Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
HGVs - Enforcement of the weight limit on Wightman and ladder roads
I have again asked for some enforcement action by the council against HGVs using Wightman Road and the ladder roads.
I am pleased to say that I have just had an email from the Parking Infrastructure Manager to say that they will be carrying out some enforcement this week between 7am and 8.30am.
Lets hope it starts to send a message to the companies that they lorries belong to.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Burgoyne Bec on
-
But it's not "access" to their site if they are going down Burgoyne. It's access to Green Lanes! Please correct me if my reading of "except for access" is wrong. Legal precedent would be helpful too.
-
Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on
-
In this case the 'access' would be to their clients.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
The client needs to be on the road that they are accessing.
-
-
-
Paul, the 7.5t is like the 1800cc in your motor (well, not yours). It's specified by the manufacturer and has NOTHING to do with what they are carrying . Wikipedia explains here. There is also nothing in the law about "quickest route". This is nonsense. They are allowed to use the road that they are on. No nothers.
-
-
That's the point John. The flat-bed Jewson lorries may be less than 7.5T. In respect of the 'shortest route' issue, I am simply repeating my understanding of the position as explained to me by a police officer with knowledge of how 7.5 T except for access is policed. I would suggest that there is a mis-understanding here between the idea of a single road being restricted and a zone of restriction. Where there is a zone of restriction the idea of the shortest route makes perfect sense.
-
-
Just checking the law - 'except for access' is quite simple (as John McM says). Check out the Gov guide online. It explains that it means 'Except for access to premises or land adjacent to the road, where there is no other route.'
So Jewson get access to their premises on Wightman, not from their premises to Green Lanes.
However you have mentioned that there is a zone of restriction (not just e.g. Burgoyne Road) and so Jewson can by right use any road in this zone.
But this doesn't get over the fact that the 'except for access' only applies to access to, not from, the site.
Even if you were right, it seems a stretch to say that Jewson need to be able to access every single road in the ladder to get to and from their property. If that's the case, then it's clear that the council view Jewson's business as more important than the residents' health and safety.
-
-
-
They're not less than 7.5t, they have the stripes on the back. Can you please actually check rather than just say they might not be? In my experience the ones with the crane behind the cab, flat bed or not, are over 7.5t. Jewson, in all their arguing the point on here last year, never at any time said that their vehicles were below 7.5t.
This "zone of restriction" sounds dubious, not the least because semantically it would be a "zone of freedom". I'm not saying that the policeman made it up but I am saying that there is something wrong.
-
-
-
And in the interim, residential roads bear the load!
-
Permalink Reply by dbh1954 on
-
As we all agreed at the meeting back in the spring this needs a more targeted approached. It is of no use going to the council as individuals.
The recent suggestion of a no right turn off Hewitt Road shows the lack of any meaningful plan for the ladder roads.
I am happy to chair and arrange another residents meeting but I have to say the lack of interest after the first meeting was a bit demoralising.
-
-
To be fair Daniel when we last emailed, you were looking at venues to hold another meeting. Did you speak with someone in the Langham Club? I'm happy to get together again too - now that winter is almost upon us and I spend more time in my living room my level of irritation with the speed bump outside is ever increasing.
-
-
There is a local election in May. Look around at who is willing to help out with this and is standing as a candidate. It really should be taken up by a councillor because we have no way to combat the bullshit the council employees put out.
As for the "irritation", I think this is a new avenue to explore. It is impossible to demonstrate that the vibrations affect our houses but the nature of the noise, random loud bangs, has been shown to affect people's mental health. I would confidently put my hand up and say that the speedhump outside my house drove me mental because of the HGV traffic.
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on
-
You will know that I have been working on this for some considerable time now and it has been an uphill battle to get the council to address it. At my request, the council are doing more enforcement but this needs to be with a static camera and I have been pushing for this over the last few months - the council are building a business case for it so over the next few months there should be some movement. As John quite rightly points out, there is an election coming next year.
I agree there are other issues involved here apart from the noise and dirty but also it is affecting peoples health - that is something the council really should be addressing if nothing else.
All these campaigns work better when there is not only proactive councillors but also resident/people power.
My work on this will of course continue but if it can be dovetailed with being involved with residents too that will give us more power.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
