Salt Routes, Where Is Gritted Options

[spartacus]

Its not private property, it never has been and never will be.
Thats just it, but West Berks aren't willing to listen.

Lee, I believe you're the Admin fella for the Kennet Heath Forum and the Chair (or similar) of the Residents Association of the estate, so will be fully up to speed on what responsibilities the developer has and what obligations the Council has. It was previously 'owned' by MOD when the Depot was there, but now is 'owned' by the developer.

This is a major development of around 800 houses. The building is still ongoing at the westernmost part of the estate. Until construction on the site is fully completed and all the infrastructure (including street lighting, drainage and road construction) has gone through it's standard maintenance period, inspection and checks, then no council in this country would take on responsibility for gritting what is in effect a private road.... managed by a combination of the developers and the estate management company. (currently CPM Asset Management?). If nothing else, there would also be a liability issue to consider if the Council WERE to take on gritting this road.

There would also be uproar from other council tax payers in the district if it was decided that private estate roads such as Kennet Heath were included, when other areas on fully adopted roads, were not.

The added complication with Urquhart Road is that it has RISING BOLLARDS (very popular discussion point on here.... ) at the link to Braemore Close so only buses can get through.

I'd get on to your developers.

Make a big stink about it and Reading Buses (NOT WBC ) may consider taking Urquhart Road off their route which would solve the problem. I understand that their drivers already regularly complain that access through the estate is very difficult at times because there are so many parked cars in the estate (classic case of building too many houses with not enough off-street parking areas). These cars park close to the chicanes and speed humps and there has been occasion when buses couldn't get through.

The recent incident when a bus was damaged near the bollards because the road hadn't been salted by the developer is (I understand) making the Reading Buses management reconsider their routings. If you want this facility maintained I suggest you get onto your developer...

[Iommi]

Lee, I believe you're the Admin fella for the Kennet Heath Forum and the Chair (or similar) of the Residents Association of the estate, so will be fully up to speed on what responsibilities the developer has and what obligations the Council has. It was previously 'owned' by MOD when the Depot was there, but now is 'owned' by the developer.

This is a major development of around 800 houses. The building is still ongoing at the westernmost part of the estate. Until construction on the site is fully completed and all the infrastructure (including street lighting, drainage and road construction) has gone through it's standard maintenance period, inspection and checks, then no council in this country would take on responsibility for gritting what is in effect a private road.... managed by a combination of the developers and the estate management company. (currently CPM Asset Management?). If nothing else, there would also be a liability issue to consider if the Council WERE to take on gritting this road.

There would also be uproar from other council tax payers in the district if it was decided that private estate roads such as Kennet Heath were included, when other areas on fully adopted roads, were not.

The added complication with Urquhart Road is that it has RISING BOLLARDS (very popular discussion point on here.... ) at the link to Braemore Close so only buses can get through.

I'd get on to your developers.

Make a big stink about it and Reading Buses (NOT WBC ) may consider taking Urquhart Road off their route which would solve the problem. I understand that their drivers already regularly complain that access through the estate is very difficult at times because there are so many parked cars in the estate (classic case of building too many houses with not enough off-street parking areas). These cars park close to the chicanes and speed humps and there has been occasion when buses couldn't get through.

The recent incident when a bus was damaged near the bollards because the road hadn't been salted by the developer is (I understand) making the Reading Buses management reconsider their routings. If you want this facility maintained I suggest you get onto your developer...

Presumably this place doesn't have to pay Council Tax? Eh?

[spartacus]

Presumably this place doesn't have to pay Council Tax? Eh?

Que??! I no unnerstan'....


I assume the honest ones pay council tax....

and I assume they get their bins emptied, can send their kids to the local school, will use the public roads which their estate leads onto, yada yada yada.

It doesn't mean that the Council should be banging a gritter up there just because the locals want one though does it?.

Sending gritters up relatively narrow residential roads leads to other problems invariably anyway. That's when the complaints start to be made that gritters have 'damaged cars' and chipped paint as they travel past and fling out the rocksalt....


Another thing with unadopted roads is that they are not subject to the same Traffic Law, so technically if the locals in this Thatcham estate report a problem with speeding/nuisance drivers, there isn't a GREAT deal the police can do about it as far as actual prosecution is concerned. They can of course send a patrol car there and 'be seen' or move the problem along, but they cannot issue tickets on private roads....

[Iommi]

Put simply... what a load bollix. I presume Their council tax will be assessed as any other, whether adopted or not. They, therefore should be entitled to the same services. Either that, or a discount.

[Strafin]

I presume Their council tax will be assessed as any other,

Badly?

[user23]

Put simply... what a load bollix. I presume Their council tax will be assessed as any other, whether adopted or not. They, therefore should be entitled to the same services. Either that, or a discount.

They do get the same services on all public roads in their area.

As I said earlier, if the council are going to look after private property such as the road in question I'll expect them round gritting my drive.

[Iommi]

They do get the same services on all public roads in their area. As I said earlier, if the council are going to look after private property such as the road in question I'll expect them round gritting my drive.

I don't expect my drive gritting, that's a stupid argument, but I do expect all primary routes with public access.

[spartacus]

There are loads of unadopted residential roads across the district.

Urquhart Road in Thatcham is a temporary thing while the estate is under construction and I would assume that it will become fully adopted in due course.

In other areas there are Private Roads where only the residents would normally be allowed access.
There is also another category known as a 'Private Street'. These are roads over which the general public has rights of way but the residents are responsible for maintenance

The residents of these roads pay Council Tax but should not be expecting the Council to provide a gritting service or repair pothole/blocked drains

Urquhart Road is not a Primary Route. Remember, this is a route through the housing estate which has rising bollards at one end for buses only. The route essentially becomes like a private estate road because you can only get IN and OUT via the single entrance onto Station Road. No need for the general road user to go in there unless they're visiting friends/rellies

[Iommi]

If Urquhart Road is not a primary route, then I see no reason why it should be gritted. Although if I were the bus operator, I would make adequate gritting/salting a condition of access.

[user23]

I don't expect my drive gritting, that's a stupid argument, but I do expect all primary routes with public access.

It's not a primary route, it's a private road to people's houses much like my drive is.

Not such a "stupid argument" now you've been informed of this, is it?

[Iommi]

It's not a primary route. Not such a "stupid argument" now you've been informed of this, is it?

Your argument was stupid because you are drawing an analogy with your drive (do you actually have one?) and a private road.

[user23]

Your argument was stupid because you are drawing an analogy with your drive (do you actually have one?) and a private road.

There you go again, you were clearly the one not in possession of all the facts and you've called my argument stupid twice now. This speaks volumes for all to see.

A drive is a private road, the road in question is a private road.

[Iommi]

There you go again, you were clearly the one not in possession of all the facts and you've called my argument stupid twice now. This speaks volumes for all to see. A drive is a private road, the road in question is a private road.

The point is, regardless of whether a road is private or not is immaterial as not all roads are gritted, only primary ones and some secondary ones. Your drive is not likely to be a primary or secondary route, so your argument, for the third time, is stupid.

[user23]

The point is, regardless of whether a road is private or not is immaterial as not all roads are gritted, only primary ones and some secondary ones. Your drive is not likely to be a primary or secondary route, so your argument, for the third time, is stupid.

A private road is not likely to be a primary or secondary route, just like my drive.

In fact if the point is so stupid please tell us all any private roads in the Newbury area you know of that are primary routes.

[Iommi]

A private road is not likely to be a primary or secondary route, just like my drive. In fact if the point is so stupid please tell us all any private roads in the Newbury area you know of that are primary routes.

This is besides the point, only primary and secondary routes are salted. Your drive, which might be private, and many other public and private roads, don't get salted, even if they are on a bus route.

Your argument implied that should public sponsored gritting be permitted on private roads, that you would expect your drive to be gritted. I'm saying, that gritting is performed only on roads of merit, that is to say, roads of significant public use. Your drive, regardless of private or public status wouldn't qualify by either measure. Your 'drive' analogy, therefore, is simply stupid.

[user23]

This is besides the point, only primary and secondary routes are salted. Your drive, which might be private, and many other public and private roads, don't get salted, even if they are on a bus route.

Your argument was due to the private status, it shouldn't be gritted, my argument is that roads that are primary and secondary should be salted. The issue with the orignal poster on the subject was to assume that because a bus uses the road, that it deservers salting. This is not the case because it is isn't a significant route.

Come on, which private roads are primary routes in the Newbury area, stop wriggling.

Let's see how stupid the point was by you listing all of them in your next post.

[Strafin]

Wasn't Vodafone gritted?

[Iommi]

Come on, which private roads are primary routes in the Newbury area, stop wriggling. Let's see how stupid the point was by you listing all of them in your next post.

This is not a wriggle, I simply don't know! Now answer me this, why would you expect your drive to be salted by the council if private roads were salted?

Everyone on this board, however, can see you wriggling, but this doesn't validate your stupid 'grit my drive' argument.

[JeffG]

Children, children...

[Iommi]

Children, children...

And your post is a 'mature' one?