Category Archives: Roads

Woodbridge Thoroughfare: Results of Public Consultation

Recently, the Thoroughfare Working Group held a public consultation on proposed changes to the Traffic Regulation Order in The Thoroughfare. A stall was staffed in Woodbridge Library for seven days and with an additional presence in the Thoroughfare. Additional questionnaires were handed out to all Thorouhfare residents and traders.

The results of this initial consultation have now been collated and show that option 2b was the most popular (ie: No access at any time except permit holders and loading/unloading. This will include disabled drivers. This result has the backing of the Disability Action Suffolk Forum.)

The minimum lorry weight restriction will be removed. The new restrictions will be in force 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Parking will only be allowed in signed bays, which will be better marked. The signage both on the approach to the Thoroughfare, and in the road, will be much simpler and will show it as a pedestrian zone.

The next stage of the consultation will ensure that all those that may be affected by the proposed changes can have their say before we move to the final stage formal TRO consultation next year by Suffolk County Council.

Full results of the consultation can be viewed in the library until 15th December.

If you would like to comment on these changes please email thoroughfareconsultation@outlook.com

Implications of Proposed Option 2B

  • Currently the prohibition of motor vehicles is between 10 am and 4 pm, Monday to Friday. This can lead to confusion and difficulty in reading all provisions while approaching the Thoroughfare. The proposed prohibition of motor vehicles will be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This will affect all vehicles. Drivers who may have accessed the road before 10am or after 4pm to visit the local shops, newsagents, bank, pharmacy or similar will be unable to do. These drivers will need to park in the nearby car parks and walk a short distance.
  • Currently vehicles over 3.5T can load and unload at any time. Vehicles under 3.5T can only load and unload before 10am and after 4pm. The proposals will allow access for all vehicles to load at any time. This means people purchasing or delivering large items such as beds, whitegoods, carpets, boxes of books etc. can access the length of road to load or unload these items to their vehicle regardless of size (3.5T is the size of a medium delivery van such as a Transit or Sprinter, vehicles under 3.5T are typically domestic cars).
  • Currently permits can be issued for residents and traders to access off street parking, such as private driveways – this will remain. Additional permit holders can be nominated such as taxis and funeral vehicles. However these will need to be written in to the new Traffic Regulation Order.
  • Currently disabled badge holders are exempt from the prohibition of motor vehicles on Tuesday and Thursday between 1pm and 4pm. This provision will be removed. There is substantially more off-street car parking in the area since the restriction was introduced in 1995 and the intention is that blue badge holders can use the Oak Lane or Hamblin Road car parks. Suffolk Highways have in the past issued permits to disabled drivers to access the Thoroughfare at any time. However there has been no official provision for this since it was revoked in 1995. The issuing of these permits will cease. It is hoped that mitigation (eg perhaps issuing one or two permits to a local taxi firm) will do away with the necessity for any other access.
  • There are standard exemptions for building, demolition, road repair, utility repair, reading utility meters, emergency services, security vehicles. These exemptions will remain.

 

Suffolk’s Highways Reporting Tool

A reminder: the first port of call for a Suffolk highways problem – that’s anything to do with roads, pavements etc – is now via the Suffolk County Council Highways Reporting Tool  https://highwaysreporting.suffolk.gov.uk/ . Here you can describe and plot your problem on a map (including uploading a photo if you have one) and wait for the response, including an estimation of the time it will take to fix this – or if indeed SCC intends to fix it. Everything from potholes, to broken pavements overgrown footways can – and should – be reported. (And please get back to me personally, if the system is not working.)

When it comes to signs however, I am given to understand that  while signs advertising speed limits will be kept clear Suffolk Highways will not (for example) cut  greenery from in front of  eg informational signs. “We may be heading for an era where we dont have such signs,” I was told on Friday. Because of the increase in technology, or because of lack of funds? I leave you to judge

Open Letter: Bloor Development diversion at Woods Lane -a solution

Bloor Homes – the start of the Woods Lane works

Sent to: Therese Coffey MP, Suffolk Coastal District Council Planning Chair and Officer, Suffolk County Council Member for Highways, Woodbridge Town Council, Choose Woodbridge, EADT

I’m writing to express my surprise and alarm at the series of unfortunate events relating to the Bloor Homes development at the western (A12) end of Woods Lane, Melton. This has led to Bloor’s requirement to close a section of Woods Lane for a prolongued period of time. I would also like to offer a solution.

The (unacceptable) proposal is to reroute the heavy traffic that travels along Woods Lane between the A12 and Wilford  – north via Melton and south via Woodbridge for the duration of the works. These are estimated to be a matter of months.

Woodbridge-Melton, as well as being a bustling retail centre, houses eight infant/primary/secondary schools with a large catchment area, plus a significant number of nursing and sheltered homes whose care staff cannot afford to live locally and have to commute. The local firestation is staffed by retained firefighters  who need immediate access. My list goes on….

Although this diversion will impact heavily on Woodbridge residents, this development is not within my division. I was therefore not made aware of the proposed lengthy road closures with their inevitable impact on the local economy and local residents until a couple of weeks ago – the same time as it was made public.

It is almost as if this unacceptable decision to divert was to be a fait accompli.

I challenge this.

We seem to be living in a world without joined-up thinking and where the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. Suffolk Coastal District Council is responsible for planning. The district council has been fully aware of the Bloor development for a long time. It cannot be news to a single person in the planning department that drainage etc will need to be put in place for a development of that size – or that, located as it is – in a greenfield site on the other side of a busy road from a busy town, that the chances are that there will be problems in linking up utilities.

The location makes it clear that there would inevitably be major issues – yet the district council now seems unduly surprised when these issues arise and obscurely feels that somehow the County Council Highways department (who have a statutory responsibility to facilitate this development) should be held responsible.

We need to ask the SCDC planning Committee, did the planning department have a different strategy for getting the Bloor drains put in? And what was it?

Bloor is a private company. Its primary aim is to make money for its shareholders. Why has Suffolk Coastal’s District Council planning department not looked at the propriety of Bloor disadvantaging our entire community in its endeavour to make the greatest possible private profit? It is not our problem, that of the residents of Woodbridge and Melton. It is Bloor’s. The company should shoulder the lion’s share of the solution

Surely it should have been possible  – should still be possible – for SCDC to require Bloor to make a temporary roadway through their development land to take the Woods Lane traffic,  while utilities are placed under Woods Lane?

An additional point. Woodbridge has recently agreed a 20mph zone and additional calming for the entire town. One of the principle rationales was the impact of heavy traffic on our medieval town and to discourage rat-running on the B1438 which separates the town from the riverside. This diversion only underlines why the scheme is needed. The scheme however needs funding.  I would therefore urge SCDC and SCC Highways to work together, using development money earnarked for community benefit, to benefit that community most harmed by these works – ie Woodbridge itself

Sincerely

Caroline Page
County Councillor for Woodbridge

 

Update: I have heard it argued  over the last weeks that because the Secretary of State overturned SCDC’s decision regarding the Bloor development, SCDC can somehow wash their hands of this development. We can only succeed in  persuading  everyone of the value of my argument if all local bodies join forces