PUBLIC NOTICE
PROPOSED TRAFFIC REGULATIQN ORDER
FOR PUBLIC FOOTPATH No. 75
LEATHERHEAD
ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984
Surrey County Council has received an application from Howard of Effingham School for a limited closure of the footpath. The closure would be during the hours 7.30am to 6pm during the school day Monday — Friday term time and at other times when the school facilities are being used, for example the annual summer school. The closure would only be in effect whilst the school remains on its current site. The footpath is shown on drawing (no.3/1/51/H114)
Surrey County Council would like to obtain the views of anyone who might be affected so that an informed decision can be taken on whether to make an order. If you have any comments or objections to the proposal please send them in writing by 25 May 2018 to:
-
Ms Debbie Prismall
Countryside Access Team
Surrey County Council
Whitebeam Lodge
Merrow Depot
Merrow Lane
GU4 7BQ
Telephone 020 8541 9343
e-mail: debbie.prismall@surreycc.gov.uk
It would be helpful to have your reasons for objecting/supporting the proposal. Please note that in the interests of open government, responses to this consultation may be disclosed to the public and may be summarised for inclusion in committee reports. If you do not wish your personal details (i.e. name and address) to be made public please notify us in your response.
If the Council decides to make an order then it will be advertised in the local paper and by notice on site for a further period.
If you require any further information or you wish to obtain a copy of this notice or the plan, please email or telephone Ms Debbie Prismall (details above).
This footpath is very important, I personally use it often and always meet others doing so too, it is used by mothers with buggies who attend a group at all saints church but also daily dog walkers as well as school children and elderly people. All these people would be put at risk if they then will have to walk up manor lane, where cars come round the corner with no visibility and there is no pavement which forces people to walk on the road. There is no alternative as any other way would involve a huge loop around the village . Closing this path is ignoring public safety, if necessary it should be just fenced off.
Well said, but do make sure formally respond to SCC in that vein, not just on this website 🙂
The application by the Howard school for the TEMORARY closure of the footpath from Lower Road to the Glebe land of All Saints church has come to my attention. I use this path, especially in day light hours, to access the church from my home in Maddox Lane, Lt Bookham, as do others either wishing to reach the church or the path passing the church. Using Manor House Lane is a precarious venture as one has to cross the road so that cars may be aware of your presence because of the bend and no footpath.
This footpath affords a SAFE route, and I have never been aware of any unpleasentness.
Also may I note that the use of the field to the left of the path is infrequent, as I visit the Church 2/3 times a week.
Yours Catherine Hall
Sent from my iPad
This would seem to be the place where information should be displayed:
https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/environment-housing-and-planning/countryside/footpaths-byways-and-bridleways/rights-of-way-public-notices
If anyone in EPC or EFFRA knows better, please do post the right link. I can’t see any ID associated with these Notices, such that you’d get with a Planning Application.
Are the school intending to enclose the whole of the area across which FP75 proceeds in high security fencing? Getting into the area from the Churchyard or from the open land to its west is a trivial matter, and which would still be easily possible even if the FP were barred. But that would be a much more expensive solution for an area they intend to vacate by September 2020.
I have emailed Debbie Prismall at Debbie.prismall@surreycc.gov for a copy of the application by the school. I have not received a response despite a chaser. I would urge others to do the same as well as objecting of course.
Please see the letter below which was sent to a neighbour from the school which gives some indication of their reasons.
I agree that the safety of the children ( particularly senior school children) seems a bit of a red herring as access can be gained from at least 2 sides of the field in any event. Presumably they are supervised during sporting activities. Note the risks are unspecified.
It is also unacceptable to have arbitrary closure during the summer holidays when in use. How will one know when it will be closed? I live opposite the field and have not noticed any activity before 7:30 am or during the summer holidays. Access to both the park and the churches can only safely be achieved by the footpath.
Dear Mrs Kassapian,
Thank you for your enquiry to Anne Persson, which she has forwarded to me. Please find a response to each of your questions below:
We have requested that the path is closed between 7.30am and 6pm because students begin arriving at school from around 7.40am and, particularly during the summer, some clubs and activities start from this time. A 7.30am closure would allow early rising dog walkers access to KGV across the field but give them time to be gone before the children start to arrive. We have all sorts of clubs and practices on the field after school most days which go on until 6pm when daylight allows. For the sake of simplicity, we decided to apply for a closure until 6pm all year around.
It is not that the footpath itself is used for sport, but the areas on either side are. Suggestions to fence off the footpath are simply not practical. If we could have a gate wide enough to allow grounds care vehicles and ambulances to access we would, to ensure security during the day, have periods when we needed to lock students out. This is clearly not acceptable and could seriously compromise their safety should we need to get them in to school quickly for any reason.
We have trespassers on site on an almost daily basis. Most have no real ill-intent but some do. Staff and students have, in the past, been exposed to abuse, threats and attacks. These are not frequent occurrences but they have happened. Our concerns are not about what has happened in the past, but about preventing anything from happening in the future. The opportunities for anyone to have completely unregulated access to our children while they are in our care are not acceptable in the world we now inhabit.
The traffic regulation order would mean that we were able to install lockable gates at either end of the footpath to prevent access at times when children are on site. Our preference would be that the footpath is permanently closed because with any opening we are still vulnerable to trespassers who could cause mess and damage, as they do now. Nevertheless, in an attempt to find some middle ground, and on the advice of a local councillor, we have decided to seek a limited closure.
The school field is our only green space. It is used by community groups during holidays for play schemes and other activities. Concrete areas may be more secure but are much less appealing and less appropriate for the types of activities being undertaken. We believe that it is even more important to ensure that the path is closed when holiday activities are taking place because there are fewer staff around to support should there be any incidents. The safety of the children and staff is our number one concern.
We have been seeking a resolution to this issue for almost 20 years. The world outside school is changing and threats to students’ safety are increasing. We are continuing to seek this very necessary adaptation to ensure that we are doing as much as we possibly can to keep our students safe while they are in school. In my view it would be utterly remiss to simply accept the risk the footpath presents for as long as it takes for the new school to be built. I am certain that waiting for the new school would not be considered a good reason for taking no action should a serious incident occur.
As I understand it, the traffic order would be implemented by the lockable gates at either end of the field but Surrey CC may be able to provide more information on this matter.
I hope you find this information useful.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Pennington
image002.jpg
I hope this helps.
Caroline Mahoney
I agree entirely with the points made by the other correspondents regarding this footpath. I use this path on a regular basis and have always thought it was a public footpath from the Lower Road to the Park.
I have never witnessed any unpleasantness of any kind.
I would like to make the point if The Howard are concerned about the children’s safety, do they not know about the children that are regularly in the copse by the alleyway to St Lawrence Church at lunchtimes.