Agendas, Minutes and Reports

Background 6.3

This note has been prepared in response to questions posed by the Strategic Planning and Economic Development Panel (SPED) at its meeting on 5^th February as follows:-

“That consideration be deferred for at least one cycle to enable the following matters to be addressed by the officers and reported back.

(1) the practicality of implementing Option 4 as proposed by Traffic Management for the Villages with the inclusion of the B3134;

(2) to consider the issue or peak period bans on HGV Traffic;

(3) to request the Freight Associations to consider the issues (1) and (2) above;

(4) that the officers look at the possibility of preventing empty school buses using the A368 during the peak period.”

Question 1

‘Option 4’ is defined as an experimental 7.5t weight restriction on the A368 between Churchill crossroads (A38) and Lag Farm (east of Blagdon), immediately west of the North Somerset boundary, plus the B3134 Burrington Combe to the council boundary.

This option was not included in the report to the Executive Member dated 15^th January 2007 because officers consider it would be unenforceable, unreasonable and ineffective without the co-operation and support of Bath & North East Somerset [B&NES] and Somerset County Councils [SCC]. It is understood the reasons why ‘Option 4’ is not feasible have been discussed at previous meetings of the Freight Working Group, but for clarification they are set below.

If the council was to implement ‘Option 4’ as an experiment, it must first advertise a Traffic Regulation Order [TRO] to that effect, which would include the alternative routes that HGVs should follow. These alternative routes would be in B&NES and/or SCC; it is known that SCC would object and the council has received an officer-drafted letter of objection from B&NES. As stated above, the view of the B&NES Executive Member is not yet known. The Avon and Somerset Constabulary has also stated that it would object.

The council could note the objections of neighbouring authorities, but proceed with the experimental TRO nonetheless (although the council could be subject to legal challenge – this is not known at the time of writing). Assuming no legal challenge, but no co-operation from B&NES and SCC, whilst weight restriction signs could be introduced on the A368 and B3134 within North Somerset; the necessary advanced advisory signage (of the restriction and alternative routes) that should be sited on roads in the neighbouring authorities could not be implemented.

Without this advance notice and without prior knowledge, a westbound HGV driver approaching from the east along the A368 or B3134 would only be aware of the restriction on reaching the North Somerset boundary. At this point, the driver would have to either u-turn immediately or proceed through the restriction. Clearly, u-turning an HGV on either the A368 or B3134 would be very problematic and unsafe; on the A368 the only possible turning area on highway authority land would be at the A368/B3134 and on the B3134 in the car park at the top of the Combe (assuming it was not filled with parked vehicles). The scheme would in effect force the driver to break the restriction and/or undertake u-turns, both of which would be unreasonable. It is highly likely that the prosecution of any driver contravening the restriction, given the lack of advance notice, would be challenged in the courts. In addition, given that such prosecution can only be made by the Police, who have objected to the proposal, it brings the whole issue into disrepute.

It was because of these reasons that officers did not recommend ‘Option 4’ and an alternative option for a restriction on the A368 between the A38 (Churchill) and B3114 (West Harptree, B&NES) was put forward for consideration by the Executive Member. This would address the advance signage problem on the A368 (although not on the B3134), but would still need the co-operation of B&NES.

Question 2

Peak or defined time period restrictions are technically feasible and the Road Haulage Association has indicated a willingness to consider it (see attached). However, enforcement would still be an issue and the Police can be expected to object to the proposal. The numbers of HGVs that could be affected would be modest; the following table shows the total number of HGVs recorded in the March 2006 surveys.

Total HGVs, Mar’06 surveys	Time Period	Wbd to Banwell	Ebd to Sandford
A368 Banwell East Street	AM 7:00 - 9:00	15	13
	PM 16:30 - 18:30	1	3
	Total Peak	16	16
	Total (07- 19)	68	72
	AM Peak %	22%	18%
	PM Peak %	1%	4%
	Both Peaks	24%	22%
		Wbd to Rickford	Ebd to Ubley
A368 Blagdon	AM 7:00 - 9:00	14	17
	PM 16:30 - 18:30	1	3
	Total Peak	15	20
	Total (07- 19)	72	71
	AM Peak %	19%	24%
	PM Peak %	1%	4%
	Both Peaks	21%	28%
		Sbd from Mendips	Nbd to Mendips
B3134 Burrington	AM 7:00 - 9:00	18	22
	PM 16:30 - 18:30	7	10
	Total Peak	25	32
	Total (07- 19)	93	92
	AM Peak %	19%	24%
	PM Peak %	8%	11%
	Both Peaks	27%	35%

Question 3

Responses are attached or will be submitted at SPED.

Question 4

Officers have considered the idea of preventing council-contracted school buses returning empty along the A368. Firstly, an alternative route or parking for the vehicles must be identified, which would attract considerable opposition in its own right. The alternative route would be longer and incur increased costs to the council. Children & Young Persons Services has confirmed that potentially 15 services would be affected by this suggestion, although some of these may go on to the east to undertake other work and not return through Banwell.

There are also commercial school bus services, which would be difficult to remove from the A368 because it would be virtually impossible to enforce; it would need a TRO, the Police would certainly object and it would require non-standard signing, which requires DfT approval (which cannot be taken for granted). The operators affected would certainly object due to the increased costs they would face and could force a public inquiry. This would be due to the increased time and/ or length of journey they would have to make as a result of the ban.

Those school bus services provided commercially could either be withdrawn, leading to increased car use and the consequential impacts on congestion and pollution; or the operators could increase their fares, but this also runs the risk of a transfer to the private car and could undermine the viability of the service. Given these potential business impacts and the objections of the Police, the council’s case at an inquiry would be weak.

Overall, the use of buses is an efficient way of transporting a large number of people to school and, despite the occasional adverse impact of these on the A368, it is considered that these would be less severe than the likely car- based approach to accessing the school. It should also be noted that the use of buses for journeys to school is consistent with council’s policies for promoting sustainable travel.

Appendix

Appended to this note is correspondence received by the council by the print deadline of Noon 28^th February; correspondence received after the print deadline will be circulated as soon as possible or at SPED itself.

Authors –

Colin Medus, Transport Planning Manager, Ext: 8507

Alistair Rice, Transport Project Officer, Ext: 8500