Meeting documents

1 THE ISSUE

1.1 Amendments were necessary to the Bath Package Major Scheme Bid in order to ensure a strong Business Case was submitted to Department for Transport. Separate funding arrangements now need to be identified for the elements of the Package which have been removed from the bid.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 The Rossiter Road traffic management scheme as identified in the Joint Local Transport Plan is added to the 5-year transport capital programme with implementation programmed for 2008/09.

2.2 A scheme is provisionally programmed for 2008/09 in the 5-year transport capital programme to introduce weight restrictions to prevent the through movement of lorries in Bath, with access permitted for deliveries. Discussions will continue with neighbouring authorities (particularly Wiltshire County Council) and freight representative bodies to resolve concerns over the displacement of lorries away from Bath.

3  FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 The Rossiter Road traffic management scheme is estimated to cost £800,000 to implement. This can be funded from the annual transport capital programme block allocation for integrated transport, provided through the Joint Local Transport Plan. This allocation is around £2.5m per annum, and there is sufficient headway in the programme to accommodate the Rossiter Road scheme in 2008/09.

3.2 The main capital cost of implementing a weight restriction will be the provision of signs on the Trunk Road network advising drivers of the restriction in Bath. Costs are unknown at this stage, but might be expected to be in the range £200,000 to £300,000. This can be funded from future transport capital programme block allocations for integrated transport.

3.3 The weight restriction, if approved, would have some revenue budget implications, due to the need to issue permits and deal with enforcement. It is possible that this could be accommodated within existing work plans, in the same way that bus gate permits have been. Once full details are known, the impact will be considered in the Service Planning process in due course.

4 COMMUNITY STRATEGY OUTCOMES

4.1 The following Community Strategy outcomes are relevant:

4.2 In particular, the schemes will support the Community Strategy objectives for travel (in particular by improving road safety) and the environment (through protection of the built environment and creating a cleaner local environment).

5 CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

5.1 The Rossiter Road scheme and a restriction on the movement of HGVs through Bath will contribute to two Corporate Improvement Priorities. They support "Improving the quality of public transport, roads and pavements and easing congestion" by making the roads and footways on the A4 and A36 routes in the city safer and less congested. They also help with "Improving the public realm" by reducing heavy traffic flows in the city, and in Widcombe Parade in particular, allowing improved footways and pedestrian environment, with significant social, economic and environmental benefits.

6 CPA KEY LINES OF ENQUIRY

6.1 The proposals will contribute to the following CPA Lines of Enquiry:

o Sustainable Communities and Transport

o Safer and Stronger Communities

o Healthier Communities

7.6 As part of the strategy for managing lorry movement in Bath, it is important to provide as efficient movement as possible for those lorries that need access into the City, and to minimise their environmental impact. The A36 currently carries lorries in the westbound direction through Widcombe Parade, causing disruption and environmental problems in this local centre and shopping street. It is proposed to remove all through traffic from Widcombe Parade by making the parallel Rossiter Road two-way.

7.7 The Rossiter Road scheme is more local than strategic in nature. In order to give both this scheme and the entire Bath Package the best chance of success, this scheme was removed from the Major Scheme. However as the local benefits are very strong, and in view of the priority given by the Council Executive in approving this element for inclusion in the Bath Package, it is recommended that the scheme be promoted separately by the Council. The historic safeguarded scheme was very expensive at approximately £2.0m and was not easily delivered due to its harmful impact on the Kennet and Avon Canal and extensive disruption during construction. A lower cost scheme was identified in the Joint Local Transport Plan costing approximately £0.8 million, which is much more straightforward to deliver and can be implemented by the Council from ongoing transport capital programme funding.

7.8 A lorry management scheme is proposed which would restrict the through movement of HGVs, supporting the congestion and air quality objectives. Subject to detailed consultation, the restriction could take the form of a weight limit on Warminster Road. A permit scheme would provide exemptions to the restrictions for lorries needing access to the city. Long-distance strategic signing would be provided to encourage use of motorways and trunk roads.

7.9 Whilst this proposal is popular with the public in Bath, it gives rise to concerns for neighbouring authorities, and freight representative bodies. These concerns are not yet fully resolved. This proposal has therefore been removed from the Major Scheme, and it is recommended that it be promoted separately by the Council. It is of relatively low cost, and subject to resolving the outstanding concerns, can be implemented by the Council from ongoing transport capital programme funding.

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

8.1 The report author and Lead Executive member have fully reviewed the risk assessment related to the issue and recommendations, in compliance with the Council's decision making risk management guidance.

9 RATIONALE

9.1 It would be inappropriate to include the Rossiter Road scheme proposal in the Bath Package Major Scheme, due to the effect on the economic appraisal of the Bath Package Bid. Inclusion would reduce the prospects of the Bid being accepted by Department for Transport. It should be noted that the Rossiter Road scheme is expected to have economic benefits for the local community, however these benefits cannot be taken into account in assessing the transport economic efficiency of the Package in accordance with DfT criteria.

9.2 The Rossiter Road scheme will be of relatively low cost (compared to the remaining components of the Bath Package Bid), and it will be more appropriate for the Council to fund the scheme from the routine Transport capital programme which is supported by an annual integrated transport block allocation from DfT.

9.3 It would be inappropriate to include the HGV restrictions in the Bath Package Major Scheme, as the details are not yet sufficiently well defined. As it will be of relatively low cost (compared to the remaining components of the Bath Package Bid) the Council can fund the restriction from the Transport capital programme in due course.

10 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

10.1 The inclusion of the schemes in the Major Scheme Bid was considered, but ultimately rejected to ensure the strongest possible Business Case for the Bath Package, as explained in paragraph 7.3 above.

10.2 It would be possible to leave the schemes un-programmed for the time being. However it is recommended that they be programmed in order to allow preparatory work and consultation to continue.

11 CONSULTATION

11.1 Ward Councillor; Executive Councillor; Overview & Scrutiny Panel; Community Interest Groups; Section 151 Finance Officer; Chief Executive; Monitoring Officer

11.2 Extensive Stakeholder and Public Consultation took place in 2005 during the preparation of the Joint LTP and the Bath Package Scheme. The Rossiter Road traffic management scheme received good support in the public consultation, and is strongly supported by Widcombe Association, who have submitted a petition and other documents urging that the scheme proceeds.

11.3 HGV restrictions were a very popular initiative during the public consultation, with 93% support, and is supported by a 3400-name petition submitted last year by the Bath Chronicle as part of their No Through Route campaign.

12 ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN REACHING THE DECISION

12.1 Sustainability, Health & Safety

13 ADVICE SOUGHT

13.1 The Council's Monitoring Officer (Council Solicitor) and Section 151 Officer (Resources Director) have had the opportunity to input to this report and have cleared it for publication.