Objections
|
Public Response |
Commenter |
In Favour / Against |
Officer Response |
|
Business |
Against |
Section 5.4 of the report considers alternative options which includes the removal of on-street parking bays. Whilst this suggestion is not at the junction, Section 5.5 of the report outlines why the loss of on-street parking is not favoured due to the high demand for on-street parking in the area. |
|
|
1. The TRO would prevent HGVs on the only access road to the Estate between 7 to 9.30am and 15.00 to 16.30 Monday Friday. We note that this is an additional half an hour (in the morning) than previously proposed, and it is unclear from the consultation document why this change has been made. It increases the adverse effects of the TRO for no apparent justification.
2. We note that Yorkshire Council (‘the Council’) have, after carrying out a period of non-statutory consultation, have proposed to make the TRO.
3. Where a consultation is carried out (either statutory or non-statutory) then the ‘Sedley’ requirements will apply as endorsed by the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] 1 WLR 3947 (at [25]):
First, that consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage. Second, that the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response. Third,… that adequate time must be given for consideration and response and, finally, fourth, that the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals.”
4. The failure to accord with the legitimate expectation created by a promise of non-statutory consultation – and in particular a failure to accord with the ‘Sedley’ requirements will render a decision unlawful. These principles were applied in the context of an ETRO in R. (on the application of Keyhole Bridge User Safety Group) v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council [2021] EWHC 3082 (Admin).
5. These objections were previously raised in our correspondence in or around April 2024 but have been ignored and there is no evidence that the objection has been conscientiously taken into account. To be clear the decision to proceed with the TRO is unlawful and we will judicially review this decision.
Legal Framework for a TRO
6. An Experimental Traffic Regulation Order is made under s.9 of the Road Traffic Regulation and can be made under the same grounds as an ordinary TRO. Therefore, the same legal principles apply as for an ordinary TRO but there are then additional issues only relevant for ETROs.
7. The overarching question for the Council is therefore whether it would be expedient to make the TRO having regard to the statutory purposes for which the TRO is made, as well as the wider duty of the Council under s.122 of the 1984 Act.
8. As to the qualifying purpose which the TRO is sought, it was unclear from the consultation letter which sets out broadly that:
The introduction of this ETRO is considered to offer several advantages such as potential improvements to highways safety, traffic flow may improve during peak times, noise disturbances would decrease, infrastructure will be preserved, and pedestrians’ safety will be enhanced at peak times. Overall, it is considered implementing a timed weight restriction will help balance the needs of residents and pedestrians with the necessity of occasional heavy goods vehicles access, promoting a safer, quieter and more liveable community.
9. It seems therefore that there could potentially be three qualifying purposes (under s.1 of the 1984 Act) which the Council would have to establish: (a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or (b) for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, (f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs
10. It is trite law – but see for example Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Council [2018] EWHC 3390 (Admin) [2019] EWCA Civ 1275 – that before making a TRO the traffic authority must have regard to their general obligations under s.122 of the 1984 Act: (1) It shall be the duty of every strategic highways company and local authority upon whom functions are conferred by or under this Act, so to exercise the functions conferred on them by this Act as (so far as practicable having regard to the matters specified in subsection (2) below) to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. (2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) above as being specified in this subsection are (a) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises; (b) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected and (without prejudice to the of this paragraph) the importance of regulating and restricting the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles, so as to preserve or improve the amenities of the areas through which the roads run; (bb) the strategy prepared under section 80 of the Environment Act 1995 (national air quality strategy); (c) the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles; and (d) any other matters appearing to the strategic highways company or the local authority to be relevant. Emphasis Added
11. Therefore, the overarching question for the Council ought to have been whether the TRO is made for a qualifying purpose, whether it meets their s.122 duty, and whether the advantages of making it outweigh the disadvantages.
12. However, there was a further legal requirement because the Council are seeking to make an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order. The purpose must be genuinely experimental. If it is not, then the ETRO is unlawful and will be quashed.
13. A particularly pertinent example – given the nature of the TRO here - of this is UK Waste Management Ltd v West Lancashire DC [1996] 3 WLUK 280.
14. This involved an ETRO which imposed a 7.5 tonnes limit on an access road to a landfill site in response to local resident concern about the HGV traffic – and was quashed as unlawful.
15. There are three points made by Mr Justice Carnwath that are of particular relevance to this letter.
16. The first is that the ETRO restricting HGV access in response to residential complaints was found not to be a genuine experiment and the ETRO was quashed. As Carnwath J observed:
I agree that for there to be a valid experimental order there must be an experiment and the authority must be able to explain what it is. In this case, the clear purpose of the order was to prevent any traffic gaining access to the Holiday Moss site. The Council did not require any further information about the working of that order. If the order has effect the result will simply be that heavy traffic cannot use Crawford to gain access to that site. That is know. It seems to me therefore, having regard to section 9, that the order cannot be justified and must be quashed.
17. The second is that the local authority were found to have failed in their s.122 duty by failing to properly consider the desirability of maintaining reasonable access to premises:
What is clear is that the authority must at least consider the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access and in doing so they must ask themselves what reasonable access would entail. Only when they have done that can they proceed to the balancing exercise which section 122 involves, however precisely it is interpreted
Reasonable access under section 122 has to be considered in the circumstances as they are and under which the site owners have to operate. Like it or not, they included the restrictions of the planning permission, the waste disposal licence and the section 52 agreement. Furthermore, the assumption that the problem might be solved by simply extending the life of the site paid no regard to the complexities of the waste disposal operation or the needs of waste disposal capacity in the area. The report asserts that the officers consider the routes to the Holiday Moss tip through Rainford to offer "reasonable access to it" but such an assertion is simply not enough when the District Council knows quite well that the Rainford access, given the existing legal constraints, is not adequate for the heavy goods requirements of the site.
18. The third is that it was observed by Mr Justice Carnwath that as part of this process the Council should be investigating and considering lesser alternatives:
It was suggested by Mr. Steel for UK Waste Management that the authority should have investigated lesser alternatives, such as limiting the ban to certain periods of the day, or an agreed limitation on numbers rather than a total ban. Again, I see some force in the point. It is akin to what is sometimes called an argument of proportionality, the idea that statutory powers must be used with a sense of limiting the impact on individual rights to that which is essential for the purposes of the order.
The Benefit of the Order
19. The starting point is therefore to identify the benefits that are purported to arise out of the TRO and its meeting of a qualifying purpose. Here there are purported to be three.
20. The Council have failed to justify that the TRO will meet these purposes and present evidence to support such assertions.
21. As a starting point it is important to bear in mind that this ETRO has arisen out, not due to Council concerns, but because residents are unhappy that they live near an established industrial estate which has the long standing benefit of planning permission and has been using Hambleden Grove for access for decades. Residents have been unable to achieve their longstanding aim of forcing out businesses by other means and are now trying to prevent the lawful HGV access of the Estate by businesses to render them unviable.
22. The first purported purposes is that danger to persons or road traffic would be reduced (s.1(1)(a)). However, beyond the bare simplistic assertion that ‘less HGVs = less danger’ it is unclear what evidence there is for this. The Estate has in place a ‘Site Rules & Delivery Information’ management plan which sets out how HGVs will safely access the Site, and have an active Risk Assessment document which identifies potential risks and sets out a Risk Reduction Action Plan This has been successful in ensuring the safety of Hambleton Grove from any damage by HGVs.
23. The Council also must take into account the safety impacts if the ETRO is confirmed. For businesses to operate in a viable manner they need to have regular HGV deliveries between 7.30am to 4.30pm. The additional restrictions will require vehicles to therefore wait in the vicinity of Hambleton Grove (e.g. Stockwell Road) until the time restrictions lift. The Objector is not aware of where HGVs could do this safely. The result – in proximity to a School – would be HGVs having to wait by the side of Stockwell Road (or down a side street) until they can travel down Hambleton Grove. The safety issues of this would be significant – and far more than the current safety issues of vehicles using Hambleton Grove between 7.30am and 4.30pm.
24. The restricted times for HGV access will simply create a period where the roads will be busier with HGVS, creating bottle necks, potential queuing and the danger of the site becoming congested to the point where the turning area within the site cannot be used forcing HGVs to reverse out of the site.
25. The first purported purpose of the TRO would not be achieved.
26. The second is to prevent damage to the road or buildings near the road (s.1 (1)(b)). There is no evidence – and it cannot be understood – how restricting HGVs to certain times of the day will prevent damage to the road or buildings near the road. No damage is currently being caused and it is unclear how preventing HGVs using Hambleton Grove for three hours a day will prevent damage to the road and or buildings.
27. If HGVs are forced to wait in the vicinity of Hambleton Grove this create traffic flow issues with vehicles often been forced to mount kerbs to allow other vehicles to pass which would damage infrastructure.
28. The second purported purpose of the TRO would not be achieved.
29. The third purpose is for improving the amenity of the area. However, it is again unclear how this will be achieved by the TRO. The effect of the TRO – given the number of HGVs requiring access to the Estate will not change – will be to condense HGV traffic into shorter operation hours. Due to the site restrictions (with HGVs only arriving between 7.30am and 4.30pm) this would mean that all HGVs must now arrive between 9am and 3pm – a six-hour period in the quieter middle of the day (rather than peak times when traffic noise is anticipated and accepted). The intensification of HGV noise into the quiet part of the day will contradict with the third purpose for which the TRO is sought – rather than achieving it.
30. The third purported purpose of the TRO would not be achieved.
31. The onus is on the Council – as promoter of the Order – to show that they have a robust evidence base for supporting their purported benefit. The impact of failing to do so is twofold.
32. Firstly, without a robust evidence base they cannot show that it would be expedient.
33. Secondly, the making of a ETRO is a challengeable decision under paragraphs 35 and 36 of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act. This includes challenging the decision to make the TRO as irrational.
34. An element of irrationality will be where there is no evidence to support a finding on which the decision depends (Ashbridge Investments Ltd. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1320 as per Lord Denning M.R. at [1326]). In Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1971] 1 W.L.R. 433 Lord Denning held quashing a decision at [437]:
“At any rate, I am quite clear that the mere ipse dixit of the local council is not sufficient. There must be some evidence to support their assertion. And here there was none.”
35. While it is right to say that there is not necessarily a requirement for objective data to underlie every TRO (see R. (on the application of Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2023] EWHC 536 (Admin)), it is equally the case that there must be some evidenced justification for an ETRO. The concerns of residents alone are not sufficent and there is no evidence from Officers that any of the benefits will arise.
36. Currently there is no evidence at all to support the Council’s assertions (which are based on unjustified residents’ concerns which are in reality stemming from their in-principle objection to the industrial estate). Therefore, there seems to be no evidence to support the purported benefits of the TRO.
Disadvantages of the TRO
37. Currently there is no evidenced benefit that can carry weight in the expediency question. However, even if there were the Council still needs to have regard to the substantial disbenefits that the TRO would have.
38. The impact of the TRO will undoubtably be to restrict HGV access to the Estate (which houses 8 business units) without reducing the number of HGVs that require access to the Estate. The effect of this will be more HGVs travelling in a narrower window, HGVs waiting in the restriction period in the streets nearby and will have a detrimental impact on the ability of businesses to operate on the Estate.
39. The first two effects have been addressed above in a response to the purported benefits to highlight that they are in fact disbenefits to which weight needs to be given.
40. The third effect is relevant because this triggers one of the s.122 considerations:
the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises.
41. It is undeniable that the TRO will be contrary to this consideration. Hambleton Grove is the only way to access the Estate and the TRO will prevent access during key times of the working day (bearing in mind access is already limited to between 7.30am to 4.30pm). As recognised by Mr Justice Carnwath in UK Waste Management Ltd whether the Council or residents “like it or not” the Estate has permission to operate, has operated for a long time, and is entitled to reasonable access to properly operate. The ETRO cannot lawfully strangle the Estate to the benefit of residents.
42. However, that is exactly the approach set out in the Consultation Letter. It expressly notes how the ETRO “several advantages” without recognising the significant detrimental effects for the businesses of the Estate. The Consultation Letter claims to have carried out a balance between the need of residents and necessity of ‘occasional’ HGVs but it is unclear how it could have done this without understanding the detrimental effects.
43. example the Objection Letter describes how there will only be ‘occasional’ HGV movements. But there is no evidence the Council have quantified the level of actual movements which is central to considering both the advantages and the harms that the TRO will bring.
44. To be clear these harms are – in what is already a tough business environment – making the businesses on the Estate unviable and will eventually force them to move away taking the employment they provide with them. This is not a hypothetical. The dispute and threats of residents has already forced one occupier – Myers Building Supplies – to leave the Estate. This will increase if the ETRO is brought in – even on an 18-month basis.
45. The Council have solely failed to have regard to their s.122 duty especially in relation to the need to secure and maintain reasonable access to the Estate – and in a similar vein to UK Waste Management Ltd this is unlawful.
46. There is a further element of unlawfulness which can be established by reference UK Waste Management Ltd: the failure to consider alternatives.
47. The Council have previously been against the idea of a TRO for exactly the reasons set out above. Instead throughout 2022 and 2023 it was envisaged that the matter would be dealt with either i) a service delivery plan (which could be formalised into writing) or ii) an ETRO to create a one-way arrangement or remove parking spaces to improve manoeuvrability. Both options would be a lesser alternative that would achieve the same purported purposes of the TRO (in fact in a better manner than the current TRO). It is entirely unclear to the Objector why they have been abandoned. It is telling that Residents on one hand demand change to benefit them, while on the other strongly resisting methods that would deliver said benefit. Instead, they – and the Council – had opted for a measure that will cause significant harm to the Operator and the Estate. This is disproportionate and unlawful (per UK Waste Management Ltd).
48. Finally, we raise that this TRO is not for a genuine experiment – as was established for a similar TRO in UK Waste Management Ltd. It is entirely unclear what further information the Council require. Instead, the Council know that the result of the TRO will be HGVs will not be able to access the Estate except between 9am and 3pm forcing them to wait outside those hours on surrounding streets – causing gridlock and detrimentally effecting the viability of the Estate contrary to the Council’s s.122 duty.
49. This also triggers a further consideration that the Council will be aware of. The decision to make a TRO is one which triggers the Public Sector Equality Duty under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010 and requires ‘due regard’ to be had to the equality objectives (R (Sheakh) v London Borough of Lambeth Council [2022] EWCA Civ 457). We would therefore expect that the requisite Equality Impact Assessment (supported by the necessary evidence which the Council is under a duty to obtain as part of their duty of inquiry) be carried out and disclosed to the public.
50. Overall, the TRO would cause a significant disadvantage to the Estate in a manner which goes to the heart of the s.122 considerations. These are disadvantages that are not outweighed by the purported unevidenced benefits for which the TRO is promoted. On that basis the expediency test cannot be met, and the TRO cannot be made.
51. Furthermore, given the TRO is not for a genuine experiment, no evidence to support the purported benefits which is irrational, no evidence the Council have had considered lesser alternatives or their s.122 duty, or s.149 duty, it would be unlawful and – if made – liable to be challenged and quashed under paragraphs 35 and 36 of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act.
Next Steps
52. Given the TRO would be unlawful we expect that the Council will not proceed with it. If they were to, it is likely a challenge would be brought.
53. Furthermore, if the Council were to proceed then they have to set out how they have expressly considered and addressed this Objection and taken it into account when formulating the final TRO (per ‘Sedley’ requirements).
54. The Council must also consider whether to hold a public inquiry under Regulation 9 of the 1996 Regulations as they have a discretionary power to do so. In this case the controversial nature of the ETRO clearly justifies a public inquiry.
55. Given the strength of opposition to the TRO, the significant disadvantages associated with it, the lack of evidence supporting the benefits and the triggering of the PSED, the Council must hold a public inquiry to allow for an Inspector to properly consider the expediency questions and make the appropriate recommendation to the Council.
56. The Council will be aware that the decision not to hold a public inquiry is one that can be subject to statutory challenge under paragraphs 35 and 36 of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act. |
Business |
Against |
1. The proposed timings of the restrictions are the same as the previous informal consultation and the previous report dated 23rd October 2024.
2. This consultation in January 2025 was the period of statutory consultation prior to making an experimental order. Statutory consultees were consulted in addition to residents and businesses who would be directly affected by the proposal.
3. The proposals were formative at the time of consultation which allows for the consideration of objections and comments before a decision is made on making an experimental order. The letter outlined the reasons why the proposals were being put forward and the product of that consultation is being considered as part of this report.
4. The statutory process for carrying out an ETRO has been followed.
5. The response considered as part of the April 2024 correspondence was as a result of a non-statutory consultation that as per the answer to point 2 was considered beneficial to understand how much support or opposition there may have been to the proposal and was considered as part of the previous report dated 23rd October 2024.
6. Understood, the process has been followed in accordance with Section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act
7. It is considered appropriate that the proposed scheme should be introduced using the approved procedure for Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders in order to allow the effectiveness and impact of the measures to be monitored. The statutory purpose to make a TRO has been identified in section 3 of the report. This will also facilitate the modification of the scheme in the light of experience of its operation, should the need arise. The Council will consider in due course whether a permanent Order in like terms to this Experimental Traffic Regulation Order should be made.
8. Noted
9. Section 10 of this report covers the legal reasons in making the order
10. The proposed order is timed for to maintain reasonable access whilst balancing the impact on amenity of the locality and reducing the likelihood of vehicles coming into conflict during peak traffic hours. Alternative means of access can be achieved during the hours of operation from vehicles less than 7.5t.
11. The Council considers the proposal has been made for a qualifying purpose as outlined in section 8 of this report
12. It is considered appropriate that the proposed scheme should be introduced using the approved procedure for Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders in order to allow the effectiveness and impact of the measures to be monitored. This will also facilitate the modification of the scheme in the light of experience of its operation, should the need arise. The Council will consider in due course whether a permanent Order in like terms to this Experimental Traffic Regulation Order should be made.
13. Noted
14. Noted
15. Noted
16. The reason this is proposed to be experimental is to monitor the unknown impact on surrounding streets, not only the impact on Hambleton Grove. It is also important to consider the impact on traffic movements and potential increase as a result of the order by using smaller vehicles which includes Hambleton Grove itself. Significant increase in vehicle movements may not be an acceptable outcome from the implementation of this order, hence why the council considers this to be experimental in nature.
17. This too can be measured and assessed during the process of the experiment. The councils duty has been considered as part of it’s reasoning under S122 on Section 10 of this report.
18. Alternatives have been considered in this report under Section 6.
19. As part of this report, measures for success have been considered in Section 8.
20. As the proposal is an experimental in nature, that’s why the council has included measures for success to be able to demonstrate if it achieves the objectives required. If not adjustments can be made during the 6 month consultation period.
21. The council is proposing a measure which balances the needs of businesses against the amenity of the local area. The proposal is not a complete ban of HGV usage but targeted to peak times to provide that balance between the two uses.
22. Vehicle tracking for articulated vehicles was carried out at either junction into Hambleton Grove. This vehicle tracking showed space is limited at both junctions for articulated vehicles to make the turning manoeuvre successfully without overrun onto kerbs or into parking bays. By restricting HGVs at peak times, it will reduce the likelihood of vehicles coming into conflict at these junctions and elsewhere along the road which in turn reduces the likelihood of collision or vehicle conflict.
23. HGV deliveries could be timed to avoid the hours of restrictions or if deliveries are required that suppliers are notified and smaller vehicles used. During the experimental order businesses can demonstrate the impact the restriction is having on their operations which is part of the nature of this experiment.
24. If alternative means to travel to the industrial estate are found as per the previous response, this risk can be reduced. Reducing the impact at the identified times where the interaction of all highway users is greatest addresses the statutory purposes as identified in section 3.
25. The purposes within the RTRA 1984 have been identified within the body of the report ( section 3), It is the officers professional opinion that such a measure would address the purposes outlined by reducing the risk of conflict where it is at its greatest with highest levels of vehicle and pedestrian movement and in doing so improving the amenity and character of the residential street, a character that has been historically recognised.
26. The purposes within the RTRA 1984 that would be served by the making of the ETRO at this location are as follows:
· Preventing danger: To avoid danger to persons or other road traffic, or to prevent the likelihood of such danger arising. · Facilitating traffic passage: To make it easier for any class of traffic, including pedestrians, to pass on the road or another road. · Having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property: for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property. · Preserving road character: To prevent the use of road by vehicular traffic that is unsuitable given its existing character or that of the adjoining property. · Preserving amenities: To improve or preserve the general amenities of the area where the road runs.
27. Alternative vehicles or delivery mechanisms can be achieved by businesses to prevent HGVs being forced to wait in the vicinity. If the problem does however present itself the Authority has the power to make further traffic regulation orders restricting parking and waiting on nearby streets should this be considered necessary.
28. See previous responses
29. See sections 8 and 10 of this report
30. See previous response
31. The evidence base has been provided as part of this report
32 Vehicle tracking showing the problem is included in appendix A
33. Noted
34. Vehicle tracking showing the problem is included in appendix A and traffic data included in Appendix B.
35. Evidence has been provided as described above outlining the reasons why the order is being proposed
36. The Council has undertaken its own independent traffic surveys and vehicle tracking to understand if residents concerns were warranted. This data does suggest that there are access issues and key spikes during the day around traffic movements which increases the likelihood of collisions
37. The benefits of removing HGVs from the peak traffic times identified has been identified as improving safety for all road users including those vulnerable users on the network at this time, improving amenity of the area, facilitating traffic passage, preserving danger and preserving the character of the road and the network layout in this area.
38.This has been answered previously in this response
39 There are potential disbenefits, but these cannot be quantified, hence the reason for the experimental order to assess and monitor these impacts
40 See response to point 10
41.See response to point 10
42.Detrimental effects have been onsidered as part of the previous report in October 2024 and as part of this report. It’s also important to allow those answering the questionnaire as part of the consultation to consider the impact for themselves and for the council to consider those in making it’s recommendation on whether or not to proceed.
43.Traffic Data was obtained prior to the consultation and presented in the previous report of October 2024 and again as part of this report in Appendix B
44.This is why the proposal is an experiment which can be revoked at any point. The businesses during this time can evidence the impact of the TRO on their operations which would be a contributory factor to any decision making
45. See regard to S122 in Section 10 of the report
46.Alternatives have been considered in section 6 of this report
47.There is no ability for the council to enforce a service delivery plan under existing powers of the Highways Act. This would make it impossible to enforce non-compliance should the need arise. The implementation of a Service Delivery Plan is acknowledged as a positive commitment from the businesses proposing it, however it should be recognised that this is not enforceable. A one-way arrangement has been considered in sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of this report. Reasons why alternative options which can be enforced have not been taken forward are outlined in Section 6 of this report.
48. The reason this is proposed to be experimental is to monitor the impact on surrounding streets, not only the impact on Hambleton Grove. It is also important to consider the impact on traffic movements and potential increase as a result of the order by using smaller vehicles which includes increase in vehicle movements may not be an acceptable outcome from the implementation of this order, hence why the council considers this to be experimental in nature.
49. Officers carried out EIA screening and do not believe a full EIA is warranted at this time.
50. See S122 justification in section 10
51. See previous responses
52. Noted
53. Included as part of this report
54. Noted – this would be considered at the point where we would be making the order permanent
55. Noted
56. The council will follow its duties in line with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 |
|
Same objection as above |
Business – Hambleton Grove Industrial Estate |
Against |
See previous response |
|
Same objection as above |
Business – Hambleton Grove Industrial Estate |
Against |
See previous response |
|
Same objection as above plus additional comments
I have read the response from ______ and his Representatives and I agree wholeheartedly with their view.
All the proposals would, in my opinion, be damaging to our young business and other businesses on the estate.
|
Business – Hambleton Grove Industrial Estate |
Against |
See previous response
|
|
Limiting business activities by 4 hours out of a 9-10 hour day is not proactive. A simple and cheaper and overall safer solution would be to revert the care home side parking bays back to a full double lane road. More space = safer all day |
Business – Hambleton Grove Industrial Estate |
Against |
Section 6.4 of the report considers alternative options which includes the removal of on-street parking bays. Whilst this suggestion is not at the junction, Section 6.5 of the report outlines why the loss of on-street parking is not favoured due to the high demand for on-street parking in the area. |
Support / Comments
|
Public Response |
Resident/Business |
In Favour/Against |
|
I am
writing to support the experimental timed weight restriction on
Hambleton Grove. |
Resident, Hambleton Terrace |
In Favour |
|
Council team,
|
Resident, Kensington Court |
In Favour |
|
As a
governor at St John’s school, I would strongly support the
reduced times of access to Hambleton Grove as proposed in the
above. |
Governor St John's school |
In Favour |
|
Dear
I am
writing to let you know that I am fully in favour of the proposed
timed weight restriction for the Hambletons in Knaresborough.
The
position of this mini industrial estate means HGVs negotiate the
two residential roads regularly causing chaos at times, on occasion
damage to parked vehicles and present a real danger to pedestrians
in the area. Of particular concern are the school children
attending St John’s primary school on Stockwell Road. The
proposed periods of restriction to the HGVs would cover the typical
opening times of the school’s doors. Yours sincerely, |
Resident, High Street |
In Favour |
|
These times are when there is highest movement of our children and parents, so restricting vehicle movement at this time would be a significant safety move for the school and our families. We fully support this move on safety grounds. |
Head Teacher St John's School |
In Favour |
|
We receive food deliveries 3x week some early morning. This could affect our operation as the food is needed for that morning or lunch. Refuse collection, clinical waste usually happens around 7am and 10am and I am unsure if these times could be moved to 9:30am or later. We fully understand the reasons for the proposal as many large lorries are up and down Hambleton Grove and some go too fast. |
Home Manager - The Manor House |
Comment |
|
A
note to support the proposed scheme for Hambleton Grove. |
Resident, Kensington Court |
In Favour |
|
Dear
Sir/Madam |
Resident, Hambleton Terrace |
In Favour |
|
Want
to see the inappropriate use of articulated lorries on the road
stopped |
Resident, Hambleton Grove |
In Favour |
|
Dear
Sir / Madam, |
Resident, Hambleton Grove |
In Favour |
|
Strongly
agree with the implementation of this experimental scheme. |
Resident, Hambleton Grove |
In Favour |
|
We strongly support the proposed experimental scheme for a times weight restriction in Hambleton Grove. We have serious concerns ew the number of large vehicles that use the road and the speeds at which some travel. The frequently narrowly avoid clipping parked cars. We feel this residential area does not support the current level of vehicles and fear a pedestrian or pet could be involved in an accident. We truly hope North Yorkshire Council can alleviate this situation. |
Resident, Hambleton Grove |
In favour |
|
The large lorries using this road are wholy innappropriate. It is a horrific accident waiting to happen with the close proximity to both St Johns School and Manor Care Home |
Resident, Hambleton Grove |
In Favour |
|
I would like to strongly support the proposed ETRO which is well overdue in my opinion. Having witnessed on many occasions, over a number of years, the proximity of primary school childeren & HGV vehicles carrying out multiple point monoeuveres to access Hambleton Grove & Terrace. I am amazed that a serious accident has been avoided to date. Restricting HGV's at school drop off/pick up times would ensure the safety of young childeren & families and in addition reduce the frequency of traffic 'mayhem' at these times. |
Resident, Hambleton Terrace |
In Favour |
|
I have seen so many near misses with school childeren & HGV's it is an accident waiting to happen. |
Resident, Hambleton Terrace |
In Favour |
|
Hambleton Grove is totally unsuitable for the size and number of lorries using it daily. We have had our parked car written off by a lorry trying to turn into Hambleton Grove from Stockwell Lane |
Resident, Hambleton Terrace |
In Favour |
|
Dear
Sir/Madam, |
Resident, Hambleton Terrace |
In Favour |
|
As a
resident who lives directly opposite the site entrance I welcome
these trial proposals |
Resident, Hambleton Grove |
In Favour |
|
I fully support the Experimental Scheme for a Timed Weight Restriction on Hambleton grove. Having lived on this street for 13 years I have witnessed countless ‘near misses’ when HGV’s have arrived at school drop off and pick up times, not only adding to the chaos of parents parking and unloading small children, but also other parents trying to cross the end of road safely. We have lived in fear of a heavy goods truck running over a child for years now. The road is simply not wide enough for these vehicles to enter and drive down without first driving onto the pavement opposite the entrance to Hambleton Terrace from Stockwell Lane, often with pedestrians walking to and from the school. We have reported many time cars being damaged because they are legally parked but the drivers of the HGV’s cannot get through the narrow road without busting wing mirrors etc. We have witnessed drivers in tears as they navigate the difficulties, sometimes abandoning their vehicles on the street to go to the industrial estate to seek help. Conversations with the drivers have sometimes been argumentative as they realise the ridiculousness of the situation they have found themselves. Others have agreed with residents that the street is simple too narrow. Living on this street has been increasingly stressful for residents due to the increase in numbers of these heavy goods vehicles and the careless and disrespectful attitude of the business owner and his casual staff on the industrial estate. Anything that can be done to help this situation, and lessen the arrival of the heavy goods vehicles is welcomed and fully supported. |
Resident |
In Favour |
|
Hambleton
Grove is a residential road with family homes, a care home and a
primary school, the road is not safe for constant use by
uncontrolled HGV movements to bright distribution and eco safe at
peak times (school times) |
Resident, Hambleton Grove |
In Favour |
|
The size of the vehicles requiring access to the business park is far and away beyone what the area is capable being origionally designed for domestic use only besides being a danger to the school traffic, pedestrians etc. This can be demonstrated by the damage that has been caused by these large lorries E.g. damage to cars that has been done, occured and also the posts at the end of the road that are there to stop vehicles mounting the pavement and have been broken off. |
Resident, Hambleton Terrace |
In Favour |
|
Good
Morning, |
Resident, 30 Hambleton Grove |
In Favour |
|
Dear
Sirs |
Resident, Stockwell Rd |
In Favour |
|
Good
afternoon |
Resident, Stockwell Road |
In Favour |
|
Good
Afternoon, |
Resident, Hambleton Grove |
In Favour |
|
Good
Afternoon, |
Resident, Hambleton Grove |
In Favour |
|
Good
Afternoon, |
Residents |
In Favour |
|
Please
consider stipulating what the HGVs must do if they arrive
early. |
Resident, Stockwell Lane |
Comment |