By: charles davies

charles davies — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:39:00 +0000

I recently had reason to visit Lorinna after and absence of some years( I worked on telecom. there in the past)and was shocked to find the road that I had used in the past closed.
The new access is worse to traverse than the old road ever was (in my experience), and I must agree with Bart that ,considering the inconvenience of the extra travelling time and the cost of putting down a decent new road, maintaining the old road seems to me to be a far better option.
At the moment the new way is ,in my opinion, far more dangerous because of all the blind corners and the lack of lay-by areas making passing virtually impossible.
I consider that our council should,as soon as possible,reopen the old road,and as Bart suggests, put up signage and immediately do the necessary maintenance or contract it out. As a ratepayer I feel that it is our duty to assist the people of Lorinna in this matter,especially as some of them were encouraged by members of Kentish council to move to the area.

By: Bart Wisse

Bart Wisse — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:23:00 +0000

The current (absent) engineer has condemned the Lorinna Road on the basis of an afternoon trip on the road with the works manager. The previous engineer placed a 5 tonne weight limit on the road purely to keep heavy vehicles away from the edge when meeting other vehicles. There was no concern for the main carriageway to carry the weight. The engineers are covering their own backsides and supporting the management push for a new road. There is no technical basis for stating that the road is unstable, a road which has historically carried a huge tonnage, namely the virgin forests of the upper Forth valley.
The statement that some residents have undermined efforts to gain funding for a road over the top is a blame game cop out. What about the incessant hounding of Kentish councillors by pro new roaders to undermine the 1996 Council decision to upgrade Lorinna Road. And then again, the constant pressure on a new Council after the administration period 2002 decision to upgrade Lorinna Road in the manner prescribed by Pitt and Sherry Engineers. Both these Council decisions were supported by 80% of residents, and were the culmination of extensive dialogue with and within the community of Lorinna. They incorporated the principles of natural justice.
Councillor Wilson is clearly overwhelmed by the strength of the debate and seeks closure and comfort from the stress of it. The River Road option severely impacts on the social and economic fabric of Lorinna. It would result in loss of employment and closure of businesses. Lorinna is already a difficult place to work from, and a difficult place to live successfully. The option Councillor Wilson endorses (River Road) is formulated for the benefit of Sheffield residents and other external people who have become emotionally embroiled in the issue. They will not have live with the consequences of a decision that suits no one in Lorinna.
The Mayor asked the Lorinna people ¨tell us what you want¨. Well, the Lorinna people have repeatedly told you what we want, by an overwhelming majority. We want what everybody else wants - basic maintenance of the travelling surface and formation of our access road.
There is no science to the current condemnation of Lorinna Road. Given correct drainage and modest repairs, the probability is that Lorinna Road would continue to serve Lorinna well. The probability is that any structural problems would be isolated events, and could be dealt with as they arise. The probability is that the cost of managing the Lorinna Road in this way would be less than the interest costs of a new road, let alone the capital costs.
The truth is the engineers are going along with the the fears raised by management and the pro road campaign. The councillors are absolving themselves of the need to apply natural justice to Lorinna residents by locking in behind the engineer.
The oft stated liability risk to Council does not stack up to analysis. An existing road has a much lower threshold of design responsibilty than a new construction. The Council has ample defense against a claim of negligence in the demonstrated efforts to examine the options and the desire to build a new access. A new access is clearly unaffordable and unjustifiable on the basis of 7 vehicle movements per day. The responsibility of Council in these circumstances then, is to continue exploring funding for a new road while maintaing the current access to an acceptable basic standard and clearly advising road users of the perceived risks.
If Council cannot and will not maintain its duty of care to Lorinna residents and road users by maintaining the travelling surface and drainage on Lorinna Road, then it should get out of the way and allow the use of private insured contractors to do basic maintenance.

Comments on: Lorinna Road

By: charles davies

By: Bart Wisse