Friday sees a dozen cyclists, members of the Elmbridge Cycle Group and a few from the Woking Cycle Users Group, doing their best to avoid the Royal Wedding by setting off for Paris.
We are using mainly off-road Sustrans routes from Weybridge to Newhaven before taking the ferry to Dieppe. Then we follow the Avenue Verte and French country lanes to the edge of Paris and thence to the Eiffel Tower. We expect to arrive Monday morning.
My son and I are raising sponsorship for the Weybridge Sam Beare Hospice. If you’d like to support this cause we have a page where you can donate: http://www.justgiving.com/george-danny-cycle-to-paris
We’d like to thank the here.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: It is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that as many as possible send in Letters of Support for the diversion of the existing path.
DEADLINE: The deadline is the 6th May 2011.
EMAIL: letters can be sent by email to andrew.saint@surreycc.gov.uk
POST: The address to write to is:
Countryside Access Team (ref DP/3/1/50),
Room 365,
County Hall,
Penrhyn Road,
Kingston-upon-Thames,
Surrey KT1 2DY
WHAT TO PUT IN YOUR LETTER:
A letter needs to have your name and address and state clearly that you SUPPORT the proposed diversion. It then needs to address two key points:
1. That the diversion is no less convenient for you
2. That the diversion does not significantly reduce your enjoyment of the path
It is important to think only about the diversion of the footpath, not its future upgrade to a bridleway/cycle path. The issue here is purely the diversion of a footpath.
Here are some ideas to help you on the convenience test:
- The diverted section of footpath is approximately the same length (yes, really!) as the existing footpath.
- The original footpath runs through a floodplain and then through a busy mechanical farmyard. The diverted section of footpath runs above the floodplain and out of the farmyard
- The diverted section of footpath will have no stiles or kissing gates on it (the original has) which makes access difficult for the less-abled, elderly and children.
- The diverted section does not run through an active stock field, including a (legally allowed) bull.
- The original footpath means getting wet feet when there is flooding.
- The original footpath is only 1.5-2m wide, where the new one will be 6m (when upgraded to bridlepath)
- The original footpath is partly fenced both sides by chain link, stock fence and electrical tape (section in the trees plus field). The diversion has an award-winning wildlife hedge on one side.
- The diverted route has views to Ranmore; the original route has few views to the hills (they are blocked by the hedge)
- The original footpath has approx. 1/3 of its length over non enjoyable terrain: the shaded, chain-link fenced, overgrown section with the rubble underfoot together with the farmyard section. Only around 428m of the path are what an objector could describe as a ‘pretty path by the stream’ [but see next]
- The original footpath is not ‘enjoyed along by the stream’ – the route walked runs nowhere near the stream, even though that is the actual right of way. Practical enjoyment of the stream as demonstrated by usage comes primarily from FP113/BW109 which crosses the river at the Lince Lane bridge. These are unchanged by the diversion order.
- The diverted section does not run through an active stock field, including a (legally allowed) bull.
- The original section has 200m of uncomfortable rubble to walk over, which is painful for small feet and difficult for the less well-balanced to stay balanced on. The diversion is on soil, which is more enjoyable to walk on.
- The original section includes some 200m of original river bed (the river has been diverted uphill slightly) so that when it floods, it rushes down first into this section at some speed. This is why there is the rubble – the top surface has been scoured away. This section both floods to a non-trivial depth and tends to stay flooded once flooded; it is impossible to walk around due to the fencing either side.
- People have been seen walking along much of the proposed route already (even though they shouldn’t) which indicates that it’s a good route
Here are some ideas to help you on the enjoyment test:
AN EXAMPLE LETTER
By email to andrew.saint@surreycc.gov.uk (or by post – address above)
Dear Mr Saint,
Re: Proposed Diversion of Footpath FP111
I am writing to SUPPORT the diversion of this footpath.
The current route runs through an active floodplain, a working farmyard, a field of animals, a dark tree-shaded track, with a stile and two kissing gates.
The diverted route is the about the same length, does none of these, and it has better views. It will be more convenient and enjoyable for me.
Yours sincerely,
Name and Address required.
DO YOU WANT TO SEE SOME READY-MADE LETTERS ? MORE INFORMATION ?
Go to http://www.facebook.com/WestcottBikePath – there are some example letters based on what people are sending in already.
(Many thanks to Liz Dobson for providing the material for this briefing)
Roger Troughton
Secretary, MVCF