Newark Advertiser Reader Letter: Questioning reasons for ford closure

I refer to the brief article Second Temporary Closure Order Granted (Advertiser, May 24) stating that Nottinghamshire County Council has issued a further legal Closure Order for Rufford Ford with a time limit of a further 18 months, due to the expiry of the initial orders.

It is noted that the order is made under the terms of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s14 (1)(b) because of the likelihood of danger to the public, or of serious damage to the road, which is not attributable to “road works”.

From statements issued by Nottinghamshire County Council, the closure follows advice by Nottinghamshire Police there had been an increase in ‘incidents’ and it was creating a ‘significant danger’.

It is quite clear that the problem refers to driver behaviour.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act refers to issues which are structural — either directly due to damage at a location or a nearby structural issue exists such as a landslip, unsafe wall or other structure. There is no surface structural damage within the ford other than a visible narrow strip where setts have been lost but not a hazard.

Nottinghamshire Police has declined to state how many drivers have been served any notice for asserted behaviour causing a public risk, despite video clip evidence of frequent attendance.

There has been no explanation why the “unacceptable behaviour” has not been dealt with as a police matter — nor any action taken for parking on the highway where there is a No Waiting provision.

Elsewhere, including locations in Nottinghamshire, unacceptable driver behaviour has been dealt with by other legislation such as Police Reform Act 2002 s59(1) or Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Dispersal Orders).

It is noted that the new order is explained that “time is required to consider the public’s consultation resp-onses which closed March 4th, 2024”. Consultees have not been advised in advance of this new extension — the information has been carefully managed as a Press item linked to a formal Public Notice.

There appears no legal facility or reason to close the highway due to driver behaviour nor due to a small number of video makers posting clips on social media channels — a process not controlled by any legislation.

The county council (through its agent ViaEM as Highway Authority) appears to be acting unlawfully (‘ultra vires’) — the Order should be rescinded with immediate effect.

This matter appears a closure by legal stealth.

Considerable inconvenience to regular users of Rufford Lane, residents and businesses is being caused without justification.

The asserted poor driver behaviour only occurs when the Ford is running higher than normal — and this will be a for relatively few days per year. No evidence of this frequency has been provided.

From observation it appears the normal depth is approximately 150mm.

A potential problem for small vehicles will be possible when the depth exceeds 300mm if driven through incorrectly.

How many days annually is that depth exceeded? — ROGER FELL, Lowdham.