Agenda item

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance dealing with the objections received after statutory advertisement of the above-named traffic order.

The objections were from (1) Burnett and Reid, Solicitors, representing Dyce Caravans Limited, (2)  Dyce and Stoneywood Community Council, (3)  Mr Douglas Cumming, a resident of the west section of Pitmedden Road, (4)  Ms Carol Croll of Nether Kirkton Farmhouse, also on the west section.  The theme common to all four that a prohibition of left turns would be ineffectual.  The first three suggested reverting to the original closure proposal suggested by the roads officials on
12 January (see article 17 of the minute of meeting of the Committee on that date), whereas Mr Cumming suggested a ban on left turns between 4.00pm and 6.00pm on weekdays (which the report suggested would seem to compound the point abut unenforceability.

The roads officials were also clear that a prohibition of left turns would not work.  It would also inconvenience vehicles visiting the caravan park at the location, and the problem of dangerous overtaking on the blind bend by the railway bridge would not be resolved.  Also, a prohibition of left turns would be effective only to the extent of adequate enforcement, and it had to be acknowledged that Grampian Police clearly would not have the resources to sustain the necessary level of enforcement on a day-to-day basis.

However, Councillor Clark suggested that a six month trial might disclose that the regulation could turn out to be self-policing because other drivers themselves would effectively prevent left-turn manoeuvres on the part of intending transgressors, but of course this means of enforcing a traffic regulation raised concerns about the possibility of dangerous practices emerging if some drivers were to get into the habit of thinking that they themselves were a means of enforcement at the location.

The roads view was also that the problems perceived were generally overstated, and might be a matter of perception.  However, that was certainly not the tone struck by the objectors, all of whom would clearly resist the situation being characterised in that way.  Also, the Committee had already shown its willingness to promote a traffic order to try to cure the difficulties being complained of.

The recommendation in the report was to revert to the idea of a prohibition of driving.  This would cure the issue of overtaking near the bridge, and, being intended as a physical impediment, would not require police enforcement.  However, early conceptions of such a closure had involved a closure between two points, and it had become clear that Mr Cumming had concerns about that particular aspect since it appeared likely to deny him access to one of his fields.  At this juncture, it was acknowledged informally that any such difficulty would have to be sorted out before a successful closure could be settled upon.

Another unexpected problem which had not come to light when the matter had first been investigated at the end of 2009 was that Pitmedden Road was in fact a bus route, used by a shuttle service to and from the industrial estate.  The bus company (First) had been approached by a left-hand turn almost a year ago, and had not raised any concerns, however, they had only recently heard of the idea of a closure, and, if the Committee were now to be of a mind to revert to that idea, the preliminary statutory stage would afford a quick opportunity to consult properly with the bus company and get a better impression of the lie of the land.  Thereinafter, a report back would allow members to gauge the balance of the arguments, including clarification of the question of Mr Cumming’s field.

After discussion of these issues, there had been some feeling that the matter be deferred for a cycle to allow behind-the-scenes talks with the bus company,
Mr Cumming, and indeed other interested parties such as the taxi trade.  However, after advice from Mr David Wemyss (Senior Committee Services Officer – Roads Legislation) it was noted that the familiar principle of preliminary statutory consultation could easily be conflated with the idea of such behind-the-scenes talks, and could even be perceived of as an improved version of preliminary consultation, and that therefore it would be judicious to determine that it was indeed the preliminary statutory stage that was being undertaken in order that time be saved, whatever the eventual outcome.

The Committee resolved:-

to request officers to carry out preliminary statutory consultation as contemplated above and report back.