As many residents will recall, acoustic cameras were installed on the A34 bypass near the Whitehall Bridge roundabout towards the end of October 2022.
The noise-activated cameras were purchased and installed as a joint venture between the Police & Crime Commissioner and Cheshire East Highways to crack down on noisy anti-social motorists. Placed on a roundabout approach on the A34 Pendleton Way, between Wilmslow and Alderley Edge, they are monitored, virtually, by Cheshire Police.
Since the installation of the acoustic camera on 21 October 2022 until the 16 April 2024 (when the camera was removed) there were a total of 2,021 activations. An activation of the camera is defined as a situation where a vehicle using the road emits a sound which is over 90 dB (so called 'trigger event').
A breakdown of the incidents, obtained via a Freedom of Information Request, shows they were increasing signifanctly. In the first three months of 2024 there were 447 activations compared with the corresponding months in 2023 when there were 193.
Incidents recorded by the camera could not be used to impose fines, that would depend on Cheshire East introducing a Public Space Protection Order. Had the Council put a Public Space Protection Order in place this would have meant that approximately £200,000 in fines could have been issued generating much needed funds for the cash-strapped council.
Local resident Alan Butler, who spoke at the recent Council meeting told wilmslow.co.uk "After nineteen months Cheshire East failed to initiate the PSPO process despite Cheshire Police's offer to manage both the camera and back-office support for it. The PCC withdrew trial funding and Cheshire East arranged for the camera to be removed in April 2024. An opportunity to improve the lives of residents and benefit from fine proceeds was not acted upon."
Councillor Craig Browne said "Unfortunately officers at Cheshire East Council have been reluctant to begin the process of making a PSPO due to their lack of a "back office" resource to process the fines and deal with any legal challenges.
"Needless to say, I am finding this incredibly frustrating, but will continue to work with the Police & Crime Commissioner to try and persuade officers that this is necessary."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Fines can only be imposed by a court.
Penalty charge notices can be issued by local authorities, and a recipient can then choose whether pay it or allow the matter to be decided by a court.
Can someone who really knows the facts please explain why the council refuse to make life better for local residents and make money in the process.
Don't try and raise revenue from noise just because it's there.
Fix the bloody potholes!!
Why the PCC didn't just plump for speed cameras in the first place is a mystery because there was clearly a problem other than just occasional excess noise.
Average speed cameras are expensive, there's no available funding and fine proceeds go to central government.
However, as well as improving the lives of residents, the noise camera would have been revenue-positive for Cheshire East as local authorities retain the proceeds. Despite the trial being extended from three to nineteen months and Cheshire Police's offer to manage both the camera and back-office support, officers in Cheshire East chose not to co-operate and didn't act to implement a PSPO. Three months after the trial had ended, officers still hadn't analysed the results.
But as the poster pointed out above, the road surface causes far greater noise issues than a momentary (and usually legal) high-rev exhaust note - and the council's perennially lazy approach to road resurfacing with loose chippings make road noise even worse, as demonstrated on the two section of Wilmslow bypass that are currently being resurfaced (or rather, NOT resurfaced, just redressed) - road works that are taking longer than most countries take to build new roads, and with comically extended lanes closures causing yet further misery to anyone that uses a car.
Average speed cameras would be effective, as they have been in curbing the lunatic fringe on the Cat & Fiddle road, for instance.
Road surface noise is an issue, but only if you live very close to the road in question. Road surface noise does not 'carry', unlike loud exhaust noise which can 'carry' for a couple of miles or more, thus affecting the quality of life of far more people than road surface noise does.
Thanks you Bryan for your sympathetic understanding of this issue that has been affecting many local people for too long.
Berkeley Thirsk:
You have zero understanding of the nature of vehicle noise in our locality and so beautifully made this very clear to those of us who do understand. Not surprising really after you had your expensive motor nicked off the drive [see link https://www.alderleyedge.com/news/article/20908/car-thieves-are-becoming-even-more-bold ]
Nothing like tempting thieves when a vehicle is left in full view near the road and well known as an easy ‘steal’. Mr Thirsk thinks he’s ok because he keeps the keys in a ‘special pouch’. Does he not know that a simple effective deterrent is a visible KrookLock fitted to the steering wheel and if a theft would be possible it would take much longer than the 20 seconds he says was the case? He could build a garage and keep the car out of sight and more secure - which might be a condition of his next Motor Insurance policy. As a result of a lack of understanding of a different ‘motoring’ issue - vehicle theft - he now claims to be saddled with higher future motor insurance.
John Harries:
Again you expertly prove, to those readers who have regularly posted sensible, explanatory comments regarding vehicle NOISE in our towns [Wilmslow & Alderley] and explained how it is so different form SPEED, that you are clueless as to the underlying cause. So we all know that you do not understand the problem.
SPEED has very little to do with it. The cause is from engines being driven in a manner like a Formula One racing car during a grand prix race - high revs and going through the gears whilst approaching a roundabout and then accelerating through the gears keeping the revs high again as the car exits the roundabout.
If there were no roundabouts on the A34 it would not be so attractive to these ‘boy racers’. Please note RACERS and not SPEEDSTERS. The limit on the A34 is 70mph and all the noise we hear is produced well below this limit - on the roundabouts. I doubt there are no vehicles capable of going round a roundabout at 70mph.
SPEED had nothing to do with the postings on Alderley.co.uk years back when vehicles paraded along Alderley High Street and made a racket with their low-cost cars in a sort of ‘two-fingered’ statement to the local owners of expensive Range Rovers, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW etc. with the odd Ferrari etc. They had MODIFIED exhausts to actually make more noise especially at low speeds, which is how they managed to annoy Alderley residents even when doing 10-20mph.
With a complete lack of understanding, Councillor Craig Browne decided to press for a couple of speed ‘bumps’ and a village speed limit of 20mph which didn’t prevent these nuisance drivers from making their usual annoying exhaust noise at a bit less that the 20mph limit. How often can anyone drive along Alderley High Street at more than 20mph anyway? It’s too busy! When it came to Wilmslow residents requesting something to be done about the NOISE along the A34 Councillor Browne stated that representations should be made to the Wilmslow councillors - despite his being Chairman of the Highways and Transport Committee - and not to him.
It was around this time that the problem of vehicle NOISE in London was aired on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. I passed on this information to various persons as a possible solution to our problem.
As is usual it wasn’t that simple but something had to be done and so we eventually got a camera. I suggested that it shouldn’t be used in the same manner as a speed camera with fines imposed but more as a means of identifying vehicles making noise obviously in excess of the legal limit with subsequent measures imposed that would inconvenience such motorists and eventually make them go somewhere else.
Do you - John Harries - know what the db. noise limit is?
My comments on AlderleyEdge.com for 6th December 2021 at the link below give a full explanation of the NOISE issue and noise cameras and possible actions to deal with it.
https://www.alderleyedge.com/news/article/22109/over-100-vehicles-gather-in-wilmslow-for-illegal-street-racing
If both Mr John Harries & Mr Berkeley Thirsk and anyone else still does not have an understanding as to the cause of exhaust noise on our local roads and what to do about it there really isn’t much more anyone can do to try and educate such closed minds as yours.
Also, average speed cameras have a flaw. If they are quite some distance apart, all a budding boy racer needs to do is pass the first camera and then go VERY slowly or even stop for a while before setting off again and going really fast before reaching the second camera. The average speed will be calculated as a function of the distance between cameras versus the time taken. Since some of the time was spent going nowhere, the time ‘taken’ between cameras is longer and so the ‘average, speed much less. Any competent boy racer can work out how long they need to pause in order to set an average speed that is below the legal limit.
Not rocket science.
The most stupid thing about speed cameras is that they have to be visible. If they weren’t then more motorists would get fined, start thinking of driving within the limit ALL OF THE TIME and perhaps banned from driving if they can’t. I mean, if you do not operate your vehicle and drive in the manner when you applied to become a ‘member’ of The Car Owning Club of Great Britain by passing your test, why should you not be penalised and perhaps eventually lose your membership because you just cannot follow the rules that apply to everyone else?
Finally. I don’t live next to the A34 but sufficiently far away to not be troubled by normal levels of traffic noise.
When I am in my house behind double glazing and can hear Lewis Hamilton having a spin along the A34 my first thoughts are for the poor souls who live much nearer to Mr Hamilton as he whizzes by and how they must be getting a bit fed up and want something done about it - unlike Mr Berkeley Thirsk and Mr John Harries.
If the problem does not get sorted I would suggest that such persons affected should be allowed a reduction in their council tax, which might then galvanise those who run our lives into some sort of effective proposals.
Some of those cars also drive over the speed limit - as do some other vehicles which don't make excess noise (eg electric cars). The Police have powers to deal with those offences too.
Why CEC can't link up with the Police to facilitate them doing their job is beyond me!
Crucially, our elected councillors were left in the dark about inaction on the PSPO and the camera removal. Those who I contacted all thought that the camera was still in place and that a PSPO was in the pipeline, but it never was.
In a failure of governance, officers have been allowed to define policy and expect residents to tolerate noise nuisance. That contrasts with the proactive approaches of other local authorities.
Erratum:
In my comment I meant "I doubt there are ANY vehicles capable of going round a roundabout at 70mph.'