressed by some councillors.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts