Let's think for a minute why a council might want to drag its feet over a speed limit that is patently too high in a case like that of West Drove South. First, to refresh memories, West Drove South is a one track, poorly maintained country lane with no street lights or footpath. There were, at the beginning of the year, 15 houses in the lane, spread out and all individual in character laid out on one side of the road opposite horticulturl land. The council (South Holland District), in its wisdom, agrees planning for 6 semi-detached properties on the horticultural land in close proximity to one another but crucially hidden from view of road users travelling from the northern end of the road. It presents a clear and present hazard to road users and pedestrians in terms of children darting onto the road from behind a fence and foliage which forms this barrier hiding the properties. This WILL happen - there are NO facilities AT ALL in Gedney Hill for children and the gardens of the new properties are small. Children will play in the street, there is nowhere else for them. And yet both South Holland District and Lincolnshire County Councils MUST know what they have done.
Now again I mention our MP, John Hayes, who graciously came to talk with West Drove South residents recently. He says 40mph is too high.
Read again the text in the last but one post from the Divisional Highways Manager. Doesn't he make great play about the amount of work involved in changing limits to the point where one might start feeling some sympathy and conclude, "oh well, if it's that much bother best leave it be then".
Then again he talks in terms of, "should it be demonstrated that a change of speed limit is appropriate ..." - how does that manifest itself in practice? Is there a magic number of broken limbs in RTA's that trigger the requirement? Who does the demonstrating? Is it his job, come what may, to protect a budget involving lines that WILL NOT be crossed?
It is legitimate to question LCC's commitment to road safety. It is especially so when statistically it is safer for children on streets 15 miles away in Norfolk. It would be ridiculous to dismiss this suggesting that there is a higher degree of feckless parenting in Lincolnshire or because of the earth's tilt Norfolk enjoys a geographical advantage in this regard. The residents of West Drove South and the MP HAVE demonstrated a lowering of the speed limit is warranted in West Drove South!
Might another reason for largesse in the matter of the WDS speed limit issue be future plans, as yet not made known to the public? Could the imposition of a lower speed limit adversely affect plans already agreed that have yet to be put to the public through the planning process? Might a lower speed mean that these plans cannot proceed? So LCC must 'hold the line' in order for the planned future for West Drove South, whatever that may be, to be protected at all costs!
Monday 15 November 2010
Letter 26th September 2010
To DivisionalHighways Manager responding to previous post contents.
Your letter dated 24th September 2010 refers. Firstly I would like to acknowledge the fact that your communication was the first in the exchanges in connection with these matters between myself and Lincolnshire County Council and also South Holland District Council where I have not been treated in terms commensurate with my being something unpleasant on the underside of a shoe – a small but nonetheless appreciated step in the right direction. Unfortunately I find myself coming to the conclusion that that is its one redeeming feature and I will set out the reasons for that observation.
• The speed limit review that is currently scheduled for beyond 2011 in the case of West Drove South in actuality could be a year or 2 or more later, in fact it might never see the light of day. That is taking a very real risk with a potentially serious traffic hazard that has been presented to users of this road particularly in coming from its northern end where considerable foliage obscures a new development of affordable homes until the road user is almost upon them but even if the foliage were to be removed entirely the high fence that has been erected is a problem of equal proportions. In fact, as I compose this letter, the 40 mph limit sign facing traffic in this direction prior to the new development is obscured by foliage.
I accept reviews are necessary however in this instance where there is a new hazard being introduced it warrants an immediate review.
• The consultation process being lengthy, as you convey, therefore makes it all the more necessary that it be started NOW in order to protect the potentially significant number of children these affordable homes are expected to cater for in the months ahead.
• My comparison with the Wisbech Road in Kings Lynn indeed is comparing chalk with cheese save for 2 extremely important points that cannot be simply dismissed in the manner you choose. I would make the observation that were Lincolnshire County Council responsible for this particular road the 20mph limit would not be imposed and perhaps the speed humps too might not have been installed – your comment on that would be of interest to me!
The first issue where the comparison has merit is that the view that drivers and pedestrians have of one another is excellent on Wisbech Road – a wide vista with buildings set back appreciably along a 2 lane road with substantial pavements along both sides of the road and excellent street lighting AND YET the authority responsible still has the temerity to impose a 20mph limit AND speed humps. And, I repeat, that in this situation that would not happen if this road were in Lincolnshire. So what are the real issues here? Financial? Largesse? Cultural? Political? Yet we find that a single track country lane in Lincolnshire with no street lights (bar 1 which barely illuminates itself and is non-strategically placed), currently no footpath, an obscure development of affordable family homes can maintain a 40mph restriction!
So we come to the other big issue that really doesn’t seem to exercise people as perhaps it should and that is exemplified by http://www.roadsafetyanalysis.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Child-Casualty-Report-2010.pdf
I am concerned about child safety. I am perhaps more attuned to the risks than many through the work & training that my wife and I do. I do find it disheartening that, to put it bluntly, children in Lincolnshire have a higher chance of being involved in a road accident than, for example, Norfolk. If that statistic were to start taking hold in the psyche of parents might it not have a detrimental effect in a county where your council leader already has concerns about the disproportionate numbers of elderly people moving to the county. Is this report not indicative of the depth of seriousness that differing authorities take in road safety? If not then what is the point of the report?
• These 6 houses each built, according to signage at the site, to house 5 people could therefore potentially hold 18 or more children. I cannot conceive of a housing association NOT applying strict letting conditions that will maintain FULL utilisation of the property’s designated capacity. That I believe in most people’s books would be tantamount to urbanisation!
Your letter dated 24th September 2010 refers. Firstly I would like to acknowledge the fact that your communication was the first in the exchanges in connection with these matters between myself and Lincolnshire County Council and also South Holland District Council where I have not been treated in terms commensurate with my being something unpleasant on the underside of a shoe – a small but nonetheless appreciated step in the right direction. Unfortunately I find myself coming to the conclusion that that is its one redeeming feature and I will set out the reasons for that observation.
• The speed limit review that is currently scheduled for beyond 2011 in the case of West Drove South in actuality could be a year or 2 or more later, in fact it might never see the light of day. That is taking a very real risk with a potentially serious traffic hazard that has been presented to users of this road particularly in coming from its northern end where considerable foliage obscures a new development of affordable homes until the road user is almost upon them but even if the foliage were to be removed entirely the high fence that has been erected is a problem of equal proportions. In fact, as I compose this letter, the 40 mph limit sign facing traffic in this direction prior to the new development is obscured by foliage.
I accept reviews are necessary however in this instance where there is a new hazard being introduced it warrants an immediate review.
• The consultation process being lengthy, as you convey, therefore makes it all the more necessary that it be started NOW in order to protect the potentially significant number of children these affordable homes are expected to cater for in the months ahead.
• My comparison with the Wisbech Road in Kings Lynn indeed is comparing chalk with cheese save for 2 extremely important points that cannot be simply dismissed in the manner you choose. I would make the observation that were Lincolnshire County Council responsible for this particular road the 20mph limit would not be imposed and perhaps the speed humps too might not have been installed – your comment on that would be of interest to me!
The first issue where the comparison has merit is that the view that drivers and pedestrians have of one another is excellent on Wisbech Road – a wide vista with buildings set back appreciably along a 2 lane road with substantial pavements along both sides of the road and excellent street lighting AND YET the authority responsible still has the temerity to impose a 20mph limit AND speed humps. And, I repeat, that in this situation that would not happen if this road were in Lincolnshire. So what are the real issues here? Financial? Largesse? Cultural? Political? Yet we find that a single track country lane in Lincolnshire with no street lights (bar 1 which barely illuminates itself and is non-strategically placed), currently no footpath, an obscure development of affordable family homes can maintain a 40mph restriction!
So we come to the other big issue that really doesn’t seem to exercise people as perhaps it should and that is exemplified by http://www.roadsafetyanalysis.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Child-Casualty-Report-2010.pdf
I am concerned about child safety. I am perhaps more attuned to the risks than many through the work & training that my wife and I do. I do find it disheartening that, to put it bluntly, children in Lincolnshire have a higher chance of being involved in a road accident than, for example, Norfolk. If that statistic were to start taking hold in the psyche of parents might it not have a detrimental effect in a county where your council leader already has concerns about the disproportionate numbers of elderly people moving to the county. Is this report not indicative of the depth of seriousness that differing authorities take in road safety? If not then what is the point of the report?
• These 6 houses each built, according to signage at the site, to house 5 people could therefore potentially hold 18 or more children. I cannot conceive of a housing association NOT applying strict letting conditions that will maintain FULL utilisation of the property’s designated capacity. That I believe in most people’s books would be tantamount to urbanisation!
Response From LCC Dated 24th September 2010
From Divisional Highways Manager, Boston & South Holland Division
I refer to your open letter, dated 29 August 2010, which you have sent to John Hayes MP, Lincolnshire Free Press and Gedney Parish Council as well as to this Authority.
On the matter of the possibility of replacing the existing 40 mph speed restriction on West Drove South with a 20 mph limit, we have already advised you in our letter dated 17 June 2010 that the road does not meet the current qualifying criteria for such a change.
I can advise you that as part of national legislation the Authority is in the process of reviewing its speed limits on class A and B roads which will be completed by the end of 2011. Unclassified roads such as West Drove South will therefore not be reviewed until after this date.
Furthermore, should it be demonstrated that a change of speed limit is appropriate for West Drove South, it would not be a simple matter of taking down the 40 mph signs and replacing them with signs indicating a lower limit. By law, for any new or altered speed limit, the Authority has to process a Traffic Regulation Order for which we are obliged to undertake extensive consultation. Accordingly, I have to advise you that there will be no imminent change to the speed limit on West Drove South.
Your comparison of the situation at West Drove South with that at Wisbech Road, Kings Lynn is noted however, not only are the nature and characteristics of these two roads completely different, but also the highways of Kings Lynn are under the jurisdiction of an entirely separate Authority. There are 20 mph zones in this county but these are within urban centres and where supplementary engineering features have had to be provided to ensure tha low vehiclespeeds are maintained throughout the zone area. Such features would not be appropriate or practical on a rural road such as West Drove South.
I refer to your open letter, dated 29 August 2010, which you have sent to John Hayes MP, Lincolnshire Free Press and Gedney Parish Council as well as to this Authority.
On the matter of the possibility of replacing the existing 40 mph speed restriction on West Drove South with a 20 mph limit, we have already advised you in our letter dated 17 June 2010 that the road does not meet the current qualifying criteria for such a change.
I can advise you that as part of national legislation the Authority is in the process of reviewing its speed limits on class A and B roads which will be completed by the end of 2011. Unclassified roads such as West Drove South will therefore not be reviewed until after this date.
Furthermore, should it be demonstrated that a change of speed limit is appropriate for West Drove South, it would not be a simple matter of taking down the 40 mph signs and replacing them with signs indicating a lower limit. By law, for any new or altered speed limit, the Authority has to process a Traffic Regulation Order for which we are obliged to undertake extensive consultation. Accordingly, I have to advise you that there will be no imminent change to the speed limit on West Drove South.
Your comparison of the situation at West Drove South with that at Wisbech Road, Kings Lynn is noted however, not only are the nature and characteristics of these two roads completely different, but also the highways of Kings Lynn are under the jurisdiction of an entirely separate Authority. There are 20 mph zones in this county but these are within urban centres and where supplementary engineering features have had to be provided to ensure tha low vehiclespeeds are maintained throughout the zone area. Such features would not be appropriate or practical on a rural road such as West Drove South.
Sunday 14 November 2010
Open Letter 29th August 2010
to LCC Highways, Mr John Hayes MP, local press
WEST DROVE SOUTH, GEDNEY HILL
Currently a 40mph speed limit is in place upon a section of road where around 15 houses are situated on one side of the road. The road until recent times was signed as unsuitable for some motor traffic although this signage was removed without any material improvements to the road being carried out. It is a country lane that is regularly used by agricultural vehicles many of which require pedestrians to take refuge in peoples’ gardens for their passing. The road surface is in poor or very poor repair with crumbling of the surface, subsidence, cracks sufficient for significant weed growth along its centre – these are some of its attributes. Visitors or commercial traffic now often endure the road from its worst southern end because of the vagaries of satnav.
This was acceptable and part of the charm and rustic nature of the locality that was actually enjoyed by locals.
But this rural treasure has been brutalised by a totally unsympathetic blot on the road destroying its ambience and amenity and this from a decision by unelected buffoons …
Leaving that aside I now want to move on and try and salvage something in this situation that is crying out for a dose of ‘common sense’ - clearly there has been a lack of the common variety here.
The problem we are left with is one of safety. Health and safety. This is now compromised by the building of houses currently under construction.
In my opinion the road as it is now and with no changes will need a speed limit of 20mph to offset the problems presented by the new housing. A 30mph limit would be appropriate if the road were to be upgraded to 2 lanes with an unfettered footpath constructed to afford adequately a double buggy or wheelchair without resorting to going into the road because of street furniture.
MOVEMENT TOWARDS 20MPH ON URBAN ROADS IN THE UK
27th June 2010
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/
20's Plenty for Us welcomes the article appearing in today's Sunday Times (27th June 2010) regarding ministers proposing a 20 mph speed limit on urban roads.
21st April 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1171706/Speed-limit-cut-20mph-government-bid-reduce-number-road-deaths.html
A strict 20mph speed limit is to be enforced on roads across the country in a government bid to reduce the number of road accidents, it emerged today
It is clear that there is a movement towards a default position of 20mph across the country in urban areas which has cross party support and indeed will sooner or later be mandatory. Further still there are councils taking the lead on this as listed on the 20splentyforus website. So we have a postcode lottery on the implementing of safety regulations to reduce death and injury on roads particularly of children.
Lincolnshire does not appear, to my knowledge and experience, to be ahead of the curve on this issue. I believe that it is now time to provide a statement of intent on this matter to clarify the road ahead.
What is completely bizarre is the comparison between say the Wisbech Road in Kings Lynn and West Drove South where the first has a wide vista, 2 lanes, footpaths , street lights whilst the latter location has one lane and none of the other attributes that seem not to have prevented the imposition of the lower limit in the Norfolk town! Added to which is West Drove South’s limited visibility and the building of high density family homes that will simply not be clearly visible from its northern end approach when complete.
ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH DRIVERS
Even an ‘anti-20mph default’ position organisation, the Association of British Drivers, in a document (http://www.abd.org.uk/mph20con.htm ) deriding the often unnecessary installation of a 20mph restriction at UK locations provides comprehensive guidelines as to those places where a genuine need exists which fit West Drove South to a tee. For example:
They must, as far as possible, be set at levels which actually relate to the hazards that are likely to be encountered. When we are looking at the difference between 30mph and 20mph, accidents involving loss of control of the vehicle or driving at a speed where braking distance is out of line of sight are highly unlikely. The kind of accident we are seeking to avoid is therefore one in which the braking distance is unexpectedly invaded by another road user, unseen until it is too late. This is often exacerbated by an absence of manoeuvring space, leaving the driver nowhere to go to avoid the collision.
A simple examination of the West Drove South speed limit facts in this context are thus:
• A single lane road
• The road surface is in poor state of repair having not been maintained to any degree in many years
• No footpath
• No street lights
• Drainage issues
• Very severe vegetation growth likely not to be adequately alleviated by any kind of pruning at the northern end of the current 40mph speed limit where the road forms a junction with Lincoln Avenue and Mill Lane and extending for circa 100 metres along West Drove South
• The building of 6 semi-detached properties designed to house 5 persons each which could amount to 18 or more children in a confined residential area
• These properties once occupied will present the road user from the Lincoln Avenue/Mill Lane direction no prior warning of their existence until the road user is virtually adjacent to the first of the properties
• There are no playing field facilities at all in Gedney Hill
I would add a personal observation here in that I agree that it is important to drive at a speed that the prevailing conditions allow whatever the limit however in this location it is my belief that once children are in the new houses it would send absolutely the wrong signal to drivers – particularly young inexperienced drivers – who might feel a sense of being protected by the right speed limit of 40mph (as the authorised limit) - whereas this speed is totally inappropriate with a high density development hidden by foliage.
Added to which with the number of existing children living in the street at 3 set to grow exponentially using this narrow lane especially in dark and wet wintry conditions cannot condone 40mph.
SAINTS WARD
Just to revisit that last bullet point above. A recent document online describes the locations within this ward of South Holland District Council and if I had described the recreational facilities in Gedney Hill as amounting in total to “one basket ball ring” at the Memorial Hall I would be accused of being facetious! But there it is in black and white http://www.sholland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CC1EEF67-9AB8-4539-8A80-0EDCAF0D64B5/0/TheSaintsWardProfile2009.pdf . Let me add also that this ‘facility’ is not accessible most of the time as the car park is locked.
It also notes that Sutton St Edmund has 166% of recommended playing field area available according to the National Playing Fields Association guidelines and, of course, Gedney Hill is noted as having 0%!
So no guesses where the children are going to play.
ROYAL SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS
This organisation recommends in its guidelines on these matters that where a problem is perceived to be then a course of action might include inviting the Chief Constable and Highways Department representatives to a site meeting which is what I have done but with no success.
In fact I have written twice to both organisations – at the beginning of June and the beginning of July. I think the most charitable comment that could be made about the Chief Constable’s replies are that they are ambivalent to the issue. And the Highways department? Well the only comment I have had from them was a verbal one in a telephone conversation predating my letters on 17th May saying there would be no change of speed limit – but then the Highways Department are disowning that phone call in relation to another matter. They have chosen, for reasons best known to themselves, not to communicate with me on this!
WHERE WE ARE
I can only assume that the council is determined, for whatever reason, to maintain a 40mph limit on West Drove South – they won’t tell me, so what else can I conclude from the silence? In addition if the limit is to remain at 40mph I want to know the reasoning/logic behind that position.
I believe that the council should, one way or another, provide residents with a plain description of their position on this matter and why. After all I have the decency to highlight my concerns and why should I, as a full council tax payer, not have the courtesy of a reply?
I’m hoping this is not symptomatic of a deeper malaise along with what is going on with the A1073 replacement. Is there a reticence to accept criticism or helpful, constructive advice?
AND FINALLY
I am not seeking to make a name for myself. I will NOT be seeking election at any time to any council. I have not in my 60 years had cause to take up a cause with any council in any way and I am now moved by what has been done to West Drove South that, from the local resident’s point of view, has been treated like further back to the back of beyond! No official or council representative has, to my knowledge, come to West Drove South to see what was proposed and what has now come about. I am seeking recognition of a mistake and do not want that mistake to be compounded by what I feel is the inevitable ‘child in collision with a road vehicle’ scenario.
I would like to invite all parties in receipt of this letter to come to West Drove South and talk to residents. The subject of this letter is not going to go away until properly addressed to the satisfaction of those who live here and is moved on from what amounts to a cavalier attitude to safety in my view.
WEST DROVE SOUTH, GEDNEY HILL
Currently a 40mph speed limit is in place upon a section of road where around 15 houses are situated on one side of the road. The road until recent times was signed as unsuitable for some motor traffic although this signage was removed without any material improvements to the road being carried out. It is a country lane that is regularly used by agricultural vehicles many of which require pedestrians to take refuge in peoples’ gardens for their passing. The road surface is in poor or very poor repair with crumbling of the surface, subsidence, cracks sufficient for significant weed growth along its centre – these are some of its attributes. Visitors or commercial traffic now often endure the road from its worst southern end because of the vagaries of satnav.
This was acceptable and part of the charm and rustic nature of the locality that was actually enjoyed by locals.
But this rural treasure has been brutalised by a totally unsympathetic blot on the road destroying its ambience and amenity and this from a decision by unelected buffoons …
Leaving that aside I now want to move on and try and salvage something in this situation that is crying out for a dose of ‘common sense’ - clearly there has been a lack of the common variety here.
The problem we are left with is one of safety. Health and safety. This is now compromised by the building of houses currently under construction.
In my opinion the road as it is now and with no changes will need a speed limit of 20mph to offset the problems presented by the new housing. A 30mph limit would be appropriate if the road were to be upgraded to 2 lanes with an unfettered footpath constructed to afford adequately a double buggy or wheelchair without resorting to going into the road because of street furniture.
MOVEMENT TOWARDS 20MPH ON URBAN ROADS IN THE UK
27th June 2010
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/
20's Plenty for Us welcomes the article appearing in today's Sunday Times (27th June 2010) regarding ministers proposing a 20 mph speed limit on urban roads.
21st April 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1171706/Speed-limit-cut-20mph-government-bid-reduce-number-road-deaths.html
A strict 20mph speed limit is to be enforced on roads across the country in a government bid to reduce the number of road accidents, it emerged today
It is clear that there is a movement towards a default position of 20mph across the country in urban areas which has cross party support and indeed will sooner or later be mandatory. Further still there are councils taking the lead on this as listed on the 20splentyforus website. So we have a postcode lottery on the implementing of safety regulations to reduce death and injury on roads particularly of children.
Lincolnshire does not appear, to my knowledge and experience, to be ahead of the curve on this issue. I believe that it is now time to provide a statement of intent on this matter to clarify the road ahead.
What is completely bizarre is the comparison between say the Wisbech Road in Kings Lynn and West Drove South where the first has a wide vista, 2 lanes, footpaths , street lights whilst the latter location has one lane and none of the other attributes that seem not to have prevented the imposition of the lower limit in the Norfolk town! Added to which is West Drove South’s limited visibility and the building of high density family homes that will simply not be clearly visible from its northern end approach when complete.
ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH DRIVERS
Even an ‘anti-20mph default’ position organisation, the Association of British Drivers, in a document (http://www.abd.org.uk/mph20con.htm ) deriding the often unnecessary installation of a 20mph restriction at UK locations provides comprehensive guidelines as to those places where a genuine need exists which fit West Drove South to a tee. For example:
They must, as far as possible, be set at levels which actually relate to the hazards that are likely to be encountered. When we are looking at the difference between 30mph and 20mph, accidents involving loss of control of the vehicle or driving at a speed where braking distance is out of line of sight are highly unlikely. The kind of accident we are seeking to avoid is therefore one in which the braking distance is unexpectedly invaded by another road user, unseen until it is too late. This is often exacerbated by an absence of manoeuvring space, leaving the driver nowhere to go to avoid the collision.
A simple examination of the West Drove South speed limit facts in this context are thus:
• A single lane road
• The road surface is in poor state of repair having not been maintained to any degree in many years
• No footpath
• No street lights
• Drainage issues
• Very severe vegetation growth likely not to be adequately alleviated by any kind of pruning at the northern end of the current 40mph speed limit where the road forms a junction with Lincoln Avenue and Mill Lane and extending for circa 100 metres along West Drove South
• The building of 6 semi-detached properties designed to house 5 persons each which could amount to 18 or more children in a confined residential area
• These properties once occupied will present the road user from the Lincoln Avenue/Mill Lane direction no prior warning of their existence until the road user is virtually adjacent to the first of the properties
• There are no playing field facilities at all in Gedney Hill
I would add a personal observation here in that I agree that it is important to drive at a speed that the prevailing conditions allow whatever the limit however in this location it is my belief that once children are in the new houses it would send absolutely the wrong signal to drivers – particularly young inexperienced drivers – who might feel a sense of being protected by the right speed limit of 40mph (as the authorised limit) - whereas this speed is totally inappropriate with a high density development hidden by foliage.
Added to which with the number of existing children living in the street at 3 set to grow exponentially using this narrow lane especially in dark and wet wintry conditions cannot condone 40mph.
SAINTS WARD
Just to revisit that last bullet point above. A recent document online describes the locations within this ward of South Holland District Council and if I had described the recreational facilities in Gedney Hill as amounting in total to “one basket ball ring” at the Memorial Hall I would be accused of being facetious! But there it is in black and white http://www.sholland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CC1EEF67-9AB8-4539-8A80-0EDCAF0D64B5/0/TheSaintsWardProfile2009.pdf . Let me add also that this ‘facility’ is not accessible most of the time as the car park is locked.
It also notes that Sutton St Edmund has 166% of recommended playing field area available according to the National Playing Fields Association guidelines and, of course, Gedney Hill is noted as having 0%!
So no guesses where the children are going to play.
ROYAL SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS
This organisation recommends in its guidelines on these matters that where a problem is perceived to be then a course of action might include inviting the Chief Constable and Highways Department representatives to a site meeting which is what I have done but with no success.
In fact I have written twice to both organisations – at the beginning of June and the beginning of July. I think the most charitable comment that could be made about the Chief Constable’s replies are that they are ambivalent to the issue. And the Highways department? Well the only comment I have had from them was a verbal one in a telephone conversation predating my letters on 17th May saying there would be no change of speed limit – but then the Highways Department are disowning that phone call in relation to another matter. They have chosen, for reasons best known to themselves, not to communicate with me on this!
WHERE WE ARE
I can only assume that the council is determined, for whatever reason, to maintain a 40mph limit on West Drove South – they won’t tell me, so what else can I conclude from the silence? In addition if the limit is to remain at 40mph I want to know the reasoning/logic behind that position.
I believe that the council should, one way or another, provide residents with a plain description of their position on this matter and why. After all I have the decency to highlight my concerns and why should I, as a full council tax payer, not have the courtesy of a reply?
I’m hoping this is not symptomatic of a deeper malaise along with what is going on with the A1073 replacement. Is there a reticence to accept criticism or helpful, constructive advice?
AND FINALLY
I am not seeking to make a name for myself. I will NOT be seeking election at any time to any council. I have not in my 60 years had cause to take up a cause with any council in any way and I am now moved by what has been done to West Drove South that, from the local resident’s point of view, has been treated like further back to the back of beyond! No official or council representative has, to my knowledge, come to West Drove South to see what was proposed and what has now come about. I am seeking recognition of a mistake and do not want that mistake to be compounded by what I feel is the inevitable ‘child in collision with a road vehicle’ scenario.
I would like to invite all parties in receipt of this letter to come to West Drove South and talk to residents. The subject of this letter is not going to go away until properly addressed to the satisfaction of those who live here and is moved on from what amounts to a cavalier attitude to safety in my view.
Justifying The Unjustifiable
A conumdrum: a council builds 6 affordable semi-detached houses each designed, according to signage at the development, to accommodate 5 people in extremely close proximity to each other on a one track country lane in a poor state of repair, with no street lights, and no footpath and in its infinite wisdom the speed limit of 40mph is to ... stay the same!
A right-minded person might consider that the decision not to reduce the limit as churlish especially taking into account, and I draw the readers attention to the opening post of this blog and the video evidence there, the hazard that is presented by the very hidden nature of the development with the prospect of 18 or more children living there. The gardens are small and with facilities in Gedney Hill amounting to a big, fat zero regarding play areas then it doesn't take much guess work to come to the conclusion children will be playing in the street.
Residents can see the danger in that speed limit, the MP, Mr John Hayes, who visited residents recently can see the danger but strangely the Highways department at Lincolnshire County Council has adopted a more sanguine approach, laid back to the point of unconscious on the issue which will be shown in later posts.
In the meantime I will just round off this opener by saying that earlier this year I checked out RoSPA's website in view of this looming 'big mistake'. It was here that I found guidelines that could be followed in pursuit of getting change where traffic hazards warrant it. They suggested asking representatives of Highways and the Chief Constable's office to attend a site meeting to review matters. This I did. Neither was interested. The Chief Constable's office wrote to say, and I paraphrase, "you've mistaken us for people who care" and Highways just made no reply at all on the issue of a site meeting - just that the limit stays at 40mph and deal with it.
It was the frustration of being treated as something unpleasant on the underside of LCC's shoe that I put together an open letter to the local press, MP Mr John Hayes and Lincolnshire County Council's Highways department. That letter forms the next post which is followed by some weird responses in subsequent posts. So watch this space.
A right-minded person might consider that the decision not to reduce the limit as churlish especially taking into account, and I draw the readers attention to the opening post of this blog and the video evidence there, the hazard that is presented by the very hidden nature of the development with the prospect of 18 or more children living there. The gardens are small and with facilities in Gedney Hill amounting to a big, fat zero regarding play areas then it doesn't take much guess work to come to the conclusion children will be playing in the street.
Residents can see the danger in that speed limit, the MP, Mr John Hayes, who visited residents recently can see the danger but strangely the Highways department at Lincolnshire County Council has adopted a more sanguine approach, laid back to the point of unconscious on the issue which will be shown in later posts.
In the meantime I will just round off this opener by saying that earlier this year I checked out RoSPA's website in view of this looming 'big mistake'. It was here that I found guidelines that could be followed in pursuit of getting change where traffic hazards warrant it. They suggested asking representatives of Highways and the Chief Constable's office to attend a site meeting to review matters. This I did. Neither was interested. The Chief Constable's office wrote to say, and I paraphrase, "you've mistaken us for people who care" and Highways just made no reply at all on the issue of a site meeting - just that the limit stays at 40mph and deal with it.
It was the frustration of being treated as something unpleasant on the underside of LCC's shoe that I put together an open letter to the local press, MP Mr John Hayes and Lincolnshire County Council's Highways department. That letter forms the next post which is followed by some weird responses in subsequent posts. So watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)