Bridleway permission.

[Deleted member 26715]

No, it's because they (and I mean we) are not classed key staff, and a trip to inspect the obstruction and subsequent meet the LO are currently considered a non-essential journey.

It's really that simple.

In which case they should be furloughed & not responding at all to reports OR they should either have access to all that they require to be able to carry out their work from home. Even if that means a single person should travel into work to provide the information the rest of the team needs, as it would appear their current infrastructure which we have paid for is not fit for purpose.

 

[Drago]

No, it's because they (and I mean we) are not classed key staff, and a trip to inspect the obstruction and subsequent meet the LO are currently considered a non-essential journey.

It's really that simple.

If work can not reasonably be conducted from home, it is still lawful to travel in order to get to work or to discharge ones work. There is nothing in the legislation that restricts journeying for work purposes to essential personnel only.

 

[Deleted member 23692]

In which case they should be furloughed & not responding at all to reports OR they should either have access to all that they require to be able to carry out their work from home. Even if that means a single person should travel into work to provide the information the rest of the team needs, as it would appear their current infrastructure which we have paid for is not fit for purpose.

Really? They should be laid off because they can't undertake a very small part of their job?

 

[classic33]

Really? They should be laid off because they can't undertake a very small part of their job?

If their work is in PROW's/access, that's a major part of the job. Acting on reports of deliberate obstructions.

At least it was when I applied for a job within the local PROW's department. Ability to travel to remote locations came high on the list.

 

[matticus]

is this going to be the new excuse for everything in UK plc, replacing the well-tested "Elf n Safety"?

Sorry mate, we can't fix that - non-essential work, innit?

 

[uphillstruggler]

No, it's because they (and I mean we) are not classed key staff, and a trip to inspect the obstruction and subsequent meet the LO are currently considered a non-essential journey.

It's really that simple.

Fair enough point but surely the Council should have contact details? I don’t really see the need to meet them and chat when there is photographic evidence to support the call.

Don’t get me wrong, with everything going on atm, it may not be high op on the agenda but the lack of contact details is a bit amateurish

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Fair enough point but surely the Council should have contact details?

They do have the contact details, but they do not have access to the contact details as they are held in the office but they are 'working' from home, how you do that when you haven't access to the resources you need is another matter.

 

[uphillstruggler]

They do have the contact details, but they do not have access to the contact details as they are held in the office but they are 'working' from home, how you do that when you haven't access to the resources you need is another matter.

true, but in my companies case, we have an administrator who can access the details required and pass them on.

I would have imagined that you would have access to the information required for the job even if you are remote.

I'm not having a dig, I just cant see how it can be that difficult to have remote access.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

true, but in my companies case, we have an administrator who can access the details required and pass them on.
I would have imagined that you would have access to the information required for the job even if you are remote.
I'm not having a dig, I just cant see how it can be that difficult to have remote access.

Hence my suggestion that if they cannot do their job they should be furloughed, I also suggested that 1 person in the team could safely work in the office & pass that information out to others if remote access wasn't available.

 

[straas]

is this going to be the new excuse for everything in UK plc, replacing the well-tested "Elf n Safety"?

Sorry mate, we can't fix that - non-essential work, innit?

Sorry, but I absolutely despise this opinion.

I work in engineering / construction and the rate of deaths has sharply dropped since health and safety has been taken seriously.

 

[matticus]

No apology required - I think you've just misread me.

 

[ozboz]

I’d take it busy bods, my GF was riding on a Bridlepath in the Hampton area, two women walking their dogs , less than 2m apart began to give her a right ear bashing about Covid 19 restrictions !
She retorted , “well what would you expect !! , this is a Bridlepath and just in case you HAVN’T noticed , this is a Horse I’m riding !
Tapped the horse with her heels and “Ride on ! “

 

[ozboz]

Sorry, but I absolutely despise this opinion.

I work in engineering / construction and the rate of deaths has sharply dropped since health and safety has been taken seriously.

I work in Construction , your statement is true, but......
When I have worked on contracts where the completion dates were unattainable on a lot of occasions the H&S were let’s say relaxed ,
The worst was the Westfield at Shepherds Bush .
I would if possible like to see how many of the construction workers that were allowed to commute by PT actually caught the virus . A Gov worker I know refused to travel in to his work in London due to fact that the tube. route he has to take was crowded with what he said was Construction Workers :

 

[Drago]

Sorry, but I absolutely despise this opinion.

I work in engineering / construction and the rate of deaths has sharply dropped since health and safety has been taken seriously.

Absolutely. The local authorities have a statutory duty to keep these routes open. That duty has not been repealed, and the C-19 legislation is not higher law so does not usurp that duty.

It is clearly stated that if people cannot reasonably work from home they should go to work (unless they work in one of the business on the prescribed list) and work as normal, albeit maintaining distancing where possible and being mindful of hygiene.

There is nothing in the legislation that prohibits people other than "key staff" going to work. Indeed, I would contend that as they have a statutory legal duty to act, and failure to observe that duty is unlawful, they are indeed key personnel anyway. To wilfully neglect a statutory duty is misconduct ina public office, a serious offence, and being worried about C-19 is a mitigation, not a defence.

There is nothing in the legislation or any moral imperative that prevents councils from discharging their lawful obligations, and most other local authorities - including my own local one - are dealing with such matters, and actually doing so quite expeditiously.

Interestingly, most of the highways stuff is managed by contractors, in my local council Kier. Its utterly obscene that some council contractors are still taking the full public coin yet using this as an excuse to not even attempt to provide the contracted services.

 

[mjr]

In that case, I shall park my bike on the road while I toss that sign over the wall!

Oh please go careful. We had flaming hell to pay locally when some kids (probably - it's a bit of a vandalism hotspot) bent some anti-cycling signs put up on National Cycle Route 1 by a misguided parish. Of course, cyclists were blamed for it, even though several cycle route signs were defaced at the same time (and as far as I know, still haven't been cleaned or replaced).