closing road to emergency services

Section62

babyblade41 said:

Just had another thought ... what if any of the houses need a fire engine !!!

It's the same as the situation with the ambulance service - removing access for the emergency services is unusual and needs particularly careful planning.

Are they just carrying out repairs to the water pipe, or completely replacing it?  If it is full replacement then the highway authority and water company should give consideration to putting the new main into the land (presumably fields?) on one side or the other of the lane, so this road closure and any in the future wouldn't be needed.  If it is only repairs then there would need to be a good reason why they can't programme the work to allow the road to be reopened overnight. There is something about this project which doesn't seem right to me.

unforeseen

babyblade41 said:

Just had another thought ... what if any of the houses need a fire engine !!!

You can tell this is getting on my nerves somewhat  

They can run hoses from the other side of the hole. Not a problem. 

Section62

unforeseen said:

babyblade41 said:

Just had another thought ... what if any of the houses need a fire engine !!!

You can tell this is getting on my nerves somewhat  

They can run hoses from the other side of the hole. Not a problem. 

It takes time to lay out hoses - and we've got no firm idea how far the OP lives from the part of the road which will remain open. The length of hose each appliance carries is limited, which is one of the reasons new developments have to be designed to meet the local fire service's access requirements.

There's also the (usually far more urgent) issue of access into properties for firefighters using breathing apparatus - there are limits (in terms of capacity and physical endurance) on use, and you couldn't (say) expect a firefighter to run 200 yards wearing full BA and then go into a building to rescue someone.

The OP shouldn't need to worry about this stuff because the highway authority (strictly speaking, the street works authority) should be working with other agencies to make sure contingency plans are in place.

So the OP's concern should be whether or not this planning has been done. Based on the information so far I'd be concerned it hadn't.

babyblade41

ok .. my house is the end of a single track road and fully understand and accept if there is a problem intends fixing 
I called the chappie in charge and he said during the day access will be made available for emergency vehicles during working hours 

It's a bendy track and is about 300 yards from the main access road so I suppose in reality a fire hose could reach . 

Just a PITA as I don't think the council has fully thought this through for provisions.

It's only for  week or so , so not horrendous just hate that they land it on you with just over a weeks notice 

74jax

Are there fields either side of this single track? In emergency situations they will look at any means of getting to you. 
I worked for a FRS and we had full road closure and road-works plans. When the shout came we knew before setting off the access, and if not easily accessible, had a plan of getting there and if we needed back up equipment / engines. 

Thrugelmir

babyblade41 said:

Just had another thought ... what if any of the houses need a fire engine !!!

You can tell this is getting on my nerves somewhat  

Longer term consider moving if it's that great an issue. What would you do if there was a really bad winter and the track was unpassable?  Little point in getting stressed if there's alternatives. 

sheramber

Have you asked the fore service if they are aware of the situation. They would have more clout with the council than you?

babyblade41

we have quads so the track isn't a problem , I'm just cross that the council just hitch up without planning in an emergency .

It's not so much the disruption as it is minimal in the grand scheme of things but sometimes councils just plough right in.

I was just wondering if they have the right to do so without planning for an emergency , . Last time they did it a couple of years ago they left a work van blocking the track over night 

Section62

babyblade41 said:

we have quads so the track isn't a problem , I'm just cross that the council just hitch up without planning in an emergency .

It's not so much the disruption as it is minimal in the grand scheme of things but sometimes councils just plough right in.

I was just wondering if they have the right to do so without planning for an emergency , . Last time they did it a couple of years ago they left a work van blocking the track over night 

No, they don't.

Firstly there is a general duty under S59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to coordinate works - including "to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street (having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/22/section/59

And then for the undertaker there's S66 - the "Avoidance of unnecessary delay or obstruction."

Secondly, under S160 of the Highways Act 1980 the highway authority have a duty to "assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/part/IX/crossheading/protection-of-public-rights

And thirdly (but not exhaustively), the authority has a "Network management duty" under S16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Put together, the council and the water company should put their heads together and figure out a way of carrying out the work with the least possible disruption to residents, business, and the emergency services - and where disruption is unavoidable, to put in place mitigation measures.  Essentially the kind of things I've mentioned in my earlier posts.

Giving a week's notice that the road will be closed 24 hours a day for a week isn't (IMV) coming close to fulfilling the duty.

If it were me, I'd consult with the residents to see whether they were willing to put up with some noise disruption at night time to allow the work to be double-shifted, or even for the full 24 hours - if the road is closed anyway then it would make sense to carry on working, meaning the work is completed sooner, and there would be operatives on site to provide emergency access if the need arose. If the water co weren't willing to work those hours then the alternative they'd be offered would be reinstating everything and re-opening the road at the end of the working day.

Either approach would "assert and protect the rights of the public" - what your council are doing doesn't sound anything like that.

babyblade41

Section62 said:

babyblade41 said:

we have quads so the track isn't a problem , I'm just cross that the council just hitch up without planning in an emergency .

It's not so much the disruption as it is minimal in the grand scheme of things but sometimes councils just plough right in.

I was just wondering if they have the right to do so without planning for an emergency , . Last time they did it a couple of years ago they left a work van blocking the track over night 

No, they don't.

Firstly there is a general duty under S59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to coordinate works - including "to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street (having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/22/section/59

And then for the undertaker there's S66 - the "Avoidance of unnecessary delay or obstruction."

Secondly, under S160 of the Highways Act 1980 the highway authority have a duty to "assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/part/IX/crossheading/protection-of-public-rights

And thirdly (but not exhaustively), the authority has a "Network management duty" under S16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Put together, the council and the water company should put their heads together and figure out a way of carrying out the work with the least possible disruption to residents, business, and the emergency services - and where disruption is unavoidable, to put in place mitigation measures.  Essentially the kind of things I've mentioned in my earlier posts.

Giving a week's notice that the road will be closed 24 hours a day for a week isn't (IMV) coming close to fulfilling the duty.

If it were me, I'd consult with the residents to see whether they were willing to put up with some noise disruption at night time to allow the work to be double-shifted, or even for the full 24 hours - if the road is closed anyway then it would make sense to carry on working, meaning the work is completed sooner, and there would be operatives on site to provide emergency access if the need arose. If the water co weren't willing to work those hours then the alternative they'd be offered would be reinstating everything and re-opening the road at the end of the working day.

Either approach would "assert and protect the rights of the public" - what your council are doing doesn't sound anything like that.

I sound like a right moaning minnie... thank you for that info, much appreciated .
Exactly my point in that they should not be able to just hitch up without careful consideration for every emergency scenario.

I have had a chat with the neighbours and they are fuming..just thought that if armed with the right legislation they might go about things the right way instead of hung ho