Agenda item

This report provides a progress update on actions requested of officers at the September 2021 meeting of the Cabinet and some proposed recommendations.

Councillor Mandy Rigby introduced the report and made the following statement:

“I am splitting this speech into 2 bits. I will introduce the paper I am asking you to support shortly, but first, I'd like to take this opportunity to give my Cabinet colleagues and those who are watching a verbal update on the condition of the bridge and the status of the works.

Engineering work on Bath’s historic Cleveland Bridge will continue in the run up to Christmas, pause from 23rd December and resume on January 4. 

The bridge will remain closed to HGVs but will continue to be open for vehicles under two metres in width under traffic signals.

A fuller update on the programme of renovation works is anticipated in mid-January. 

Since temporary supports were installed at the end of October, crucial sections of the bridge trusses have been repaired, however repairs on a fourth truss are more extensive and work is ongoing. 

Another temporary platform has been erected under the bridge deck on upstream side of the river allowing for more detailed inspection of the bridge. It has resulted in the identification of a further 28 repairs in addition to 21 already accounted for. Investigation work is also under way on downstream side of the structure.

Engineers are looking at all options to progress the repairs as safely and quickly as possible but at this stage we are unable to confirm when the bridge will be fully opened. 

Pedestrians, cyclists and cars can use the bridge and an exception has been made for emergency vehicles, which will be able to access the bridge via a gate specifically for their use.

Diversion routes for all other vehicles and through traffic on the A36 via South Gloucestershire are available on the council’s Cleveland Bridge webpage.

Work on the £3.8 million project to repair and safeguard the Grade II* listed structure began in May under temporary traffic signals before the bridge was closed to all vehicle traffic on 28 June.

The extent of the works includes repairs to the bridge deck and concrete supporting structure, along with repainting of the cast iron arches and parapets and waterproofing to prevent future weather damage. 

However, due to the uncertainty this may have an impact on other planned maintenance and events that require road closures that are scheduled in for next year. We are working to understand this risk fully, but we will be discussing with event planners and other stakeholders shortly.

The project is currently funded through the Government’s Highways Challenge Fund. 

Moving on to the paper in front of you about future options for the bridge.

I am asking Cabinet to agree with points 1-5 in the recommendations. 

This paper is a direct result of the cabinet meeting held on September 9th when officers were instructed to examine all options for charging and/or restricting HGV movements across Cleveland bridge. 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.  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 find a permanent solution.

In essence having examined all the routes open to us, there are 2 main options left, a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), or a road user charge potentially through CAZ, as imposition of a toll, using either existing local legislation, or other tolling powers has been deemed currently unfeasible.

Cleveland Bridge forms part of the PRN, primary route network, therefore all TROs whether based on air quality, safety, or heritage grounds if it diverts traffic to adversely affect other parts of the PRN are subject to appeal to the department of transport.

We have worked extremely hard, and will continue to work hard with Wiltshire, Somerset, South Gloucestershire Councils, National Highways, and the Secretary of State, both directly and via the Western Gateway board, to try to reach agreement but in the absence of doing so, the risk of a successful PRN appeal is very high.

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.

That being the case, it is recommended the recommendation before us this evening is that we progress examining extending the charging mechanism in the Clean Air Zone to include initially HGVs over 12 Tonnes. 

Given the very positive reaction from HGV operators to the CAZ so far, there is an opportunity to go further, faster. Indeed, the HGV roadmap published by the automotive council says in the period 2020-2025 we should expect hybrid and electric vehicles to start to complement the lower emission vehicles, and we are as Cllr Warren has highlighted in the previous item under a direction to ensure compliance with air quality limit values in the shortest possible time.

Remember, this is not Bath’s traffic. This is through traffic bringing congestion and pollution, not economic benefit. 

I want to commend the officers for their work on this, leaving no stone unturned, no avenue unexplored, to allow us to protect our residents and our heritage from the blight of excessive overweight HGVs”.

Councillor Manda Rigby moved the recommendations.

Councillor Richard Samuel seconded the motion and made the following statement:

“Chairman, in seconding this report I wish to speak to the relief that residents in my ward along London Road have felt since the 18-ton HGV weight ban was introduced. I have already referred to the obvious reduction in pollution levels caused by the effective removal of heavy goods vehicles to levels not experienced for decades. Residents will have seen a noticeable improvement in air quality making it better for children and those with poor health.

In no circumstances can HGVs be allowed to ever return uncontrolled to the London Road because the evidence is now clearly before us that they are a major cause of elevated NOx levels.

So, with this clear evidence we must now look to the future.

It is clear that using conventional solutions to tackle excessive HGV volumes is unrealistic. They are fraught with legal difficulties and risk challenge from other local authorities. However, the potential way forward set out in para 2.4 that extends the CAZ charge to all vehicles over a weight of 12 tonnes offers a solution. I feel this needs to be given the green light and officers asked to progress this at pace. It also potentially fits neatly with the need to review the operation of certain aspects of the CAZ I mentioned in relation to the previous report.

Chairman, residents in the London Road and Paragon want to see a big improvement in their quality of life. Work is underway on the Snow Hill LN, planning is in the pipeline for improved cycle provision on London Road, plans are coming forward for better bus priority, the last piece of the jigsaw is to prevent a return of uncontrolled HGVs to London Road and Cleveland Bridge – changes to the CAZ charging order offer the best prospect for that hope. This Lib Dem administration is delivering for residents in my ward so I second these recommendations particularly emphasising the role that 2.4 can play”.

RESOLVED (unanimously) to recommend that the Cabinet on 16^th December 2021:

1.  Note that in the absence of a solution to restrict HGV movements over the bridge which has been agreed with the haulage trade associations, neighbouring authorities, National Highways and the Secretary of State, all unilateral options carry high degrees of risk of a PRN appeal and/or a legal challenge.

2.  In light of the resolution made at the 9 September Cabinet Meeting (E3303) to adopt recommendation 2.1 in the corresponding Officer report, recognise the need to maintain good working relationships with the Council’s neighbouring authorities and National Highways so as not to undermine the investment being made into a wider, strategic study into north-south connectivity between the M4 and the Dorset Coast with an aim of making the A350 the strategic route and thereby limiting HGV use of Cleveland Bridge as part of the Government’s Road Investment Strategy 2 (2020-25).

3.  Consider strengthening the Council’s transport policies to: protect the amenity of the Bath World Heritage Site setting, continue to improve air quality standards, reduce vehicular demand on road space, and respond to the climate and ecological emergencies already declared by the Council. This could include, if necessary, the introduction of further restrictions and/or increased charges on vehicles entering Bath. In line with the legislation, note that any net revenues generated from any proposed charging scheme would be applied to facilitate the achievement of these policies.

4.  Consider early engagement with the haulage trade associations, neighbouring authorities, National Highways and the Secretary of State with a view to exploring a variation to the Bath Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2021 so that all Euro VI diesel powered vehicles with weight exceeding 12 tonnes[1] become chargeable under the scheme, for the benefit of air quality and the amenity of the CAZ area (including the Grade II* Cleveland Bridge) and the wider Bath World Heritage Site setting. As part of this and with a view to protecting local SMEs and their supply chains that may have recently invested in Euro VI diesel vehicles, explore the option of also introducing a time-limited exemption to complement the existing exemptions for hybrid, electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles. Subject to undertaking further feasibility work and being able to develop and implement a workable scheme, this would have the net effect of disincentivising all diesel-powered HGVs weighing over 12 tonnes from using the CAZ area as a through route.

5.  Noting the high risk of appeal and/or legal challenge, and the resource implications highlighted in the report below, do not proceed with the TRO option at this time.