Traffic Regulation Policy Approach: a Good Example

In the process of researching different authorities’ policies for this area of the LARA website, the approach of the Peak District National Park stands out as worthy. This policy statement starts by setting the scene for national park engagement with the TRO process:

“New powers have recently been introduced giving National Park Authorities powers to make Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) under sections 22BB and 22BC of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (RTRA) 1984. These powers were introduced by Section 72 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and came into force on the 1 October 2007.

“Whilst government research has indicated that the existing unsurfaced highway network can, in general, support current levels of motor vehicle use and types of user, it recognised that there can be difficulties on particular byways or parts of byways. The use of TROs is one of the tools that can be used to manage such problems.”

As the byway user knows well, all too often routes are in a less than ideal condition, and the root cause if more often than not, failure to keep the road in basic good repair.

“The Peak District National Park Authority recognises that in certain situations, TROs may help to alleviate damage and trespass issues in relation to countryside access, and to protect areas of conservation value suffering from damage.

“The Highway Authority has a number of statutory duties in connection with these unsurfaced highways, notably maintenance and enforcement. The National Park Authority will not consider making a TRO solely as a result of such duties not having been carried out.”

The emphasis was placed on that text by the National Park, not this writer. Overall this is a balanced policy, which involved the views of the users and the following set of criteria:

· What is our intention in promoting a TRO?

· Can those intentions be achieved in any other way?

· Can it be enforced?

· What are private access needs and how can they be protected?

· Can appropriate public rights be maintained?

· What conservation or heritage issues are there?

· Will the character of the route be adversely affected by continued use?

· Will the character of the route be adversely affected by the TRO and associated furniture?

· Have other management options been explored?

· Is the amenity or conservation value of the route so great that urgent action is required?

· Are there concerns as to the displacement or knock-on effects of the closure of a route?

· Are the necessary resources available?

The only missing element is reference to Government guidance: Making the Best of Byways.

At the other end of the ‘managing byways’ policy league is one authority (which will remain nameless) that worked on the premise that there should be a TRO on all BOATs, and worked back from there...