North Somerset Council

REPORT TO THE Executive Member for StraTegic Planning & Transport

Date of Meeting: 15^th January 2007

Subject of Report: Heavy goods vehicles on THE A368/B3134

Town or parish: Churchill, Burrington, Blagdon

Officer presenting: Stephen Walford, Principal Transport Policy Officer

Key Decision: YES

OpTIONS

It is recommended that the Executive Member select a course of action from those set out below:

1. Do not implement any weight restriction at the present time. Continue to utilise the North Somerset Freight Working Group as the best means by which to engage with the haulage industry and to raise concerns about routeing direct with the industry at this forum.

2. Implement a 7.5t weight restriction between Churchill crossroads (A38) and Burrington Combe (B3134).

3. Implement an experimental 7.5t weight restriction between Churchill crossroads (A38) and Burrington Combe (B3134).

The impact of the selected option will be monitored by the addition of a ‘HGV over 7.5t’ category to the council’s current manual classified traffic count programme.

1. Summary of Report

This report follows on from a report presented in March 2006 on the same subject, and puts forward the results of the study undertaken in response to the recommendation arising from that report. It then compares these results with previous surveys and other data so as to determine whether a weight restriction should be implemented in order to reduce the number of HGVs using this stretch of road.

2. Policy

The options in this report relate specifically to the objective to maintain and protect the quality of our built and natural environment as set out in the Community Strategy, whilst also balancing the need to increase prosperity and manage economic well being. These proposals (if taken forward) would also impact upon the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) objective to improve the quality of life for local residents, and improve air quality (in this case across the Mendip AONB area). However, it is anticipated that any resultant implementation works would be funded from the JLTP Integrated Transport capital programme, and therefore it should be highlighted that contribution towards transport targets is minimal and therefore that value for money is highly questionable with regards to this scheme.

Reducing the number of HGVs crossing the Mendips would support some policy objectives set out in the Mendip Hills AONB Management Plan, specifically policy 8.1.1.

3. Background

Local Issues

The initial question concerning freight in this particular area was raised at the council meeting of 27^th September 2005, where it was confirmed that steps would be taken to investigate the delivery of a scheme to reduce HGV movements across the Mendips, particularly Burrington Combe and villages in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Investigations were undertaken which determined that:

· It is Somerset County Council’s opinion that the A371 and the (broadly parallel) B3134 should share the load of HGV traffic, and therefore that they would not support any restriction on the B3134;

· Due to the lack of available turning points on the B3134, Somerset’s objection means no restriction can be implemented on the B3134;

· No restriction can be implemented on the A368 west of the A38 junction (Churchill crossroads) unless it is removed from the Primary Route Network (PRN). It is possible to make an application to GOSW/DfT to remove roads from the PRN, but was this to be successful there would be a revenue implication, as the council receives more maintenance funding per km of PRN than it does for non-PRN roads. Previous discussions with GOSW have indicated that a strong case would need to be made before any application would be considered.

Following these investigations, a report was presented to the Executive Member for Strategic Planning and Transport in March 2006. The outcome of which was to commission a detailed survey on the A368 and B3134 to include interviewing HGV drivers to determine their journey origin and destination. This survey was undertaken on 13^th July 2006.

Since the survey has been completed, an officer from Bath and North East Somerset Council has written to the council stating that they do not support the implementation of a weight restriction on the A368. This means that any restriction will need to be contained wholly within North Somerset.

Regional Issues

The emerging (and currently draft) Regional Transport Strategy [RTS – part of the Regional Spatial Strategy] contains policies that seek to encourage HGVs onto appropriate routes. Appended to the RTS is the Regional Freight Map (January 2006), which classifies roads into the following 3 categories:

i. National Freight Routes = M5;

ii. Regional Freight Routes = A38; and

iii. County Freight Routes = A370 and A369 (M5 J19 to Portishead).

The Map does not show local freight routes, and during the formulation of the RFM the council successfully argued to have the A368 removed from the regional map as it didn’t want to promote it as a regional freight route. Hence, the Map does not classify the A368, B3134 or the A371 (between the A38 at Sidcot, Banwell and Weston-super-Mare) as regional freight routes; however, the A371 between the A38 and Wells is identified as a County Freight Route.

The RTS and Freight Map will be considered at the RSS Examination in Public in Spring 2007; however, changes to the Freight Map are not anticipated.

4. Consultation

Prior to the report produced in March 2006, meetings took place at Officer level between the authorities of B&NES and Somerset, both of whom requested further detailed survey work be undertaken before they could consider support for the scheme. This discussion has continued, most notably through the forum of the North Somerset Freight Working Group.

Detailed and lengthy discussions have taken place at the working group, with opinion broadly divided between those who wish to see HGV movements routed elsewhere, and those who operate businesses in the area who would be adversely affected by any such restriction. At the time of this report, no majority view existed with both sides unlikely to find a compromise.

As stated in the March 2006 report, this matter is of significant interest to a number of residents and businesses within North Somerset who would potentially be affected by any restriction. The council received a number of representations from interested parties prior to the production of that report.

There has been strong support from both the CPRE and TMTV for a weight restriction on the A368; this position is backed by several Parish Councils. However the council also received circa 90 written responses, largely from local businesses, against any proposals for a weight restriction (on the A368), and these objections remain. The trade organisations of the Road Haulage Association (RHA) and Freight Transport Association (FTA), representing the interests of their members, are also strongly opposed to any restriction.

Also of significance is the view of the Mendip Hills AONB service who, whilst naturally wishing to see a reduction in HGVs using the roads across the Mendips, recognise that any restriction may simply push HGVs to other (equally inappropriate) routes. They are also strongly supportive of businesses that operate in and around the AONB and would not want to see any measure implemented which would have an adverse effect on the local economy.

It is sufficient to say that consultation on this issue has been extensive and ongoing, with no clear preferred (or bilaterally satisfactory) position emerging from the key stakeholders.

5. Results of the Survey

The survey was undertaken by Somerset County Council, and was funded jointly by North Somerset and Somerset County Councils.

The results were analysed and a written report was produced which is included within appendix A. The main points arising from this are set out below:

· On the A368 (eastbound), 26 HGVs were counted in the 12-hour period. Of these, 25 were interviewed, and 88% were deemed to be local movements.

· On the B3134 (eastbound), 85 HGVs were counted in the 12-hour period. Of these, 58 were interviewed, and 86% were deemed to be local movements.

· On the B3134 (westbound), 71 HGVs were counted in the 12-hour period. Of these, 57 were interviewed, and 72% were deemed to be local movements.

It should be noted that, for the purposes of analysis, a journey with an origin or destination within 10 miles was categorised as local.

Unfortunately the study was unable to interview HGV traffic using the A368 westbound, as there was no suitable (safe) location to pull over the HGVs to allow them to be interviewed.

In order to determine the robustness of these results, they were compared with previous and historical data from surveys in the area. This analysis is shown within appendix B, and shows that the results gained from the surveys undertaken in July 2006 correspond with previous data collected in Feb/March 2006, when additional surveys were undertaken to monitor the effects of the closure of West St in Banwell (which was closed due to maintenance). In addition, these ‘Banwell closure’ surveys showed broad alignment with the previous HGV study that was undertaken in July 2004.

By comparisons with past work the results of the most recent surveys have been demonstrated to be robust, and whilst continued differences remain amongst stakeholders as to the definition of ‘local’, the total number of HGVs using this road is not disputed.

It should be noted that CPRE and TMTV substantially disagree with the analysis of the survey results and believe that a far greater proportion of HGVs could be diverted to alternative routes. TMTV presented a detailed route analysis identifying alternative routes, and in response to this a number of local hauliers were asked to explain why their vehicles were using the A368 rather than an alternative. The responses invariably showed that using a different route was uneconomic, and demonstrated that with low value products, a difference of a few miles (or additional journey time) can mean the difference between a viable and non-viable economic case.

6. Identification of Options

The table below sets out the key points for each option, and summarises what has been set out in section 3 above (background), what has been learned through consultation, and what options this leaves for taking this matter forward.

	Description	Advantages	Disadvantages	Deliverable?	Option to Progress?
(a)	Implement weight restriction on the B3134 Burrington Combe.	May reduce the number of HGVs using the road.	May push HGVs onto other routes that are equally inappropriate. No enforcement will be undertaken.	No. Somerset County Council will not support a restriction (due to impact on A371).	No.
(b)	Implement weight restriction on A368 through Banwell.	May reduce the number of HGVs using the road.	May push HGVs onto other routes that are equally inappropriate, notably Stock Lane. No enforcement will be undertaken.	No. A368 west of A38 crossroads is Primary Route Network (PRN) which cannot be restricted without removing the A368 from the PRN.	No.
(c)	Implement weight restriction on A368 between A38 and B3134.	May reduce the number of HGVs using the road.	May push HGVs onto other routes that are equally inappropriate. The (short) length of the restriction will mean a large number of ‘local’ HGVs divert to other routes to avoid the restriction (i.e. there are few, if any, HGV ODs in this section). No enforcement will be undertaken.	Yes. The stretch of road is entirely within North Somerset, although dealing with likely objections could prove difficult.	Yes.
(d)	Implement an experimental weight restriction on A368 between A38 and B3134.	May reduce the number of HGVs using the road. Gives opportunity to evaluate level of success before deciding on permanent position.	May push HGVs onto other routes that are equally inappropriate. The (short) length of the restriction will mean a large number of ‘local’ HGVs divert to other routes to avoid the restriction (i.e. there are few, if any, HGV ODs in this section). No enforcement will be undertaken.	Yes. The stretch of road is entirely within North Somerset, and the TRO process is simplified for experimental orders.	Yes.
(e)	Implement weight restriction on A368 between A38 and a point further east such as West Harptree.	May reduce the number of HGVs using the road. Would confer ‘access’ rights to operators working within the restriction.	May push HGVs onto other routes that are equally inappropriate. No enforcement will be undertaken.	No. The officer response from Bath and North East Somerset Council is that they will not support a restriction.	No.
(f)	Do not implement any restriction and continue to work in partnership with all stakeholders through the NS freight working group.	Operators heavily involved in this matter – significant awareness has been raised of the need to use alternatives where possible.	Less likely to have any direct impact on reducing HGV numbers.	Yes. Continues the status quo.	Yes.

7. Financial Implications

The implications of the various options as set out at the top of this report are as follows:

1. No restriction - no additional cost.

2. Implementing a (permanent) restriction between the two junctions of A368/A38 and A368/B3134 would cost in the region of £7,000, plus officer time.

3. Implementing an experimental restriction between the two junctions of A368/A38 and A368/B3134 would cost in the region of £7,000, plus officer time. There would also be an additional monitoring cost to evaluate the impact of the restriction; the estimated cost of this would be £15,000 based on 3 sets of surveys over an envisaged experimental order period of 18 months.

Implementation costs could be found from the LTP integrated transport capital programme; however, this would be at the expense of other (more target-related) schemes.

Revising the current programme of manual traffic counts to specifically record ‘HGVs over 7.5t’ does not have an additional cost, other than in terms of officer time.

8. Risk Assessment

A risk analysis has been undertaken and is summarised below:

It is therefore the case that the options as set out in this report have minimal risks associated with them.

9. Equality Implications

None.

10. Corporate Implications

None

11. Options considered

The options for progressing this issue are set out under the ‘Options’ heading at the top of this report.

The further option of implementing some kind of permit system to regulate HGV use on the A368 has been discounted on the grounds that any system would need to be self-financing (i.e. at no cost to the authority). This option was further discounted by the fact that the Police have confirmed there would be no enforcement of any permit system.

Author

Stephen Walford, Principal Transport Policy Officer, Ext 8519

Background Papers

Freight Movement on A368/B3134, Executive Member Report, March 2006, North Somerset Council

Appendices

Appendix A: A Review of Heavy Goods Vehicle Traffic Using the A368 and B3134, September 2006, Somerset County Council.

Appendix B: Summary of the Data and Results from Historical Surveys in the Area.