The stretch of the A38 near the crossing point at Streethay
The stretch of the A38 near the crossing point at Streethay

Walkers say they are being forced to dash across a busy dual carriageway due to the closure of a public right of way in Lichfield.

The existing link between the Coventry Canal and Streethay has been shut to allow for the construction of HS2.

But local resident Phil Thornett has now written to Lichfield MP Michael Fabricant and HS2 to raise concerns over the safety impact of the move.

“The closure severely impacts the safe access to the Coventry Canal countryside and the local public house for the residents of Streethay.

“HS2 employees at the site were sympathetic, but when I enquired as to an alternative right of way or deviation, they directed my friend and I to an uncontrolled, poorly maintained and frankly dangerous foot crossing of the A38 – one of the busiest roads in the local area.

“We attempted the crossing as directed, but we were trapped for 15 minutes in the central reservation awaiting a small gap in traffic that we could dash through. It is incredibly unsafe, adds 2km to the journey and certainly does not serve as a fit diversion for the original.

“Is there a safer alternative, or a number of phased alternatives that could enable both the continuation of the construction activities as well as the access for local residents to the Coventry Canal path?  Could any element of the site footprint be phased differently so as to reduce the duration of the closure?”

Phil Thornett

The closure of the right of way and the diversion across the A38 will be in place for four years as construction on the controversial high speed rail route continues.

Lichfield MP Michael Fabricant says he has asked for a temporary footbridge to be put in place to resolve the issues.

“I have taken this up with HS2 – as has Phil – asking whether a more suitable route can be devised.

“I have proposed a temporary footbridge constructed to avoid the need for pedestrians having to cross the busy four lanes of the A38.

“Phil is fit and well and able to dash across the A38 – others may not be able to do this so easily. In any event, it’s a highly dangerous manoeuvre for anyone with cars speeding along the dual carriageway.

“HS2 have a duty of care and providing a route which is poorly maintained and dangerous is not the answer and is wholly irresponsible. They cannot ask people to take their lives into their hands. 

“This does not augur well for other work in the area.”

Michael Fabricant

Join the Conversation


Our volunteers moderated 1142 comments in the last 30 days. Say thanks with a coffee.

  1. I understand the need for diversions while the work is o going BUT the safe alternative should be in place before the work started. Why did the council give a temporary closure of a public right of way if no alternative had been planned?

  2. I was wondering that Raymond. The Plough at Huddlesford? Not very local but I can’t think of anything else that side of the A38. Going to be a far more dangerous crossing after a few pints.

  3. I had someone run across the front of me. A stupid thing to do. Suppose had I hit him it would have been my fault.
    The A38 is a nightmare.

  4. I thought the agreement was that the public footpath would remain open but with supervised access ?

  5. A38 is naughty at best of times, can’t blame pedestrians for this and it should have been planned and executed way in advance. Its almost like LDC had something to do with it…

  6. There is a need for several permanent pedestrian bridges on the A38 towards Burton. There are signs warning of pedestrians crossing, but when you are doing 60 and someone steps into the road ahead of you, it’s no joke.

  7. I have experienced this. Returning from Burton hospital I suddenly had a man run across the front of me. No joke. How I missed him I’ll never know.

  8. I would like to see the risk assessment that was carried out in relation to this public right of way and its ‘temporary closure” Surely it is the responsibility of LDC in conjunction with the contractor to ensure a “Safe”! alternative is in place. This appears not to have been the case. Negligent at best.

Leave a comment
Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy before posting.

Your email address will not be published.