7.5T restriction zone
Discussion
I have Googled this but I see anything definitive.
Village I live in has a blanket 7.5T restriction but is except for access, for deliveries.
Outside the 7.5T zone and on the furthest point from an A road on the opposite side of the village there is a proposal for a large build, 280 houses.
I wrote to the Planning highways engineer and told him of my concerns regarding narrow roads and the site being past the 7.5 T zone so the only “except for access” is in one side out the other along restricted roads, hence the restriction, to the building site. He replied the zone is except for access. So not really an answer.
There is another much longer country road not restricted that leads to the building site
So can anyone point me to where it says something I can quote please
Village I live in has a blanket 7.5T restriction but is except for access, for deliveries.
Outside the 7.5T zone and on the furthest point from an A road on the opposite side of the village there is a proposal for a large build, 280 houses.
I wrote to the Planning highways engineer and told him of my concerns regarding narrow roads and the site being past the 7.5 T zone so the only “except for access” is in one side out the other along restricted roads, hence the restriction, to the building site. He replied the zone is except for access. So not really an answer.
There is another much longer country road not restricted that leads to the building site
So can anyone point me to where it says something I can quote please
Have a look at the Planning Application submission documents which should be accessible via an on-line portal.
In the application pack for any major development there should be an Outline Construction Management Plan (or similar) which would state the access arrangements and working hours (amongst other things) for the actual build-stage. That should include the access route for site traffic.
Review that Management Plan and focus any objections directly at that element of the proposal. 'I don't like it' will get you ignored, or your complaint lost in the normal NIMBY pile, focus on specific concerns about the delivery and logistics side and see if there is a workable alternative that the developer can adopt as an easy-win.
In the application pack for any major development there should be an Outline Construction Management Plan (or similar) which would state the access arrangements and working hours (amongst other things) for the actual build-stage. That should include the access route for site traffic.
Review that Management Plan and focus any objections directly at that element of the proposal. 'I don't like it' will get you ignored, or your complaint lost in the normal NIMBY pile, focus on specific concerns about the delivery and logistics side and see if there is a workable alternative that the developer can adopt as an easy-win.
The Surveyor said:
Have a look at the Planning Application submission documents which should be accessible via an on-line portal.
In the application pack for any major development there should be an Outline Construction Management Plan (or similar) which would state the access arrangements and working hours (amongst other things) for the actual build-stage. That should include the access route for site traffic.....
.
Thank you for the reply.In the application pack for any major development there should be an Outline Construction Management Plan (or similar) which would state the access arrangements and working hours (amongst other things) for the actual build-stage. That should include the access route for site traffic.....
.
There isn’t a Construction Management Plan in place yet.
I was rather hoping that there is a legal obstacle in the fact that the 7.5T limit was put in place for a reason, yet to access the site involves ignoring the limit and driving completely through the zone to access the far side. 280 houses will be considerable HGV.
Management Plan or not unless it is not legal I can see the shortest route being used, right through the village and past the primary school.
Isn't it normal in these situations to have signs up along the lines " NO ACCESS TO BLOGGS CONSTRUCTION SITE ".
All site traffic would be given a map or instructions stating the nominated and permitted route. These tend to work in most cases but failures do occur, in extreme cases individuals , companies or contractors would end up losing contracts and being barred from site . I have heard of site management incurring penalties because of infringements.
As others have stated all the access restrictions should be covered in the planning application.
All site traffic would be given a map or instructions stating the nominated and permitted route. These tend to work in most cases but failures do occur, in extreme cases individuals , companies or contractors would end up losing contracts and being barred from site . I have heard of site management incurring penalties because of infringements.
As others have stated all the access restrictions should be covered in the planning application.
So it looks like it’s all down to the Construction Management Plan (CPM) which the Planning Engineer said would be agreed if the building proposal goes ahead. It is being fought at appeal.
But I was trying to make sure any CMP would stop HGV building traffic being able to pass through the 7.5 T zone.
There is some posts on HGV forums of drivers receiving fines possibly points for using 7.5 T restricted zones for other than deliveries, such as a short cut or to buy something from a shop.
But I was trying to make sure any CMP would stop HGV building traffic being able to pass through the 7.5 T zone.
There is some posts on HGV forums of drivers receiving fines possibly points for using 7.5 T restricted zones for other than deliveries, such as a short cut or to buy something from a shop.
rongagin said:
So it looks like it’s all down to the Construction Management Plan (CPM) which the Planning Engineer said would be agreed if the building proposal goes ahead. It is being fought at appeal.
But I was trying to make sure any CMP would stop HGV building traffic being able to pass through the 7.5 T zone.
There is some posts on HGV forums of drivers receiving fines possibly points for using 7.5 T restricted zones for other than deliveries, such as a short cut or to buy something from a shop.
I'm very surprised they have validated the application for a decent sized residential development without a Outline (draft) CMP in place, especially if there is any sensitivity over the surrounding area. Is there a statement about construction traffic in the submitted Travel Plans, Transport Assessments or Statements ?But I was trying to make sure any CMP would stop HGV building traffic being able to pass through the 7.5 T zone.
There is some posts on HGV forums of drivers receiving fines possibly points for using 7.5 T restricted zones for other than deliveries, such as a short cut or to buy something from a shop.
rongagin said:
I have Googled this but I see anything definitive. Village I live in has a blanket 7.5T restriction but is except for access, for deliveries.
Outside the 7.5T zone and on the furthest point from an A road on the opposite side of the village there is a proposal for a large build, 280 houses.
Just to clarify I'm reading this right. Outside the 7.5T zone and on the furthest point from an A road on the opposite side of the village there is a proposal for a large build, 280 houses.
There is access to the site from the other side without going through the weight restriction?
If so it is not necessary/legal to go through the weight limit even if it is shorter.
Worth a quick read to gain an understanding of the only 2 reasons for weight limits, environmental or structural,
https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/transport-roads/road...
To travel through a weight limit exemption permits can be obtained depending on the authority.
Below is a link to Somersets policies. http://www.somerset.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-trans...
All Highway authorities should have one, it's just some are better than others at doing their duties and publicising it.
I'd be surprised they'd get an exemption on that site, We had dealings with that arsewipe MP Soubrey trying to overturn Gov Policy on a planning application after it had already been approved to appease local residents,
"The Road Traffic Act 1984 and amendments gives powers to us to impose Traffic Regulation Orders. Such orders are subject to legal procedures which are specified in the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (procedure) Regulations 1996 and all restrictions must be signed in accordance with the Traffic Regulations and General Directions 2002. Please see Information and Resources for these documents.
There is an exemption scheme for Bruton and Langport. Traffic Regulation Orders are in place for both of these areas. They also provide for the issue of exemption permits which allow a vehicle over 7.5 tonnes to pass through the restricted length of road. This arrangement is intended to ensure that local businesses are not adversely affected and avoids a long detour around the restricted length of road."
It's also worth considering what obstacles might be on the other route, maybe another village, a bridge with a weight limit, too narrow a road? If this is the case then there is potential for a TMO to be changed to facilitate works, in central London roads are often closed or one way systems changed to help construction.
Thank you so much for the information and links to some very interesting reading.
I cannot find any reference to access or routes in the original application, no CMP so far as I was told.
The alternative route would go through another village, much smaller and a straight road with no weight restrictions or bridges along the way. But would add perhaps 1.5 miles to the route.
The Appeal will be heard next year and the CPRE, Parish Council and a legal representative will be attending. Along with the BC.
The highways issues, of which there are more besides the 7.5 T restriction are part of the defence. I am trying to gather information to assist.
It seems whilst the restriction of 7.5T is fact and normally would be adhered to except for deliveries within. Under certain situations it can be overridden, literally.
Thanks again
I cannot find any reference to access or routes in the original application, no CMP so far as I was told.
The alternative route would go through another village, much smaller and a straight road with no weight restrictions or bridges along the way. But would add perhaps 1.5 miles to the route.
The Appeal will be heard next year and the CPRE, Parish Council and a legal representative will be attending. Along with the BC.
The highways issues, of which there are more besides the 7.5 T restriction are part of the defence. I am trying to gather information to assist.
It seems whilst the restriction of 7.5T is fact and normally would be adhered to except for deliveries within. Under certain situations it can be overridden, literally.
Thanks again
Also note that, in extreme circumstances, if the builders do subsequently ignore the local regulations, an injunction is possible. Regular breach of a lawful weight limit would be a powerful argument.
The grant of a planning permission does not give any rights to cause nuisance, either during construction or afterwards, to the extent that if the planning consent can't be implemented without causing legally recognised nuisance, then it can't be implemented. There have been cases where planning consents can't be implemented due to local opposition to the nuisance that would be created.
I think that, if your concern is genuinely over heavy traffic through the village during construction, it's probably something that you can successfully deal with at the appropriate time, but if you're trying to use it as a tool to block the planning approval, then you're probably whistling in the wind.
The grant of a planning permission does not give any rights to cause nuisance, either during construction or afterwards, to the extent that if the planning consent can't be implemented without causing legally recognised nuisance, then it can't be implemented. There have been cases where planning consents can't be implemented due to local opposition to the nuisance that would be created.
I think that, if your concern is genuinely over heavy traffic through the village during construction, it's probably something that you can successfully deal with at the appropriate time, but if you're trying to use it as a tool to block the planning approval, then you're probably whistling in the wind.
Thank you for your inputs
I am not against the building of houses, however in the past year there have been two developments of over 200 houses and a smaller one of over 40 given permission. On the side which is nearer the A road.
With outline applications for another site with over 400 and this one almost 300. This one is on the furthest point from the A road. Past a primary school, 20 mph speed limit, three tight 90deg bends. Narrow roads with on street parking means single lane for considerable distances. I could go on. The developer themselves say the site will generate over 200 cars per hour at peak times, along with the existing 700 at peak times. It is chaotic at best, dangerous when big wagons can’t drive round a bend without mounting a footpath.
The Planning Framework says
“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe."
I consider the criteria is met?
Sorry for going on, I obviously feel strongly about this.
Everything you have said is helpful, thanks
I am not against the building of houses, however in the past year there have been two developments of over 200 houses and a smaller one of over 40 given permission. On the side which is nearer the A road.
With outline applications for another site with over 400 and this one almost 300. This one is on the furthest point from the A road. Past a primary school, 20 mph speed limit, three tight 90deg bends. Narrow roads with on street parking means single lane for considerable distances. I could go on. The developer themselves say the site will generate over 200 cars per hour at peak times, along with the existing 700 at peak times. It is chaotic at best, dangerous when big wagons can’t drive round a bend without mounting a footpath.
The Planning Framework says
“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe."
I consider the criteria is met?
Sorry for going on, I obviously feel strongly about this.
Everything you have said is helpful, thanks
We have many areas in my county which are due huge increases in home building . Very few of the areas have the highways infrastructure to support the construction traffic and certainly won't support the increase in traffic once the construction is completed and the areas reach full occupancy.
Most of these areas have nothing in the way of public transport and very little in anything in the way of amenities . Things like improved transport links especially roads are always an afterthought.
The worst one happening at the moment is in the Dartford area . The area is almost at breaking point for road traffic yet has the prospect of of another 3000 dwellings on top of the initial 1500 already built . There certainly seems to be a lack of joined up thinking in area plans for construction.
Most of these areas have nothing in the way of public transport and very little in anything in the way of amenities . Things like improved transport links especially roads are always an afterthought.
The worst one happening at the moment is in the Dartford area . The area is almost at breaking point for road traffic yet has the prospect of of another 3000 dwellings on top of the initial 1500 already built . There certainly seems to be a lack of joined up thinking in area plans for construction.
Unfortunately the floodgates have opened with the big developers having some serious legal firepower, local councils can’t afford to fight too hard, even accepting the increased income as a sweetener.
The developers write fantasy scenarios where people will actually benefit by living in a village that is being overwhelmed because the increased traffic will force people to walk the 800 metres to the nearest bus stop, where one bus per hour runs up until 18.00 with none on Sunday. Because we know that walking does us good, the government (quote) tells us this is so. Or ride a bike, also good for us, along narrow country roads to eventually get to the A road which has no cycle dedicated lane. Even those who are elderly or infirm in some way although young apparently.
Of course we need housing, but not in every area in every possible location.
Anyway pathetic rant, no swearing, over.
Edit to add, the primary school I mentioned earlier is full despite an extension. Next nearest several miles away.
The developers write fantasy scenarios where people will actually benefit by living in a village that is being overwhelmed because the increased traffic will force people to walk the 800 metres to the nearest bus stop, where one bus per hour runs up until 18.00 with none on Sunday. Because we know that walking does us good, the government (quote) tells us this is so. Or ride a bike, also good for us, along narrow country roads to eventually get to the A road which has no cycle dedicated lane. Even those who are elderly or infirm in some way although young apparently.
Of course we need housing, but not in every area in every possible location.
Anyway pathetic rant, no swearing, over.
Edit to add, the primary school I mentioned earlier is full despite an extension. Next nearest several miles away.
Edited by rongagin on Thursday 13th December 17:43
A village neighbouring ours (a mile or so away) is also a 7.5T zone (though it's regularly ignored by certain well-known carriers).
There is currently road-building work nearby, and the council have been very strict that all >7.5T construction traffic *must* use a route that avoids the restricted zone, despite it being quite a bit longer. The only exception to this being that the alternative route has a 15' bridge on it, so oversized vehicles have been given permission to do so. The construction company have posted to the village FB page whenever they've needed to do this.
There is currently road-building work nearby, and the council have been very strict that all >7.5T construction traffic *must* use a route that avoids the restricted zone, despite it being quite a bit longer. The only exception to this being that the alternative route has a 15' bridge on it, so oversized vehicles have been given permission to do so. The construction company have posted to the village FB page whenever they've needed to do this.
grumpy52 said:
Isn't it normal in these situations to have signs up along the lines " NO ACCESS TO BLOGGS CONSTRUCTION SITE ".
Yes, these are up all around the village. They've been there so long that they're on Google Streetview now!speedyguy said:
sim72 said:
A village neighbouring ours (a mile or so away) is also a 7.5T zone (though it's regularly ignored by certain well-known carriers)
So what have YOU done about it ?If nothing shut up whining about it
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff