POWER TO ERECT TRAFFIC SIGNS

Question

I note that it is often "quoted/listed" that PCs have powers to "erect traffic signs and notices" .  Usually that is backed up by a reference to HA1980 s130 but that cannot be right as that deals with the removal of obstructions,

Does anyone know the relevant legislation ?

PS Elected unanimously

Answer 1

It's Section 72 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and its scope is limited to the following and only with the prior consent of the highways authority and subject to any conditions imposed by them:-

(a) a stopping place for public service vehicles;
(b) a warning of the existence of any danger; or
(c) the name of the parish or community or of any place in it

Apart from this, the only other power I am aware of relates to footpaths etc, for which Section 27 (5) of the Countryside Act 1968 states:-

"With the consent of the highway authority, any other person may erect and maintain signposts along a footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway."

Answer 2

Should be interpreted as "can apply to have traffic signs and notices erected". As the main authority in the county they are the ones who decide what goes where but will consider applications from the Parish Council as to need. PC can erect bus shelters and pay for them (as with all highway signs requests) but designs, plans and erection on highways land would fall within the LA domain and approval.

Comments

Thanks. At my co-option meeting a group of well heeled residents who happen to live in a leafy but narrow lane  (near to where several senior Cllrs live) complained that a large vehicle had the audacity to travel down their lane and got stuck .  They demanded action from the Highways Authority but got short shrift . The PC are now hoping to "assist" by spending up to £4k erecting signs like "unsuitable for HGVs". The HA are seemingly happy to do anything to make the problem go away as long as someone else pays.  I am just checking what the powers pertain to and it would seem to rest on what are "danger signs"

---

As stated the PC has no power or authority to erect such signs on the highway and if requested by the PC the highways people will gladly survey, provide and fix them at the PC's expense. Firstly even with signs in place it will not deter errant drivers or badly programmed sat navs. What your concern as a PC should be whether it is in the communities ( not a few households) interest and advantage to spend such sums from tax payers money. Going down a road and getting stuck with or without signs is as far as I know not an offence. Not suitable for HGV's signage is unenforceable therefore generally ignored.

---

When we wanted to erect an "unsuitable for HGV" sign we had to obtain a TRO (Traffic regulation order) which took months and lots of evidence before it was granted. Just search for the rules on the internet. TRO's are a bit like hens teeth.

PS Congrats on being elected Openspaces!

---

I agree entirely Mentorman . This is absolutely the sort of thing I applied to object to. And Carolinenelson I did a lot of work on TTROs  and understand absolutely that S14 orders are a farce most being about traffic management and described as being about public safety.

---

Now this is interesting.  The discussion re the situation above  ensued from an item of public participation.   This is most unusual but it was clear to me that discussions had happened before the meeting . I have therefore written to the clerk seeking details of what has gone on . I mentioned the facts that this item was not on the Agenda nor were there any background papers provided and nor were the  provisions of the relevant legislation explained .  The response to date has been resolution made which stands for 6 months. So question is can a resolution be made for an item that is not on the Agenda ?

---

To my knowledge, simple answer: NO, and a vote adopting it cannot be taken

---

Well total victory there on day one with the Clerk agreeing that the resolution could not be made . Now to seeing how much notice all Cllrs take to understanding the detail of the case when the Chairman formally presents her case again at the next meeting .  Need to investigate the legalities here i.e. need for TRO etc I presume all that costs?

---

Oh yes most definitely which brings me back to the point regarding the PC's requirement for fiscal prudence and spending being in the whole community interest. ( not a small section)