Roads

The  Esso Service station on the A36 will still be open during the road closure but will have a very difficult time with the road being closed.  I intend to only buy my fuel there, even if its inconvenient, whilst the A36 is closed.  I will also make sure that I also make a point of doing some shopping there.

We all need to support local services as much as possible -the posible closure of the fuel station is very real. I believe that we can all help to keep it open. Local supermarkets can afford to lose our custom for several weeks but in a time when fuel stations are becoming even fewer we can't afford to lose this one.

I have subscribed to the Highways agency to keep up to date with the A36 development. They email subscribers with updates to their website section for this project. The URL is A36 Limpley Stoke

There are already drivers who are using our village as a rat run. And unlike locals they are driving faster. Once Brassknocker hill is opened again the situation will worsen. There might be extra restrictions eg.

Some more photos of cars that are parked illegally. There is this particular law because it is needed to protect people from this type of selfish activity.

An article on this problem  The law from the Highway Code:

244

You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.

[Law GL(GP)A sect 15] Refer to 

Does the driver of this van believe that he is parking sensibly? Nice that he has moved his vehicle off the road to some extent? Nice for other motorists.  Shared spaces? Or just ignorance. Just down the road was an elderly women with two dogs who would have to move into the road to pass this van. Are there elderly people who are unwilling to have a walk in the centre of the village because it is dangerous? what if you were losing your eyesight, or were unsteady on your feet, or were accompanying little children how safe would you feel. The pavements are dangerous anyway.

What a motorist does is manoeuvre his or her vehicle which on average weighs at least three quarters of a ton using his feet and hands. If he makes a mistake someone will get injured, and the person most likely to get injured is a pedestrian. I suppose if we had shared spaces this type of parking would not be illegal as the pavement would not exist?

The following article is copied from a Google cache of the Wikipedia article for Freshford. Since the article used to read as below, it has been edited 'dumbed down' one might say (although I don't like the phrase). The alterations although on the whole good, do remove the fact that a lot of residents have spent many hours trying to deter Bath and North East Somerset and councillors from permitting the development. The argument is that what is written below is one sided and does not give the other side of recommending that the application should be permitted. I have not had any comment on why this development should have been permitted from any of those parties involved: B&NES Planning, Government Office of the South West, councillors. Ypres Rose Devlopments have also refrained from putting forth their argument for wanting to build at Freshford Mill. Of course I just may be too close to the issue and maybe many will accept the present article.

If anyone wants to edit the present Wikipedia article they are quite entitled to do so. On an earlier date the complete article section below was just removed in its entirety.

<The most important issue facing Freshford is the current development at Freshford Mill.^{[citation needed]} For the whole of the 21st Century, Freshford and its parish council, have had to spend a great amount of time trying to stop a development at Freshford Mill that would increase the population of the village and put great stress on the local roads^{[citation needed]}. There has been some disagreement as to whether the development now being undertaken by Ypres Rose is unwelcome^{[citation needed]}. The facts are that 80 percent of the village objected to the development that was proposed by Southern and Counties and only 1 person was in favour (provided the transport problems could be overcome). These facts come from the Freshford Parish Council's Extraordinary Meeting of the 22nd July 2002. The document may be found with some difficulty on the BANES Planning website but is more easily found (reproduced under APPENDIX F : DEMOCRATIC CONSULTATION AND PARISH COUNCIL EXTRAORDINARY MEETING) at [1]

The development which is in progress, is to convert a disused industrial site within a Zone 3 flood plain into a residential estate. Flood plain zones as defined by DEFRA state that Zone 3 is one of high probability of annual flooding [2]>

On reflection, the request for 'citation needed' is met by the reference to the 'Appendix F: Democratic . . .' Or is that not enough?

I fail to understand why some people believe that given the freedom to use the maximum road space as in the shared spaces philosophy that some people will NOT act in an inconsiderate manner; example below.

Pavements with their kurbs provide a measure of protection from vehicles. The kerbside also provide drainage and what used to be a place where the dog could do its business -although this is illegal now. The photograph below shows someone's car parked on the pavement in the High street Freshford.

Perhaps, the motorist believes that he or she is acting in the best interests of other motorists in that there is more width available to passing vehicles if their car is parked on the pavement. Or, perhaps the driver thinks that their car is a little safer from being damaged by a passing vehicle. However, the law is the law and has been made for a good reason.

The kerb not only protects pedestrians it is also a strong deterrent to motorists to keep away from the pavements, as to hit a kerbstone in good condition, will usually ruin a tyre.

The pavements in Freshford have become lower with periodic road surfacing and should be restored to the level required to protect pedestrians. It should be remembered that the kerb at its proper height will help to divert a vehicle away from the pavement. Or is B&NES council seeking to save money by removing pavements altogether?

The three photos below were taken on Saturday the 12th January 2008 after a couple of days of steady rain. Local rainfall amounts to 65mm for January so far.

This is Mill lane just beside Freshford Mill. The morning after the swollen river Frome deposited this tree trunk weighing possibly half a ton on the road.  Further down the lane the bridge is being cleared

But is still blocked. North of the mill the photo below shows the extent of the remaining flood.

At some time in the night the river Frome occupied the whole valley. Whilst at 11:00am the water had receded. The weather had also prompted the local authority to spread salt on the roads as there was a chance of ice.

Today I note, and photograph this vehicle parked entirely on the pavement in Freshford Somerset and West Wiltshire.

This inconsiderate behaviour is illegal. How does this evidence support the case for Shared Spaces?  What is the driver thinking? That they are helping other motorists to have more space to pass them? Or is it that they are thinking that by parking thus their is less chance of their vehicle being damaged by another motorist? Pedestrians?

As I have mentioned before I missed the lecture on Shared Spaces. But this does not preclude my right to add my observations on what I consider to be a very dangerous philosophy. Whilst pedestrians may share spaces with other pedestrians without the necessity to have regulation of their movements, there are situations where such regulation is necessary. For example, keeping to the left (in the UK) on stairs both in buildings and in particular in underground railway stations helps people to help each other to keep out of the way, in what are often extremely busy environments. But to share spaces on an equal basis with motorists is almost completely nonsense. One does not argue with the mass of a car, which is on average at least three-quarters of a ton.

Perhaps many years ago when motoring was restricted to well to do people there was little necessity for regulation. After all to be well to do one had to have money and usually having money was associated with a decent upbringing and a good education. Factors which tended to endow such people with an understanding and sympathy for others that is often missing in contemporary British society. However one doesn't have to have a decent upbringing and a good education these days to own a motor car.

And, we all feel that we are quite capable of behaving sensibly in our cars without such regulation, after all it is the others who need such regulation. Scrap the drink drive regulations as well, after all the more I drink the slower and more carefully I drive, up to the point where I am so drunk as to fall asleep in my vehicle (an offence!) Joking aside this Shared spaces concept is a little more complicated than scrapping speed limits etc but it is dangerous. I will add further comments on another post but for the time being if you feel you would like to refresh your understanding of the concept or if like me you missed it then why not refer to the Wikipedia article Shared Space

Its unfortunate that some people are unwilling to collect and dispose of their dog's excrement. part of the pleasure of living in the countryside is to use footpaths rather than roads. However, I won't use my local bridleway at night because I don't want to tread in dog poo. I understand that unless a footpath or bridleway is maintained by the local authority there is nothing preventing dog owners from allowing the dog to foul the ground on which people including children may walk.

During the day, if I do notice dog poo I pick up a stick and use it to move the poo off away from the pathway. for footpath, pavements and other ground that is either owned of maintained by the local authority it is now (since 1996) an offensive for the person in charge of the dog to not take steps to remove that dog's excrement. For B&NES council's information visit:

www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/environmentandplanning/animalwelfare/Dogs/DogFouling.htm

Within Freshford village there are footpaths that are regularly fouled by dogs. What could be a safer option for parents taking their children to school is thus denied to them by the selfish attitude of the dog owner. Under the circumstances, anyone seeing a dog fouling the footpaths, pavements and council owned land should tactfully remind the person in charge of the dog that they should remove the offending excrement. It is not sufficient under the law to just move the poo off to one side, it has to be removed. (However, if you are not in charge of the dog, then why not follow my example and use a stick to move the poo off  the pathway)

"Bath and North East Somerset Council adopted the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 in September 1998.  The whole of Bath and North East Somerset was designated, which means that any person in charge of a dog must clean up after it forthwith, on any land which is open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access.  A copy of the Designation Order can be viewed at the Council Offices, Riverside, Keynsham.

Failure to clean up after your dog is an offence.  Anyone seen allowing their dog to foul and not clean up after it will be approached by the Dog Warden and will either be put forward for prosecution, or be issued a Fixed Penalty of £50.  The owner will have the opportunity to pay the Fixed Penalty and thereby avoid conviction.  The Penalty would have to be paid within 14 days.  If it is not paid, the owner may be prosecuted and, if found guilty of the offence, fined a maximum of £1,000.

Registered Blind persons with dogs are the only exemption.

The Act does not apply to: 

B&NES

Whilst I felt that the Eden Project would, no doubt have been able to make use of the funds to further the development of the most  important centre in the World for the preservation of the environment (my opinion!) I also liked the  Sustrans Connect 2 project. Why not money for both folks, £50 million is only 83 pence each!

Tim Smits' Eden website has sent an email message to its supporters: Eden Message from Director Yes, we really do need a means to get from A to B without risking being mown down by traffic. Money well spent, provided Sustrans can manage it. Tim Smit is a financial genius and the money would not have been wasted. I hope that Sustrans will be able make efficient use of the money.

Substantial damage to Staples Hill has been caused by the use of a tracked vehicle. The tracked vehicle with a track width of 8 feet was caused by the fact that its transporting vehicle could not negotiate the hill with its load. Consequently, the tracked vehicle used in demolition works at Freshford Mill was unloaded and driven up the hill under its own power.  The photograph shows the damage to the road.

Some of the indentations are more than 20mm deep! As a Wiltshire resident (supported by my neighbours) We would like to know who is going to pay for this damage to our road?

Staples Hill is also in BANES (Bath and North-East Somerset) and I would have thought that BANES residents would also be concerned with the cost of repairs to Staples Hill.

Sustainability is a new word. For its meaning why not read this article: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability At the root of any communities ability to survive and thrive there has to be a school. Freshford has a school, but to be honest, the way in which the school's needs are being ignored leads me to believe that maybe a significant number of residents do not care. The school is central to sustainable development as a community.

Lets take the space that's available for outside activities, it is quite restricted, certainly not conducive to running around. The school is using that space well, but it was denied the space that it needs because the adjoining field is owned by a group of residents who are not prepared to allow any of it to be used. That's what I understand anyway, perhaps that's not the case.

Similarly, it is patently obvious that many parents need to use their cars to deliver their children to school. One Factor being that the parents drop their children off enroute to going to work. Yet the possibility of having an off road parking area along Freshford Lane adjoining the school is again blocked by this group of owners of the field. Instead, parents have to park along Freshford lane causing traffic chaos at least twice a day.

There is a continuing and very real danger that someone's child is going to be injured. The necessity for children to have to walk in front of the school bus for example is absurd. The driver cannot even see whether there are any children in front of his vehicle and a child is invisible to passing cars. Even an adult has to take great care. The unacceptible facts are that some motorists who come down Freshford lane at these times, lose their patience and when the road is somewhat clear they drive too fast.

The situation is made worse by there being no pavement, no pedestrian way to negotiate the road junction in safety. This situation will now be described as an example of Shared Spaces! Whereas it is really an example of cocked up planning. Photographs of the junction may be scrutinised here: Road Junction Centre of Freshford