Letter: Proper Consultation Was Not Conducted With Those Affected By Planned Burpham Roadworks

Published on: 13 Dec, 2022
Updated on: 13 Dec, 2022

From Jim Allen

In response to: Guildford Needs This Improvement to Help Make the Town Cycle-friendly

It is a great shame Howard Smith does not understand the legal implications of reducing the safe road width to a dangerously narrow lane for 99 per cent of road users. The cycle lanes might be a nice-to-have item but they will be totally useless for most.

Mr Howard should not say the county council has “consulted” not in the way most people understand te meaning of the word.

Nor should SCC put HGVs on to C class roads, suspending the usual weight restrictions and uplifting usage to over 35,000 vehicles per day.

The county council cannot claim to have done everything by the book because they have utterly failed to follow mandatory procedures on road closure procedures.

The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 states:

6. (3) Before making the order, the traffic authority shall consult…

(c) organisations representing persons who use any road to which the order relates or are likely to be otherwise affected by any provisions of the Order.

The original diversion route went around Merrow then, a few days later it was said that all traffic was to be directed to use Clay Lane. No section six consultations were made, nor could they have been in that time period. Perhaps the matter should be referred to the ombudsman?