Gwyn
Posts:22
 |
| 09/09/2009 8:16 PM |
|
Has anyone looked at the pros and cons of renaming main road?
What are the implications where a resident has their entire life registered as "Main Road" when it's changed to "Wealden Folly"? Will we have to change bank accounts, driving licences, insurance document, and everything else that has an address on it? |
|
|
|
|
????
Posts:37
|
| 10/09/2009 5:57 AM |
|
Is that any different from changing your address or relationship which many of us do from time to time as we pass through life? If that was a valid argument even fewer people would get married, change partners or move house. Just part of life's rich patten. |
|
|
|
|
stephen
Posts:6
|
| 10/09/2009 9:11 AM |
|
| How about the cost? Lets think, firstly we would need at least two new road signs at £150 each then there are the two men in a van to put them up again £150 each add to this the cost of disposal of the old ones and we are close to £1000. Not a bad way to blow money. Perhaps we could have some road repairs instead? I have lived in East Sussex for the last 40 years and managed to get to most places, even easier with a sat Nav so can somebody please explain why the council has started to put signs up all over the place? |
|
|
|
|
Eddie
Posts:8
|
| 10/09/2009 11:43 AM |
|
I think discussing the cost of road signs etc. is a bit of a 'Red Herring', as whatever parishioners say, or suggest, as their preferred choice or even if we decide to say we want 'Nothing' they're still going to do it, and that will be, by default, 'Main Road' if we don't put forward an alternative. The responsibility for voicing the community's wishes on how our contribution to Highways money should be spent lies with our Parish Council who were of course the people who asked for some parking control outside the New Inn then neglected to establish what sort of parking control ESCC would use and and consequently wiped their hands of the matter saying they didn't expect bollards! The stumps have now been tarmacced over and there is no parking control - back to square one! This shambolic episode that must lye at the feet of the Parish Council has cost us, the ratepayers over £4,000! How many potholes could have been fiilled with that?
|
|
|
|
|
????
Posts:37
|
| 10/09/2009 12:26 PM |
|
Stephen
We have no control over whether or not the road is re-named. The WDC have said they are required by statute (some minor law probably passed recently) to ensure every road has a name and despite the Village road being 'known' as Main Road it has never been named as such despite it appearing on postcode search engines. In short even if there is a 100% vote to leave things as they are WDC must give the road that name and incur any necessary costs. Whether or not the residents want to take part is an individual choice but you cannot stop the process. We as council tax payers are never consulted about expenditure whether it be at Local, District or County level. Just one of the facts of life about which so few take any interest.
Peter |
|
|
|
|
????
Posts:37
|
| 10/09/2009 12:30 PM |
|
Gwyn
You can't have Wealden Folly 'cos Wealden as part of the name has already been rules out.
Peter |
|
|
|
|
Gwyn
Posts:22
|
| 10/09/2009 1:19 PM |
|
Changing the name from it's present name "Main Road" is in my opinion folly and wholly unnecessary. I would not want the compulsory name change activities foist upon me and I would imagine the majority of residents along the road would equally rather have the status quo maintained and zero effort required. |
|
|
|
|
????
Posts:37
|
| 10/09/2009 10:38 PM |
|
Gwyn
As I pointed out to Stephen the WDC are required by statute to name the road. It is a misnomer to say re-name because it has never been legally named in the past. These things are controlled by statute whether you like it or not. If you don't like the statute you need to change the law. That requires a lot more than zero effort as I have experienced in the past. You could start by arranging a meeting with your MP to raise your concerns and seek to have a statute which affects the whole country amended. Somehow I think it would be unsuccessful but have no doubt it would require a lot of effort.
Peter |
|
|
|
|
Gwyn
Posts:22
|
| 11/09/2009 9:41 AM |
|
| Peter, what are you on about?! The road may not have a "legal name" but it does have a name that everyone uses and is registered with the post office etc.: Main Road. All they need to do is make the legal name Main Road and cost to residents (the effort required to contact every organisation that you have an address registered with) will be zero. |
|
|
|
|
stephen
Posts:6
|
| 11/09/2009 10:18 AM |
|
| Sorry did not know that it was a governmental edict that the country had to be covered in signs, so that we knew where we were. If this is the case then perhaps we could look at the statute books and find the law they used in 1939 to take them down. After all as the news tells us every night we are at war. So rather than put up more pointless signs blighting the countryside lets take them down. As a point of reference I live on the A272 but outside the village and hopefully it will be staying so. It’s not so much the waste of money its just another example of creeping state intervention. |
|
|
|
|
Eddie
Posts:8
|
| 13/09/2009 1:06 PM |
|
Everybody seems to have overlooked the fact that the present 'Main Road' was officially called 'South Beacon Road'* at the end of the 19th. century and through much/some? of the 20th. century and there seems to be no record of this name ever being changed!
*See Hadlow Down - An Autobiography
|
|
|
|
|
????
Posts:37
|
| 22/09/2009 9:52 AM |
|
Gwyn
If you live in what is referred to by some as Main Road, there is no obligation to include that in your address. I have never used it since coming to live in Hadlow Down. My address is simply (house name) Hadlow Down TN22 4HJ and I have never had a problem. There is a problem with the way the Royal Mail decide on what our address should be and it is more for their convenience than for anybody else. They include the Town of Uckfield in the "official" address and this leads some insurers to load premiums for flood risks because of the propensity for flooding in Uckfield. One insurer even refused flood cover. When I pointed out that Uckfield was 6 miles away and several hundred feet below Hadlow Down and nobody has yet discovered how water can run uphill they responded that their systems relied on the Royal Mail address and as far as they were concerned we are part of Uckfield. I would be more interested in having Uckfield removed from the "offiicial" address
 Peter |
|
|
|
|
????
Posts:37
|
| 25/09/2009 1:31 PM |
|
Stephen
It's worse than you think. By using a clause in the Public Health Act 1925 Central government has created an initiative, the aim of which is to collect electronically all sources of addresses for every district in the country and combine them to produce one definitive address for every property. It is claimed that such a unified database will greatly assist the emergency services and will also be the key to such initiatives as electronic voting and simplified property conveyancing.
Peter |
|
|
|
|