Agenda item

Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) travelling through Bath have been a concern for many years, particularly along A4 London Road, over Cleveland Bridge and A36 Bathwick Street.  Local residents are concerned about the contribution made by HGVs to poor air quality, road safety issues, intimidation experienced by vulnerable road users and damage to the Bath World Heritage Site.

Cleveland Bridge is currently being repaired and a temporary Traffic Regulation Order restricting HGVs over 18 tonnes from using the bridge is in place. Once the refurbishment works are completed the temporary weight restriction will no longer apply and the route will continue to form part of Primary Route Network with unrestricted use. This report examines the options available to the Council to improve the traffic situation at Cleveland Bridge as well as improving air quality and safety throughout the city.

The Chair invited Councillor Manda Rigby to read out her statement.

Councillor Rigby read out the following statement:

‘Firstly, I’d like to thank the officers for their officers’ report, but more specifically, I think we owe them huge thanks for the exceptional way this work on the bridge has been done.

The Cleveland Bridge renovation is a very significant project for this Council. This is a 200-year-old bridge, never intended for this volume and weight of traffic, and the mitigations put in place in 1927 are also struggling to handle the wear and tear.

We are replacing degraded concrete, ensuring that the iron work is sound, and waterproofing to prevent any further damage caused by water ingress.

We aren’t at the end point yet, but despite: COVID cases, materials being delayed, and more work than anticipated once the scaffolding was up; we currently hope to reopen the bridge to cars, as well as pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles, 3 months after it shut as planned, which would be an amazing achievement.

I can’t think of any other project of this scale, and on a Grade 2* listed structure, anywhere in the country that has come in anywhere near on time.

In the interim, we have been working hard on what to do next, and I’d like to share my thoughts on progress so far, and what I’d like to see happening next.

The current situation is that: on completion of the works, the weight limit which was in place prior to them will expire, and there will be no limits on the type of traffic which can use the bridge, unless we manage to get such a limit put on it.

This is because it forms part of the primary route network, therefore decisions about its usage are not in our hands.

Whilst appreciating the officer report in front of us tonight, which outlines several ways forwards, and understanding the rationale behind why it was written in this way, I think it does not go far enough. We need to be bolder in looking at absolutely all options in front of us.

One of the existing proposals is a strategic study with regional partners – where all the region’s authorities examine plans for cross region transport, specifically looking at the best way to get freight to and from the M4 to the Southern ports, and there may well be a plan for a different North South link proposed.

Work on this Western Gateway project is currently ongoing, but the amount of time this will take is counted in decades not years. We can't assume regional agreement will be reached and we can’t just wait for this to be the solution.

The people of Bath can’t wait another 10-15 years for relief from through traffic HGVs.

Because there is the rub. In order to change the status of the road and take it out of the Primary Route network, Wiltshire Council has to agree. Despite our best efforts, such agreement does not appear to be achievable, not even for temporary diversions during work.

This is a great shame.

A lot of the A350 route has been widened to dual carriageway now, at great public expense. It does not pass immediately by anywhere near as many houses to get from the M4 to the South coast, and those it does pass are not primarily Listed. It is mainly on the plain, not in a valley trapping pollution.

We are not in the business of exporting our problems elsewhere, but we are in the business of standing up for our community, and to us, it is only right that all parts of the network, including Wiltshire, take their fair share of traffic.

It is unreasonable to have had the amount of money spent on upgrading their roads, way in excess of any grant for Cleveland Bridge, and then not to take the HGVs.

Indeed, if they continue to refuse to do this, we will all suffer, as within a much shorter period of time, we will be back to closing the bridge for repairs again.

It was never meant to carry this volume and this weight of traffic, and remember, this is about through traffic using Bath as a rat run, not those lorries delivering goods into Bath.

The £3.5m we are spending from the public purse now will need to be spent again in 10-15 years’ time if HGVs go back to pummelling the bridge as before. It would be so much better to fully fund a permanent solution.

So, what can we do? The answer is: we have looked and will continue to look at all mechanisms possible.

We have already sought advice on whether we could reintroduce tolling and set it at a level which would deter the heaviest vehicles, could we use any other charging mechanism for just one class of vehicle?

In terms of TROs – a traffic regulation order which is necessary to change the rules on a certain road – although the attempted TRO weight limit one failed in 2012, after a legal challenge from Wiltshire, a lot has changed since then. The climate emergency has been declared and millions of pounds have been spent on upgrading Wiltshire roads. It stands a better chance of success now than it did.

A TRO based on air quality may fail as it would be considered double jeopardy, with charges already in place via the CAZ, but we don’t yet know what the future of the CAZ will be once we get all the data necessary, so this option should also be explored.

A TRO based on protecting the heritage asset? If there’s a place in the UK where this should be possible, its Bath, with its overarching World Heritage status and its new Great Spas of Europe World Heritage listing as well.

It’s possible that none of these might work, I must make you aware of that, but they definitely won’t work unless we try them and give them our very best resource.

If we don’t manage to find a mechanism to reduce HGVs using Bath as a through-route, then it won’t be for the want of trying every possible way. We are fighting for cleaner air, reduced through traffic and a better environment.

Whilst acknowledging and noting the officers report, I'd welcome amendments moved to instruct myself and officers to progress all the mechanisms possible to limit HGVs, for the benefit of all in Bath, and support our neighbouring authorities to get further funding where adaptations to their roads would make it better for HGVs to use them. I am convinced that there must be a solution which gives a net benefit to the region, I am equally convinced that keeping with the status quo is not the right thing to do.

If we can restrict HGV through traffic, it will benefit the whole city and the surrounding area. Doing nothing is not an option.’

The Chair invited Councillor Richard Samuel to read out his statement and move the revised recommendations.

Councillor Richard Samuel read out the following statement:

‘Bath has many traffic problems that bedevil the city. The fact of inconvenient geography and the historic UNESCO setting precludes the by-passes many other similar cities have built. The lack of sufficient bridges and the impossibility of building new ones for vehicles is a further problem. Added to which the situation is the situation of the city in a deep valley bowl with strong planning and environmental designations in place.

In the past 50 years another problem has crept up on the city and those of us who are concerned for its care and protection are faced today with dealing with it. That problem is the centralised distribution and delivery arrangements our economy demands and the dominance of large supermarkets. These arrangements are serviced by increasingly large HGVs of up to 44 tonnes and if the government has its way will soon be followed by the 48 tonne megalithic lorries as used in continental Europe. Here I use the term megalithic to describe not only the size but also the outdated form of freight distribution they represent.

The impact of HGVs on the historic city of Bath is corrosive. Road surfaces are damaged constantly by the hammering they take from these beasts, historic structures have been hit, the sheer difficulty of manoeuvring these HGVs causes congestion and delays. In a nutshell Bath’s street were not built for these giants.

But there is another insidious problem. That is the pollution these vehicles emit both NOx and CO2. The former has a serious impact on health for residents along roads where these vehicles travel. NOx emissions have undoubtedly fallen in recent years as cleaner vehicles have been introduced and that of course was one of the reasons for introducing the Bath Clean Air zone that I campaigned for in 2017. Nationally it is estimated that HGVs emitted 19.5m metric tonnes of CO2 per year – the second largest emitter after private cars. The non-monetarised dis-benefits such as impacts on physical or mental health have never been quantified as far as I am aware but arguably these are the most important issues for the community.

I now turn to the direct impact on my ward of Walcot. The London Road from Batheaston roundabout to Cleveland Place takes the highest volume of HGVs in the city. It also has the highest levels of NOx. But the most serious impact is on the quality of life for the thousands of residents who live on or near London Road. Their quiet enjoyment is daily disturbed by the continuous roar of HGVs. Cycling on the carriageway is unpleasant and at times unsafe. Life as a pedestrian whether walking with children to school or going to work is a dispiriting polluted experience.

It is our duty as councillors in cabinet, and for me as a ward councillor to say on behalf of my and Bath’s residents enough is enough. It is time to put an end to the daily procession of oversized lorries through our historic streets and in particular over the historic Cleveland Bridge. This report has considered some options but for me it does not go far enough, and I cannot support it in its current form. I say this because I am long enough in the tooth to recognise something being kicked into the very long grass. The Western Gateway study whilst welcome is in essence the do-nothing option. When it does report if it gathers support then it will be a long time before a better safer route to the east becomes a reality. I therefore propose that the cabinet note this report for now but call for further work to examine more radical options to control and limit the use of Cleveland Bridge by HGVs.‘

Councillor Richard Samuel moved the following recommendations:

The Cabinet to agree that the Council should continue to:

1)  Work with Wiltshire and Dorset Councils and the Sub-Regional Transport Board (STB) Western Gateway to complete a strategic study into north-south connectivity between the M4 and the Dorset Coast with an aim of making the A350 the strategic route and limiting HGV use of Cleveland Bridge as part of the Governments Road Investment Strategy 2 (2020-25).

2)  Assess and review the position after completion of the study, recognising that any investment that would resolve the core issue would be considered, at the earliest, as part of the Road Investment Strategy 3 which covers the period 2025-30. The study would also inform discussions between BANES and the other stakeholders. It is considered that this approach is the one most likely to result in a positive outcome for both B&NES and the other stakeholders involved.

3)  Continue to make representations to Government about the need to improve the traffic situation at Cleveland Bridge, highlighting the changes to road conditions within Bath and the wider area since 2012 such as the changes to the A350 as part of the planned improvement and upgrade and the introduction of the Clean Air Zone in Bath.

4)  Officers are requested to:

  A.  Prepare a draft Traffic Regulation Order seeking to restrict HGV movements over Cleveland Bridge in order to preserve or improve the amenity of the area through which the road runs, in this case the grade 2* listed Cleveland Bridge structure and environs including the London Road and Bathwick St, in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  B.  Investigate and consider any other options that may exist for achieving a similar end to a TRO and report on both actions including the draft TRO to the November meeting of this Cabinet.

  C.  Consult with appropriate heritage and amenity groups in Bath including Residents’ Associations in the course of preparation of the TRO.

Councillor Manda Rigby seconded the motion.

Councillor Alison Born commented that Cleveland Bridge has been closed to repair the damage to the structure, caused by vehicle sizes weights and volumes that could not have been anticipated at the time that the bridge was built. The current closure has caused significant disruption, but the repairs could not have been done when the bridge was open, and importantly, the full extent of the damage would not be assessed. Councillor Born also said that the bridge was not designed to carry today's traffic and the repairs have been essential to safeguard the structure and uses of the bridge. The Cabinet would need an assurance that the bridge would not be subject to more repairs in the future due to heavy HGV traffic, and for those reasons Councillor Born suggested that  the officers should commission an external consultants to examine the bridge at the end of works, and reporting its predicted longevity under the scenarios of an 18 tonnes limit.

Councillor Dine Romero commented that HGVs travelling through and around Bath have been a concern for residents across the city not just around the bridge itself with more HGVs on roads in Southdown, such as on Whiteway Road have been reported. Councillor Romero asked for an assurance that the full consequences for all residents in the city and around the city would be considered before implementing any long-term measures restricting heavy lorries across this bridge.

Councillor Tom Davies agreed with the comments made by other Cabinet Members on this matter and added that the inevitable damage of the bridge, caused by HGVs in the past, would continue to happen, and that the Council must do everything to stop HGVs using Cleveland bridge, and to find a solution that would work for all.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet agreed to:

1)  Work with Wiltshire and Dorset Councils and the Sub-Regional Transport Board (STB) Western Gateway to complete a strategic study into north-south connectivity between the M4 and the Dorset Coast with an aim of making the A350 the strategic route and limiting HGV use of Cleveland Bridge as part of the Governments Road Investment Strategy 2 (2020-25).

2)  Assess and review the position after completion of the study, recognising that any investment that would resolve the core issue would be considered, at the earliest, as part of the Road Investment Strategy 3 which covers the period 2025-30. The study would also inform discussions between BANES and the other stakeholders. It is considered that this approach is the one most likely to result in a positive outcome for both B&NES and the other stakeholders involved.

3)  Continue to make representations to Government about the need to improve the traffic situation at Cleveland Bridge, highlighting the changes to road conditions within Bath and the wider area since 2012 such as the changes to the A350 as part of the planned improvement and upgrade and the introduction of the Clean Air Zone in Bath.

4)  Officers are requested to:

  A.  Prepare a draft Traffic Regulation Order seeking to restrict HGV movements over Cleveland Bridge in order to preserve or improve the amenity of the area through which the road runs, in this case the grade 2* listed Cleveland Bridge structure and environs including the London Road and Bathwick St, in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  B.  Investigate and consider any other options that may exist for achieving a similar end to a TRO and report on both actions including the draft TRO to the November meeting of this Cabinet.

  C.  Consult with appropriate heritage and amenity groups in Bath including Residents’ Associations in the course of preparation of the TRO.