I don’t normally bother readers about reserve matters because there’s usually very little that one can influence at this stage. However, there is a concern regarding the proposal for a 20 mile an hour speed limit at the brow of Pavenhill itself. This has not been consulted in the village. Although potentially beneficial, actual road users should have been consulted in order to gain insight of real experience of transiting the hill. Certainly, the proposed eastward limit may require hard braking as vehicles top the rise after a steep ascent from the Crossroads.
Whilst there is no UK law that prohibits rumble strips on narrow roads or steep gradients. What matters is whether Wiltshire Council can demonstrate that the installation is safe, compliant, and justified.
Even though they are legal, engineers often hesitate to use rumble strips on narrow or steep roads because of:
- Motorcycle stability: strips must not cause wheel slip on inclines;
- Cyclist safety: narrow lanes leave no room to avoid the textured surface;
- Noise complaints: rumble strips generate a lot of noise, especially on hills where vehicles accelerate;
- Drainage issues: water running downhill can erode poorly installed strips; and
- Wear and tear: steep gradients shorten the lifespan of the surfacing.
Wiltshire Council does use rumble strips, but typically on straight sections before junctions and on level ground where noise impact is minimal. They rarely use them on steep hills unless there is a collision history that justifies the measure, which there is not in this case and context.
The regulations require: police consultation; resident consultation; a safety justification and a design that does not create additional hazard, which I believe this does.
The plan includes several “20mph speed limit road sign” “20mph speed limit road marking” yet only two rumble devices and no raised tables, no chicanes, no build‑outs, no narrowed gateways, and no continuous vertical calming. Also, Department for Transport research indicates sign‑only 20mph zones reduce speeds by only 1–2mph. Physical measures are required to achieve average speeds below 20mph.
Taken together, this scheme does not achieve the intended speed reduction, which is a core requirement for adoption and may be hazardous as planned.
Do take a look here and see what you think.
Comments to be in by Thursday 8 October quoting: PL/2026/04314 go here
