Hi Maryanne,

Over the Weekend I have been trying to evaluate what was said at our meeting. I am very bemused because you agreed with all our points regarding our Requests   I will list them:

1 You agreed that when a diversion route is agreed with the HA, that is the designated route that you and the HA deemed to be the most “Appropriate and Efficient route for a diversion applicable to the Area”. And telling you of emails that I have of MR Rayson admitting that the A5127 is unsuitable for HGV traffic and the old A5127 diversion route is outdated!!

2 Having showed you and providing you with Videos of the HGVs ignoring the diversion route and also providing evidence of the percentage of HGVs ignoring the route. You agreed that it was unacceptable to endure this.

3 You heard from me that Ryknild Street suffered 2 weeks of disruption 3 years ago and subsequently received a weight restriction order. We have suffered 9 months out of a period of 16 months.

4 You admitted you could invoke a temporary traffic order but you wouldn’t on the grounds you must evaluate what impact the weight restriction would have on surrounding roads. The weight restriction on Ryknild Street has sent the HGVS down the A5127 so the next Logical weight restriction on the A5127 is to send the HGVS down the bypasses (which is precisely what they were built for).

Now this is where I have to say it rather confused me.

At the meeting in April Mr Rayson said would be instigated straight away. We now find out from you that it’s going to be tagged onto the A51 Tamworth investigation ( which bears no relevance to our issue) And also it won’t start till August and hopefully finish in September . Which is 6 months after the Residents meeting?  During which time we have had to endure numerous occasions of disruption, because you have done nothing about it.

Now this is where another major problem arises:

This issue should be a concern in its own right not tagged onto to some other review.

The reason for the Residents anger is the ignoring of the Diversion Route by the HGVs and using in your departments own words an “Outdated and unsuitable road for HGVs”

The investigation I agree is acceptable for a permanent solution of the growing problems that the A5127 through Lichfield is enduring by the massive increase in the volume of HGV traffic for this road (which I previously stated would logically send them down the Bypasses)

But for our main issue, the investigation (There should be no investigation as all you need is to witness it) it should be done when the HGVs are coming through at Night whenever the roadwork’s on the A5/A38 are in place. This I where I have to say you seem not to grasp as you again came with the statement “We must wait for an Investigation “.


The Request from the Residents is straight forward:

“We Request that while the investigation of a Permanent Solution to the overall problem of HGVs using the A5127 is in progress that a TTRO to be put in place (which you admitted you can) whenever roadwork’s are in progress on the A5/A38 and it transpires that the designated diversion route is needed, to force the HGVs to use the diversion route.”

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for you to put the Residents top of your list, as a council that’s where they should be.

From information off Roadworks.org I believe other disruptions are going to take place from the middle of August till the end of November.

I am now in the process of producing an Internet website with a Resident who specialises in this for the convenience of the residents to go live (give live updates comments etc.)  And then go ahead with an online petition as well as other avenues of petitions. The intended Petition will take into account not just the Residents I am trying to represent but the Residents of the whole of Lichfield as in my opinion Lichfield and its surrounding areas is blighted by HGV traffic and is turning this once lovely City into an HGV Industrial Estate.


R Appleby.