On 27 Nov 2015 at 9:46am concerned pedestrian wrote:
Walking along the Cockshut Lane this morning with my son and dogs before school. Son got startled by the sudden appearance of a black BMW X5 which shot round the corner by the waterworks. 5 minutes later another car comes along albeit much slower. When I got out my phone to take a photograph the driver argued that it has always been the accepted way for high vehicles to access the Southdown club (his 4x4 had a roofbox) and the passenger said I was very lucky if this was all I had to moan about! -so should I wait until someone has an accident then before I moan?
For the benefit of the uninformed the road between the Stanley Turner ground and the underpass is NOT provided as a convenient rat run or access road ! It is only for agricultural and emergency vehicles and has been since the road was built in the 70s. If you want to argue this then have a look at the recent planning application by Orange Badge Services and the subsequent refusal.
Message to relevant authorities: When oh when is the gate going to be reinstalled or a new barrier built or will you too wait until someone else is injured or worse -there has been one reported accident already.
If you are a walker or cyclist and have experienced the same frustrations then please lobby the Council about this and report any incidents to the ESCC Rights of Way department 0345 60 80 193
On 27 Nov 2015 at 2:06pm So What? wrote:
On 27 Nov 2015 at 2:42pm Judge Dredd wrote:
Another Bell Ender.
On 27 Nov 2015 at 3:53pm concerned pedestrian wrote:
What inspiring responses and thanks for the unwarranted insult Judge Dredd. Presumably you and "so what?" Are clearly the type that don't give a sh*t until it happens to you and then you'll be the first to stand up and bleat. This is the first time I've used the forum with the hope of getting some awareness of a local issue but if your pathetic dribble is a typical response I won't bother.
On 27 Nov 2015 at 4:19pm Slarty wrote:
Rather than stating things on here where nothing can be done, why not report it on operation crackdown. (Link attached if it works).
Also goes for the message to the relevant authorities - tell them, not us. I'm not going to put a gate up, but if whoever is in charge knows about it then they might.
Check it out here »
On 27 Nov 2015 at 4:50pm Hikerbiker wrote:
I think the original poster was also pointing out that people have wrongly assumed that the road can legally be used to get to the Southdown club etc or the other way around. And as he/she states its trying to raise awareness as well amongst local residents who use the forum?
On 27 Nov 2015 at 5:52pm Judge Dredd wrote:
I was referring to "so what " as theirs was the preceding post. If I had wanted to insult your ideas I would have addressed you. Perhaps I should have said . So What you are........Using a popular insult on this forum. Stay and give the forum a fair hearing.
On 27 Nov 2015 at 6:00pm Lewes Chap wrote:
Precisely the sort of whining, drippy, self-important post that deserves the bird on here, IMHO.
On 27 Nov 2015 at 7:45pm Primark Pete wrote:
That's why you should take your opinion, Lewes Chap, and stick it up your a**e IMHO
On 27 Nov 2015 at 8:59pm Bob wrote:
On 27 Nov 2015 at 9:26pm Selfish Git wrote:
Yeah, right Bob, so the tosser in the 4x4 driving too fast down Cockshut Lane is going to wait for a middle class kid to maim or kill. But, you're right, we should be musing more on the thoughts of Chairman Corbyn
On 27 Nov 2015 at 10:46pm concerned pedestrian wrote:
Judge Dredd, my sincere apologies as I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick - I'll chuck it in the direction of Lewes Chap instead...
On 27 Nov 2015 at 10:53pm Lewes Chap wrote:
Don't dent my 4x4 with it, mind...
On 28 Nov 2015 at 7:11am Judge Dredd wrote:
No problem .It was slightly ambiguous and I tend to shorten what I write. I am so busy righting wrongs on a galactic scale
On 28 Nov 2015 at 1:26pm Cuban Raft Rider wrote:
Google maps & Tom Tom both see it as a valid route for a car
On 28 Nov 2015 at 1:27pm resident wrote:
From December 1st no vehicles will be allowed to drive on this stretch of road so any vehicles doing so will probably be liable for prosecution.
On 28 Nov 2015 at 6:19pm John Smith wrote:
Google maps tell you to turn right at the top of Station St, but you'd be breaking the law if you did.
I'll be delighted if vehicles really do stop using Cockshut Lane, but given that no-one enforces any traffic rules in this town I'll be pretty surprised too.
On 28 Nov 2015 at 7:22pm Van driver wrote:
The fact is that this road is no different from any other small country lane that vehicles have to use to access property. Why should those delivering to Rise Farm in the course of their business be prohibited from using this road in order to pander to the whims of a few people who choose to use it for leisure purposes?
On 28 Nov 2015 at 8:37pm John Smith wrote:
Wait! I know this one...
Because Rise Farm was granted permission to have light industrial units on its land with the proviso that access to it would be via Ham Lane. Simple really.
On 29 Nov 2015 at 10:45am resident wrote:
well southover bonfire society members won't be able to use it either like they did this year. I have some sympathy with vehicle drivers because it's not as if it is used that much by walkers and cyclists . It will be interesting to see how it is "policed".
On 29 Nov 2015 at 11:58am concerned pedestrian wrote:
Having spoken to the council there are "hopefully"plans to put a barrier/gate somewhere in the middle to prevent vehicles using it as a shortcut etc but can be opened for emergency services. If it is in the middle then presumably Southover could still get vehicular access to the firesite.
How soon this will happen is the question as the wheels of officialdom turn slowly!
On 29 Nov 2015 at 1:05pm John Smith wrote:
Resident, I know exactly why I don't use it - because there is every chance of being mown down by a speeding vehicle. When the shrubs and trees are in leaf you can't even see them coming (and by the same token they can't see you).
I can absolutely see that it's a nuisance to have to travel the long way round via the recycling site, and actually I don't suppose anyone would have minded the odd vehicle using the track if they did so responsibly, but they don't. So there's not much choice. Share the road equally, or not at all.
On 29 Nov 2015 at 1:33pm resident wrote:
I would hope that Southover bonfire society would not be able to use the lane at all it wouldn't be fair that they should have special access.
On 30 Nov 2015 at 7:21pm Van driver wrote:
I have done a bit of research on the "alternative" route; all the way down Mountfield Road, then into Ham Lane, and onto the road paralleling the bypass towards the junction with Cockshut Road.
It seems that there is no legal restriction on the road between (effectively) the dump and the sports centre. Therefore, I can drive at the national speed limit (60) along that nice straight stretch, to make up for lost time. Dog walkers and tree-huggers be aware.
On 1 Dec 2015 at 7:15am coerced resident wrote:
Driving at 60 along a small country road just about sums you up really - and you wonder why people are against you using the Cockshut. ....
If a business sets up shop in a place where they knew access conditions applied then they only have themselves to blame rather than manipulate conditions for their own benefit.
On 1 Dec 2015 at 6:48pm Sylvia wrote:
I have always understood that the whole route from Stanley Turner to the tip and Mountfield Rd is Ham Lane and that it is an "unadopted" road ie not a highway ESCC has control over. I don't see how they can gate it at any point, since they have no ownership of it, which is why the surface is in such poor condition. They have always fought not to adopt it, which is why the road down the Cockshut after the housing is not yellow lined, for example. In fact the rout from the amenity tip parallel to the A27 is just as heavily used by dog walkers and others, so creating the same kind of danger or worse, with people aggravated by doing the longer dog leg.
On 2 Dec 2015 at 2:35pm John Smith wrote:
It's a bridleway, Sylvia. That means it cannot be used legally by motorised vehicles. And the SDNPA has already ruled against changing its use.
If you look at the objections you'll see how many people who live in Kingston use it for access to Lewes. Ham Lane (which is the approved route) isn't nearly as well used, and those of us who use it know that it's a roadway and thus we should expect to encounter motor vehicles.
People who are driving dangerously because they're aggravated by doing the longer dog-leg should not be driving at all, should they? It's hardly an excuse, and not a terribly good reason for putting a whole new bunch of pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders in danger.
Check it out here »