Mobile: 0794 120 1995
Again, one must ask 'What is going on at County Hall?'
As Wiltshire Council seems not to want to answer my emails, I have written to the Wiltshire Times.
Hopefully, it will be published!!
It is interesting to note that I queried the legality of the closure in an email to WC on Monday - as if by magic a new notice then appeared claiming that the closure was for public safety wef 31st July. Presumably, WC is therefore admitting that the closure for the previous week was actually illegal and it had obstructed a Right of Way which it is bound by law to keep available for use.
The letter is as follows:-
'Dear Sir,
Could Wiltshire Council explain publicly exactly what is happening on Middle Lane, Hilperton, which is a public Right of Way (RoW)? I have emailed the council on several occasions but, as seems the way these days, I have not had a substantive reply.
The wording of the closure notice has now been changed which confirms my suspicion that the original closure last week was actually illegal. More to the point though, why is this work being undertaken?
The parish council has not requested it, I, as the local councillor, did not request it, and the surface was perfectly adequate ‘as was’. Wiltshire Council has a responsibility under the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that the RoW network is adequately signposted, maintained, and free from obstruction. It does not require the council to install curbs and tarmac.
Furthermore, WC policies for maintenance work, other than annual growth clearance, are if the issue represents an immediate danger to the user or an obstruction that prevents or inhibits use of the path; neither of these priorities applies to Middle Lane and, by no stretch of the imagination, is the work an emergency.
Is the fact that this work is being undertaken at a time when Wiltshire Council is happy to suggest that the land either side of the path should be allocated for housing merely a coincidence?
I understand that funding for the work is coming from the Section 106 money resulting from the construction of Elizabeth Way – paid for by Persimmon. Is this correct? If it is S.106 funded then why not use the money for at least one of the pedestrian crossings which featured in the original plan but were then quietly ‘dropped’ by WC despite the public wanting them installed for safety reasons?
The public deserve to know the facts but, as ever, WC seems to think it can do what it likes with impunity and with no explanation to anyone – not even its elected representatives.'
UPDATE. The Wiltshire Times did not publish my letter but, instaed, used it as the starting point for an article. It is currently on-line and might make the paper next week.