ECSS HIGHWAYS A271 VISIBILITY SPLAY

  ESCC EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS - ALLEGATIONS OF MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE STEMMING FROM FAILURES TO REGISTER PUBLIC FOOTPATHS TO FAILING TO DECLARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - TO HIDING A HISTORIC BUILDING WITHIN THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL REMIT - AND MASSAGING TRAFIC COUNT FIGURES THE THE A217 SUICIDE JUNCTION: AS ALLEGED

GET IN TOUCH IF YOU HAVE A STORY TELL  A-Z INDEX  - LET US KNOW ABOUT THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

Q. Why would anyone want to risk developing a site, where the exit onto the A271 is a margin call?

Q. Why would anyone want to but or rent a property with a junction exiting onto the busy A217, just before, or after (depending on direction of traffic) the congested village of Herstmonceux?

THE FACTS

Technical Note: Visibility Splays and Safety at the Proposed Access on the A271, Herstmonceux

Location: Proposed vehicular access for [name of development] on the A271 just east of Herstmonceux village, near the brow of a hill where traffic transitions from restricted speeds into open road conditions.

Issue: The proposed junction appears to be fundamentally unsafe due to substandard visibility splays in both directions on a high-speed, constrained section of the A271.

1. Visibility splay standards

UK highway design requires that any new access/junction onto an existing road must provide unobstructed visibility splays based on the 85th percentile speed of traffic on the main road, not just the posted speed limit.

Standard practice (e.g. Manual for Streets / DMRB-derived guidance) is that:

The driver’s eye is taken at 2.4 m back from the edge of the running lane.

The required visibility distance in each direction is set by the Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) at the relevant speed.

Typical SSD/visibility values:

At 30 mph: ≈ 43 m

At 40 mph: ≈ 70 m

At 50 mph: ≈ 120 m

These distances are the minimum needed for a driver on the main road to see a hazard and stop safely in time.

Highway guidance is clear that forward visibility on vertical curves (crests of hills) must also allow drivers to stop safely at the prevailing speed.

2. Observed conditions at the A271 access

From site-based observation and local knowledge:

Westbound traffic approaching the village routinely travels at or above 50 mph before reaching the speed restriction signs, especially at busy periods with queuing.

Vehicles exiting the village uphill then crest the rise and descend towards the proposed access.

There is significant queuing and blocking on the village high street, causing waves of delayed drivers, including HGVs and vans, braking late as they approach.

The proposed access lies just beyond the brow of a hill, so drivers cresting the hill have limited forward visibility.

Hedges approximately 2 m high on both sides of the access further obstruct sightlines between emerging traffic and through traffic.

Measured/estimated visibility:

To the west (towards the village): sightlines from an emerging vehicle’s eye position (2.4 m back) are significantly less than 70 m, and in places below 50 m.

To the east (towards Windmill Hill): visibility is well below 120 m, as required for 50 mph traffic.

By contrast, guidance requires splays to be unobstructed above 600 mm in height and sufficient to meet SSD in both directions.

SPEED IS THE KILLER - Required Splay Length Depends on Speed. The required distance is based on Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) — the distance a driver needs to perceive, react, and brake safely. This is set out in highway technical guidance on SSD and visibility splays. Suicide Junction is just not going to cut it, at speeds of 50mph. The access is an accident in waiting. Should a death occur at this location, corporate manslaughter charges might follow, and finding of negligence on the part of East Sussex County Council, and conspiracy in the matter, where the developers are fully aware of the shortcomings of this exit onto the busy A271.

3. Safety implications

Given the above:

Emerging vehicles from the development will not be visible to approaching drivers in time for them to stop safely at realistic approach speeds (≈ 50 mph).

Approaching vehicles, particularly HGVs and vans, will crest the hill with limited time and distance to react to a vehicle pulling out, especially when they are braking late due to village congestion.

Residents exiting the development will be under pressure to “take a gap” in fast‑moving traffic with poor visibility, creating a strong behavioural incentive to accept unsafe gaps and “push in”.

The combination of:

- High approach speeds

- Crest vertical alignment

- Obscured sightlines from 2 m hedges

Queuing and braking behaviour means the junction geometry is foreseeably collision‑prone.

Highway guidance explicitly warns that insufficient visibility at junctions leads to “unsafe manoeuvres which are likely to lead to conflict and unsafe conditions”, particularly where horizontal or vertical alignment (bends/crests) obscure sightlines.

4. Compliance conclusion

On the basis of standard UK visibility criteria:

At an effective 50 mph design speed, the access requires 2.4 m x 120 m visibility splays in both directions.

The actual splays are, on current evidence, significantly below both 70 m (40 mph) and 120 m (50 mph) in at least one direction.

The presence of a crest and 2 m hedges means the splays are not only substandard, but physically constrained.

This appears to be a junction that cannot be made compliant without major earthworks/realignment and permanent control of boundary vegetation to 600 mm height or below for the full splay length.

In simple terms: the geometry is structurally unsafe for the traffic conditions.

5. Recommendation to councillors and the developer

The proposed access should be treated as non-compliant with recognised visibility standards for the prevailing speeds on the A271.

Before any permission is considered:

An independent speed survey should be undertaken to establish actual 85th percentile speeds.

A full visibility splay plan should be prepared by the developer’s highway consultant, overlaid on topographic and boundary data.

If the required 2.4 m x SSD splays (likely 2.4 m x 120 m) cannot be demonstrated in both directions and kept clear, the access should be considered unacceptable on safety grounds, and alternative access arrangements (or refusal of the development) should be pursued.

This is not a marginal judgement call: with 50 mph approaches, poor forward visibility, and physical obstructions, the current proposal represents a high and foreseeable collision risk, particularly for residents emerging from the new development.




 

WHO ARE THE BEST AND WORST COUNCILS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM? - THE MOST CORRUPT, THE MOST ECOLOGICALLY FRIENDLY  WHO MAINTAIN A REGISTER TO RECORD CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - AND THOSE WHO ARE CONFLICTED, LEAVING THE ROOM, WITH A RECORD TO REFLECT THAT ?

RETURN HOME  FOR THE LATEST NEWS & UPDATES AS THEY ARE REPORTED

This site is protected by Article 9 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as per the Human Rights Act 1998

and Articles 2, Article 18 and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights