Posted by: swinemoor | March 14, 2014

Blunders and Boundaries

The land swap proposed by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council in exchange for the construction of new cycle lane alongside the Keldgate Road (B1230) is now rearing its ugly head again as the closing date for comments before Defra makes its decision on this is rapidly approaching (17th March 2014).

As mentioned previously, it is almost impossible to find out very much about the ERYC’s proposals as they have been deficient in the placement of notices informing the public of their plans and they have not consulted the Pasture Masters or other interested bodies regarding their proposals since 2011. That said, they have now been so kind as to provide a line on a small scale map at County Hall showing where the exchange land is, however, they have told no-one that the map is there and the scale of the map prevents the exact land parcel from being identified although we at NSH believe that it is in the area defined by the circle in Figure 1.  In other words, within the boundaries of Longcroft School.

Figure 1: Area where land swap proposed by ERYC is situated. © Google Maps 2014

Figure 1: Area where land swap proposed by ERYC is situated.
© Google Maps 2014

Today the Open Spaces Society have objected to this proposal as the ERYC have not followed the correct procedure and the swap land is in a different parish to the rest of the Beverley Pastures. This means that, under the Beverley Commons Act, the Pasture Masters cannot administrate it and another method needs to be found in order to facilitate this. In addition, it is difficult to get to (see Figure 1), especially on race days and it is separated from Hurn by an ancient bank with a hedge and trees sitting atop it. This bank forms the parish boundary and is of great antiquity so removing it (and the associated trees and hedgerow) would amount to yet another loss to the heritage value of Beverley for the short-term benefit of the ERYC.

There are those who feel that a cycle path would be a good idea and the ERYC should be supported, however, the fact is, that even if the land swap were approved, the law changed to move the parish boundary and the highway extended, it still would not permit the riding of bicycles as in 2012 the Planning  Inspector who looked at the previous application for a cycle path by ERYC said:

The Council have presumed that as a consequence of an application under section 38 of the 2006 Act the Secretary of State has the power/authority to consent to the provision of a cycle track.  They state that if consent is granted then the cycle track would become a highway and the bylaws would not affect its use.  However, the granting of the application will only provide for the consent for the physical works identified in the application and will not result in the dedication of a highway or permit cycling on the common [Elliott 2012].

So what this boils down to is that ERYC are trying to sneak through under the radar a proposal to swap land from the existing area of Westwood in order to create a cycle track upon which it will still be illegal to ride a bicycle. Why is this? Once again we at NSH are suspicious that this is not a blunder but another attempt by the ERYC to set a precedent which they can use  in the future. It is also interesting to note that our elected representatives have nothing to say on this matter, however, this week a number of them have appeared on the front page of the Beverley Advertiser complaining about the parking restrictions in the town and the problems they are causing. We agree Councillors Harold and Elvidge: the parking restrictions in the town were a blunder – by the governing party in the ERYC of which you are both a part! We at NSH would also go as far as to suggest that any road widening to permit a cycle lane will lead to additional car parking, either on the lane itself or on the opposite side of the Keldgate Road. This situation will only be exacerbated by the extensions to the parking zone you propose and will potentially put cyclists on the B1230 in even more danger in the future than they are now.


Responses

  1. no fan of the council, but a cycle track is a great idea and we should get behind it. Change can be a good thing sometimes.

    • I don’t disagree Mike. It is the way it is being done that we and others have a problem with.
      Elsewhere in the town, i.e along Manor Road, Lincoln Way and Woodhall Way, there are painted cycleways on either side of the road. Why not use this method on the Keldgate Road? Remember the ERYC own Manor Road and Woodhall Way and, on their land, they believe this is a perfectly adequate way to construct a cycle lane. However, on land they do not own (in the strict sense) they propose road widening to create cycle lanes, on less busy roads than the ones mentioned above.
      There is clearly an ulterior motive operating here.

  2. […] as a byway) or painting cycle lanes on the carriageway as they have done elsewhere in the town, the ERYC decided that they would swap school playing field land at Longcroft School for the land that would be lost alongside the […]

  3. The problem is not the cycle track it is the drive behind it. If this way of taking land from the Westwood is given the go ahead it opens up all the Westwood for similar land swaps and destruction of a popular green area. This is for the people and is common land not for the council to do dodgy deals with the highest bidder like the cattle market but the us all to enjoy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: