A decision by Lincolnshire County Council for planning application PL/0082/20 – for land at King Street, Greatford, to work 3 million tonnes of sand and gravel over 16 years with 70-80 HGV movements per day – was deferred this week following representations stating the access road would be too narrow:
...the proposed 20cm increase in the road width, which would make it 5.5m wide in places, would not be sufficient... she had read government guidelines that said 6.8m was recommended "where HGVs were likely to pass each other on a regular basis".
...HGVs often measured 3m in width with their mirrors, meaning 5.5m would be too narrow.
Meanwhile, in Devon, Aggregate Industries' proposal at Straitgate Farm is for up to "216 HGV trips per day" on the B3174 – a 53% increase in the number of trucks. How wide is this road? The company's Transport Assessment says the B3174 "Varies 5.3 to 8.8 m".
The narrow width is no doubt part of the reason why there are so many accidents – including HGVs.
It is proposed to widen Clay Lane... to achieve an overall carriageway width of 7.3 metres. This will allow the safe two-way lorry movements for all mineral and waste related traffic.
The implication, of course, being that anything less than 7.3m is not safe. Even the access road into the Straitgate site "will comprise a 6.0 m wide road".
So why should the B3174 – a busy 60mph road which is only 5.3m wide in places – be acceptable for the export of Straitgate material?
If the B3174 were in Lincolnshire, it wouldn’t be. The Transport Statement said:
1.3 ...[Lincolnshire] County Council asked for a review of the width of King Street and its suitability to accommodate additional HGV movements. In their email of 22nd November 2019 the LHA requested a minimum width of the main access route to be 5.5m...
The Officer’s Report proposed the condition:
that localised carriageway widening, to a total width of not less than 5.5 metres, should be provided on an identified section of King Street where the carriageway is presently less than 5.5 metres wide.
Objectors claimed this widening was insufficient. They have a point.
Where vehicle speeds are greater than 37 mph, national guidance recommends new roads should be 7.3m wide; only where speeds are below 37mph is 5.5m acceptable for two-way HGV movements.
However, that's not the end of the story. HS2 came along. Staffordshire County Council wrote:
A width of 5.5m... is barely sufficient to accommodate two cars and is against HS2’s own policy of a 6.8m width for realigned roads where HGVs regularly pass
HS2's own policy? The HS2 Rural Road Design Criteria says:
A.1.1 In many cases, published design standards are not fully relevant to rural roads (especially minor ones)...A.1.5 A set of design criteria have therefore been developed for works on rural roads where no other design basis is suitable, and it is intended to provide a safe, consistent and proportionate approach to help ensure that the character and distinctiveness of such routes is retained as far as is reasonable [sic] practicable.
What does it say about carriageway width for two-lane roads?
A.6.3 Rural road widths for diversions should generally match the existing, subject to a minimum of 5.5 metres (the minimum for two cars to pass in safety at low speed). This minimum width shall be increased to 6.0 metres for lengths with occasional use by buses or heavy goods vehicles and 6.8 metres for roads where buses or heavy goods vehicles are likely to pass each other on a regular basis.
So, if 5.5m is the minimum for two cars to pass in safety at low speed, why has Devon County Council not raised any objection over up to "216 HGV trips per day" on a busy 60mph road as little as 5.3m wide?
