Delivered to Co Op Andover this afternoon and then reloaded at a new factory on the same estate. Both places had me sign a piece of paper stating that I used the A303 to get there as apparently they can be liable to a £1000 fine if HGV’s don’t use that route. We all know that it’s to stop HGV’s traveling through Lugershall, and we’ve all heard the rumours that a certain councillor lives on that route.
Sometimes I use the Lugershall route if travelling to Andover after tipping Swindon. I use it because I can quite simply. There are no weight restrictions and I drive a fully legal vehicle which tells me that I can legally drive on any unrestricted road that I choose.
My question is; what is the basis and what are the legalities involved in the imposition of these alleged fines? Surely they could not be passed on to the haulier who is lawfully carrying out his business? I understand the whole “banned from site” ■■■■■■■■ but I’m curious as to why these big companies even humour this particular ruling.
Thank you for the links njl. I noticed that one of the links quoted lorries using "illegal " routes. My question remains, in what way were they illegal?
The A343 to do Ocado Andover (before it caught fire). There are no truck restrictions on it.
I also do Swindon to Amesbury via Marlborough and Tidworth which has no restrictions. If I was going to Andover from Swindon, I’d go through Ludgershall because it’s perfectly for us legal to do so.
I’m at a loss as to how the Co-Op can fine transport firms who haven’t gone though any lorry restrictions. My guess is possibly the hauliers pay because they want to keep the work. I’m also at a loss as to how the Co-Op could fine you if you had gone through weight limit. That’s the police and the local councils job.
It’s also possible that any hauliers engaged in contracts with the Co-Op may well have signed a contract stating using the A303 only but, if that was the case, you’d be told which way to go by your gaffer.
Presumably not using certain routes has been agreed to get planning permission for the use of these sites, where it involves lots of heavy commercial traffic.
Irony that it turns the usual except for access limits on their head, in these cases you can’t use the road for access to named sites but if passing through you can drive along the same route as often as you like
years ago I worked for manafcturing outfit delivering there goods.
Went to an address was Basically a farm southeast someware nice and countryside type of area.
Sat nav said turn right and your destination is 1.3 miles ahead on the road.
But as you turn onto the road there’s a sign 6.6 width limit ahead.
So I rang customer asked was he before the limit or after it.
He said there isn’t a width limit.
Basically where I was the road was full.of mansions worth millions some bigwigs and.fottballers lived there.
The residents didn’t like van trucks driving past there houses.
So council agreed to.a 6 ft 6 limit put signs up. But never.built it as again the residents complained we will scratch our 4x4s and why should we have to.suffer.
Utter madness .But as they say money talks and you can do what ever you like
Similar issue when delivering to Asda DC in Didcot. Going through Milton Park is completely legal, and a lot shorter, but on the way out there are signs telling goods vehicles to go the long way around. Just ignore them and crack on until someone tells me officially not to.
So it’s nothing more than just some self important ■■■■ councillor and his team of nimbys not wanting ‘‘Thundering juggernauts’’ going past their ivory towers then is it?
…Although they are perfectly legal to do so.
I don’t normally go through there if in that area, but after reading this I sure as hell will next time.
I think the companies get drivers to sign ( as they all do ) to cover their own arses…hes had the training, he has stated he travels certain routes…thats about it really, i normally travel what ever takes my fancy, so long as the heights, weights and widths are ok…so be it…But, if this country was more intelligent with their planning, we would have had industrial estates where they should be, with facilities drivers need, and of course away from residential areas.
On a simliar theme in a way.
All these new build housing estates that are going up.
You try to buy one (Not like I would to be honest)
But you own a van or God forbid a caravan. And buy one you can’t keep it on the driveway. Despite paying 200k plus your not allowed a van or caravan as it lowers the tone of the area .
It’s all a case of.its my ball.my rules otherwise I’m taking the ball home
the maoster:
Delivered to Co Op Andover this afternoon and then reloaded at a new factory on the same estate. Both places had me sign a piece of paper stating that I used the A303 to get there as apparently they can be liable to a £1000 fine if HGV’s don’t use that route. We all know that it’s to stop HGV’s traveling through Lugershall, and we’ve all heard the rumours that a certain councillor lives on that route.
Sometimes I use the Lugershall route if travelling to Andover after tipping Swindon. I use it because I can quite simply. There are no weight restrictions and I drive a fully legal vehicle which tells me that I can legally drive on any unrestricted road that I choose.
My question is; what is the basis and what are the legalities involved in the imposition of these alleged fines? Surely they could not be passed on to the haulier who is lawfully carrying out his business? I understand the whole “banned from site” ■■■■■■■■ but I’m curious as to why these big companies even humour this particular ruling.
The Coop at Andover was built on the premise that it did all it could to keep the traffic off the rural roads in the area. Part of the deal from the Coop’s side was that they try to enforce this as much as they can. The fines they talk of, can’t be passed onto the haulier, but of course Coop can ban any vehicles they like.
robroy:
So it’s nothing more than just some self important [zb] councillor and his team of nimbys not wanting ‘‘Thundering juggernauts’’ going past their ivory towers then is it?
…Although they are perfectly legal to do so.
I don’t normally go through there if in that area, but after reading this I sure as hell will next time.
To be honest it isn’t a self important councillor, but merely a council trying to provide jobs and keep residents happy. My feeling is Ludgershall will have a weight limit soon, as the road isn’t the best for 44 tonners.
Here’s a thought.
If there’s no weight limit no legal reason why you can’t drive down there.
Then we should organise a convoy go for a drive round there .
Something to consider
Darkside:
Part of the deal from the Coop’s side was that they try to enforce this as much as they can. The fines they talk of, can’t be passed onto the haulier
Someone’s…
Making money somewhere. The T&D article states ‘According to the local council £371,000 is currently being collected by firms whose vehicles used roads with restrictions on, such as the A342, A343 and A3057, to get on to the Andover Business Park.’
So it appears the local council is chasing firms for breaking the rules on roads which have no restrictions. What it’s saying is I can’t go to the Co-op Andover from Swindon unless I go M4/A34/A303 but, I can go to any other delivery point I choose in Andover from Swindon via Ludgershall.
