Flawed traffic order means vehicles being allowed to access Leighton Buzzard High Street are technically breaking the law

Central Beds Council introduced the pedestrianisation of the High Street on June 20, with Lake Street also becoming one-way only as part of plans to ensure residents can shop safely and maintain social distancing as non-essential stores re-opened.

The council said it was a temporary arrangement designed to support businesses and the safe return of the market to the High Street following the easing of the coronavirus lockdown restrictions.

At the time it said access would be maintained for people who own or rent premises on the High Street and deliveries would be allowed.

But now it has emerged that the temporary traffic regulation order to facilitate pedestrianisation, doesn't include any wording which would legally allow flexibility for such access.

LBO reader Chris Keen, a regular visitor to the High Street, says he was staggered by CBC's "incompetence" in having the flawed order in place and has asked for the council to withdraw it, lodging a formal complaint.

It follows a recent town council meeting where a CBC officer revealed that CBC staff were using their discretion in allowing entry to the High Street for deliveries and building owners who needed access to their parking spaces.

Mr Keen said this risked members of the public being on the wrong side of the law for which a penalty could be imposed. He said: "It seems they are knowingly allowing a defective order to remain in place and encourage law breaking, as the order that they sought and implemented 'prohibits all traffic' and they sought to overdose the very laws that they themselves put in place... by attaching an unlawful discretion.

"The discretion applied by CBC on the face of a legally binding prohibition of all traffic caused public confusion. It would be correct procedure, due process, to pull (withdraw) any defective instrument that is unfit for purpose - rather than 'knowingly' be complicit in breaking the law in the traffic prohibition."

Following an investigation, CBC has now admitted to Mr Keen that the order is incomplete and upheld his complaint.

Writing to him, an officer said: "Having had the opportunity to investigate your complaint I do uphold it as I agree that the TTRO [temporary traffic regulation order] was incomplete in its drafting as it did not allow for necessary access to the High Street for delivery vehicles and residents and premises owners with rear parking courts.

"In my opinion this omission should have been rectified at the earliest opportunity as it is essential for local businesses to be serviced where they lack adequate rear access. It is similarly important that rear parking courts associated with High Street premises remain accessible. I believe that it was appropriate and necessary to allow flexibility so that High Street businesses were not restricted from trading until such point that the TTRO was revised.

In the correspondence, CBC admits that "by letter of the law" allowing vehicles into the high street is unlawful. It says it will shortly advertise an amended TTRO that allows access for delivery vehicles and for premises that operate with rear parking areas.

When questioned if deliveries/resident access could continue despite the claims that drivers would be technically breaking the law, a CBC spokesman told the LBO: “Deliveries will continue as they have done and residents will continue to have access, though this will only be granted from the staff on site.”

The spokesman confirmed no-one would be penalised for driving into the High Street if they were accessing property or making a delivery.

When asked if the current order would stay in place until the new one was ready, he added: “We agree that the order didn’t include deliveries and residents’ access, which it should have done. We are now in the process of amending the order accordingly.”

The council didn’t indicate how long that would take.

What's your view? Email [email protected]