Marple Community Forum & Noticeboard
November 24, 2014, 09:12:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Visit the Main Site

News: Banner Adverts on this site raise £1,000 for Skatepark Project
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  

A.C.M. Financial Services Ltd - for all aspects of financial planning

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: closure of middlewood way  (Read 1473 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
chicken lady
Full Member
***
Posts: 146



« on: April 14, 2012, 07:37:32 AM »

just walked the dog down the Middlewood Way on this beautiful sunny morning, and there are signs up to say that the Middlewood way will be closed between Throstle Grove and Wood Lane, for a period of 10 weeks starting this Monday 16th April. This is due to sewer works by Morris Homes. The signs apparently were only put up yesterday (they certainly weren't there on thursday morning), so not giving much notice to the many users of the Way, and I would think particularly inconvenient for the commuters who walk to Rose Hill Station, and the school children walking to Rose Hill and Marple Hall.
And also to me, who is going to have to find somewhere else to walk at 6am for the next 10 weeks!!
Logged
marveld
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 284



« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2012, 11:00:20 AM »

I was going to make a post this morning, but you beat me to it! I saw a sign on Thursday evening on a telephone/lamp post at the junction of Throstle Grove and Cross Lane.

I don't suggest anyone does this, but I'm sure someone will move the barriers out of the way allowing people to use the 'closed' section during non-works time.

Logged
chicken lady
Full Member
***
Posts: 146



« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2012, 07:18:22 PM »

not sure of the current state of play on the Middlewood way, on Monday and tuesday mornings I found that  2 of the barriers had been moved  - was it you marveld??,  and I moved the one near wood lane. Not ventured there since as have been off work so am walking later in the morning, have been down the back of Marple Hall which is equally as inaccessible! I will give it a go again on saturday morning unless told otherwise.
Logged
marveld
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 284



« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2012, 08:46:31 PM »

not sure of the current state of play on the Middlewood way, on Monday and tuesday mornings I found that  2 of the barriers had been moved  - was it you marveld??

Not me, honest. Not tried the Middlewood Way since my last post on the subject.
Logged
rsh
Full Member
***
Posts: 122



« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2012, 12:43:16 AM »

Saw some Marple Hall kids in the closed off area on Monday, but as they were walking back towards Rose Hill I presume they couldn't get through.

Couldn't believe when I read the notice that it's closed for TEN weeks. I've already arrived down there about three times completely forgetting it's closed. Roll Eyes

There's now a huge square hole being dug in the car park off Wood Lane...
Logged
chicken lady
Full Member
***
Posts: 146



« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2012, 08:38:49 AM »

I think closing it for 10 weeks is ridiculous.  I bet the council wouldn't sanction closing a road for so long, but as it's only a footpath /cycle path / bridleway it doesn't matter Sad
Logged
rsh
Full Member
***
Posts: 122



« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2012, 05:12:02 PM »

I think closing it for 10 weeks is ridiculous.  I bet the council wouldn't sanction closing a road for so long, but as it's only a footpath /cycle path / bridleway it doesn't matter Sad
Agreed. Perhaps Morris Homes should have at least been asked to fund some sorely needed signposts or notice boards for the 'way as a sweetener!
Logged
marplerambler
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 69


« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2012, 04:30:51 PM »

It is generally the case that temporary closure order application dates are for a period which is considerably longer than the expected duration of any works and actual closure period: the long period generally factors in worse case scenarios of things going wrong. Work may be expected to take, for example, four weeks but if a temporary closure application were to be made for only four weeks and the work was over-running a new legal application for temporary closure would have to be made at the end of the four week period. This would be costly and time-consuming for the applicant. If the expected duration of the works was expected to be ten or twelve weeks if all went well, an application would probably have been made for the maximum legal period of six months for a temporary closure order (an application for extension a period longer than six months would require the agreement of the Secretary of State). Chicken Lady is totally incorrect in her conjecture that applications for temporary diversion of footpaths/bridleways are treated differently to adopted roads: Highways Act 1980 section 122 gives a local authority power to make a temporary diversion where a highway is about to be repaired (in this case pipes are being laid beneath the highway in accordance with the planning application). It doesn't make a jot of difference if the highway is for vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Logged
chicken lady
Full Member
***
Posts: 146



« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2012, 05:09:15 PM »

well that's me put in my place! Cheesy
Logged
simonesaffron
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 569


« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2012, 06:59:10 PM »

It is generally the case that temporary closure order application dates are for a period which is considerably longer than the expected duration of any works and actual closure period: the long period generally factors in worse case scenarios of things going wrong. Work may be expected to take, for example, four weeks but if a temporary closure application were to be made for only four weeks and the work was over-running a new legal application for temporary closure would have to be made at the end of the four week period. This would be costly and time-consuming for the applicant. If the expected duration of the works was expected to be ten or twelve weeks if all went well, an application would probably have been made for the maximum legal period of six months for a temporary closure order (an application for extension a period longer than six months would require the agreement of the Secretary of State). Chicken Lady is totally incorrect in her conjecture that applications for temporary diversion of footpaths/bridleways are treated differently to adopted roads: Highways Act 1980 section 122 gives a local authority power to make a temporary diversion where a highway is about to be repaired (in this case pipes are being laid beneath the highway in accordance with the planning application). It doesn't make a jot of difference if the highway is for vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

There are some amazing people on this website - chicken lady, be off with your conjecture!
Logged
chicken lady
Full Member
***
Posts: 146



« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2012, 07:16:26 PM »

I hadn't realised I could conjecture, I thought I was just making a comment. oh the downfalls of a 1960's Grammar School education! Cheesy
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Tweets by @marplewebsite
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!