Really good idea, or sheer bloody mindedness?

[C.Ricko]

they got moved this morning and are now on the car park..

[C.Ricko]

The loop was never blocked. I drove round there last night, the planters outside the Swan which were put there about 5 years ago have never been mentioned, they were put there so cars didn't park outside the managers accommodation...

[Guest]

I agree with Clive, I ride a bike along that road almost every week, and it's wider than most people seem to appreciate.

 

The original EDP photo clearly shows that even something as big as a fire engine or ambulance could still have driven through that short straight section.

 

I would imagine that the Parish Council specifically placed the planters that way, in order to maintain emergency access, or they could simply have placed the planters across the road at each end of the section alongside the green.

 

It's a shame that the Parish Council are being painted as the guilty party on this, they may have gone about it the wrong way legally, but their motivation appears to have been Public minded, in trying to end long term parking abuse in that area.

 

They now have to find another way of achieving that, as economically as possible, for the ratepayers sake.

[Paladin]

It's a shame that the Parish Council are being painted as the guilty party on this, they may have gone about it the wrong way legally,

There is no right way of doing a wrong thing. Perhaps the parish council should have spoken to the county council, before they spent the ratepayers' money.

 

BTW, no-one has said the byway was blocked, only that it was obstructed.

[C.Ricko]

I doubt a fire appliance would turn round either end, realistically it would stop outside the shop and run hoses down the green..

perhaps if we need parking then remove the grass on the river bank side and chevron cars in..

 

As the marina has got busier the parking has been more of a problem, the fees are cheap over there which means people should be able to pay for parking a car but even the public car park is not big enough in the summer...

[Paladin]

The words 'frying pan' and 'fire' spring to mind. It looks as if the planters have now been arranged on the village green, alongside the two footpaths.

 

The NCC advice is that "The section of the route adjacent to the green is also registered common land; register unit CL116.  It is unclear whether, as common land, any structure erected on the land may require permission from the Secretary of State under Section 38 of the Commons Act 2006.  As the highway rights predate the common’s registration the highway rights would likely take precedence and so such permission may not be an issue."

 

The village green is registered common land, to which Section 38 will apply. Section 38 states:

 

(1) A person may not, except with the consent of the appropriate national authority, carry out any restricted works on land to which this section applies.

(2 ) In subsection (1) “restricted works” are—

( a ) works which have the effect of preventing or impeding access to or over any land to which this section applies;

( b )works for the resurfacing of land.

 

(3) The reference to works in subsection (2)(a) includes in particular—

( a ) the erection of fencing;

( b ) the construction of buildings and other structures;

( c ) the digging of ditches and trenches and the building of embankments.

 

I think mums with wide prams (as in twin side-by-side prams) and those in wheelchairs might have to search for a wide enough gap through which to access the green.

[Guest]

There is no right way of doing a wrong thing. Perhaps the parish council should have spoken to the county council, before they spent the ratepayers' money.

 

BTW, no-one has said the byway was blocked, only that it was obstructed.

 

Yes, you're quite right again Paladin, I naively mistook the accusation of the tubs being an "obstruction" to mean something as serious as the road being blocked, rather than just being narrowed.

 

...and yes, it's unfortunate that even more ratepayer's money will now need to be spent to overcome the long term problem that Clive has outlined.

[Guest]

......Who exactly was it a long term problem to? Only a bunch of nimbyistic locals who thought it spoiled their view? More than likely locals who never even sit on the Green to look at the view........

 

This issue is getting very clouded now, as is so often the case on forums....

 

If the six parking spaces in question were still being used on a short stay basis by the handicapped and by local shop customers, then I doubt the council would have taken this  step, as they had turned a blind eye to it for decades.

 

Those people have now been denied that freedom by the increased long term parking, mostly from Horning Village Marina berth holders.

 

Agreed, it would have been better to somehow enforce short stay parking, but it's far from being "NIMBYism". The usefulness of those six spaces had already been lost to the ratepayers and most of the visiting Public to enjoy the area.

[Guest]

I ask again Strowy who were the 6 cars causing a problem for (btw I think its a few more than 6 but hey ho)? It is pure nimbyism at it's very worst.

 

Dave

 

I'm not a traffic warden Dave, I don't know who owns the cars that regularly park there long-term.  The growing problem is well known locally. It reduces the number of spaces available for far more people that wish to just take in the view or pop in the local shops and give them their business.

 

As for 6, ok, maybe 7 then, but this google earth image shows that would be the most....

[C.Ricko]

I think it is the  shops and the marina users who are most concerned but then the locals are not overly impressed either and would prefer the planters moved..

[Guest]

....... If the problem is people parking there long term a simple notice stating a waiting limit of say 1-2 hours would have sufficed, not legally binding but better than the mess the P.C. now has........

 

You've answered your own suggestion Dave, "not legally binding"......

 

I won't try to dissuade you any further from your NIMBYism fixation, if you can't see the wider impact now, you never will.

[BroadScot]

I think it is the  shops and the marina users who are most concerned but then the locals are not overly impressed either and would prefer the planters moved..

Raffle Prizes for the Horning Boat show?  

 

 

Iain.

[jeffbroadslover]

The thing that confuses me is that if the roadway is not for use by any mechanically propelled vehicles what  antiquated type of horse-drawn emergency vehicles are there available locally?

 

Space was apparently left for emergency vehicles to access the area . They would then be committing an offence unless they switch off their engines and the crew get out and push or they have a horses waiting to tow it.

 

 

Jeff

[Guest]

No, that wouldn't be any good either.

 

Someone would then try and sue the council if they slipped on the horse "exhaust" left in the road......

[Paladin]

The thing that confuses me is that if the roadway is not for use by any mechanically propelled vehicles what  antiquated type of horse-drawn emergency vehicles are there available locally?

 

Space was apparently left for emergency vehicles to access the area . They would then be committing an offence unless they switch off their engines and the crew get out and push or they have a horses waiting to tow it.

 

 

Jeff

If you are really confused, I suggest you read section 34(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which will unconfuse you.

[Paul]

Perhaps the best way forward for the Parish Council is to obtain a full copy of the Definitive Statement of Horning RB4 from NCC so they know exactly what they are dealing with. In truth they should already have this for the parish. The master copy is kept at County Hall. If there is no definition of width shown on the difinitive map or in an associated statement which is extremely unusual then the PC's next move might be to reduce the width of the right of way to the minimum required by law, being 3 meters. I don't know how wide it is now but I'm guessing between 5.5 and 6 meters. If anyone bothers to take a look at this map they will find some interesting points.

 

1) There is no right of way between the southern end of the restricted byway and Lower Street. The Byway terminates at the Slipway.

2) The lane by the side of Country Treats between Lower Street and The Staithe is a restricted byway, Horning RB4a, yet it is obstructed by bollards and barely 3 meters wide.

3) The path between the Staithe and Willow and The Green is also a restricted byway, Horning RB4b. It is obstructed by gates and fences and nowhere near 3 meters wide.

 

It's strange that all these people who suddenly find the need to defend our restriced byways have not complained about either of those! i wonder if I make an FOI request to NCC there will be any legal statement allowing these obstructions?

 

 

At least 8 maybe up to 10 if parked neatly

 

I'm not sure I agree with that Dave, I think Strow's image is pretty conclusive though it doesn't really matter if it's six spaces, ten spaces or 110 spaces they are not benefitting local businesses if they are occupied for days or weeks on end by users of the Marina, or other local moorings.

 

In response to nimbyism then I would refute that. I think cars parked along there make the green look untidy and we often sit on the Green and eat our ice cream (someone is going to tell me now that that constitutes a picnic and they are not allowed on the green!) and I would much rather watch the boats come and go than stare at the side of a 4x4. Even if this is a case of NIMBYism then so what, surely it is the locals who's opinion is most important? Parking in Horning is a problem, but illegal parking is not the answer. It shoudl be remember that there are around a dozen 30 minute parking spaces (by Strowagers measuring, or 30 by Dajen's) on Lower Street. If you look on Street View and use the various dated maps available you never see them all full.

 

On a final note, I would like to share something with you all that made me smile. You may find it funny too. A signee of the petition to remove the planters stated the reason being that parked cars stopped children running directly from the staithe and falling in the river. She obviously visits Horning regulalry to take such an interest but not often enough to realise there are little fences along each saide of the roadway to trip the little "darlings" long before they get there.

[Poppy]

They are being removed.

 

http://horning.norfolkparishes.gov.uk/

"To summarise, the planters are an illegal obstruction in the public highway and the highway authority may not be able to licence them as there also exist private vehicular rights over the route which may be adversely affected by such obstructions, they will therefore need to be removed.  Private vehicular rights along the route likely exist for adjacent landowners although parking may only be possible on land in their ownership and as long as it does not obstruct use of the route, this is a private issue and not one for the highway authority.  The land adjacent to the village green on the route where the planters have been erected is likely to belong to the parish council as owner of the village green, any parking by the public on this part of the route can be referred by the parish council to the police if the parish council is minded to do so as it would likely constitute an offence under the RTA 1988 as set out above.  The parish council cannot take any action on the land which would obstruct the restricted byway"

 

Bunch of amateurs!

[LizG]

When the houses adjacent to the Staithe were built in the early 70s on the old Banhams yard/Biscuit Row?, parking for the opposite Percival moorings was made available under the archway of the new housing. At that time it was just a few boats - now it is a large marina.

 

I am not sure what parking the moorings have availabe or are advertised with being available?

 

The problem is that those that moor there now or those that live in the village don't always know the history surrounding these situations.

[JennyMorgan]

Who, I wonder, will pay for this ridiculous mistake? 

 

No one but no one blamed you know who!!! Great, innit! 

[BroadScot]

Who, I wonder, will pay for this ridiculous mistake? 

 

No one but no one blamed you know who!!! Great, innit! 

Very true JM.....you did mean of course the EDP!!!!

 

 

Iain

[petersjoy]

anyone else noticed who the parish council leader is.

 

quote.

Horning Parish Council chairman Dick Turpin, 63, of Mill Loke, Horning, confirmed the planters were removed yesterday and said councillors will discuss the issue at their next meeting on April 13.

[petersjoy]

Now i've been edited.

Will have to insert Richard.

[JennyMorgan]

Will the planters now find their way onto EBay? Will there be a call to give a home to a redundant planter? Will Mr Turpin now dip his hand into his own pocket? 

[smellyloo]

Imagine the outcry if after years of enjoying the floral displays they were ripped out to make way for a car park!!

[JennyMorgan]

The whole saga rumbles on. Ohhhhh dear!

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/police_involved_in_horning_plant_pot_row_1_4083773