DEFINITIVE MAP: 2007

HERE IS THE REPLY ON BEHALF OF JOHN HUNT.
I am a volunteer for Suffolk Rights Of Way Limited and John Hunt has asked me to reply to your letter dated 11th December 2007 which he received on Saturday 15th December. Unfortunately I can only manage 2 hours a day so I am afraid this reply will be sent as single articles over a period of days.Each article will deal with a single case at a time and I would urge you to print off the pictures as that is rather more permanent than a hyperlink.This is my area more than Mr Hunts who is from Gainsborough whereas I am from Duke Street and the Dock area as were my parents, my grandparents and their parents too. I have a lot of heritage invested in the dock area being the place my grandfather and his 4 brothers worked and lived there as did anumber of their uncles. All the menfolk of a fighting age in my family went away for WW1 and only one returned and that was not my grandfather who is remembered bythis now removed plaque at Cranfields.

My grandmother owned land and property all over Ipswich and when Ransomes Sims & Jefferies wanted to expand they had to buy the land off her to do so.The history of the dock is easy for me but I understand just how it must be nearly impossible for Mr Steve Kerr, Caroline Keen and yourself to understand it not being part of the history yourselves. Indeed it appears to me you and the afore mentioned colleagues have an impossible task. I appreciate your colleagues and you of course have a wonderful knowledge of PRoW law but unfortunately none of you know old Ipswich. That is why there are mutterings from major PRoW groups about a Judicial Review of SCC performance or rather lack of performance in producing a Definitive Map forIpswich since 1981.What one has to remember is the Ipswich Dock Act. There is by law a 30 foot wide free space between the water and the nearest building. This space has to be kept free of any obstruction and the free flow of air is required for the health of the people and of course for filling the barges sails. This 30 foot wide corridor is around the entire dock, i.e. every quay and wharf has 30 foot of clear air and space between the water and the nearest building. The storing of timber and anything else is unlawful within this space but Anglo-Norden store timber regularly in contravention of the law on Eagle/Orwell Quay. IBC have been informed of this but they have completely failed to uphold the law here. The containers stored alongside the water are also unlawful. No doubt you will discover this when you look at the Ipswich Dock Acts. The compound and gate at Neptune Marina are also unlawful as are many similar obstruction on Flint Wharf/End Quay and South West Quay. I especially draw your attention to Spirit Yachts who construct yachts on South West Quay and partially block it. Car parking is also a problem all around the dock and New Cut. I and others fail to see how SCC can fulfil its duty in this respect without input from SROW and its over 500 members. However your open approach is very welcome and greatly appreciated and may take a little pressure off SCC in the short term once the word gets around about your very welcome approach on these PRoW. A little background is called for here. The IpswichDock Act of 1837 is basically intact although the most oft quoted version is now the 1852 Act which doesn't really affect PRoW anyhow. There was an attempt with the 1913 Act to stop up the East Road (New Cut East) but that failed as Ipswich council would not give consent and that was a requisite of the Act. The 1918 Act done away with the need for consent but by then men were returning from war minus limbs etc and by now organised too and there was never any attempt by folks who never went to war to stop up the East Road after all. This is also the case with Sandy Hill Lane and the routes along Cliff Road/Quay. The position remains the same till this day. It must also be remembered each quay had a tram service too and they ran on rails.The dock and New Cut was a military base during the war but access was not denied during that time either. I acknowledge my pen may have slipped during writing the routes and Steve Kerr has already mentioned claim "F" appears to go over water but of course it doesn't. It is merely careless pen work and from your second "x" to Pipers Vale is indeed a shortened route and I will alter the map and mail a pic of it to you. That is the only correction needed though as you will see from the enclosed photographs and all your 2001 maps are relevant and apparently accurate too.
I am aware you have written to a number of people who filled in UserEvidence forms but as this corresponded with the Christmas period I would imagine your letter was disposed along with other wrappings or papers that required reading. Some of those you wrote to cannot read or write and I can understand the view that their evidence has already been submitted to SCC some 12 months ago and they will be happy to enlarge upon it if they or at a PI. As you will be aware these applications are nearly 12 months old and they will be the subject of a request for directions off theSecretary of State once the 12 month period is reached. If you let me know the minimum number of witnesses you require I will endeavour to find the more suitable of the large number so far involved. Hopefully I can explain more in my individual mails about each map you have sent me but if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.These cases are being handled as S.53 orders but as you are probably aware I have made a complaint about the failure of SCC to ensure IBC enforce theIpswich Dock Acts so in actuality we are dealing with the Ipswich Dock Act and Common Law rights at the same time. I also acknowledge the difficulty of some routes using the same space as FP's and as BOATS. This is not a case of hedging bets although it obviously looks that way and I am not sure how this should be handled as the routes do deviate in places. This is especially the case on Cliff Road/Quay which starts off as a 20m wide road but the FP starts at the lock and follows the waterline.Claim A.BC Map (CPM 175).The gate has been there about 15 years and during that time it was not permanently closed until maybe the last 5 years. The swing bridge quite differently from what you have been informed was closed to road traffic only at high tide except when small ships travelled through. Small ships were very rare though and leisure boats non-existent until quite recently. I drive over it frequently but they usually try to trap me on the wrong side or behind the gate nearer St Peters Wharf. It stands to reason the swingbridge had to be kept open to road traffic as it also has a railway line across it. When it was closed to allow a ship through it would be such a speedy operation traffic would queue rather than go back and use another route. The bridge was only wide enough for one car each way but it has a footway each side for pedestrians. This was once a major route for folks travelling to and from Nacton Road factories if they lived 'over stoke'.Folks also used to cross it to access the ferry across the river and for leisure walks. John Hunt and myself have taken BBC Radio Suffolk around these areas and given interviews while on these routes. It was only used at high tide for obvious reasons. Ships couldn't enter or leave at other times and that would have been the only reason to open the swing bridge.
Claim A and B Map (CPM 176) I have never known the blue open get to be closed and often it is fully open. The tram lines have only recently been removed and of course it is the access point for the boats being lived on at Flint and businesses along the South West Quays so it couldn't be closed really. The yellow closed gate has only been closed recently and even then not permanently as I and others often travel along the New Cut. If the gate is closed and prevents local people leaving the New Cut it is broken down. This also happens with the gate before the swing bridge previously mentioned. These gates have onlybeen a problem in the last 5 years although it is much more serious lately since ABP and IBC have been aware of the movement to have these PRoW re-opened. IBC have an interest in keeping the PRoW closed as the development of the Island site is part of their strategic planning. They have also thought about having a crossing of some kind erected across the river onto the Island site so they do not want PRoW interfering with their plans. Look at these videos to see the route across the swing bridge being used by me. It should also be remembered there used to be a public house and other houses on New Cut East as well as the Dockers Canteen.http://newcuteast.blogspot.com/
Claim C Map (CPM 177) The simple answer is these gates and fences on Flint Wharf never existed before the marina was built. Before that it was William Browns Timber Yard which covered the whole area and was open to the public too. The gate at South West Quay is only about 5 years old but not many folks used that route because of the noise and smoke. There are or were three cranes on the quayand they would stop when people walked through the legs of the cranes. This was common with all the cranes on the dock and Cliff Quay in those days.Picture Albums for these routes below. http://picasaweb.google.com/peterturtill/NewCutEastForSCC
http://picasaweb.google.com/peterturtill/SouthWestQuaysWharfs
Please print these off for security as it is so easy to lose sites like these on the internet.
Claim D Map (CPM 178)
Unfortunately there is very much obstruction here but of course only in the eyes of those who know the route and again your observations show the difficulty SCC has in recognising the PRoW that have been destroyed or just obstructed. IBC have cluttered this wharf with street furniture which obstructs both traffic and walkers. It is a major twin lane traffic route which has always been used to avoid congestion along what is now Key/CollegeStreet routes. Two HGV's could pass each other here before IBC cluttered the place up. IBC have imposed a 'one way system which may not be lawful. The gate is unlawful and belongs to Neptune Marina and has only been there a couple of years. The Dockers had a barrier close to where the gate is now.The barrier was lowered only when loading and unloading was in progress and only then during less than the last twenty years and pedestrians were not stopped by it. There is a statutory Instrument allowing the blocking of the route during loading/unloading providing pedestrians are not hindered.Unfortunately the barrier was left open but not locked in the open position one night about 4 years ago. Somebody put it down and a local lad on a motorcycle rode into it and died. The compound beside it is also unlawful and should be dismantled. It also belongs to Neptune Marina and is an unlawful obstruction. It also gets broken down occasionally.
Claim E Map (CPM 179)
This gate is only about two or three years old. Here is one erected previously for when loading/unloading was in progress. This gate disappeared quietly after a lad was killed riding into it at night on 10-9-03. The lads father is a member of Suffolk Rights Of Way Limited. He hasn't seen this pic as I took a load before I discovered who the victim was. The yellow mark is where the body finished up and all because ABP wanted to cut corners.

Here is the picture album for the last two claims.
http://picasaweb.google.com/peterturtill/NorthEastQuays
Claim F Map (CMP 180)
I have altered your dotted line slightly to show it shouldn't appear to cross water where you have made the crosses. It leads to the swimming baths on Pipers Vale and along the river. I have added another blue dashed line to show a FP along the waters edge and onto the river. I have also added another red dashed line to show the connection with Raeburn Road ( Now called Sandy Hill Lane). It should be remembered the sewage tanks have not always been there and routes have altered to go around constructions. However I have made allowances here as we did when going this way.

There is a FP along the quay into Pipers Vale and to Raeburn Road and a BOAT through the power station to anywhere you wish really. There are three FPs already marked on this map and it also shows the swimming baths and the FP linked onto by the one from along the quay.

The route follows the waters edge. I have been careless in drawing the route and of course it does not go across water but just follows the waters edge there. I have added another route that was popular with people who were enjoying fishing in the river from the piled edge. The route through the storage tanks would have avoided the tanks. The ash and asbestos just laid around everywhere in quite small piles which we would run up and even ride bicycles and motorcycles over. The route pre-dates the power station which was built after the last war. The whole area is polluted by asbestos but of course we never knew the dangers then. I remember seeing asbestos laying around there in the early 1970's when the jetty was being built and the area was a 'pile storage yard' for Mears Construction. I am mystified by your reference to no evidence form for this route. It should be with you. I am only claiming the original FP and I have only added other one for your information. I wouldn't want anything to hold this up even more. Picture album http://picasaweb.google.com/peterturtill/CliffQuay
Claim G Map (CPM 181) BOAT not FP.
The first security gate has only operated seriously for about 10 years. I frequently passed through it without any problems before I started applying for PRoW here. John Hunt and I took BBC Radio Suffolk through here for an interview and showed the interviewer all the points of interest about a year ago. The roadway follows the buildings and the FP follows the waters edge.At Fisons there would be grab cranes working sometimes unloading fertiliser from ships and they would stop if anyone walked near them as it was always recognised as being the pedestrians RoW. The other fence you have marked had a gate which was never closed as people from Gainsborough who worked on the dock would drive home this way. Indeed the gate looked to feeble I believe it would have disintegrated if anyone tried to shut it. Toller Road used to continue through to the waters edge at one time and a dutch artist lived in a beached yacht on the river bank. This claim is for a BOAT and not as marked a FP but the route shown is correct. However once again this has been changed over the years by construction work. Whenever the route was diverted for tanks and such like it stayed altered. Unfortunately it is now closed completely by Anglian Water so it must be re-opened.
West Bank Maps (CPM 328 and 329)
The 2001 maps appear correct.Picture album http://picasaweb.google.com/peterturtill/NewCutWestGriffinWharf The gate at Bath Street is recent and has now been removed. It probably belonged to Network Rail who lease Griffin Wharf off IBC. The surface beyond this was all tarmacadam with railtracks embedded but recently the tarmacadam has been removed leaving the rails exposed. The tarmacadam can be seen on some of my photos. The next gate has been erected about 3 months ago again probably by Network rail and is also unlawful. Beyond this I can no longer proceed and I have no knowledge of the other gates you mention other than they are recent (less than 10 years in active use) and are also unlawful as is any obstruction of Griffin Wharf and access to the old public swimming pool. The west bank was built upon spoil dredged from the river bed about 1975 and it never existed before then and nor did the security gatehouse. This was a roadway from beside the "Live and Let Live" public house which lead to the public swimming pool and continued onto New Cut West. There is difficulty with the suggestion I maybe "hedging my bets" observation but that is not the case although as I have mentioned I am in difficulty here. Some routes do cover the same ground in places and I suppose in places the Footpaths are BOATS. The FP's each side of the New Cut are 40 foot wide by law and on New Cut East that 40 foot overlaps with the 30 foot wide gap around the dock and yet further along the FP and BOAT distinctly divide. The BOAT follows the line of buildings whereas the FP follows the line of the waters edge. This is also the case on the other side of the dock from Albion Wharf down to Ship Launch Road and is especially pronounced along Orwell/Ransomes Quay. On New Cut East some of the FP by the aggregate plant is now blocked under heaps of aggregate as are 8 railways lines which would have made driving difficult and so the vehicles used the metalled road along by the buildings as I do now. Here there is a mixture of PRoW granted under the Ipswich Dock Act and those gained by usage under common law.This does give a public access space of much more than 40 feet in places. I am disturbed you state I will only have this chance to comment as I know my writing is not that easy to follow so I cannot see how you can understand what I have written without referring back to me for clarification. I also note with dismay you have written to those who have completed "user evidence" forms as some of them cannot read and write which is why I have had to fill in many forms for other people. I am also dismayed you have only now appeared to have taken notice of these application nearly a year after they were lodged with SCC as quite soon they will be the subject of an application to the Secretary of State for directions because 12 months have elapsed since they were lodged making your 28 day deadline irrelevant. During the WW1 period when moves were afoot to stop up PRoW around the dock our Member of Parliament was Francis Ganzoni who had been a Captain in the local regiment. This was the regiment so many Ipswich men were in and in which so many have lost their lives over the years. My widowed grandmother was well known in business circles and she was well acquainted with the MP who had been involved when Ransomes Sims & Jefferies wanted to buy land off my grandmother for expansion. The MP was well aware of the strength of feeling about men in his own regiment dying while other men who didn't even fight tried to steal their rights and he made sure those rights were not taken away and subsequently he was re-elected. I know as soon as I send this last mail to you I will remember something I wanted to include as is always the case but you have taken the surprising view that I will not be asked to help you understand this long mail. I feel this is wrong and you are not duty bound to be neutral at all as we are discussing enforcing the law here and lets face it this is something SCC have singularly failed to do for many decades now. I believe SCC owes it to Ipswich to be proactive in re-storing rights we have lost due to inaction by SCC and I very much hope you and those at SCC with an interest in this matter will now take steps to ensure these applications and others made by Mr John Hunt and myself are helped along the way much more speedily than has been the case in the past. As Mr Hunt is a member of the Open Spaces Society and I am the local correspondent for OSS I expect to be asked to attend the committee discussing these applications together with Mr Hunt please. Mr Hunt and myself are also members of the Ramblers Association and I hope our RA representative will also be asked to attend this extremely important meeting please.