| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 12:26:37
|
But what other traffic calming measures? If WSCC claim that the 20mph speed limit isn't working nor the pinchpoint system what are we left with? Traffic lights/speed cameras or perhaps no entry to vehicles signs.
WSCC are merely using the excuse to do nothing & as we can see from the non response of the original Development Consortium to APC's complaint about subsidence in the childrens play area & the rubble discovered when laying the CC's underground heating system,they are very unlikely to spend time or money on addressing BG's speeding issues.
I presume that since Section 106 Agreement for roads & Section 104 Agreement(for water services,drains & sewers)or an appropriate Bond,were obtained from the developers by the appropriate local authorities involved in planning approval & signing off the project,there is no legal reason to delay adoption.
The deafening silence by APC;ADC;WSCC & Southern Water to emails, letters & telephone enquiries on this matter suggests that the monies obtained are earmarked for something else. It wouldn't be for topping up Council pension pots by any chance? |
 |
|
|
Bruno
New Member
United Kingdom
4 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 13:56:01
|
| A consultant has been appointed to propose an alternative traffic calming scheme. I have been in direct contact with WSCC and they are very keen to resolve this adoption problem. There is a legal agreement in place (sec 38) its down to the consortium to resolve all the highway issues in accordance with the WSCC standards. The issue re the parking is down to residents not using thier allocated parking spaces or garages, which are proberly full of rubbish. There will be an accident soon, this will then focus the developer when the police become involved. I have already discussed this problem re on road parking with the police who informed me they are looking into the situation, they are fully aware the road is not adopted but they have informed me they can become involved if the problem is deemed to be a highway saftey issue to the general public. |
|
|
|
anthony
Average Member
United Kingdom
68 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 13:56:33
|
| The 20mph speed limit isn't working because the traffic calming scheme as it stands is insufficient. The pinchpoint system in Nursery Road is ignored by many drivers who, rather than wait until an oncoming car has passed, set off anyway with the hope of pulling into a gap in parked cars. And then there is the idiot who persists on parking just in front of the island obscuring the view of oncoming vehicles. Double yellows all the way along nursery road, two plateaus (speed tables) like those in William Olders Road and priority signs so that those travelling east have priority would greatly reduce speed and risk of head on collisions. As for how its paid for, thats the job of the bodies elected (and otherwise) who supposedly represent us to decide. Personally, if it meant an increase in my council tax to achieve this then I would have no issue. |
|
|
|
Bruno
New Member
United Kingdom
4 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 15:17:21
|
| The payment of any scheme approved by WSCC will be down to the developer. There is a bond in place which which can be drawn down by WSCC if the developer defaults. |
|
|
|
john yeats
New Member
United Kingdom
5 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 17:15:14
|
| has anyone any information on the work at the south end of Bramley Green? i was told they are making a road into the school for lorrys going to the buildng site |
|
|
|
GrumpyGirl
Average Member
United Kingdom
88 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 17:49:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by john yeats
has anyone any information on the work at the south end of Bramley Green? i was told they are making a road into the school for lorrys going to the buildng site
W.Stirland contractors have been commissioned by WSCC to build a new 6th form building at Angmering School, starting on 17th August. The work will take 12 months and the contractors have said in letters to residents earlier this week that their heavy lorries will travel from Roundstone Lane through Nursery Road, Rowan Way & Bramley Way to the school building site.
Since the roads in Bramley Way have not been adopted by WSCC and therefore remain in private ownership, it is unclear who has given permission for the heavy vehicle construction traffic for the publicly owned school building site to use these private roads, and under what authority that permission has been granted. It is certainly not the case that either the residents of Bramley Green or the Bramley Green Development Consortium have given their permission. Nor has it been justified why the construction traffic for the school building site should not use publicly adopted roads for access from the other side of the school, given that the school is a public facility.
An increasing number of Bramley Green residents are very concerned at the likely damage that will be caused by the heavy construction vehicles over several months to the roads, kerbs, pavements, foundations and underground sewerage/drainage facilities within Bramley Green. The construction traffic will also add considerably to the traffic congestion already suffered by residents within the narrow roads of Bramley Green. |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 22:43:57
|
I am puzzled that many posters to this thread have had several cogent suggestions as to how speed enforcement through BG could be achieved but apparently WSCC are incapable of coming up with any ideas & have resorted, as usual, to engaging consultants at goodness knows what cost & time to think for them.
WSCC employ enough overpaid & underworked managers to sort these issues out & time to dump these moneyspinning firms of consultants. |
|
|
|
Bruno
New Member
United Kingdom
4 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2009 : 13:05:18
|
| The developer has instructed a consultant, not WSCC |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2009 : 13:37:24
|
Bruno
Thanks for clarifying your earlier posting regarding who appointed the consultant but presumably WSCC will still have the final decision as to whether it meets their requirements & I repeat therefore WSCC should be able to come up with their own plans without engaging consultants.
I don't know who you "have been in direct contact with in WSCC" but I & several other residents have all contacted them over the last 2 years & certainly haven't been given the impression that "they are keen to resolve this adoption process."
Perhaps you could tell us who the WSCC contact is for future refence. |
|
|
|
GrumpyGirl
Average Member
United Kingdom
88 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2009 : 13:54:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bruno
The developer has instructed a consultant, not WSCC
Presumably this is the same consultant who carried out the speed monitoring survey in Bramley Green 2 years ago in 2007 ? Our understanding from WSCC is that the consultant was commissioned by the Developers to come up with a solution shortly after that survey. We have therefore all been waiting for almost 2 years now for progress from that, but there's no sign anything at all is happening. Indeed, Harvey Rogers, the Highways Officer at WSCC dealing with the Bramley Green road adoption issue, has confirmed recently that the Development Consortium don't even respond to his official letters ! Hardly surprising as the Developers clearly don't want to have to spend more money when they can simply ignore the problem and the Council lets them get away with that. |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2009 : 15:07:16
|
Bruno
Are you sure that WSCC hasn't just led you up the same garden path that so many of us followed over the last 2 years? |
|
|
|
deb8
Average Member
59 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2009 : 18:48:39
|
At the risk of sounding forward, can I suggest the Bram Green Res Assoc send a letter to W Stirland with a cc to WSCC something along the lines...
Dear Sirs
Without prejudice
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated ...
We reserve the right to withhold our consent to your accessing Angmering School via Bramley Way until the road has been adopted by WSCC.
The Council have been extremely tardy in dealing with this matter but, as your start date is 17 August, we trust that you will negotiate and resolve this issue as a matter of urgency.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Yours
I am not sure whether you have the right to refuse access but if you are to be held accountable for any damage caused by heavy duty vehicles, it may be worth persuing. Any Solicitors out there?? |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2009 : 19:08:03
|
| Do residents of BG own the road, or is it still owned by the developers until adoption by WSCC? |
|
|
|
deb8
Average Member
59 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2009 : 20:09:15
|
| Hmmmmm Very interesting point Neil - and, with the possible introduction of another party, the responsibility for road damage etc becomes even more complex !! |
|
|
|
GrumpyGirl
Average Member
United Kingdom
88 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 11:15:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by deb8
Hmmmmm Very interesting point Neil - and, with the possible introduction of another party, the responsibility for road damage etc becomes even more complex !!
Re your earlier post Deb8, there isn't a Bramley Green Residents Association at present, although a number of concerned residents have suggested forming one. I'd suggest it would carry more weight if several residents wrote indiviually to W.Stirland and to the 3 Councils (APC, ADC and WSCC) - by the way, I have already seen one of their lorries going through BG today! I'm advised that legally the developers own the BG roads until their adoption (if that ever happens) and are thus currently responsible for their maintenance - however that legal responsibility is not reflected in the developers' behaviour in practice, as the fact that the roads remain unadopted after more than 5 years demonstrates and that they don't respond to letters from either WSCC or individual residents. In this ongoing limbo, it's inevitable that the residents will ultimately foot the bill ! |
|
|
|
Bruno
New Member
United Kingdom
4 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 18:02:12
|
| The roads do remain in the ownership of the devlopers, they are responsible for street lighting, road cleaning and any defect until WSCC adopt. There are other reasons why the road have not been adopted. The cyclelink between The Walkway and the Dell which was planned can never be achived as the link has been constructed in the wrong place, and from BG side it ends up on a private drive on the Dell side, therefor the cycleway will be unable to connect to an adoptabe road. This was a condition in the Sec 106 agreement. Clearly this will never be achived and I assume WSCC have accepted this, but this issue has been going on for a long time. The cyclelink is no great loss as im sure it would have caused more problems. Part of reciving planning from Arun DC for the new 6th form building, I belive access during the construction period is a condition? as well as wheel washing and access. |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 19:39:09
|
Bruno
Yes, the roads, drains etc. remain in the ownership of the Developers until adopted but already Westbury Homes has been absorbed by Redrow/Persimmon & by the end of the economic recession who knows which of them will be left.
If as you say the cyclelink between The Walkway & the Dell is incorrectly constructed & so the S106 agreement cannot be fulfilled then WSCC have been negigently incompetent.
Similarly if planning permission by ADC was contingent on access via BG to the building site then ADC should have established whether they had any legal right of access.On examining Deeds & the covenants for BG I can only find "rights & easements granted for the benefit of individual properties comprising the BG estate" (which Angmering School is not). Those rights permit "entry by Local authority,water company,gas & electric company to lay,inspect, maintain & renew Conducting Media (i.e.sewers; drains; ditches; watercourses;gutters;pipes;wires;cables;mains & ancillary works)serving the development." Nowhere can I find any such rights for other sites such as the Angmering School & so far neither WSCC or ADC have produced evidence of such
The Deeds also contain covenants by the builders "to construct adoptable roads & sewers within the development to the satisfaction of local highway authority & local sewerage company & to maintain both in good repair & condition until adoption."
Whilst on the face of it this protects residents of BG ,experience teaches me that Local Authorities can rarely be relied upon to honour agreements & their lack of response to date should sound warning bells for BG residents. |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 20:19:06
|
For the record, the land on the The Dell where the cycleway was planned to cut through is not a "private drive" although it may appear to look like that. Hargreaves were quite clever in making this access look like it was private when they were selling their houses 25 years ago although I'm pretty certain the deeds of the houses affected on The Dell do not show ownership of that access.
I don't think that WSCC were negligently incompetent as suggested by BRAM, but I think Arun District Council were, as it was their responsibility to ensure that houses were built to the submitted plans. In the event, they failed to notice that a house in The Walkway was built one and a half metres to the south from where it was planned to be, thus halving the width of the planned cycleway between BG and The Dell, and creating some security issues in the process. |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2009 : 18:15:47
|
Has anyone else seen the discs bolted into the pavements along Nursery Road?
An acquaintance I spoke to earlier today said she saw a man driving it into the pavement & when she challenged him he said it was in preparation for street adoption.
I know nothing about this process but do the local authority perhaps adopt the road by physically "staking a claim.?" |
Edited by - BRAM on 04 Aug 2009 18:16:34 |
|
|
|
Stonechipper
Average Member
United Kingdom
37 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2009 : 18:38:35
|
| The discs could be the ones that surveyors use to mark points for taking measurements of heights and distances with theodolites. Surveying the area and making accurate drawings would certainly be the first stage of the adoption of the roads. |
|
|
|
if only
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
760 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2009 : 19:19:53
|
Methinks that perhaps they realise if they do not adopt the roads, they may just have a little bit of trouble trying to access the school site for the building! |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 21:23:39
|
I received the following this afternoon:
Access To Bramley School Works, Angmering
Thank you for your recent e-mail concerning access to the Angmering School development site via the estate roads in Bramley Green.
I would like to stress that the roads are, at present, owned by the developers. The developers granted the rights of access to the school site to West Sussex County Council, via the estate roads, as part of a land transfer in 2008. Should any damage occur to the roads during the development of the site, the land transfer requires that West Sussex County Council will be responsible for the cost of repair.
It remains the intention of the County Council to adopt these roads. Once the roads are adopted, the County Council will take on full responsibility for maintenance. The roads are currently offered for adoption with a 20mph speed limit, but unfortunately speed surveys demonstrate that speeds are in excess of 20mph. Legislation requires that a 20mph zone be self enforcing through the introduction of physical speed reducing measures and the County Council therefore requires the developer to introduce further measures to reduce speeds prior to the roads being adopted. If this were not the case then the cost of these additional works would fall on the council tax payers of West Sussex. We will continue to press the developer to introduce the appropriate measures that will enable the County Council to adopt the roads.
The only other alternative would be the withdrawal of the 20mph zone and the application of a 30mph speed limit. It is my understanding that residents did not wish to pursue this alternative. However, if this is an option you wish to consider or receive further information on, please contact the County Council’s Development Planning Group Manager on 01243 777559.
Yours sincerely,
Derek Whittington
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport
West Sussex County Council
It seems that the quickest way to progress this matter & see whether WSCC is going to honour their commitment to adopt the roads is to abandon the 20m.p.h restriction. I personally do not have any objection to that.
This is the first time I have heard reference made to "The developers granted the rights of access to the school site to West Sussex County Council, via the estate roads, as part of a land transfer in 2008" & is another example of lack of communication by local authorities with residents affected by issues within their neighbourhood.
|
|
|
|
Mr Angry
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1272 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 21:55:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by BRAM
the County Council therefore requires the developer to introduce further measures to reduce speeds prior to the roads being adopted.
Like a developer could introduce something that the County Council (and the police) have failed to anywhere else in the village.
Total back-pedalling, failure to anticipate and "If you build it, they will come (and then stuff 'em)" - BS.
|
Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis |
Edited by - Mr Angry on 06 Aug 2009 22:02:50 |
|
|
|
GrumpyGirl
Average Member
United Kingdom
88 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 11:49:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by BRAM
re Derek Whittington's WSCC statement re Access To Bramley School Works, Angmering
we have today sent the following comments to him.
Thank you for your recent communication (attached) to various residents here in Bramley Green.As concerned residents of Bramley Green for over 5 years we would like to make the following comments.
1) neither we nor any other resident that we know was made aware at the time of the agreement between the Developers and WSCC, relating to the land transfer in 2008 for the Angmering School building site, for the contractors to use the unadopted Bramley Green estate roads for access. We do not recall any consultation on that or any opportunity being given at the time for the residents to raise their concerns, let alone those concerns being addressed. We are surprised and disappointed that such lack of communication and consideration of local council tax paying residents' views is deemed acceptable by WSCC.
2) The contractors' vehicles have already started using the Bramley Green roads this week, despite their letter to residents indicating that work would not start until 17th August. Of far greater concern is the experience observed only yesterday afternoon, that one of their heavy goods vehicles weighing over 35 tons was approaching the top end of Bramley Green, where the field is, at a speed of over 30mph, clearly well in excess of the supposed 20mph limit. Two residents went to the field and approached the lorry driver, and the W.Stirland Ltd workman on site, and kindly asked him to lower his speed limit when delivering goods. The lorry driver's reply was "F... off". On being advised that the resident would report him, the lorry driver replied "do what you f....ing well like". That episode is a disgrace and totally unacceptable, but in practice is likely to be not untypical of what will happen over the next 12 months of building work. What action is WSCC taking to control the speeds of the contractors' vehicles that it has authorised and prevent such abuse ?
3) your confirmation that WSCC will be responsible for the cost of repair of the Bramley Green roads for any damage caused by the contractors' vehicles is very welcome, but :
(a) (as communicated to us by Patricia Flint at WSCC) it does not cover any damage that may be caused to underground drains and sewers (which are also unadopted, by Southern Water) beneath the road surfaces; and
(b) residents here and their families will nevertheless be subjected to 12 months' of large and heavy contractors' vehicles and their accompanying noise, nuisance and health & safety issues as they move through the narrow roads of the Bramley Green estate. These roads are manifestly unsuitable for such traffic on such a sustained basis.
4) we very much welcome your statement that it is the intention of WSCC to adopt these roads. However, you reference that the roads are currently offered for adoption with a 20mph limit and that a speed survey has demonstrated that speeds are in excess of that. We would respectfully point out that :
a) whilst the roads remain unadopted (and therefore privately owned) no speed limits have any legal standing and cannot be enforced. The speed survey results are therefore of no relevance as drivers have never been obligated to comply.
b) the last speed survey was carried out 2 years ago (as confirmed by Harvey Rogers at WSCC) since which time the Developers have implemented further traffic calming measures. The results of the survey are clearly out of date and do not support the contention that speeds are in excess even if the limits were enforceable.
c) if the roads were adopted, that would enable legally enforceable speed limits and other accident-reducing specific traffic regulating measures to be implemented (e.g. yellow lines in dangerous parking locations such as by Give Way signs, traffic calming pinch-points or on the crown of bends). That would be very much welcomed by the majority of the residents.
d) the vast majority of other residential areas in West Sussex have 30 mph not 20mph limits and their roads are adopted by WSCC. We do not believe that driver behaviour within Bramley Green is materially different to that elsewhere; and we pay the same rates of Council Tax as all those other areas but at present (and for the last 5 or more years) do not get the same benefit of the Council maintaining our roads.
e) whilst our roads remain unadopted, and therefore the responsibility of the developers, we and many other residents have little basis of trust that the Developers will honour their obligations to maintain the road condition at their cost as the roads deteriorate over time. Our and many others' experience of the Developers in originally building our homes and resolving all the problems therein, plus the Developers lack of response to letters both from WSCC (as indicated by Harvey Rogers) and from residents over a long period, suggests strongly that we are not able to rely on the Developers meeting their obligations. Some residents who have moved to Bramley Green from other new developments in West Sussex have direct experience that also evidences that view.
5) You mention the alternative of applying a 30mph speed limit and state your understanding that the residents do not wish to pusue that. What is the basis of that understanding ? In the five years and more that we and hundreds of other residents have lived here, we are not aware of anyone seeking our opinion on this matter. We have recently spoken with a sample of residents, the clear majority of whom would be happy with a 30mph limit if that enabled the roads to be adopted and maintained by WSCC and appropriate legally enforceable accident-reducing traffic regulating measures to be implemented. We therefore request that alternative be considered forthwith. |
|
|
|
bgresident
Senior Member
United Kingdom
183 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 15:45:04
|
I will go with what the majority on BG want but I do have concerns about a 30mph limit. Speeding is already a problem along Nursery Road and frankly I think that 30 is too high on this stretch of road. However, relaxing the present speed limit may be our only option for a speedy adoption.
Regarding the lorry driver telling residents to F off... Well we could park our cars strategically along their route to make access difficult and slow them down. Actually, probably not a good idea - if the driver's behavior is anything to go by, they wouldn't care if they scraped a few cars along the way.
Well done to Grumpy Girl for her efforts. I hope APC will support her efforts and that's not a dig, I really do hope they will embrace her energy and commitment and help resolve this situation. |
Edited by - bgresident on 07 Aug 2009 16:29:14 |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 16:49:45
|
Yes well done to GrumpyGirl for her succinct response to WSCC.
Perhaps APC should have been as proactive on behalf of BG residents but now surely is their opportunity to establish the will of BG residents on whether they too feel the same way about expediting this matter in some sort of survey or poll.
Let's see some action at the APC meeting on 10 August for goodness sake. |
|
|
|
anthony
Average Member
United Kingdom
68 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 21:28:27
|
Bgresident, why do we need a speedy adoption, am I completely missing something here? The foul and surface water drainage system isn't going to suddenly collapse! You have reservations yourself about a 30 limit but for some reason you are willing to potentially risk peoples lives to hurry the road adoption through!
Grumpygirl, again I have to ask you, who exactly are these residents you have canvassed, the majority of whom support a 30 limit??? I resent you contacting WSCC and stating that this is the case and a letter saying as much has been sent to WSCC. Why don't you focus your efforts on getting the developer to install the speed control measures to achieve a 20mph limit instead and perhaps avoid a nasty accident? The way I see it you are preventing the developer from fulfilling their obligations in much the same way as you are preventing any progress at the skate park by carrying out your own litter patrol. |
|
|
|
bgresident
Senior Member
United Kingdom
183 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 22:06:53
|
Anthony,
Don't get too excited, I am with you with the 20mph. I know what I would prefer and that is to mantain the present speed limit and get the developers to implement further speed calming measures.
I have been accused so many times on this forum of having a personal agenda and I'm almost resigned to accepting that I am a minority segment of this village that seems to go against the grain. I actually phoned the County Council Development Group Manager today to express my concern about reducing the speed limit (my immediate neighbours are certainly of the same opinion). I continue to applaud Grumpy Girls efforts and at least she has done something about the situation but there is one thing that really ****** me off and that's the mindless morons speeding up and down BG. I know what I would like as a solution but adoption is a real hot potatoe amongst BG residents and I fear that the speed limit will become a compromise in order to secure adoption, but I hope not. I just can't see the developers coming back and spending more money on speed calming measures - it was hard enough getting the BG consortium coming out to repair a light in our street! |
Edited by - bgresident on 07 Aug 2009 22:17:27 |
|
|
|
anthony
Average Member
United Kingdom
68 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 22:50:38
|
| bgresident, I'm hoping you expressed your concern about increasing the speed limit... Which immediate neighbours, to the north or south? To the south would be laughable! |
|
|
|
if only
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
760 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 23:05:47
|
Here's another question?
What is there to stop the residents of BG forming a Residents assoc., and adopting the road themselves making it a private estate like Ham Manor?
I see Mr. Angry is lurking around so I am bound to get some sort of blasting for this, but it actually a serious question.
[xo] |
|
|
|
Mr Angry
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1272 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 23:43:23
|
Keep me out of it IO
But I do think the developers and WSCC would bite their hands off because then they wouldn't have to worry about other stuff than roads that they do have to worry about now.
|
Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis |
|
|
|
bgresident
Senior Member
United Kingdom
183 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 23:48:08
|
Sorry Anthony, wrong choice of words. For absolute clarity, when I said reducing the limit what I meant to say is that I am opposed to alleviating the speed limit i.e. allowing it to go to 30 mph and I made that clear during my phone call.
Regarding my neighbours, both immediate and those who live several roads away from us have issues with driving behaviour. All those of us on BG, let's be really honest about this subject. Many, many BG residents drive in and out of the estate with no regard for the 20 mph limit because they are so wrapped up in their own material world that they couldn't give a stuff (mothers with kids on the school run are prolific offenders!).
I'll give you an example:
A few months ago, I was walking up Nursery road with my wife and children on their bikes after having lunch at the Spotted Cow. Along came a 4x4 speeding up Nursery Road and as it happens, the driver had to stop near us and I said to him "going fast enough?" Basically told me to P off in front of my children so I went up to the window and asked him if he was prepared to park and repeat those words around the corner without my children present (his kids were on the back seat!). Guess what, he declined. My point being that unless we actually have humps or some physical measure that actually stops these morons, you will never kill the speed around here.
I know I'm going to be shot down over this, but those with a lack of grey matter between the ears should be prohibited from driving such vehicles!
|
Edited by - bgresident on 08 Aug 2009 08:28:24 |
|
|
|
GrumpyGirl
Average Member
United Kingdom
88 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2009 : 09:09:30
|
Very pleased that more residents are expressing their views, but please don't lose sight of the basic fact that no speed limits or any other traffic regulating measures are legally enforceable unless the roads are public property i.e. adopted; thus drivers are currently not obligated to obey any limit.
We all share the same objective of making BG a safe place to live for us and our children etc, but without road adoption the status quo will continue.
It is also clearly the case that some drivers are careful & considerate whatever the formal speed limit, whilst numerous others will continue to ignore whatever limit is put in place - whether that's 20 or 30mph or any other level. The actual limit is therefore not the solution to preventing accidents - that lies with other traffic calming measures, be they road humps, more pinch-points etc, or even a one-way system round Nursery Road, Rowan Way and Bramley Way. However, it is also a fact that persisting with a formal 20mph limit is preventing WSCC from adopting the roads. It isn't realistic to believe the developers will spend money to resolve that problem, thus WSCC will never adopt the roads unless we all find an acceptable way to break the current impasse. |
|
|
|
Commuter
Senior Member
United Kingdom
166 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2009 : 09:38:14
|
quote:
Many, many BG residents drive in and out of the estate with no regard for the 20 mph limit because they are so wrapped up in their own material world that they couldn't give a stuff (mothers with kids on the school run are prolific offenders!).
I would have thought that there couldn't be any greater deterrent to bad driving than the risk of killing your own children, yet parents tear around with their kids in the back. I've lost track of the number of mothers on the school run who take totally unnecessary risks at the pinch points. These annoy me most because what's the point of living in a smallish village with primary schools almost on your doorstep and then bundling the kids in the car 5 minutes before school starts rather than planning ahead and actually walking to school with them? |
Commuter |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2009 : 10:31:24
|
I would be interested to know whether there is any evidence that the pinchpoints at either end of the village have resulted in a reduction of speed & also what plans WSCC have to monitor or enforce speeds in Angmering generally as I have witnessed speeding vehicles in several areas apart from BG. It is not just speeding cars that kill children - what about lorries. The heavy vehicles that will be visiting the Angmering School building site will be equally dangerous & nobody has mentioned how they will be monitored for speed or safety.
The enforcement of a 20/30m.p.h.is merely an excuse & WSCC are happy to let this issue bubble on with residents disagreeing because it means that they do not have to do anything. Divide & conquer is the name of the game.
Although the estate is fairly recent the assumption that "The foul and surface water drainage system isn't going to suddenly collapse!" cannot be relied on. Already, despite the high prices paid, the poor quality build of houses is showing with several houses having had new windows & doors; repairs to roofs & chimneys & the fact that cavity wall insulation was not installed during the build raises concerns about the longer term.All this despite the fact that NHBC Building Control were the Authorised Inspector for the development (so ADC Planning & Building Control cannot be blamed for once).
Whilst tenants of Social Housing & private lettings within BG may not be as concerned as the houseowners I, for one, am not prepared to wait in the vain hope that the Development Consortium will sort out any road or water/sewerage problem should they arise.
BG residents must find a consensus to resolve this matter a.s.a.p. |
|
|
|
anthony
Average Member
United Kingdom
68 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2009 : 11:17:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bruno
The payment of any scheme approved by WSCC will be down to the developer. There is a bond in place which which can be drawn down by WSCC if the developer defaults.
GrumpyGirl, if Bruno is correct in what he says then pressure on WSCC to release the funds from this bond and put a proper 20mph traffic calming scheme in place would be a much more beneficial course of acton than the one you are currently undertaking. If we end up with our roads adopted as they are and the limit then changed to a legally enforceable 30mph, who do you imagine is going to legally enforce it? I would suggest noone. And if you can drive unhindered at 30mph then you can probably push it up to 50 before you wrap your car round a lamp post. Whereas 20mph traffic calming measures do not need to be LEGALLY enforceable as by their very nature they PHYSICALLY enforce the speed limit.
Clearly you must be coming less from a road safety perspective on this issue than you are from the possibility of having to pay for a drain to be unblocked.
The potential of a few hundred pounds to pay or the potential for my kids to be killed on the way to the park? It seems a no-brainer to me... |
|
|
|
anthony
Average Member
United Kingdom
68 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2009 : 11:36:05
|
| Bram, the amount of heavy plant that would have continually trafficked over the foul and surface water pipes during the construction phase of Bramley Green and the subsequent imposed loads would have by far exceeded anything since or in the future. Also the CCTV survey of the system would have been conducted after the roads were constructed so any problems would have beeen apparent then. Also drainage in trafficked areas is installed a minimum of 1200mm below the road formation level (so around 1550mm below the wearing course) so the load from above is dispersed over a much larger area at that depth. In short (and as a Civil Engineer) I wasn't merely making an assumption that "The foul and surface water drainage system isn't going to suddenly collapse!" It is very unlikely. However there is a much bigger risk that the system could become blocked by baby wipes, sanitary towels, nappies etc being flushed away rather than binned! |
|
|
|
GrumpyGirl
Average Member
United Kingdom
88 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2009 : 12:33:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by anthony
GrumpyGirl, if Bruno is correct in what he says then pressure on WSCC to release the funds from this bond and put a proper 20mph traffic calming scheme in place would be a much more beneficial course of acton than the one you are currently undertaking. If we end up with our roads adopted as they are and the limit then changed to a legally enforceable 30mph, who do you imagine is going to legally enforce it? I would suggest noone. And if you can drive unhindered at 30mph then you can probably push it up to 50 before you wrap your car round a lamp post. Whereas 20mph traffic calming measures do not need to be LEGALLY enforceable as by their very nature they PHYSICALLY enforce the speed limit.
Clearly you must be coming less from a road safety perspective on this issue than you are from the possibility of having to pay for a drain to be unblocked.
The potential of a few hundred pounds to pay or the potential for my kids to be killed on the way to the park? It seems a no-brainer to me...
You're misinterpreting what we've said Anthony. We've made it clear many times that we're in favour of physical traffic calming measures, and appropriate parking restrictions, that help to protect the lives of people in BG, both adults & children, and of motorists driving on the BG roads. What we're not in favour of is an unenforceable 20mph speed limit that obstructs the adoption of the roads by WSCC - that is the current situation.
If the adoption issue is not resolved, you will find as time goes on that the bill to be paid by BG residents will be far in excess of simply unblocking a drain. Since the majority of residents will no doubt object to paying for repairs, the road condition will be left to deteriorate. You're welcome to drive your family over all the potholes and cracks as they appear if you wish, but we'd prefer the roads to be maintained properly - which is what we're already paying for through our council tax but we're not getting the service in return. |
|
|
|
anthony
Average Member
United Kingdom
68 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2009 : 14:15:43
|
GrumpyGirl, so I take it that, if the roads were adopted with the speed limit changed to 30mph, you would then be harassing WSCC to install traffic calming measures to physically reduce the speed limit to 20mph?
And who are the "we" you refer to? |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2009 : 14:45:51
|
Anthony
I acknowledge that as a civil engineer you are aware of how estates should be correctly constructed but as I feel sure you know in the real world standards in the construction industry are not always as good as they should be (as evidenced by examples of defects I quoted & the recent subsidence problem in the playpark). You will also be aware of the extortionate prices that tradespeople charge to rectify problems.
I'm not quite sure that I follow your argument that "20mph traffic calming measures do not need to be LEGALLY enforceable as by their very nature they PHYSICALLY enforce the speed limit." Several posters have already pointed to the fact that the 20mph is already being exceeded within the village as well as BG despite the existing calming measures so we return to the question what further measures can be put in place & will they also apply in roads already adopted?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
