Experimental Traffic Regulation Order in Powderham

Powderham

Posted on: 25 March 2019

New road restrictions are to be introduced in Powderham from next month (April).

Devon County Council is introducing the changes in a bid to reduce the volume and speed of traffic on Estuary and Church Roads, through Powderham village.

The Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) will prohibit all motor vehicles, except for access, and will apply for the full length of the route between A379 junctions at Red Lodge in the north and Starcross in the south.

It follows discussions with Powderham Parish Council, Powderham Estate and local residents, and approval from the Teignbridge Highways and Traffic Orders Committee.

The Order is scheduled to be made during the last week of March and will be enforceable from Friday 5 April.

Traffic surveys have been set up by the County Council to monitor the situation.

Unless there are major issues, early on in the trial, the intention is that the trial will run for 12 months to enable repeat traffic monitoring to take place and help to assess and inform the impact of the ETRO on traffic movements.

Formal comments can be made over a period of six months before any decision is taken to either make the ETRO permanent, remove it or modify it.

You can submit formal comments by clicking this link:

Under the heading Proposed Traffic Schemes click  ‘all other schemes’. Under the parish dropdown key in ‘Powderham’ and click on the link 5736 for the official comments form.

70 comments on “Experimental Traffic Regulation Order in Powderham

  1. David says:

    Use the church car park! Fine. So, on a Sunday 20 odd cars for a rambling group park there. The church goers won’t be pleased. If they park on the grass verges, as many cars do at the moment when the small church car park is full, is that not illegal as it is private land?
    On a nice summer evening the church car park is often full too.

  2. Adrian Rutley says:

    I support the limitation it has stopped tour busses coming down the road which were a real hazard with cars having to reverse a long way on a shared road. I think there is confusion on walking to the turf etc. I attended the parish meeting (no I don’t live in a big house!) and it was made clear by Devon County that those who park at the church are considered to be accessing the area.. therefore they are OK to park there and walk to the Turf. The restriction is to limit unsuitable vehicles using the route as a short cut and to discourage the rat-run mentality with people not respecting the speed limit. It is a beautiful area and will continue to be beautiful if it is managed and maintained.

  3. Ben Kirby says:

    A379 now has restricted access from when it leaves at Red Lodge, A379 and rejoins the A379 at Starcross. The crux of the argument seems to be around motor vehicle users sharing the road with pedestrians and cyclists on part of the road Starcross to Powderham. So why is the whole road affected, is there an actual or perceived problem, where has this TRO request come from, is there any empirical evidence this is required, what has been the cost of this experiment?
    Issue: A379 is getting busier with more population growth and increased urbanisation taking place in Dawlish and the surrounding area. Exeter is acting as a pull. This has led to more road traffic on the roads, which has at times led to accidents. Looking at DCC’s own vehicle collision website, there are a disproportionate more accident on the A379 compared to the ‘back road’. Not to mention the annual tourist influx which has it’s own road issues. When the road is closed an alternate route/ overspill is required when the A379 is at short notice closed temporarily.
    Issue: Previous anecdotal and now personal evidence of cyclists stopping motorists saying ‘you can’t use the road’. This will lead at some point to a confrontation.
    Issue: This will affect those that want to drive and watch the deer or park and walk to Turf locks. The disabled or elderly who can’t walk from Starcross to these locations as turf locks will now be excluded.
    Issue: The perception is rules have been relaxed for the recent events at Powderham Estate. Contrary to the posted road signs and TRO it seems these are quietly been forgotten when it comes to traffic using the road for events that benefit the estate. Having read the Draft TRO, nothing is mentioned concerning this, in fact it is quite explicit which motor vehicles can use the road.
    Answer: Repeal the TRO. Do what the council did between Cockwood and Dawlish Warren. Purchase the land and build a narrow, but separate cycle and pedestrian path. This would also feed nicely in to the DoT £23 million fund announced in March 2019 for this type of scheme. It would be a win win situation for all concerned.
    Conclusion: In essence the TRO is unenforceable, costly, elitist, immoral ergo a waste of time and limited resources.

  4. Dawlish Resident says:

    Are there any statistics available to back up the claims of “high volumes of traffic ” & “speeding cars” . I have previously used this road for many years on a leisure drive with either my elderly parents or in-laws & never seen any evidence of either . I think that if the residents want the road to be access only then maybe they should pay up it’s maintenance & not be subsidized by other local residents who can’t have access .

  5. Chris Mackey says:

    I was out for a quiet drive one Sunday and was unable to park near the canal at Exminster hoping for a short ride on the bike I had brougt with me. I drove back to the parking area by the railway opposite the Toby Building Reclamation yard and found that bikes were not permitted on the (very narrow) footpaths from there. I then drove on and was very disappointed to see that the road I have been using since childhood was ” Access to the church and yacht club only” and no other motor vehicles permitted – I was only going to go down it because of family memories, we always stopped momentarily to look at the deer, and of more recent times I have driven my mother when she was unable to walk far, and my wife who had dementia and difficulty in walking too, down this road for pleasure. I have never seen a great deal of traffic using this road anyway which is narrow with passing bays.
    The only speeding vehicle I have ever encountered was about 20-odd years ago when I pulled in to let it pass coming towards me and it took my wing mirror off and vanished out of sight up the road.
    This weekend I was in a vehicle with family heading for the Exeter Rocks event at Powderham Castle and apparently previously access to the parking area had been down this road using it in one direction only. This year only production crews were allowed this way. We joined the traffic queue going through Kenton and past the main entrance to Powderham Castle with temporary traffic lights outside the entrance at 10.10am and eventually got to a carpark at about 11.20am. We might have approached from the Starcross end had we been told on the event website having taken the reccommended route from Torbay.
    I cannot see the point in prreventing access to a beauty spot, or restricting it to churchgoers and yachtsmen. If I was in more of a hurry (and there was no event on at the castle) I would have used the main road through Kenton anyway and not expected to get anywhere any quicker using the narrow route past the church and yacht club.
    In my earlier days I seem to remember there was the remains of a road block round which the road passed between the railway and a field where the deer could be observed.
    What do the authorites think the problem was with leaving access as it was on this route?

  6. Keith says:

    Why not make the whole of Dartmoor “except for access” as far too many cars also use the roads without stopping anywhere . The point is that this is a beautiful , peaceful , scenic route and should be made available to all . I can’t understand the arguments in favour of the decision . Complaining about too much traffic when you live in an area where people like to visit or drive through ? If there are problems with speeding traffic then there must be other ways of dealing with the problem other than closing the road to all but a select few.

  7. Lesley says:

    I have tried to comment using the DCC link. It is not working, after waiting 20 minutes I do not have a reference number. When I leave the page I get a reference number but it says my comments might not have been saved because I left the page! I know someone else has had the same experience. The link is not that straightforward having to go through a long drop down menu, and then it doesn’t work. Are DCC hoping that if they make it too hard to object, people won’t bother?

    • MR J L GILBERT says:

      Yes Lesley you are not alone we are I suspect two of many and I have lodged a complaint with Steve DC HQ to get this looked into and sorted. I don’t see any reason why the 62 comments (and rising!)on this forum, cannot be fed into the complaints/support system as the points made on here really do reflect the views of those for or against. Sadly DCC are stuck in the past with regard to using social media but please keep trying. They need to know how we feel otherwise democracy and accountability are defunct.

  8. Paul says:

    I think it a poor show that there has been no response by News Centre to Allan Stead’s request for clarification of the parking issue at a time when we are being encouraged to be more active.

  9. Allan Stead says:

    No response from NewsCentre as yet, to my request for advice posted on April 6th, so our walk scheduled for May 5th cannot now go ahead as planned.

    If the Council’s wish is to bar people from visiting the Exe estuary and Powderham Marshes, they can now congratulate themselves on the success of their plans.

    To stop the road being used as a rat-run, how much easier it would have been to simply put a barrier across the road at some point along its length, either between the church and the river, or better still at the north end, where the junction with the main road is already dangerous, making the road past the church ‘No Through Road’ from either end.

    Allan Stead
    B Walks Co-ordinator
    Newton Abbot Ramblers

    • Andree Smith says:

      The whole scheme does seem to have been rushed through at a great pace, without due thought on all the people which use this road.

    • Hi Allan, Apologies that your comment of 6 April slipped through the net and that we hadn’t replied sooner. In response to your initial post, we can confirm that the restrictions will not apply to those visiting designated off-street parking areas, such as Powderham Church car park. There are also public car parking facilities at Starcross with direct access onto the trail.
      Comments or objections to the order (reference IMR/B16153-5736) should be made, within 6 months from 5 April, via devon.cc/tro or in writing to County Solicitor, County Hall, Topsham Road, Exeter EX2 4QD.

    • Allan Stead says:

      Hello NewsCentre, and thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, all you’ve really done is repeat your earlier point that access to a designated off-street parking area is permitted, without answering my question as to how our members are to decide between getting prosecuted if they park alongside the road when going for a walk on Powderham Marshes, or staying within the law by obstructing the church car park.

      Your suggestion that we should park in Starcross does not take account of the fact that we would then face an additional walk of one and a half miles each way to and from our usual starting point of Powderham Church, so that our usual 5 mile walk around the marshes then reaches a total of 8 miles, putting the day’s outing quite beyond many of our less able members.

      If the Council could bring themselves to consider a further alternative, why not make the ‘all motor vehicles prohibited except for access’ restriction applicable to just a short stretch of the road, say from the church down to the river? Anyone who uses the road as a rat-run is still caught, but visitors who arrive and leave by the same route, without driving through the restricted section, can still enjoy the great outdoors.

      Allan Stead
      B Walks Co-ordinator
      Newton Abbot Ramblers

    • Andy Lobb says:

      Alan Stead. The news centre appears to be unable to answer questions that are too difficult. They have not answered a direct question as to what constitutes a off street parking place, just quoting the church car park as an example. That leaves us to use common sense perhaps, and interprete any area not forming part of the highway as being off street.
      What is apparent is this forum is a public relations one, that has no basis in the consultation process used by Devon County to seek views from the public. The fact that comments here are not considered is apparent from the direction of the News centre to submit comments through a alternative method to have them recognised and considered. So I am afraid your comments may not be heard by the powers to be, so best resubmit though the suggested link. I would suggest your members continue to do as they have done so in the past as they are obviously using vehicles to access property off the highway and that is permitted in the order.

    • Allan Stead says:

      Many thanks to Andy, for his suggestion that if our members park on the road near Powderham Church to access the marshes, they are not in breach of the traffic order, since they are visiting property. I thought one had to be visiting premises, such as a home or business, to qualify for access. If visiting the nearby countryside is sufficient, then we no longer have a problem.

      So can NewsCentre, or someone else in Devon County Council, please confirm that going for a walk on Powderham Marshes allows our members, along with any other visitors, to disregard the signs without risk of prosecution?

      We would need to be able to see this in writing, either here or in an e-mail, to convince our members that they are not being misled in this matter.

      Allan Stead
      B Walks Co-ordinator
      Newton Abbot Ramblers

  10. Lesley Gillard says:

    If this road is maintained as a public road then surely the public should be able to use it? If it is for access only it should be adopted as a private road and paid for by those who need it to access their properties.

  11. Andy Lobb says:

    Further to my earlier comments, and questions that still have not been answered.
    Should the order result in only local residents using the road and a marked reduction in traffic, does the council and interested parties realise that the road will become an isolated back lane with very little community surveillance? Cyclists I have spoken to use the canal path, to and from Exeter, with very few using the Red Lodge section. Those “serious” touring or racing cyclists use the main road as it is faster.
    The fact that there may be someone that comes along prevents many things, including crime, vehicle, property, personal, and antisocial. So far I have seen very little instances of flytipping. This could change. Likewise, vehicle crime, cars being broken into, the passage of traffic very often prevents such instances of crime. Criminals do not consider the access only signs. The few local local residents may appreciate less motorised vehicles, but do they realise the possible increased crime risk, and antisocial behaviour.
    Whilst considering the signage, for traffic approaching from Exeter, they turn into the road from the main A379 to be confronted with access only signs. The direction signs have been altered to church and yacht club only direction, but that already existed, as did the caution, queing traffic signs. No advance warning of access only. Dithering motorists are an accident waiting to happen.

    • Dear Andy

      Apologies for the delay in replying. Thanks for your comments – I have passed all your comments onto our traffic orders team. So they can be considered as part of the process to help determine if the ETRO will be made permanent, can you please submit your comments through this link: http://devon.cc/tro

      Under the heading Proposed Traffic Schemes click the last link, ‘all other schemes’. Under the dropdown ‘parish’, key in ‘Powderham’ and click on the link 5736 for the official comments form. Regards

    • Andy Lobb says:

      Devon newscentre. Thank you for your reply and confirming that comments on this forum are not considered by the traffic management committee as official comments. I have copied your reply regarding the correct process to be taken in submitting official comments onto other forums so that others can comment a little mote easily.
      I assume my comment regarding the failure of advance warning signs were heeded, due to the hurried erection of a sign on the Exeter side over the Easter bank holiday weekend, or was it just a coincidence? How about some on the Starcross side now? Or would that advertise the use of an experimental order to get around the judst process required in the making of traffic orders to too many local people?

  12. Donovan Bayley says:

    How can the Police fine cyclists for not using cycle facilities when they are perfectly within their rights to do so?

    The reason road bike users often decide not to use them is because they are much slower to use and less comfortable than the adjacent road (there is often also an increased risk of punctures due to the presence of debris). A good analogy is expecting car drivers to go from Exeter to Bristol on the A38 rather than the M5.

    • MR J L GILBERT says:

      Why waste money on targeting facilities in that case? Just seems cyclists are a law unto themselves so we’ll just have to smile through gritted teeth every time these paragons of virtue hold us up or cause accidents when frustration or bad driving occurs. Of course it’ll be bad motorists that get the blame but invariably suffer less pain in the circumstances! Has it dawned on Donovan that users of the M5 risk fewer head on collisions than those using the A38. Still I’m all for freedom and choice for all but let’s have a modicum of common sense and less overkill please. Nobody wants an Us versus Them situation to arise over the use of what in reality is a short, scenic and enjoyable route – less traveled than most too!

    • Donovan Bayley says:

      There are poor cyclists AND drivers out there, you will never solve that problem entirely.

      The point I’m making is that many cycle facilities are simply not fully fit for purpose (they are often just bumpy, debris-ridden pavements with a bike painted on them and have multiple points where you have to stop and give way to traffic). There are finally some half-decent ones going in around Exeter but the only way you’ll notably separate traffic and cyclists is if both have good dedicated facilities.

      This scheme will achieve that (i.e. through traffic goes via Kenton and cycles via the estuary road) and this may well increase cycle use all-round as people enjoy an almost traffic-free journey from the heart of Exeter all the way to Dawlish.

      It is very sad to see and hear the continual aggression from motorists towards cyclists that you, Mr Gilbert, and Holly Gilbert are mildly demonstrating. The bottom line is that they are far more vulnerable than motorists but have just as much right to use our roads. The real irony is that motorists whinge and whine about them, yet as soon as something innovative comes up to segregate them, they still whinge and whine.

    • MR J L GILBERT says:

      “yet as soon as something innovative comes up to segregate them, they still whinge and whine.” Typical response from a holier than thou cyclist going on about the poor quality of the rather costly provisions being made on your behalf – self indulgent hypocrites who clearly have no sense of irony either it seems!. As for aggression from motorists at least we look in the mirror – you should do the same!

  13. Andy says:

    Firstly, a simple question for the news centre. It says “formal comments can be made ”
    Are comments within this forum considered as formal? Many comments have been made on here, will they be considered? If they are not considered as formal, what happens to them? Hopefully someone will reply and clarify, as it is not clear from what I have read here.
    Secondly could you reply as to what is considered “designated parking”. The church carpark is an area of mud/hard standing around trees. Are the verges next to the road used by many to park considered designated? What about the sections next to the road used, such as the lay-by near the yacht club, overlooking the deer park?
    I look forward to a response.

  14. Holly Gilbert says:

    I am all for cycle tracks. I wish the police would fine those who do not use them. On Shaldon Bridge a lot of extra money was spent to put a walking and cycle track, but the cyclist do not use it, we were told when asking a cyclist why “its a road bike mate”. So I have little respect. We park at Powderham church and walk up to turf together with a lot of others, prams and kids on bikes who need somewhere to learn. A lot of money was spent of the railway bridge, it is too far for people to walk from starcross and then the turf. Surely if it is a rat run then put some sleeping policemen in or the alternating priority barriers. The police have enough to do without having to enforce this.

    • Mike Ashby says:

      Cyclists are not legally obliged to use cycle paths so there is no chance of a fine. Think you need to read the Highway Code.

    • Adrian Rutley says:

      Hi Holly, My understanding is that the provision is to stop the road used as a short-cut rat run. People parking at the church and walking to Turf would be fine as they are accessing the church premises and pay voluntary contribution for parking there.

  15. Allan Stead says:

    In a response timestamped 4:22 pm on April 4th, Devon NewsCentre states that the restriction will not apply to those visiting designated off-street parking areas, such as Powderham Church car park.

    I represent Newton Abbot Ramblers, whose members occasionally enjoy a walk from the church, along the river bank to the marshes. If we go there on a Sunday, we always avoid the church car park so as to leave the area clear for church-goers, advising our members to park on nearby roadside verges instead, which we always take care to do without causing any obstruction.

    Howver, since the verges presumably do not qualify as designated off-street parking places, we are now faced with the ridiculous situation that if we follow your response to the letter, and wish to walk from the church on a Sunday, we must in future either cause probems for the church by using their car park, or face prosecution.

    Please reply promptly, as we have a Powderham walk already scheduled for May 5th.

    Allan Stead
    B Walks Co-ordinator
    Newton Abbot Ramblers

  16. Andy says:

    I have commented else where here, which maynot be in the correct place. I have read that access to designated parking area, which includes the church car park, is permitted. I trust this will be sufficient defence in the event of being prosecuted for failing to comply with a traffic sign? This road could be a designated tourist route with proper traffic calming measures and management, but that would cost more. Make it slower. The cycle route is only half of the route, so could be managed. That was acceptable in Dawlish Warren.
    Here is my initial comment.
    “Tranquil area? With a high speed train line next to it, along with mandatory train warnings given by train drivers as there are designated rail crossings along the route? Regular public events and concerts in Powderham in the fields next to the road. Remember the recent pop concert that created so much noise and disturbance to residents not so long ago? Large numbers of cars using the road to access these events. Coaches being directed to the rear entrance of Powderham Castle. Don’t think that supports that concept, although the wildlife don’t seem to mind.
    Designated parking areas? What constitutes a designated area? A lay-by, or pull in, a bit of land used to park, all a bit non descipt to me. Designated should mean an official area set aside for parking, clearly marked.
    I regularly use this route to take disabled persons and tourists to view what the area has in abundance, scenic views, history, fine architecture, to name a few. They are conveyed in a minibus, at an appropriate speed, always with care. We have been overtaken by cyclists, some who race along the road, easily exceeding the 20mph limit. (Yes the law does apply to cyclists, although many do not appear to comply)
    This order is totally ill conceived, and is obviously being made to placate a few at the expense of everyone. As for expense, I suppose the cost of 4 signs is very little compared with what eould be required to do the job properly, ie install decent taffic calming measures, speed humps, rumble surfaces, road narrowing to name a few. But then the local residents would have to endure them. Most speeding drivers are often local!
    I will just have to stop at the car park in future, as has been stated is permitted access .”

  17. MR J L GILBERT says:

    We often park by St Clements church to access the footpath walk to Turf Locks and are very grateful for the improved pedestrian access (even with additional cycle track and those potentially but rarely belligerent cyclists! ) and have never experienced traffic related problems and thus find it difficult to understand what all the fuss is about. Seems like a sledgehammer is being introduced to crack a tiny nut or could it be that over development of the surrounding areas has brought some inconveniences to a small minority who want to resort to draconian methods of restraint being imposed? Sad state of affairs if it reduces our valued freedoms to roam – what’s next. Stop EU migration this year and Teignbridge migration next – is this another result of the sad Brexit psyche!?

  18. Andree Smith says:

    As a regular bus passenger between Starcross and Exeter, recently to maintain a bus service into Exeter whilst road works were carried out which closed vehicular access through Kenton between the hours of 7pm and 7 am over a period of 10 days, buses were diverted along the Powderham Road. Would this be illegal if the road was closed to through traffic? There are sadly all too often serious road accidents on the A379 which close that important route. Would closing the Powderham Road to through traffic prevent a useful diversion in such an event?

  19. Andree Smith says:

    Will I still be able to park in the ‘lay-by’ overlooking the Powderham Estate and take pictures of the deer and castle at all seasons of the year?

  20. S Squires says:

    Another road for the cyclists? Millions of pounds has been spent investing in cycle trails in the area that they largely ignore. I agree an enforced speed limit – so that everyone can still enjoy this road, and stay safe, maybe a camera? With fines? What about those who park and walk/cycle to the turf? It’s too far for my children to walk or cycle all the way. This appears to be another not thought about, or fairly consulted hare brained idea. To appease a few and upset everyone else.

    What next council? Make all the parking meters into card only, without notice, consultations or warning. Ensure you cant see the signs until you are stood right in front of it, just so they can catch people out who didnt know or bring a card?

    Kick the boats out of Boat cove – the clue is in the name.

    Bring forward the dog ban by one month without considering those who enjoy visiting the beach with their dog out of season.

    Dear council I live on the main driving route to Dawlish Warren I dont like vehicles driving past, please can you make it access only? No, why not? It’s near the nature reserve that you also turning into a shrine that you dont want people to visit.

    • Robert Allum says:

      I use this route now and again. There is very little traffic using this route from what I can see. I think this idea comes from the fortunate people who live there and of course cyclists who ride two abreast and don’t move over for anyone

  21. W.R.Hoyle says:

    Speed bumps sounds like a good idea, but it is a lovely drive

  22. Cath says:

    For many years I have enjoyed driving this road, to enjoy the beautiful scenery. The estuary, wildlife, the architecture, all that that road provides. Not as a short cut, as it cannot be enjoyed. As the order is written, only the privileged few living along it has access. What of the many that park within the road and walk the estuary, bird watchers for example. Many are not able to walk the distance from Starcross. The road is a natural asset to tourism, and should be promoted, not hiden away. There already exist traffic orders to control speed, we previously had half hearted attempts at traffic calming even. But, no, ban all motor vehicles! Only the able can then enjoy the splendor of our county.
    Of course, access can be legally made, if say one wants to visit the church? This order is in my view an ill conceived one that will be detrimental to local individuals and tourists alike. I would like to see it as a tourist route, as used so successfully in other areas. But that no doubt go against the wishes of the few that live along the road. Please re think this order.

  23. Michael says:

    I would be interested to see how this would be enforced?

    Take examples of Prohibition of Motor Vehicles in Exeter.

    There is a prohibition from Musgrave Row intro Little Queen Street, I am sure that this is flouted very regularly with little/no enforcement of the moving traffic offence by the police.

    Also, having spoken to the police regarding a prohibition of motor vehicles offence in Exeter, I can say with some confidence, they have more important things to do.

    I am glad that it is experimental, because I fear, that without enforcement this prohibition is entirely pointless and will not solve the issue.

    The evidence to prosecute, I would imagine, would be near on impossible to prove/collect.

    I agree with previous contributors, if you want cut speed and reduce the usage as a rat run. Introduce speed humps and narrow the road in some places. Make it unbearable to drive through as then people will get angry and complain, but they won’t have much choice but to avoid using it.

    • Hi, This experimental scheme is being proposed as an alternative to using physical barriers. It’s being trialled over an extended period of time before any decision is made to either make it permanent, modify it or remove it. Traffic calming measures were previously introduced but didn’t receive local support.

  24. Nick says:

    yes we would all love to restrict traffic outside our homes – I’m sure if this was handled as a change to a cycle/pedestrian route through adequate consultation rather than squeezed through under the radar this would have been received in a far better light. Is Graham buying the mobility scooters then ?

  25. Phil Stocks says:

    Would visitors still be allowed to use the road to access Powderham church car park? I use this car park to start a walk or cycle (making a contribution in the coin box on site of course!).

    • Terry Ancell says:

      As mentioned elsewhere, pinch points and speed calming measures are the answer; ensure it takes longer to travel this route than along the main road thereby removing one of the reasons for using the road. As for public consultation, discussions at the Parish council meetings can hardly be considered a public consultation. Not only are the attendees largely biased, they are not representative of the much larger and wider population that use the road and do so sensibly. I have walked, cycled and driven that route for close to 50 years so seems a bit harsh to even restrict to access only.

    • Hi, Yes. The experimental order allows use of the road to those vehicles requiring access to off-street premises. This includes off-street designated parking areas including the church car park.

  26. Exe Onian says:

    I live in Exeter on a street with a PUBLIC public road running through it, Please could DCC let us have an ETRO too so that only residents can have access to it, I have noticed that people who do not live in the road have been driving through it! This would also improve our quality of life, I would also add that I had a pet run over & killed in front of me by a thoughtless driver,
    Please also tell me how the ETRO will be enforced at Powderham will officers from DCC enforce it by quizing drivers for being there, or will locals have a secret sign they can be recognised by?
    I would also like to add that surely there should have been a public consultation first instead of it being announced about 2 weeks before it will be introduced, Seems a bit hurried & unreasonable.
    Estuary road is beautiful and should be open to all, there seems to be a hidden agenda here!

    • Thomas Upton says:

      You are totally missing the point. This is a unique road that forms part of the National Cycle Network and it is therefore highly likely that it is being implemented to protect the many non-motorised users that frequent it.

      I support anything that encourages people not to unnecessarily drive their cars along this route, which is a haven from our car-dominated roads.

    • Hi, This experimental scheme is the result of extensive consultation with local stakeholders, including Powderham parishioners and the Powderham Estate. A signed traffic prohibition cannot rely on regular Police enforcement to be effective but spot checks may be made.

  27. Richard says:

    This is a great idea! How can other communities request similar restrictions?

  28. Graham says:

    “The Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) will prohibit all motor vehicles, except for access”

    Please tell me how this will “reduce the speed of traffic”?

  29. Graham says:

    A welcome improvement, far too many people drive this route as a rat run taking little regard for the number of people walking and cycling, including children and less able. Please make sure it is enforced.

  30. Denzel says:

    How are they going to make sure that the road is still not being used as a rat run

    • Margaret butler says:

      Have always enjoyed the drive through Powderham , showing grand children the deer, and wild birds . Wouldn’t we all like cars banned from some roads, I live in a road a lot more dangerous than the Powderham one, A lot of disabled or older people .me being one can’t walk this road, so please rethink this decision and don’t close this road .

    • Hi, The experimental order restricts the use of the road to those vehicles requiring access to off-street premises rather than traffic using it as a bypass to Kenton.

  31. Sally says:

    An enforceable speed limit would be fairer to everyone. Otherwise disabled and elderly people would not be able to enjoy this lovely stretch of road.

    • Alan says:

      It is enforceable. It just needs drivers to observe the speed limit.

    • Graham says:

      “Just needs drivers to observe the speed limit”. Ah yes, of course, drivers observe the speed limit all the time NOT! Please give me one instance where drivers observe the speed limit, or when was the last time the police enforced a 20mph speed limit or zone? Look at Balls Farm Road and Little Johns Cross Hill in Exeter – rarely enforced and continuously abused.

  32. Sally says:

    I live in Starcross and love going this way at a sensible speed to stop and take a moment to look at the deer. My parents used to take us as children this way on the way home from the beach. I now take my elderly mother who is unable to walk very far this way so she can enjoy the view and wildlife. Does this now mean I will be unable to do this!!!. As usual it is the mindless few that spoil things for others. Why is it not possible to put in a traffic calming system that makes it impossible to go faster than the speed limit. So we will be preventing disabled and the elderly from this lovely senic route. How fair is this!

    • Graham says:

      Alternatives are available – adapted cycles and mobility scooters.

    • Hi, Traffic calming measures were introduced previously but didn’t receive local support. This experimental order allows use of the road to those vehicles requiring access to off-street premises. This includes designated off-street designated parking areas including the church car park.

  33. Lorna Mitchell says:

    I live on this stretch of road and this is the first I have heard about it! Having said that this is a great idea, too many cars speeding along. We have had a cat killed on this road by a vehicle and traffic calming measures tried a few years ago were dangerous,ugly and unhelpful.

  34. Donovan Bayley says:

    Sheila Stevens – There is no reason why through traffic should use the road, no matter how scenic it is. It is a precious and tranquil area that attracts families to enjoy clean air and a safe environment. Let them have the road for once.

    • Andy says:

      Tranquil area? With a high speed train line next to it, along with mandatory train warnings given by train drivers as there are designated rail crossings along the route? Regular public events and concerts in Powderham in the fields next to the road. Remember the recent pop concert that created so much noise and disturbance to residents not so long ago? Large numbers of cars using the road to access these events. Coaches being directed to the rear entrance of Powderham Castle. Don’t think that supports that concept, although the wildlife don’t seem to mind.
      Designated parking areas? What constitutes a designated area? A lay-by, or pull in, a bit of land used to park, all a bit non descipt to me. Designated should mean an official area set aside for parking, clearly marked.
      I regularly use this route to take disabled persons and tourists to view what the area has in abundance, scenic views, history, fine architecture, to name a few. They are conveyed in a minibus, at an appropriate speed, always with care. We have been overtaken by cyclists, some who race along the road, easily exceeding the 20mph limit. (Yes the law does apply to cyclists, although many do not appear to comply)
      This order is totally ill conceived, and is obviously being made to placate a few at the expense of everyone. As for expense, I suppose the cost of 4 signs is very little compared with what eould be required to do the job properly, ie install decent taffic calming measures, speed humps, rumble surfaces, road narrowing to name a few. But then the local residents would have to endure them. Most speeding drivers are often local!
      I will just have to stop at the car park in future, as has been stated is permitted access .

    • Lesley says:

      Devon is scenic and we would all like this protection! As others have said people drive along the road to enjoy the scenery, for bird-watching and to walk to the Turf. It’s a pleasant way for locals to enjoy the area. Most drivers are considerate of others using this road. This is wealthy owners of large homes wanting to exclude vehicles from their neighbourhood and it’s disgraceful that this ‘us and them’ mentality is being encouraged in this century.

  35. Andrée Smith says:

    I have enjoyed both walking and driving along this lovely stretch of road. The latter at a sensible speed. I would NOT be in favour of restricting traffic along this road, but would prefer road humps and pinch points, with a reduced speed limit to safeguard cyclists and walkers.

  36. Mrs Sheila Stevens says:

    This is a beautiful scenic route why ban people from it, just enforce a speed limit.

    • Graham says:

      People are not being banned from it, merely their means of access. If you wish to access it park at Starcross. I am sure you will enjoy the improved peace and quiet instead of regularly being forced to look over your shoulder and make way for inconsiderate people in motor vehicles.

    • Hi, Access to this road will still be allowed, although it will be restricted by the Order. Any parked vehicles should use designated off-street parking areas. This is an experimental scheme which cannot rely on regular Police enforcement, but spot checks may be made.

  37. Francis Clark says:

    Great decision.

  38. Sue Featherstone says:

    Fab! Definitely needed. Some people literally speed along here and it is so inappropriate. Lots of walkers and cyclists of all ages and abilities use this which should be a peaceful backroad. It is a charming stretch of road that needs conserving. Thank you.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Comments are held for moderation. House rules

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Posted in: DCC Homepage | Environment