Agenda item

Objections to Proposed 7.5T Weight Restriction in Mayfield Valley

Report of the Executive Director, Place

Decision:

5.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report describing the measures to restrict Heavy Goods Vehicles Traffic from travelling through the area known as Mayfield Valley and setting out officer responses to two objections.

 

 

5.2

RESOLVED: That:-

 

 

 

(a)

having considered the responses and objections to the proposed Traffic Regulations Order, the reasons set out in the report for making the Traffic Regulation Order outweigh any unresolved objections;

 

 

 

 

(b)

the Traffic Regulation Order described in the report be made in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;

 

 

 

 

(c)

the Traffic Regulation Order and associated sighting be introduced as and when funding from the LTP is made available; and

 

 

 

 

(d)

the objectors be informed of the decision.

 

 

 

5.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

5.3.1

The weight restriction will reduce average numbers of heavy vehicles in a predominantly rural area. Thereby improving road safety for residents and those that pursue recreational activity in the areas. It will also improve the environment and reduce the detrimental impact on highway infrastructure.

 

 

5.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

5.4.1

In Mayfield Valley a targeted approach was initially considered to look at strategic roads that could be restricted while having an overall desired reduction of through flow in HGV’s. This was subsequently discounted as it would result in an extra restriction and warning signs that would have a substantial impact on the budgetary element of the scheme as a whole, would have a negative aesthetic impact with a significant number of additional signs being needed, this consequently would also have an impact on future maintenance costs and ongoing electricity supply costs being both budgetary and environmentally negative.

 

 

5.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

 

 

 

None

 

 

5.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

 

 

 

None

 

 

5.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

 

 

 

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

 

 

5.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

 

 

 

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing

 

Minutes:

5.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report describing the measures to restrict Heavy Goods Vehicles Traffic from travelling through the area known as Mayfield Valley and setting out officer responses to two objections.

 

 

5.2

Ros Hancock, representing the Friends of Porter Valley, attended the Session to make representations to the Cabinet Member. She stated that the Friends were in favour of the restriction. Their main concern was the cross-valley routes as a number of the routes were in the Porter Valley not Mayfield Valley. The Friends of Porter Valley were in favour of the weight restriction as the routes were used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and alternative routes were a long way round. The roads were inappropriate for HGVs as they were narrow, twisting and steep and people could not see round the corners easily. The final concern was that, under the new winter maintenance programme, the roads concerned would not be gritted in the future and this meant the potential for large lorries to slip on the ice.

 

 

5.3

Charlie Denning, a local resident, also stated that he was in favour of the weight restriction. He regularly saw H.G.Vs using the roads and getting stuck on tight corners. He had safety concerns as it was a main route in the Peak District used by many walkers. Some of the speeds used by the vehicles were excessive and they didn’t stop for pedestrians.

 

 

5.4

RESOLVED: That:-

 

 

 

(a)

having considered the responses and objections to the proposed Traffic Regulations Order, the reasons set out in the report for making the Traffic Regulation Order outweigh any unresolved objections;

 

 

 

 

(b)

the Traffic Regulation Order described in the report be made in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;

 

 

 

 

(c)

the Traffic Regulation Order and associated sighting be introduced as and when funding from the LTP is made available; and

 

 

 

 

(d)

the objectors be informed of the decision.

 

 

 

5.5

Reasons for Decision

 

 

5.5.1

The weight restriction will reduce average numbers of heavy vehicles in a predominantly rural area. Thereby improving road safety for residents and those that pursue recreational activity in the areas. It will also improve the environment and reduce the detrimental impact on highway infrastructure.

 

 

5.6

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

5.6.1

In Mayfield Valley a targeted approach was initially considered to look at strategic roads that could be restricted while having an overall desired reduction of through flow in HGV’s. This was subsequently discounted as it would result in an extra restriction and warning signs that would have a substantial impact on the budgetary element of the scheme as a whole, would have a negative aesthetic impact with a significant number of additional signs being needed, this consequently would also have an impact on future maintenance costs and ongoing electricity supply costs being both budgetary and environmentally negative.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: