RTRA 1984 S14 ORDERS Options

[OPENSPACES]

I have in recent years challenged my Highways Authority (HA) about various aspects of an RTRA 1984 s14 order issued to authorise road closures for a pre-planned 4 day event. I have this year successfully challenged the closure of roads not listed in the order on a “Road Ahead Closed “basis (now all affected roads are listed) . However, doubts remain in my mind as the validity of the order in that the legal test is that the roads are closed because there is a “likelihood of danger to the public”. In my opinion the closures are more about traffic control rather than any real danger. So, my first question is does anyone have a grip on how this test is to be interpreted? Is there any case law?
Secondly the order which is based on advice from a Safety Advisory Group (SAG) prohibits the passage of public transport despite the HA’s duty under S122 2 c. The order does, however, allow access for the various service vehicles for the members of the SAG (Emergency Services, HA and event organiser) and this seems unreasonable especially as the recommended bus diversions force village residents into a 2 mile walk to their homes late at night. The HA advises that prohibiting public transport is simply regarded as normal. Any views on this ?

[Advertisement]

[yen_powell]

We have to use S16A for events.

[OPENSPACES]

But this is for an off road Festival.

[DancingDad]

If they are justifying on "danger to the public" there will be some sort of risk assessment in place, or should be.
Safety is often very difficult to argue against as someone will be sitting in any meeting asking "what about the children?"

Having said that, I am not sure of your aim?
To prevent road closures?
Prevent the festival?
Prevent unauthorised closures?
Prevent service or emergency vehicle access?
Get bus routes to affected people ?

In any argument, you must have a clear objective or risk being shot down for something that others think is your aim.

[phantomcrusader]

Section 14 was not intended to be used to control access and parking around off road public events. Its purpose is to control access and parking to and in roads where either road works are taking place or where using the road is potentially dangerous to the public or damaging to the road. An example would be where trees have fallen, floods or other natural disasters have occurred or to keep clear of litter or refuse.

A SAG has no legal authority. Only the traffic authority has power under section 14(1). It's a common feature these days for traffic authority's to take a back seat and put the onus on the event organisers to sort out the planning and signing. This council is an example

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/tran...tros/types.aspx

Nonetheless, the law (Section 14 and 16A) ulitimately makes it the responsibility of the traffic authority. If you feel the council is abusing the law, make a formal complaint and if necessary, take it all the way to the local government ombudsman. It will cost you nothing but may get the result you want.

This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 23:26

[OPENSPACES]

Phantomcrusader you said "Section 14 was not intended to be used to control access and parking around off road public events. Its purpose is to control access and parking to and in roads where either road works are taking place or where using the road is potentially dangerous to the public or damaging to the road. An example would be where trees have fallen, floods or other natural disasters have occurred or to keep clear of litter or refuse.

". What is the basis of this statement or is it an opinion ?

This post has been edited by OPENSPACES: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 17:11

[phantomcrusader]

I recall reading it somewhere in the Hansard records. Somthing similar to this

The powers can be used only for the purposes set out in the Bill—because of works or proposed works on or near a road, or because of the likelihood of danger to the public or of serious damage to the road. The Bill makes no significant change to the present law in this respect, but it is clearly right that the authorities should be able to restrict or prohibit all traffic on the grounds of public safety, until the problem—a temporary danger caused perhaps by subsidence from quarrying, an unsafe building or fallen trees—can be dealt with.

taken from this Hansard record. You can research earlier records of the progress through parliament.

[OPENSPACES]

We have to use S16A for events.

Yen-powell When you say "we" may I ask do you work for a Highways Authority

[OPENSPACES]

I am proceeding with a complaint against my HA which is based on the interpretation of the context in which S14s "the likelihood of danger to the public” is intended to be read. I have loads of opinion which indicates that it refers to incidents which happen on the roads as instanced in the recent Hansard quote.
In short I don't believe this text can be read in isolation and applied to any danger situation which might arise i.e. para b) is to be read as a physical danger on the road. My HA are saying that no the danger can be from any source and in my case they are saying a sudden influx of cars can mean an increase in cars and people mixing and therefore there is an attendant danger risk. While I was quite prepared to argue the toss on this I have just read section 1 which appears to list the danger bit separately. What is the significance of S1 does it provide an overriding direction as to what S14 should mean i.e. I am wrong they are right?

This post has been edited by OPENSPACES: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 16:55

[OPENSPACES]

Also just found this . What does proper construction mean?
In 1995, a group of residents of Trafalgar Road, Greenwich, took the London Borough of Greenwich to court after the Council refused to accept that these powers enabled them to close the road on days of high traffic pollution levels.
In rejecting their appeal, Mr Justice Macpherson concluded that the plaintiff's case stretched the definition of "danger" beyond proper construction for the purposes of this section of the 1984 Act, He said "it cannot have been intended that the power extends to circumstances such as this". He further commented that the consequence of such closure would be to displace traffic into neighbouring roads, resulting in "chaos" and increased pollution elsewhere

This post has been edited by OPENSPACES: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 16:57

[cp8759]

Also just found this . What does proper construction mean?

proper construction is just a fancy way of saying correct interpretation.

[OPENSPACES]

It does seem that S14 (2) is most commonly used for emergency road closures which involve a TTR Notice being issued. These have a 21 day limit commonly applied . However I cant seem to find the origin of these time limits. Does anyone know the legal derivation of these time limits as I cant find it in the obvious places. Also does anyone know where I might be able to get a copy of the 1995 judgement mentioned in my posting of yesterday.

This post has been edited by OPENSPACES: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 12:17

[Wretched Rectum]

For s.14 notices it changed from 14 days to 21 days on 01/07/1992.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/2...1?timeline=true by Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991. You will need to see the discussion record of Parliament (Hansard?) to see the reason for increasing to 21 days.

[OPENSPACES]

I have recently taken this complaint the LGO. The debate to me is all about are there any limitations to what the danger listed in S14 is and the source it comes from ie can it mean anything ?
Does anyone think the introduction of s16a in 1994 indicates that there are limitations ie clearly the DFT felt at the time that s14 did not cover danger coming from cyclists racing on a road.
Also and more importantly to me is that 16a contains a provision to close roads around the closure site i.e. to introduce a traffic management plan. Does this therefore mean that as S14 has no such provision that it cannot be used to introduce a wider area traffic plan