If you remember Cllr Jon Rogers at Bristol City Council wrote to Cllr Brian Allinson at South Gloucestershire Council on the 17 September, nearly three months ago.
So what did Cllr Allinson's reply say? Did he reply?
Now that's a bit of a mystery because we have no idea. Certainly no copy of a reply has been received from Cllr Allinson direct, and there has been no contact with Cllr Rogers to indicate that, either he has received a reply, he hasn't received a reply, or even that he is chasing a reply.
The same old story, the wheels of local government move very slowly, or on this occasion not at all. Investigations to establish whose wheels will begin after the Christmas and New Year holiday.
A Merry Chrismas and a Happy New Year to all our readers, and to all Bristol and South Gloucestershire elected councillors and highly paid officers, get a short rest, the Campaign to ban Aviation Fuel Tankers and other HGV's from Hallen Storage Depot from North West Bristol's suburban roads, is not going away.
Monday 14 December 2009
Wednesday 9 December 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
So what happened next? At South Gloucestershire's full Council Meeting on the 25 November, Members and Officers colluded to prevent the Campaign making a statement. At the Cabinet Meeting on the 7 December, a similar tactic was attempted by Legal Services, but was defeated. On this occasion our argument to speak prevailed.
The text of our statement follows,
"My name is Derek Little I represent the Campaign to ban fuel tankers from Hallen Depot and other hgv’s, from North West Bristol’s densely populated suburbs. I have previously made statements to this Council on the 20 May and 29 July.
In a report in the Bristol Evening Post on the 10 November by Lynn Hutchinson, Councillor Allinson is quoted as saying “The safety of our residents and reducing the number of accidents on the roads in South Gloucester is a priority for us”, and “There was still more to do to further cut the number of people being killed or hurt”.
Bristol knows how you achieve your objectives Councillor Allinson, you simply force your traffic into neighbouring districts. So much for the West of England Road Safety Partnership.
In your response to my statement to this Council at the last meeting on the 29 July, you say you are meeting Government targets. Sounds like the Health Service. I see that you have also recently vetoed the formation of an Integrated Transport Authority.
You also quote statistics to justify yourself. I invite you to come and see the narrow, winding roads in North West Bristol, up Hallen Road and over the narrow railway bridge, along Station Road, Henbury past the entrances to three schools, the hill past Henbury golf club into Westbury on Trym, through historic Henbury village, along the narrow Kings Weston Road past the Blaise Castle entrances, under the iron bridge, and along densely populated Long Cross in Lawrence Weston.
Compare these roads with the wide flat route to the motorway network northwards from Hallen. What would be the choice of any sane person?
You also say, and I quote, “Regardless of the circumstances behind the making of the order, the High Court appeal period has long passed and we are where we are with the weight limit”. True, but that does mean it is never possible to make improvements, bureaucratic excuses won’t wash.
It is no longer 1996, Bristol International Airport has expanded considerably, and there is currently a planning application to expand even further. Bristol City and North Somerset are moving with the times, why does South Gloucester chose to stick in the past.
In the draft of your letter dated the 16 October you said, and I quote, “I would be prepared to meet with you to discuss these issues in more detail.” But this offer was missing from the letter I eventually received. Why?, I have made no formal complaint about how you are handling the tanker issue, as far as I am concerned we are still talking.
I would like to meet with you Councillor. Until you talk I am not going away. Don’t forget every problem has a compromise solution to satisfy all parties.
Thank you".
The Chairman, Councillor John Calway, said that Councillor Brian Allinson would respond. It will be interesting to see if it takes another ten weeks.
The text of our statement follows,
"My name is Derek Little I represent the Campaign to ban fuel tankers from Hallen Depot and other hgv’s, from North West Bristol’s densely populated suburbs. I have previously made statements to this Council on the 20 May and 29 July.
In a report in the Bristol Evening Post on the 10 November by Lynn Hutchinson, Councillor Allinson is quoted as saying “The safety of our residents and reducing the number of accidents on the roads in South Gloucester is a priority for us”, and “There was still more to do to further cut the number of people being killed or hurt”.
Bristol knows how you achieve your objectives Councillor Allinson, you simply force your traffic into neighbouring districts. So much for the West of England Road Safety Partnership.
In your response to my statement to this Council at the last meeting on the 29 July, you say you are meeting Government targets. Sounds like the Health Service. I see that you have also recently vetoed the formation of an Integrated Transport Authority.
You also quote statistics to justify yourself. I invite you to come and see the narrow, winding roads in North West Bristol, up Hallen Road and over the narrow railway bridge, along Station Road, Henbury past the entrances to three schools, the hill past Henbury golf club into Westbury on Trym, through historic Henbury village, along the narrow Kings Weston Road past the Blaise Castle entrances, under the iron bridge, and along densely populated Long Cross in Lawrence Weston.
Compare these roads with the wide flat route to the motorway network northwards from Hallen. What would be the choice of any sane person?
You also say, and I quote, “Regardless of the circumstances behind the making of the order, the High Court appeal period has long passed and we are where we are with the weight limit”. True, but that does mean it is never possible to make improvements, bureaucratic excuses won’t wash.
It is no longer 1996, Bristol International Airport has expanded considerably, and there is currently a planning application to expand even further. Bristol City and North Somerset are moving with the times, why does South Gloucester chose to stick in the past.
In the draft of your letter dated the 16 October you said, and I quote, “I would be prepared to meet with you to discuss these issues in more detail.” But this offer was missing from the letter I eventually received. Why?, I have made no formal complaint about how you are handling the tanker issue, as far as I am concerned we are still talking.
I would like to meet with you Councillor. Until you talk I am not going away. Don’t forget every problem has a compromise solution to satisfy all parties.
Thank you".
The Chairman, Councillor John Calway, said that Councillor Brian Allinson would respond. It will be interesting to see if it takes another ten weeks.
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
Finally there is movement. Firstly, Councillor Brian Allinson did finally respond to our statement to the South Gloucestershire Council Meeting on the 29 July. The text of his letter dated the 16 October is shown below,
"With apologies for the delay in responding to your statement at Full Council on 29 July.
Regardless of the circumstances behind the making of the order, the High Court appeal period has long passed and we are where we are with the weight limit.
The road closure at Hallen Rail Bridge has now been removed and the temporary suspension of the weight limit in Hallen removed.
The decision to retain the existing road alignment, rather than straightening it out, was taken because it was considered that any straightening out of the alignment could result in increased vehicle speeds at a location where reduced speeds would be preferable. In addition there is no history of injury accidents caused by the pinch point and therefore its removal cannot be justified.
As you are aware, we have compared the HGV injury accident rates on two other routes with those on the route via Hallen and the A403 and have found that these two routes have a lower accident rate. You asked why we only looked at two other routes. Clearly this work demonstrates that other routes are available with lower HGV injury accidents than the route via Hallen and the A403 and the examination of other routes is therefore unnecessary.
One of the objectives of the Joint Local Transport Plan is to ensure significant reductions in the number of the most serious casualties. Based on the HGV injury accident history, the Hallen and A403 route poses a much higher risk of injury involving HGVs than the two other available routes which we have reviewed and therefore diverting HGVs through Hallen would not accord with a shared priority for road safety in the Joint Local Transport Plan.
The West of England Road Safety Partnership has been very successful in delivering the Road Safety Action Plan in the Joint Local Transport Plan and all the Government national casualty reduction targets are being met in the West of England".
Now what do you make of that?, see following post.
"With apologies for the delay in responding to your statement at Full Council on 29 July.
Regardless of the circumstances behind the making of the order, the High Court appeal period has long passed and we are where we are with the weight limit.
The road closure at Hallen Rail Bridge has now been removed and the temporary suspension of the weight limit in Hallen removed.
The decision to retain the existing road alignment, rather than straightening it out, was taken because it was considered that any straightening out of the alignment could result in increased vehicle speeds at a location where reduced speeds would be preferable. In addition there is no history of injury accidents caused by the pinch point and therefore its removal cannot be justified.
As you are aware, we have compared the HGV injury accident rates on two other routes with those on the route via Hallen and the A403 and have found that these two routes have a lower accident rate. You asked why we only looked at two other routes. Clearly this work demonstrates that other routes are available with lower HGV injury accidents than the route via Hallen and the A403 and the examination of other routes is therefore unnecessary.
One of the objectives of the Joint Local Transport Plan is to ensure significant reductions in the number of the most serious casualties. Based on the HGV injury accident history, the Hallen and A403 route poses a much higher risk of injury involving HGVs than the two other available routes which we have reviewed and therefore diverting HGVs through Hallen would not accord with a shared priority for road safety in the Joint Local Transport Plan.
The West of England Road Safety Partnership has been very successful in delivering the Road Safety Action Plan in the Joint Local Transport Plan and all the Government national casualty reduction targets are being met in the West of England".
Now what do you make of that?, see following post.
Tuesday 13 October 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
Not much has happened during the past month or two.
If you recall there was a second presentation to South Gloucestershire Council on the 29 July 09, see my post 31 July. It is Cllr Brian Allinson's responsibility to respond, however two months later nothing. His response on the 8 October was,
"Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was certainly under the impression that we had responded, If that is not the case, then you have my unreserved apologies and an assurance that I will now take the necessary action to ensure that we do so".
Still nothing.
Then then there is Bristol Cllr Jon Rogers letter to Cllr Brian Allinson of the 17 September 09, see my post 20 September. We have seen no sign of any reply yet. There are even reports that Henbury Ward Councillors are having difficulty arranging a meeting with him.
In "Our Community" the free magazine for all the villagers of Easter Compton, Pilning and Severn Beach, October 2009, Issue 170, it says,
"Severn Road has a 7.5 tonne environmental weight restriction placed upon it. This is enforced to protect the local area. It helps lessen traffic, pollution and damage to the roads".
The result of course it that aviation fuel tankers and other hgv's, increase traffic, increase pollution and damage roads in North West Bristol. Come off it Cllr Brian Allinson, why are you deliberately targeting the densely populated suburbs of Bristol.
The same article continues, a safety weight restriction,
"This is usually enforced where structures lack strength to hold heavy vehicles ie weak bridges".
Lets not forget that Cllr Brian Allinson ignored Network Rail advice for a number of years and allowed 40 tonne tankers to use the old weak Hallen Road railway bridge by refusing to extend the Severn Road weight restriction past Hallen Depot to the South Gloucestershire boundary.
A useful quote emerged from the recent party conference season, "The steady erosion of responsibility". Your leader Cllr Allinson, time for change.
Have you noticed how political a non-political campaign is becoming? Bristol Evening Post letters 29 September and 5 October. On the 17 September, parliamentary candidates, Charlotte Leslie, Paul Harrod and Sam Townend, sat round a table together for the first time, with Henbury Ward Councillors Mark Weston and Chris Windows. More working together please.
If you recall there was a second presentation to South Gloucestershire Council on the 29 July 09, see my post 31 July. It is Cllr Brian Allinson's responsibility to respond, however two months later nothing. His response on the 8 October was,
"Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was certainly under the impression that we had responded, If that is not the case, then you have my unreserved apologies and an assurance that I will now take the necessary action to ensure that we do so".
Still nothing.
Then then there is Bristol Cllr Jon Rogers letter to Cllr Brian Allinson of the 17 September 09, see my post 20 September. We have seen no sign of any reply yet. There are even reports that Henbury Ward Councillors are having difficulty arranging a meeting with him.
In "Our Community" the free magazine for all the villagers of Easter Compton, Pilning and Severn Beach, October 2009, Issue 170, it says,
"Severn Road has a 7.5 tonne environmental weight restriction placed upon it. This is enforced to protect the local area. It helps lessen traffic, pollution and damage to the roads".
The result of course it that aviation fuel tankers and other hgv's, increase traffic, increase pollution and damage roads in North West Bristol. Come off it Cllr Brian Allinson, why are you deliberately targeting the densely populated suburbs of Bristol.
The same article continues, a safety weight restriction,
"This is usually enforced where structures lack strength to hold heavy vehicles ie weak bridges".
Lets not forget that Cllr Brian Allinson ignored Network Rail advice for a number of years and allowed 40 tonne tankers to use the old weak Hallen Road railway bridge by refusing to extend the Severn Road weight restriction past Hallen Depot to the South Gloucestershire boundary.
A useful quote emerged from the recent party conference season, "The steady erosion of responsibility". Your leader Cllr Allinson, time for change.
Have you noticed how political a non-political campaign is becoming? Bristol Evening Post letters 29 September and 5 October. On the 17 September, parliamentary candidates, Charlotte Leslie, Paul Harrod and Sam Townend, sat round a table together for the first time, with Henbury Ward Councillors Mark Weston and Chris Windows. More working together please.
Sunday 20 September 2009
NORTH WEST BRISTOL AT RISK
Thought you would like to see the text of Cllr Jon Rogers letter of the 17 September 09 to his opposite number in South Gloucestershire, he says,
Councillor Brian Allinson
South Gloucestershire Council
Castle Street
Thornbury
BS35 1HF
Reply to Councillor Dr Jon Rogers
Telephone 0117 92 23932
Email jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk
Date Thursday 17 September 2009
Dear Brian,
Tankers Using Hallen Depot
I am writing formally to request that South Gloucestershire Council extend the weight limit on Hallen Road to the boundary with Bristol.
This request follows discussions between our respective officers, and reflects current thinking on safety and the balance of road safety risks across our two authorities.
I won't rehearse the history, save to say that following a Bristol Full Council statement in April 2009 by Mr D Little, I reported that the Director of City Development would discuss the situation with his equivalent in South Gloucestershire Council with a view to finding a joint solution to the problem.
Our respective officers confirmed that extending the weight limit to the bridge boundary would allow tankers using the depot to travel along Hallen Road in either direction to rejoin the motorway network, rather than forcing them to travel only through Henbury, Lawrence Weston and Shirehampton. However this solution would still prevent any other heavy goods vehicles from accessing this route.
I am aware, following our two discussions on the topic, that there remains some resistance to any such safety changes amongst South Gloucester councillors, and would welcome your help in resolving this issue.
We have also spoken with the airport, to explore whether they may have any contribution to solving the problem.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Dr Jon Rogers
Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability
It is likely that this letter was handed to Brian Allinson at their meeting on Friday 18 September. As yet no minutes available, will keep you posted.
Councillor Brian Allinson
South Gloucestershire Council
Castle Street
Thornbury
BS35 1HF
Reply to Councillor Dr Jon Rogers
Telephone 0117 92 23932
Email jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk
Date Thursday 17 September 2009
Dear Brian,
Tankers Using Hallen Depot
I am writing formally to request that South Gloucestershire Council extend the weight limit on Hallen Road to the boundary with Bristol.
This request follows discussions between our respective officers, and reflects current thinking on safety and the balance of road safety risks across our two authorities.
I won't rehearse the history, save to say that following a Bristol Full Council statement in April 2009 by Mr D Little, I reported that the Director of City Development would discuss the situation with his equivalent in South Gloucestershire Council with a view to finding a joint solution to the problem.
Our respective officers confirmed that extending the weight limit to the bridge boundary would allow tankers using the depot to travel along Hallen Road in either direction to rejoin the motorway network, rather than forcing them to travel only through Henbury, Lawrence Weston and Shirehampton. However this solution would still prevent any other heavy goods vehicles from accessing this route.
I am aware, following our two discussions on the topic, that there remains some resistance to any such safety changes amongst South Gloucester councillors, and would welcome your help in resolving this issue.
We have also spoken with the airport, to explore whether they may have any contribution to solving the problem.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Dr Jon Rogers
Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability
It is likely that this letter was handed to Brian Allinson at their meeting on Friday 18 September. As yet no minutes available, will keep you posted.
Saturday 5 September 2009
NORTH WEST BRISTOL AT RISK
Have you seen the letter in today's Bristol Evening Post, "Hypocritical councils must work together", and Cllr John Rogers online comment at, www.thisisbristol.co.uk/letters.
"The specific challenges around the bridge at the edge of Hallen are well know to me, and I used the opportunity of the last WoEP Joint Transport Committee meeting to talk with my opposite number Cllr Brian Allinson in South Gloucestershire.
I have since met with residents in Henbury and agreed to write formally to Cllr Allinson asking that we together address this anomaly as soon as possible".
Maybe, just maybe, with Cllr Rogers support and Bristol City Council officers support, we can begin to make some progress. Certainly residents in Bristol's, Avonmouth, Henbury, Kingsweston and Westbury on Trym wards, are encouraged that at last the Council appears to be supporting the Campaign.
"The specific challenges around the bridge at the edge of Hallen are well know to me, and I used the opportunity of the last WoEP Joint Transport Committee meeting to talk with my opposite number Cllr Brian Allinson in South Gloucestershire.
I have since met with residents in Henbury and agreed to write formally to Cllr Allinson asking that we together address this anomaly as soon as possible".
Maybe, just maybe, with Cllr Rogers support and Bristol City Council officers support, we can begin to make some progress. Certainly residents in Bristol's, Avonmouth, Henbury, Kingsweston and Westbury on Trym wards, are encouraged that at last the Council appears to be supporting the Campaign.
Tuesday 25 August 2009
NORTH WEST BRISTOL AT RISK
A few thoughts for the holiday period.
Exactly what is this issue all about? Who is doing what and who is objecting?
It’s very simple, South Gloucestershire Council, encouraged by their Ward Councillor, are sending aviation fuel tankers from Hallen Petrol Storage Depot and skip transporters from Hallen Landfill Site, into North West Bristol’s suburban roads enroute to the motorway. This is achieved by the imposition of two weight restriction zones in Hallen which force the vehicles over the Bristol boundary.
North West Bristol residents, in Avonmouth, Henbury, Kingsweston, and Westbury on Trym Wards, object. A petition to ban the tankers and other hgv’s from Bristol’s roads, comprising 350 signatures, has been presented to both Bristol City Council and South Gloucestershire Council.
Bristol City Council have said they support the campaign, South Gloucestershire Council have refused to take action to rectify their blatantly deliberate and selfish attitude.
This Campaign calls upon both Council’s to carry out risk assessments to determine the potential danger of a catastrophic incident occurring on North West Bristol’s narrow twisting roads and in its densely populated suburban areas, assessed against the alternative shorter direct route to the motorway through Hallen.
This Campaign calls upon Bristol City Council to take up the Department for Transport’s offer to attend a meeting with both Council’s in an attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Exactly what is this issue all about? Who is doing what and who is objecting?
It’s very simple, South Gloucestershire Council, encouraged by their Ward Councillor, are sending aviation fuel tankers from Hallen Petrol Storage Depot and skip transporters from Hallen Landfill Site, into North West Bristol’s suburban roads enroute to the motorway. This is achieved by the imposition of two weight restriction zones in Hallen which force the vehicles over the Bristol boundary.
North West Bristol residents, in Avonmouth, Henbury, Kingsweston, and Westbury on Trym Wards, object. A petition to ban the tankers and other hgv’s from Bristol’s roads, comprising 350 signatures, has been presented to both Bristol City Council and South Gloucestershire Council.
Bristol City Council have said they support the campaign, South Gloucestershire Council have refused to take action to rectify their blatantly deliberate and selfish attitude.
This Campaign calls upon both Council’s to carry out risk assessments to determine the potential danger of a catastrophic incident occurring on North West Bristol’s narrow twisting roads and in its densely populated suburban areas, assessed against the alternative shorter direct route to the motorway through Hallen.
This Campaign calls upon Bristol City Council to take up the Department for Transport’s offer to attend a meeting with both Council’s in an attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Wednesday 19 August 2009
HENBURY WARD NEWSLETTER
Following the recent publication and circulation of Henbury Ward Councillor Mark Weston's local newsletter, e-mails supporting the Campaign are beginning to flood into the inbox at bantankers@bristol-link.net We thought you would like to read a few.
"Having enjoyed walking up to Blaise each evening from Springwood Drive these past few weeks Monday night we were back to being frightened to death by not one but two tankers hurtling down towards Hallen. The noise of them going past us at quite a speed really made us jump and spooked the dog. They went round the traffic calming island so fast and then saw them brake quite sharply on the bend before the bridge as a car was coming the other way.
If they have to come our way, which they should not, surely the speed limit has to be brought right down as they feel as though they are sucking you under as they pass.
I have complained to the Council about the state of the overgrown pavement on the sharp bend into Avonmouth Way as there is almost no room to walk on the pavement because of the brambles and stinging nettles and with a lot of people pushing prams it is so dangerous. As yet nothing has been done!
I hope this email will help with more evidence that tankers should not be on this road and it is only a matter of time before something horrendous happens.
Keep up the good work".
"I would like to sign the petition to stop/reduce the number of tankers passing through Hallen and Henbury – fuel should certainly be sourced as locally as possible, particularly given that the fuel currently transported from the depot at Hallen is damaging the environment even further by being driven to the airport (adding in road miles). In addition, the tankers rapidly damage the roads – I’m sure it won’t be long before the lovely newly-laid roundabout on station road is once again a bumpy mess, and the tankers are extremely noisy, particularly when revving up the hill on Hallen Road.
Thank you for listening".
"I live in Hallen Road opposite the Grade 1 listed cottages of Blaise Hamlet. Tankers and other HGV's are indeed a great problem for us. Not long ago my very elderly neighbours in Hallen Road specifically mentioned to me that they were having a real problem from the continual explosive bangs when they were in their garden (even the rear). It is not just the presence of the HGV's, but the fact that the road surface has become very uneven on our downhill stretch, due to manhole covers aligned with the wheel tracks and humps from imperfectly repaired and resurfaced roadworks. HGV's come swinging round the top corner and accelerate sharply on the downhill strech. The loads of some bounce up and down generating a series of explosive booms 24 hours a day. We believe that it would be instructive for the council to undertake some speed monitoring on these vehicles. We think that speed cameras and careful road resurfacing should be considered as well as weight limits and re-routing measures.
We strongly support any measures that have a real impact on this problem".
Thank you all. Please can everyone who has an opinion on this important issue let us have your thoughts to add to the original 350 signature petition submitted to both Bristol City and South Gloucestershire Council's. This fight will continue until we can report success.
"Having enjoyed walking up to Blaise each evening from Springwood Drive these past few weeks Monday night we were back to being frightened to death by not one but two tankers hurtling down towards Hallen. The noise of them going past us at quite a speed really made us jump and spooked the dog. They went round the traffic calming island so fast and then saw them brake quite sharply on the bend before the bridge as a car was coming the other way.
If they have to come our way, which they should not, surely the speed limit has to be brought right down as they feel as though they are sucking you under as they pass.
I have complained to the Council about the state of the overgrown pavement on the sharp bend into Avonmouth Way as there is almost no room to walk on the pavement because of the brambles and stinging nettles and with a lot of people pushing prams it is so dangerous. As yet nothing has been done!
I hope this email will help with more evidence that tankers should not be on this road and it is only a matter of time before something horrendous happens.
Keep up the good work".
"I would like to sign the petition to stop/reduce the number of tankers passing through Hallen and Henbury – fuel should certainly be sourced as locally as possible, particularly given that the fuel currently transported from the depot at Hallen is damaging the environment even further by being driven to the airport (adding in road miles). In addition, the tankers rapidly damage the roads – I’m sure it won’t be long before the lovely newly-laid roundabout on station road is once again a bumpy mess, and the tankers are extremely noisy, particularly when revving up the hill on Hallen Road.
Thank you for listening".
"I live in Hallen Road opposite the Grade 1 listed cottages of Blaise Hamlet. Tankers and other HGV's are indeed a great problem for us. Not long ago my very elderly neighbours in Hallen Road specifically mentioned to me that they were having a real problem from the continual explosive bangs when they were in their garden (even the rear). It is not just the presence of the HGV's, but the fact that the road surface has become very uneven on our downhill stretch, due to manhole covers aligned with the wheel tracks and humps from imperfectly repaired and resurfaced roadworks. HGV's come swinging round the top corner and accelerate sharply on the downhill strech. The loads of some bounce up and down generating a series of explosive booms 24 hours a day. We believe that it would be instructive for the council to undertake some speed monitoring on these vehicles. We think that speed cameras and careful road resurfacing should be considered as well as weight limits and re-routing measures.
We strongly support any measures that have a real impact on this problem".
Thank you all. Please can everyone who has an opinion on this important issue let us have your thoughts to add to the original 350 signature petition submitted to both Bristol City and South Gloucestershire Council's. This fight will continue until we can report success.
Saturday 15 August 2009
MEETING AT BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
After receiving our minutes of the first meeting since the Campaign's presentation to Bristol City Council on the 28 April 2009, on the 6 August 2009, Cllr Rogers responded on the 14 August as shown below, Traffic Manager Terry Bullock did not acknowledge or respond.
Thank you for your time last week and for your notes.
I am afraid that I have not had the opportunity to review the notes from the meeting line by line, but perhaps I can offer my summary from the meeting, including actions?
(1) I confirmed that there had been officer dialogue between Bristol and S Gloucestershire.
(2) I confirmed that I had spoken informally on the matter with Cllr Brian Allinson in person. I have not spoken with him on this matter on the phone.
(3) At our meeting, all four of us were supportive of extending the weight restriction to the Bristol border. We did say that if we remained one Authority, then that would be the best overall solution.
(4) Mr Little named Cllr Sheila Cook as being obstructive to the extension of the restriction to the border with Bristol. I did agree that I considered the problem was one for South Gloucester rather than Bristol.
(5) I stated that in my view it was a "political problem" and as such might benefit from cross party involvement of ward councillors - I suggested Mark Weston and also the Conservative PPC Charlotte Leslie. It would normally be the ward councillors who would take a lead on this, and being in the same party as the S Gloucestershire administration, might be better placed to make progress.
(5) I did agree to write formally to my counterpart in South Gloucestershire. I will copy you all in on that letter. I anticipate writing that letter in the next two weeks.
(6) Paul Harrod agreed to explore the political aspect, with councillor colleagues.
If any of you have any points that you wish me to make in my letter to Cllr Allinson, then please do pass them to me.
Did we all attend the same meeting?
Thank you for your time last week and for your notes.
I am afraid that I have not had the opportunity to review the notes from the meeting line by line, but perhaps I can offer my summary from the meeting, including actions?
(1) I confirmed that there had been officer dialogue between Bristol and S Gloucestershire.
(2) I confirmed that I had spoken informally on the matter with Cllr Brian Allinson in person. I have not spoken with him on this matter on the phone.
(3) At our meeting, all four of us were supportive of extending the weight restriction to the Bristol border. We did say that if we remained one Authority, then that would be the best overall solution.
(4) Mr Little named Cllr Sheila Cook as being obstructive to the extension of the restriction to the border with Bristol. I did agree that I considered the problem was one for South Gloucester rather than Bristol.
(5) I stated that in my view it was a "political problem" and as such might benefit from cross party involvement of ward councillors - I suggested Mark Weston and also the Conservative PPC Charlotte Leslie. It would normally be the ward councillors who would take a lead on this, and being in the same party as the S Gloucestershire administration, might be better placed to make progress.
(5) I did agree to write formally to my counterpart in South Gloucestershire. I will copy you all in on that letter. I anticipate writing that letter in the next two weeks.
(6) Paul Harrod agreed to explore the political aspect, with councillor colleagues.
If any of you have any points that you wish me to make in my letter to Cllr Allinson, then please do pass them to me.
Did we all attend the same meeting?
MEETING AT BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
After the first meeting arranged by Cllr Jon Rogers since the Campaign's presentation to Bristol City Council on the 28 April 2009, on the 5 August 2009, we prepared the minutes shown below on the 6 August and asked Cllr Rogers (JR) and Traffic Manager Terry Bullock (TB), for any comments or corrections by the end of the following week, the 14 August.
CAMPAIGN TO BAN HALLEN PETROL STORAGE DEPOT AVIATION FUEL TANKERS AND OTHER HGV’S FROM NORTH WEST BRISTOL SUBURBAN ROADS
Meeting at the Council House Bristol 9.00am Wednesday 5 August 2009
Present:
Jon Rogers, Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability.
Terry Bullock, Traffic Manager
Paul Harrod, Prospective Lib Dem MP, Bristol North West
Derek Little
Kath Little
1) JR briefly opened the meeting and handed over to TB.
2) TB said that it was Avon who had confirmed the permanent restrictions after the Second Severn Crossing works had been completed. DL said it was South Glos and asked TB if he had seen the 1996 South Glos Weight Restriction Order and Statement of Reasons for the Order. TB said he had not seen the Order or Statement of Reasons.
3) DL said that the Statement of Reasons said that with the permanent restrictions in place alternative routes were available using A class roads and motorways, plainly this was not true.
4) DL asked TB if he had read DL’s presentation and statement to the 28 April Council meeting, TB said he thought he had but could not remember.
5) DL asked TB what had happened since the 28 April presentation, given that David Bishop’s PA had emailed JR in May that he and Alan Berridge were dealing with the matter. JR said there had been both officer to officer and JR and Brian Allinson telephone conversations and discussions. DL said that he had not been given any details of these discussions to date.
6) DL asked if the discussions with South Glos were minuted. JR said no and added that the issue had not been raised formally with South Glos in writing.
7) JR said that it was not the officers in South Glos who opposed our argument. JR said he had not spoken to Sheila Cook.
8) JR said that, as the Executive Member, he felt that, along with Bristol officers he had done all he could and that this was a political problem and he could not upset elected members of South Glos. He said he felt it was a ward problem ie Mark Weston v Sheila Cook and it should be pursued at that level ie not at executive level. He said that PH could take a hand in driving this forward.
9) In response to DL’s question JR said that he and Bristol officers supported the campaign. KL said that this was the first time that Bristol had expressed their support in any way and that it was good that for the first time this was at least established.
10) DL explained what had happened at his second statement to South Glos on 29 July and said that he felt he had embarrassed Brian Allinson and that Sheila Cook had felt ambushed.
11) DL said that at this meeting he had mentioned that the alignment and pinch point on the new bridge had been left the same as the old bridge to save £100,000. He had also pointed out that in Brian Allinson’s response letter of the 20 July 2009 he had only used two tanker routes in Bristol for his statistical analysis and not the four currently in use. This made his argument nonsense.
12) JR said the issue was purely political and that it was Sheila Cook who was the stumbling block. TB agreed that the matter was purely a political one. KL asked however, if logic and reason could not persuade South Glos, then what would? JR said he could not upset his counterparts in South Glos and that it was not his role to do so. DL said that there were obviously pressures he could apply that perhaps the Council couldn’t.
13) DL said that he believed that Sheila Cook had a West of England partnership responsibility for the children and young people of Bristol and said he might contact Clare Campion-Smith for her views. JR said DL should not keep on involving new people.
14) DL mentioned that he had it in writing from the DFT that they would attend a meeting as a last resort in an endeavour to find a solution. TB said he was surprised that the offer had been made and went on to explain that if South Glos refused to take action there was nothing Bristol or the DFT could do. DL disagreed and said it was all a question of applying sufficient pressure.
15) The suggestion to extend the existing weight restriction in Hallen up to the Bristol boundary was agreed as a good idea. This would then mean that under the terms of the order the tanker drivers, from a business within the restriction zone, would have the option of going either way. Obviously the drivers would all choose to go the easiest route for them through Hallen. DL said that since the closure of the railway bridge a Hallen resident had commented to a neighbour of his that there were currently only a few tankers.
16) At one point TB said the railway bridge was in Bristol. DL pointed out that the boundary was the top of the railway embankment on the Bristol side.
17) TB said that he could understand our annoyance at the tankers. KL pointed out that this was not a question of purely annoyance but an issue of safety. TB emphasised that the children were not endangered because it was generally recognised that traffic slowed down when there were large numbers of children. KL pointed out that it was not just the children at issue and that tankers and hgv’s could not pass one another on some stretches of roads and this was therefore a general dangerous traffic problem.
18) PH showed TB a picture of a tanker on the pinch point on the railway bridge. DL pointed out that the fact that a serious accident had not so far occurred did not mean one was not waiting to happen
19) KL said that traffic in Avonmouth Way speeded along. TB suggested we took the numbers of speeding tankers in Henbury and reported them. KL pointed out that the accident in Hallen with the child getting off a bus no longer applied as there were now only two buses a day and that couldn’t happen again.
20) DL said Brian Allinson’s argument that weight restrictions should be used to slow hgv traffic down was nonsense, speed restrictions, road humps or safety cameras were the normal methods. TB said that Hallen did qualify for a safety camera.
21) TB said you couldn’t put road humps through Hallen Road because you didn’t use humps where there was hgv traffic. DL pointed out there were humps in Station Rd Henbury, the main route for the tankers to the motorway. DL explained that Station Road was a major hazard point and asked TB if he had been in Station Road when children were leaving the new Henbury School and children from the primary schools were crossing the road with tankers threading their way between parents cars parked on both sides of the road.
22) TB said he wondered what DL and KL were complaining about and that there were far greater priorities across Bristol. DL pointed out the fact that there are other priorities didn’t diminish the importance of the tanker issue and added that many Henbury residents had made approaches to the Council over the years with no success.
23) JR said he thought we were all agreed Sheila Cook was the stumbling block and therefore the issue should be dealt with at ward level. KL said she knew nothing about politics and asked JR what he meant by not being able to upset his other halves. JR said that officers could not achieve anything and the executive likewise. JR again said he would not embarrass his counterparts in South Glos. It was not in his remit and that was just not what he would do.
24) When DL said that South Glos had provided a great deal of information under the Freedom of Information Act and that Bristol had provided nothing. Both JR and TB expressed surprise. JR vehemently said Bristol had provided everything DL had wanted and that he himself had been in contact with us. DL explained that this was all on record and that most of the refusal to provide information had occurred under the previous Labour administration. KL pointed out that JR was simply taking the flak for what had gone before.
25) JR called DL sir following this and said he was trying to do his best but all DL did was complain. DL said he had a very direct way of finding solutions and solving problems and was not going to change. JR accepted that DL had no political agenda, as he had previously suggested.
26) DL explained his tactics against South Glos and particularly against Sheila Cook and Brian Allinson. He also explained the up to date position that ICO had issued a decision notice against Almondsbury Parish Council for the period when the Chair was Sheila Cook. He said he had complained about Sheila Cook’s conduct to South Glos.
27) DL explained that he had written to Theresa Villiers, Shadow Transport Secretary asking for her assistance in applying pressure on South Glos. He said that he may speak to Cllr Gollop given the reported cooperation on Chock Lane WOT.
28) Notwithstanding that the Bristol officers and executive agreed with the logic and reasoning of our argument JR and TB felt it was appropriate that the issue should be taken up at ward councillor level.
29) It was agreed that JR should formally write to South Glos with his concerns. He felt he would only get a similar answer back from Brian Allinson and would achieve nothing. He thought it would have more impact from the ward councillors as it was only they that could confer cross party. He said that the only way forward was to arrange a meeting between them.
30) PH suggested that the meeting would include DL, KL, Henbury and Kingsweston and Hallen ward councillors.
31) DL explained at the end of the meeting that in his role as the executive member responsible, JR was his first point of contact and would remain so.
The following post is Cllr Rogers response.
CAMPAIGN TO BAN HALLEN PETROL STORAGE DEPOT AVIATION FUEL TANKERS AND OTHER HGV’S FROM NORTH WEST BRISTOL SUBURBAN ROADS
Meeting at the Council House Bristol 9.00am Wednesday 5 August 2009
Present:
Jon Rogers, Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability.
Terry Bullock, Traffic Manager
Paul Harrod, Prospective Lib Dem MP, Bristol North West
Derek Little
Kath Little
1) JR briefly opened the meeting and handed over to TB.
2) TB said that it was Avon who had confirmed the permanent restrictions after the Second Severn Crossing works had been completed. DL said it was South Glos and asked TB if he had seen the 1996 South Glos Weight Restriction Order and Statement of Reasons for the Order. TB said he had not seen the Order or Statement of Reasons.
3) DL said that the Statement of Reasons said that with the permanent restrictions in place alternative routes were available using A class roads and motorways, plainly this was not true.
4) DL asked TB if he had read DL’s presentation and statement to the 28 April Council meeting, TB said he thought he had but could not remember.
5) DL asked TB what had happened since the 28 April presentation, given that David Bishop’s PA had emailed JR in May that he and Alan Berridge were dealing with the matter. JR said there had been both officer to officer and JR and Brian Allinson telephone conversations and discussions. DL said that he had not been given any details of these discussions to date.
6) DL asked if the discussions with South Glos were minuted. JR said no and added that the issue had not been raised formally with South Glos in writing.
7) JR said that it was not the officers in South Glos who opposed our argument. JR said he had not spoken to Sheila Cook.
8) JR said that, as the Executive Member, he felt that, along with Bristol officers he had done all he could and that this was a political problem and he could not upset elected members of South Glos. He said he felt it was a ward problem ie Mark Weston v Sheila Cook and it should be pursued at that level ie not at executive level. He said that PH could take a hand in driving this forward.
9) In response to DL’s question JR said that he and Bristol officers supported the campaign. KL said that this was the first time that Bristol had expressed their support in any way and that it was good that for the first time this was at least established.
10) DL explained what had happened at his second statement to South Glos on 29 July and said that he felt he had embarrassed Brian Allinson and that Sheila Cook had felt ambushed.
11) DL said that at this meeting he had mentioned that the alignment and pinch point on the new bridge had been left the same as the old bridge to save £100,000. He had also pointed out that in Brian Allinson’s response letter of the 20 July 2009 he had only used two tanker routes in Bristol for his statistical analysis and not the four currently in use. This made his argument nonsense.
12) JR said the issue was purely political and that it was Sheila Cook who was the stumbling block. TB agreed that the matter was purely a political one. KL asked however, if logic and reason could not persuade South Glos, then what would? JR said he could not upset his counterparts in South Glos and that it was not his role to do so. DL said that there were obviously pressures he could apply that perhaps the Council couldn’t.
13) DL said that he believed that Sheila Cook had a West of England partnership responsibility for the children and young people of Bristol and said he might contact Clare Campion-Smith for her views. JR said DL should not keep on involving new people.
14) DL mentioned that he had it in writing from the DFT that they would attend a meeting as a last resort in an endeavour to find a solution. TB said he was surprised that the offer had been made and went on to explain that if South Glos refused to take action there was nothing Bristol or the DFT could do. DL disagreed and said it was all a question of applying sufficient pressure.
15) The suggestion to extend the existing weight restriction in Hallen up to the Bristol boundary was agreed as a good idea. This would then mean that under the terms of the order the tanker drivers, from a business within the restriction zone, would have the option of going either way. Obviously the drivers would all choose to go the easiest route for them through Hallen. DL said that since the closure of the railway bridge a Hallen resident had commented to a neighbour of his that there were currently only a few tankers.
16) At one point TB said the railway bridge was in Bristol. DL pointed out that the boundary was the top of the railway embankment on the Bristol side.
17) TB said that he could understand our annoyance at the tankers. KL pointed out that this was not a question of purely annoyance but an issue of safety. TB emphasised that the children were not endangered because it was generally recognised that traffic slowed down when there were large numbers of children. KL pointed out that it was not just the children at issue and that tankers and hgv’s could not pass one another on some stretches of roads and this was therefore a general dangerous traffic problem.
18) PH showed TB a picture of a tanker on the pinch point on the railway bridge. DL pointed out that the fact that a serious accident had not so far occurred did not mean one was not waiting to happen
19) KL said that traffic in Avonmouth Way speeded along. TB suggested we took the numbers of speeding tankers in Henbury and reported them. KL pointed out that the accident in Hallen with the child getting off a bus no longer applied as there were now only two buses a day and that couldn’t happen again.
20) DL said Brian Allinson’s argument that weight restrictions should be used to slow hgv traffic down was nonsense, speed restrictions, road humps or safety cameras were the normal methods. TB said that Hallen did qualify for a safety camera.
21) TB said you couldn’t put road humps through Hallen Road because you didn’t use humps where there was hgv traffic. DL pointed out there were humps in Station Rd Henbury, the main route for the tankers to the motorway. DL explained that Station Road was a major hazard point and asked TB if he had been in Station Road when children were leaving the new Henbury School and children from the primary schools were crossing the road with tankers threading their way between parents cars parked on both sides of the road.
22) TB said he wondered what DL and KL were complaining about and that there were far greater priorities across Bristol. DL pointed out the fact that there are other priorities didn’t diminish the importance of the tanker issue and added that many Henbury residents had made approaches to the Council over the years with no success.
23) JR said he thought we were all agreed Sheila Cook was the stumbling block and therefore the issue should be dealt with at ward level. KL said she knew nothing about politics and asked JR what he meant by not being able to upset his other halves. JR said that officers could not achieve anything and the executive likewise. JR again said he would not embarrass his counterparts in South Glos. It was not in his remit and that was just not what he would do.
24) When DL said that South Glos had provided a great deal of information under the Freedom of Information Act and that Bristol had provided nothing. Both JR and TB expressed surprise. JR vehemently said Bristol had provided everything DL had wanted and that he himself had been in contact with us. DL explained that this was all on record and that most of the refusal to provide information had occurred under the previous Labour administration. KL pointed out that JR was simply taking the flak for what had gone before.
25) JR called DL sir following this and said he was trying to do his best but all DL did was complain. DL said he had a very direct way of finding solutions and solving problems and was not going to change. JR accepted that DL had no political agenda, as he had previously suggested.
26) DL explained his tactics against South Glos and particularly against Sheila Cook and Brian Allinson. He also explained the up to date position that ICO had issued a decision notice against Almondsbury Parish Council for the period when the Chair was Sheila Cook. He said he had complained about Sheila Cook’s conduct to South Glos.
27) DL explained that he had written to Theresa Villiers, Shadow Transport Secretary asking for her assistance in applying pressure on South Glos. He said that he may speak to Cllr Gollop given the reported cooperation on Chock Lane WOT.
28) Notwithstanding that the Bristol officers and executive agreed with the logic and reasoning of our argument JR and TB felt it was appropriate that the issue should be taken up at ward councillor level.
29) It was agreed that JR should formally write to South Glos with his concerns. He felt he would only get a similar answer back from Brian Allinson and would achieve nothing. He thought it would have more impact from the ward councillors as it was only they that could confer cross party. He said that the only way forward was to arrange a meeting between them.
30) PH suggested that the meeting would include DL, KL, Henbury and Kingsweston and Hallen ward councillors.
31) DL explained at the end of the meeting that in his role as the executive member responsible, JR was his first point of contact and would remain so.
The following post is Cllr Rogers response.
Friday 14 August 2009
ALMONDSBURY AND SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE
Herewith the full text of my letter in today's Bristol Evening Post.
"The Information Commissioners Office has recently found that Almondsbury Parish Council failed to respond to my request under the Freedom of Information Act. The Council was also found to have ignored correspondence from the Commissioner’s Office. A Decision Notice dated the 28 July has been issued.
During my efforts to obtain information from the Clerk to the Parish Council, in respect of the campaign to ban fuel tankers and other hgv’s from North West Bristol suburban roads, I received a final email on the 12 March stating that the then Chair of the Parish Council, Cllr Sheila Cook, was dealing with the matter. Nothing further was received.
As a result of of this situation a formal complaint was made to South Gloucestershire Council on the 8 August, "that Executive Member Councillor Sheila Cook, in her capacity as the former Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, following my request under the Freedom of Information Act to the Parish Council on the 2 February 2009, did ignore my request, and did ignore correspondence from the Information Commissioner’s Office, all as stated in their Decision Notice under reference FS50237638 dated the 28 July 2009", and further "that in my opinion this was conduct contrary to law and unbecoming an elected member of a Parish Council within South Gloucestershire, and conduct unbecoming an Executive Member of South Gloucestershire Council".
The complaint has been acknowledged and referred to the Assessment Sub Committee of the Standards Committee on the 28 August.
Readers may remember that Cllr Cook objected when I said she had resigned as Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, in my letter to the Evening Post on 5 June, “show some concern for the safety of the young”. In her letter of response in the Evening Post on 22 June, she said she had decided not to stand for re-election. The exchange continued in the Evening Post on the 27 June, but Cllr Cook did not respond.
Readers will also be aware of the campaign’s petition and presentation to South Gloucestershire Council on the 20 May, Evening Post report 23 May. A totally negative response was received by letter from Cllr Brian Allinson on the 20 July. As a result I made a further statement to South Gloucestershire Council on the 29 July. This statement drew attention to the fact that the minutes of the 20 May Council meeting failed to record the petition and statement.
I also said that the response from Cllr Allinson on the 20 July was full of bureaucratic platitudes, showed that he had failed to listen to reasoned argument on the 20 May, and that he could not solve the transport problems from the Depot and Land Fill sites in Hallen by sending them over the boundary into Bristol.
I then argued that Cllr Cook supports a minority at the expense of the children and young people of Bristol, and that under the aims of the West of England Partnership, Cllr Cook, South Gloucestershire’s Executive Member for Children and Young People, also has a partnership responsibility to the children and young people of Bristol.
The silent responses of both Cllr Allinson and Cllr Cook at the Council meeting were a revealing portrayal of the selfish attitudes that exist in South Gloucestershire today.
The full text of my statement appears on www.bantankers.blogspot.com
The reconstructed Hallen Road/Ison Hill railway bridge reopened on the 7 August, with the same reduced width pinch point and the same substandard alignment as the old bridge. This matter is not going to go away and will continue to haunt South Gloucestershire Council until they are prepared to open a sensible dialogue with Bristol City Council and the residents of North West Bristol".
Not too long to wait to see what their responses will be!
"The Information Commissioners Office has recently found that Almondsbury Parish Council failed to respond to my request under the Freedom of Information Act. The Council was also found to have ignored correspondence from the Commissioner’s Office. A Decision Notice dated the 28 July has been issued.
During my efforts to obtain information from the Clerk to the Parish Council, in respect of the campaign to ban fuel tankers and other hgv’s from North West Bristol suburban roads, I received a final email on the 12 March stating that the then Chair of the Parish Council, Cllr Sheila Cook, was dealing with the matter. Nothing further was received.
As a result of of this situation a formal complaint was made to South Gloucestershire Council on the 8 August, "that Executive Member Councillor Sheila Cook, in her capacity as the former Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, following my request under the Freedom of Information Act to the Parish Council on the 2 February 2009, did ignore my request, and did ignore correspondence from the Information Commissioner’s Office, all as stated in their Decision Notice under reference FS50237638 dated the 28 July 2009", and further "that in my opinion this was conduct contrary to law and unbecoming an elected member of a Parish Council within South Gloucestershire, and conduct unbecoming an Executive Member of South Gloucestershire Council".
The complaint has been acknowledged and referred to the Assessment Sub Committee of the Standards Committee on the 28 August.
Readers may remember that Cllr Cook objected when I said she had resigned as Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, in my letter to the Evening Post on 5 June, “show some concern for the safety of the young”. In her letter of response in the Evening Post on 22 June, she said she had decided not to stand for re-election. The exchange continued in the Evening Post on the 27 June, but Cllr Cook did not respond.
Readers will also be aware of the campaign’s petition and presentation to South Gloucestershire Council on the 20 May, Evening Post report 23 May. A totally negative response was received by letter from Cllr Brian Allinson on the 20 July. As a result I made a further statement to South Gloucestershire Council on the 29 July. This statement drew attention to the fact that the minutes of the 20 May Council meeting failed to record the petition and statement.
I also said that the response from Cllr Allinson on the 20 July was full of bureaucratic platitudes, showed that he had failed to listen to reasoned argument on the 20 May, and that he could not solve the transport problems from the Depot and Land Fill sites in Hallen by sending them over the boundary into Bristol.
I then argued that Cllr Cook supports a minority at the expense of the children and young people of Bristol, and that under the aims of the West of England Partnership, Cllr Cook, South Gloucestershire’s Executive Member for Children and Young People, also has a partnership responsibility to the children and young people of Bristol.
The silent responses of both Cllr Allinson and Cllr Cook at the Council meeting were a revealing portrayal of the selfish attitudes that exist in South Gloucestershire today.
The full text of my statement appears on www.bantankers.blogspot.com
The reconstructed Hallen Road/Ison Hill railway bridge reopened on the 7 August, with the same reduced width pinch point and the same substandard alignment as the old bridge. This matter is not going to go away and will continue to haunt South Gloucestershire Council until they are prepared to open a sensible dialogue with Bristol City Council and the residents of North West Bristol".
Not too long to wait to see what their responses will be!
Thursday 13 August 2009
ALMONDSBURY PARISH COUNCIL
Re my post on the 31 July regarding the Information Commissioner's Decision Notice, issued to Almondsbury Parish Council on the 28 July 2009. A formal complaint was made to South Gloucestershire Council on the 8 August.
"That Executive Member Councillor Sheila Cook, in her capacity as the former Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, following my request under the Freedom of Information Act to the Parish Council on the 2 February 2009, did ignore my request, and did ignore correspondence from the Information Commissioner’s Office, all as stated in their Decision Notice under reference FS50237638 dated the 28 July 2009", and further "that in my opinion this was conduct contrary to law and unbecoming an elected member of a Parish Council within South Gloucestershire, and conduct unbecoming an Executive Member of South Gloucestershire Council".
The complaint has been acknowledged and referred to the Assessment Sub Committee of the Standards Committee on the 28 August. We await their deliberations.
"That Executive Member Councillor Sheila Cook, in her capacity as the former Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, following my request under the Freedom of Information Act to the Parish Council on the 2 February 2009, did ignore my request, and did ignore correspondence from the Information Commissioner’s Office, all as stated in their Decision Notice under reference FS50237638 dated the 28 July 2009", and further "that in my opinion this was conduct contrary to law and unbecoming an elected member of a Parish Council within South Gloucestershire, and conduct unbecoming an Executive Member of South Gloucestershire Council".
The complaint has been acknowledged and referred to the Assessment Sub Committee of the Standards Committee on the 28 August. We await their deliberations.
Tuesday 11 August 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE V BRISTOL
This is how South Gloucestershire Council sends aviation fuel tankers and waste skip transporters from Hallen Petrol Storage Depot and Hallen Landfill Site into North West Bristol suburban roads. Two sites, two weight restriction zones, one way traffic.
This last week, 3-7 August 2009, Bristol City Council have carried out resurfacing works in Avonmouth Way and Station Road, Henbury, to repair the damage caused by these heavy goods vehicles. I wonder who picks up the bill?
Sunday 9 August 2009
OBSTRUCTING V SMOOTHING THE TRAFFIC FLOW
Anyone's guess what's going on in Henbury?
Councillor Jon Rogers, Bristol City Council Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability.
The West of England Partnership's co-ordinated and responsible approach to multi-area traffic management works well?
Councillor Brian Allinson, South Gloucestershire Council Executive Member for Planning, Transportation and Strategic Environment.
Obstructing the aviation fuel tanker/hgv traffic flow on the new Hallen Road/Ison Hill railway bridge. Road improvements? completed 7 August 2009.
Having made the decision to send the tankers into North West Bristol, now makes the driver's task as difficult as possible by deliberately reducing the road width.
Councillor Jon Rogers, Bristol City Council Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability.Smoothing the aviation fuel tanker/hgv traffic flow with the new mini roundabout at the Avonmouth Way/Station Road junction. Road improvements? completed 7 August 2009.
Having made the decision not to ban tankers from entering North West Bristol, now makes the drivers task easier by removing the humped roundabout and replacing it with a painted mini roundabout.
The West of England Partnership's co-ordinated and responsible approach to multi-area traffic management works well?
Saturday 8 August 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
So its happened, a week early, the new Hallen Road/Ison Hill railway bridge opens pm Friday 7 August 2009. These two photographs were taken 7.15am Saturday 8 August.
This is road safety courtesy of South Gloucestershire Council.
Out of the sun, into your face, offside flasher flashing, over the white line, to pass an obstruction. What is the obstruction?, its the 5.2m pinch point reduced road width on the new bridge, repeating the same substandard alignment of the old bridge. Well done Councillor Brian Allinson South Gloucestershire Executive Member for Planning, Transportation and Strategic Environment, an executive decision to be proud of?
Why did Bristol City Council allow this to happen? What practical steps will they take now to ban tankers from North West Bristol suburban roads? Its not too difficult given a firm political will to act.
Saturday 1 August 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
Following the campaign's statement to the South Gloucestershire Council meeting on the 29 July 09, on the 30 July a formal complaint was made to the Council regarding the minutes of the previous Council meeting on the 20 May 09, as follows,
"Please take this email as a formal complaint to the Council, that the Council's record-keeping is inadequate and contrary to the advice given to local authorities by the Local Government Ombudsman.
At yesterdays Council meeting the Chair, Cllr Holloway, said that the minutes were not intended to include everything, but were an overview of the whole meeting.
It is my view, that to fail to record that I had submitted a prior written statement, and that I presented a statement summary at the meeting, is inadequate record keeping. An overview that does not mention specific documents, even briefly, is inadequate.
I am also attaching a copy of the text of my statement at yesterday evenings Council meeting, so that an accurate record may be provided. This text has also been forwarded to Cllr Allinson, Cllr Cook and Stuart Hook.
I look forward to receiving your response to my formal complaint".
An acknowledgement has been received from the Council,
"In accordance with the council’s complaints procedure your complaint will be investigated at Stage 1 by Gill Sinclair (Deputy Head of Legal & Democratic Services), and you will receive a written response on this matter by 13 August 2009 at the latest".
"Please take this email as a formal complaint to the Council, that the Council's record-keeping is inadequate and contrary to the advice given to local authorities by the Local Government Ombudsman.
At yesterdays Council meeting the Chair, Cllr Holloway, said that the minutes were not intended to include everything, but were an overview of the whole meeting.
It is my view, that to fail to record that I had submitted a prior written statement, and that I presented a statement summary at the meeting, is inadequate record keeping. An overview that does not mention specific documents, even briefly, is inadequate.
I am also attaching a copy of the text of my statement at yesterday evenings Council meeting, so that an accurate record may be provided. This text has also been forwarded to Cllr Allinson, Cllr Cook and Stuart Hook.
I look forward to receiving your response to my formal complaint".
An acknowledgement has been received from the Council,
"In accordance with the council’s complaints procedure your complaint will be investigated at Stage 1 by Gill Sinclair (Deputy Head of Legal & Democratic Services), and you will receive a written response on this matter by 13 August 2009 at the latest".
Friday 31 July 2009
ALMONDSBURY PARISH COUNCIL
The Information Commissioners Office has recently found that Almondsbury Parish Council failed to respond to the campaign's request under the Freedom of Information Act. The Council was also found to have ignored correspondence from the Commissioner’s Office. A Decision Notice dated the 28 July has been issued.
During our efforts to obtain information from the Clerk to the Parish Council, we received a final email on the 12 March stating that the then Chair of the Parish Council, Cllr Sheila Cook, was dealing with the matter. Nothing further was received.
Readers of the Bristol Evening Post may remember that Cllr Cook objected when we said she had resigned as Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, in our letter to the Evening Post on 5 June, “show some concern for the safety of the young”. In her letter of response in the Evening Post on 22 June, she said she had decided not to stand for re-election. The exchange continued in the Evening Post on the 27 June, but Cllr Cook did not respond.
During our efforts to obtain information from the Clerk to the Parish Council, we received a final email on the 12 March stating that the then Chair of the Parish Council, Cllr Sheila Cook, was dealing with the matter. Nothing further was received.
The summary of the decision, the request, the scope of the case and the chronology are shown below. In all the notice runs to ten pages.
Readers of the Bristol Evening Post may remember that Cllr Cook objected when we said she had resigned as Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, in our letter to the Evening Post on 5 June, “show some concern for the safety of the young”. In her letter of response in the Evening Post on 22 June, she said she had decided not to stand for re-election. The exchange continued in the Evening Post on the 27 June, but Cllr Cook did not respond. SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
Follow the campaign's presentation to South Gloucestershire Council on the 20 May 09, a totally negative response was received from Cllr Brian Allinson on the 20 July. As a result a further presentation was made to the Council on the 29 July. The full text of the statement is as follows,
Reference my presentation to your meeting on the 20 May.
The draft minutes did not mention my written statement or the summary I presented at the meeting.
My supplementary questions were only summarised.
I see that your review has not amended the minutes.
I have recently received your response to my statement and petition Cllr Allinson. This weak response fails to listen to reasoned argument and is full of bureaucratic platitudes.
on Page 1
When the permanent Order was confirmed in April 96, it was stated that, “Suitable alternative routes for heavy traffic are available using motorway or "A" class roads”. The Order was based on a false premise and the responsibility rests with this Council, not Avon.
The weight limit is currently rescinded to permit the reconstruction of the railway bridge to the same substandard alignment and pinch point as the old bridge. A deliberate decision by you Councillor to save £100,000 pounds.
Your argument that the weight limit is used to effect the speed limit in Hallen is absurd. Speeding vehicles are controlled by speed limits, traffic calming measures and safety cameras, not weight restrictions.
The weight limit is defended by a minority at the expense of the children and young people of Bristol. This Council as a member of the West of England Partnership has a greater responsibility.
on Page 2
At your last meeting I explained that my submission to Bristol included creating a new weight limit on Hallen Road, to prevent a through route between Bristol and Severnside. Obviously you were not listening last time. I trust you are listening today.
Why Cllr Allinson have you selectively chosen only two of the routes used by the tankers in Bristol to carry out your analysis. There are four separate routes, therefore your analysis is nonsense.
The routes through Bristol have a considerably higher risk of an accident, a higher population density, greater direct pedestrian and vehicle access onto the routes, and have a large school population.
I am pleased that you have taken on board the North Somerset pipeline alternatives outlined in my submission in May. However Hallen depot is within this Council’s boundary, this is your problem not Bristol’s. You cannot deal with your problems Councillor by sending them over the boundary.
It was South Gloucester that all too easily complied with the MoD's request, when Crown immunity relating to the storage and transportation of hazardous substances expired. By contrast North Somerset resisted.
You cannot simply pick up the tax revenue generated from the depot and the land fill site and pass all your transport problems on to others.
This Executive should be ashamed that it selfishly lets down its partner in the West of England Partnership. Have you not read the Joint Local Transport Plan? Do you not listen to the Government Office for the South West.
This Executive should also be ashamed that it lets down the Conservative Party under whose banner it sits.
I would also argue that under the aims of the West of England Partnership, your Executive Member for Children and Young People also has a partnership responsibility to the children and young people of Bristol.
Cllr Allinson, Cllr Cook, I do not intend to go away, I shall be back to haunt you on a regular basis until common sense prevails, you enter into a sensible dialogue, and this selfish weight restriction is removed.
The residents of North West Bristol demand that both Councils enter into a sensible dialogue with each other and the residents, to find a mutually acceptable solution, to resolve this long standing problem. Other options are available to prevent Hallen and North West Bristol becoming a long term through route between Bristol and Severnside.
Come on elected Councillors show us that you represent local people, show us that you justify the expenses you claim. Show us that the West of Englnd Partnership is more than platitudes.
Reference my presentation to your meeting on the 20 May.
The draft minutes did not mention my written statement or the summary I presented at the meeting.
My supplementary questions were only summarised.
I see that your review has not amended the minutes.
I have recently received your response to my statement and petition Cllr Allinson. This weak response fails to listen to reasoned argument and is full of bureaucratic platitudes.
on Page 1
When the permanent Order was confirmed in April 96, it was stated that, “Suitable alternative routes for heavy traffic are available using motorway or "A" class roads”. The Order was based on a false premise and the responsibility rests with this Council, not Avon.
The weight limit is currently rescinded to permit the reconstruction of the railway bridge to the same substandard alignment and pinch point as the old bridge. A deliberate decision by you Councillor to save £100,000 pounds.
Your argument that the weight limit is used to effect the speed limit in Hallen is absurd. Speeding vehicles are controlled by speed limits, traffic calming measures and safety cameras, not weight restrictions.
The weight limit is defended by a minority at the expense of the children and young people of Bristol. This Council as a member of the West of England Partnership has a greater responsibility.
on Page 2
At your last meeting I explained that my submission to Bristol included creating a new weight limit on Hallen Road, to prevent a through route between Bristol and Severnside. Obviously you were not listening last time. I trust you are listening today.
Why Cllr Allinson have you selectively chosen only two of the routes used by the tankers in Bristol to carry out your analysis. There are four separate routes, therefore your analysis is nonsense.
The routes through Bristol have a considerably higher risk of an accident, a higher population density, greater direct pedestrian and vehicle access onto the routes, and have a large school population.
I am pleased that you have taken on board the North Somerset pipeline alternatives outlined in my submission in May. However Hallen depot is within this Council’s boundary, this is your problem not Bristol’s. You cannot deal with your problems Councillor by sending them over the boundary.
It was South Gloucester that all too easily complied with the MoD's request, when Crown immunity relating to the storage and transportation of hazardous substances expired. By contrast North Somerset resisted.
You cannot simply pick up the tax revenue generated from the depot and the land fill site and pass all your transport problems on to others.
This Executive should be ashamed that it selfishly lets down its partner in the West of England Partnership. Have you not read the Joint Local Transport Plan? Do you not listen to the Government Office for the South West.
This Executive should also be ashamed that it lets down the Conservative Party under whose banner it sits.
I would also argue that under the aims of the West of England Partnership, your Executive Member for Children and Young People also has a partnership responsibility to the children and young people of Bristol.
Cllr Allinson, Cllr Cook, I do not intend to go away, I shall be back to haunt you on a regular basis until common sense prevails, you enter into a sensible dialogue, and this selfish weight restriction is removed.
The residents of North West Bristol demand that both Councils enter into a sensible dialogue with each other and the residents, to find a mutually acceptable solution, to resolve this long standing problem. Other options are available to prevent Hallen and North West Bristol becoming a long term through route between Bristol and Severnside.
Come on elected Councillors show us that you represent local people, show us that you justify the expenses you claim. Show us that the West of Englnd Partnership is more than platitudes.
Tuesday 28 July 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
This is the continuing story of the ridiculous alignment and width of the new Ison Hill/Hallen Road railway bridge.
See my last post on the 19 July 09.
This plan shows traffic congestion on the old railway bridge. South Gloucestershire Council have chosen to build the new bridge to the same alignment and width as the old bridge.
The railway bridge has been unsuitable for fuel tankers for many years. Suburban roads in North West Bristol have been unsuitable for fuel tankers for many years. South Gloucestershire blunders on regardless of the consquences for its neighbours.
See my last post on the 19 July 09.
This plan shows traffic congestion on the old railway bridge. South Gloucestershire Council have chosen to build the new bridge to the same alignment and width as the old bridge.
The railway bridge has been unsuitable for fuel tankers for many years. Suburban roads in North West Bristol have been unsuitable for fuel tankers for many years. South Gloucestershire blunders on regardless of the consquences for its neighbours.
Sunday 19 July 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
This is the story of the ridiculous alingment and width of the new Ison Hill/Hallen Road railway bridge.
A contribution of £200,000 pounds to the bridge replacement was approved by the South Gloucestershire Council in 2008, based on a technical report to Councillor Brian Allinson, Executive Member for Planning, Transportation and Strategic Environment, in 2007. This option did not allow for any changes to the highway alignment. The report offered three options;
Item 11, Allow Network Rail to strengthen the bridge to 24T at no cost to the Council and rescind the existing weight limit in Hallen;
Item 12, Increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T, but do not include any changes to the highway alignment. The Council’s contribution would be £200,000;
Item 13, Increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T and realign the highway, removing the pinch point at the bridge. The Council’s contribution would be £300,000.
The Council opted for Item 12. This appears to be a financial decision, with road safety taking second place. 
The old bridge had a varying width sloping roadway with a narrow pinch point to only 5.2m, with only a 1.0m wide footpath on one side. The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. The necessity for fuel tankers to straddle the centre white line at the pinch point will be the same when the new bridge is finished.
The old bridge had a varying width sloping roadway with a narrow pinch point to only 5.2m, with only a 1.0m wide footpath on one side. The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. The necessity for fuel tankers to straddle the centre white line at the pinch point will be the same when the new bridge is finished.That South Gloucestershire Council force aviation fuel tankers from Hallen Depot and skip transporters from Hallen Landfill Site into North West Bristol's suburban roads is crime enough. However despite this arrogance they are now perpetuating the railway bridge restriction as a road safety hazard for many years to come.
South Gloucestershire Council proudly calls itself a member of the West of England Road Safety Partnership, what an absurd boast.
Bristol City Council, listen to the local residents and children at risk. The tankers and other hgv's cannot be allowed to return to North West Bristol suburban roads, once the construction of the new railway bridge is completed in August.
Saturday 11 July 2009
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
Did you see the letter in yesterday's Bristol Evening Post on the subject of the Lib Dems, "Local people know best". Below is the full text of the letter sent for publication.
"An interesting letter from D A E Fey “We may know best but the council has its own agenda” Friday 3 July. Seems to be a common problem with Bristol City Council, read on about our experience.
After months of frustration and lack of interest from Council officers I presented a petition and made a statement to full Council on the 28 April. Cllr Jon Rogers responded enthusiastically “I will be happy to investigate and you have given a very clear and detailed report about the problems. They sound like they have been going on for years and really that is not appropriate”.
Prior to the election, emails were sent and replied to instantly, “Our council is far too secretive about things, and uses secrecy as a way of avoiding problems and evading difficult decisions. My group want to change that”, “Ask for a briefing with officers, and ask if you could attend at a suitable time”, “Should the Lib Dems again form the administration this will be an issue that will be addressed”.
But after the election, it’s as though we were still attempting to get a response from the previous Labour Executive, no obvious change. Emails are now ignored for a week. Member’s letters are forwarded by officers a week after they have been signed and dated.
What is clearly apparent is that incompetent officer’s rule Bristol Council with a subservient Executive, irrespective of which party is in power. In our experience, the officers draft letters which members obediently sign, even though the letter is contrary to previous emails, members suggest meetings to officers rather than instruct the officer to arrange a meeting, with the result that the officers continue to do nothing.
For an Executive member to write “Because we are not experts, we have not arbitrated on the individual comments of officers and residents”, is not only completely at odds with “Local people know best”, it is an abandonment of the responsibility of an elected member and a betrayal of local people.
The Lib Dems now have an opportunity, all the hype and grand statements will mean absolutely nothing if local issues are not dealt with. In the current political climate such policies are being shown to fail on an almost daily basis.
In closing I must also refer to the letter from a council employee, Saturday 4 July. I don't think anybody who has attempted to deal with Bristol Council will be surprised by this letter.
From the top down residents face barriers to competent service provision and information release, from chief executive, to strategic director, down to service director. I am sure that an open plan office and joined up thinking will enable more efficient barriers to be erected. When I say more efficient, I mean more efficient at protecting chief and 1st tier directors".
Lets hope that the current administration can make a difference.
"An interesting letter from D A E Fey “We may know best but the council has its own agenda” Friday 3 July. Seems to be a common problem with Bristol City Council, read on about our experience.
After months of frustration and lack of interest from Council officers I presented a petition and made a statement to full Council on the 28 April. Cllr Jon Rogers responded enthusiastically “I will be happy to investigate and you have given a very clear and detailed report about the problems. They sound like they have been going on for years and really that is not appropriate”.
Prior to the election, emails were sent and replied to instantly, “Our council is far too secretive about things, and uses secrecy as a way of avoiding problems and evading difficult decisions. My group want to change that”, “Ask for a briefing with officers, and ask if you could attend at a suitable time”, “Should the Lib Dems again form the administration this will be an issue that will be addressed”.
But after the election, it’s as though we were still attempting to get a response from the previous Labour Executive, no obvious change. Emails are now ignored for a week. Member’s letters are forwarded by officers a week after they have been signed and dated.
What is clearly apparent is that incompetent officer’s rule Bristol Council with a subservient Executive, irrespective of which party is in power. In our experience, the officers draft letters which members obediently sign, even though the letter is contrary to previous emails, members suggest meetings to officers rather than instruct the officer to arrange a meeting, with the result that the officers continue to do nothing.
For an Executive member to write “Because we are not experts, we have not arbitrated on the individual comments of officers and residents”, is not only completely at odds with “Local people know best”, it is an abandonment of the responsibility of an elected member and a betrayal of local people.
The Lib Dems now have an opportunity, all the hype and grand statements will mean absolutely nothing if local issues are not dealt with. In the current political climate such policies are being shown to fail on an almost daily basis.
In closing I must also refer to the letter from a council employee, Saturday 4 July. I don't think anybody who has attempted to deal with Bristol Council will be surprised by this letter.
From the top down residents face barriers to competent service provision and information release, from chief executive, to strategic director, down to service director. I am sure that an open plan office and joined up thinking will enable more efficient barriers to be erected. When I say more efficient, I mean more efficient at protecting chief and 1st tier directors".
Lets hope that the current administration can make a difference.
Thursday 9 July 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
Following my post on the 5 July this email has just been sent Councillor Brian Allinson, South Gloucestershire's Executive Member for Planning, Transportation and Strategic Environment.
"As it is a month since my last email to you on the 9 June I am writing to ask what progress you are making considering the matters put to you at my presentation to Council on the 20 May.
Whilst writing I note an article in today's Bristol Evening Post mentioning Cllr Heather Goddard, South Gloucestershire's Executive Member for Communities.
Surely it is about time that South Gloucestershire Council's enviro-crime team considered the polluting crime perpetrated for many years by Cllr Sheila Cook on the community of North West Bristol, which makes a mockery of your Council's membership of the West of England Partnership.
I look forward to your personal response".
The Bristol Evening Post article is on Page 8.
"As it is a month since my last email to you on the 9 June I am writing to ask what progress you are making considering the matters put to you at my presentation to Council on the 20 May.
Whilst writing I note an article in today's Bristol Evening Post mentioning Cllr Heather Goddard, South Gloucestershire's Executive Member for Communities.
Surely it is about time that South Gloucestershire Council's enviro-crime team considered the polluting crime perpetrated for many years by Cllr Sheila Cook on the community of North West Bristol, which makes a mockery of your Council's membership of the West of England Partnership.
I look forward to your personal response".
The Bristol Evening Post article is on Page 8.
Sunday 5 July 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
You may remember from the exchange of letters in the Bristol Evening Post with South Gloucestershire Executive Member Councillor Sheila Cook, that there are three underground pipeline network facilities south of the River Avon and closer to Bristol Airport than Hallen storage depot.
This plan shows their location, Flax Bourton PSD, Redcliffe Bay PSD, and Bristol Aviation Fuel Terminal, Royal Portbury Dock. Also shown are Bristol Airport and Hallen PSD.
There are therefore a number of alternative network options in lieu of the current ridiculous tanker routes shown in our posting on the 28 June.
There are therefore a number of alternative network options in lieu of the current ridiculous tanker routes shown in our posting on the 28 June.
LOCAL AUTHORITY TIMELINE 2009
This is an update on what's been happening with the two local authorities since the presentations to their full council meetings.
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL 28 APRIL 2009
28 April full council presentation to BCC.
29 April supplementary questions confirmed to BCC.
29 April from BCC, will ask for a briefing with officers and ask if you
could attend.
from BCC, will speak with South Gloucestershire councillors.
18 May from BCC, update received.
18 May to BCC, statement confirmed unlikely to be in minutes.
to BCC, no confidence in officers.
18 May from BCC, should the Lib Dems again form the administration this
will be an issue that will be addressed.
from BCC, expect statement will form part of the minutes.
9 June to BCC, unacceptable response to presentation.
10 June to BCC, request for meeting to discuss.
17 June to BCC, statement and supplementary answers not in minutes.
23 June to BCC, request for meeting.
23 June from BCC, wait until mid July.
23 June to BCC, unacceptable, involvement now please.
24 June to BCC, request for meeting.
24 June within BCC, request to officer to arrange meeting.
1 July to BCC, nothing heard.
SOUTH GLOCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL 20 MAY 2009
20 May full council presentation to SGC.
20 May supplementary questions confirmed to SGC.
8 June from SGC, supplementary answers received.
9 June to SGC, query when can presentation response be expected.
11 June from SGC, response in due course.
You be the judge, are we making progress?, looks like there's a long way to go.
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL 28 APRIL 2009
28 April full council presentation to BCC.
29 April supplementary questions confirmed to BCC.
29 April from BCC, will ask for a briefing with officers and ask if you
could attend.
from BCC, will speak with South Gloucestershire councillors.
18 May from BCC, update received.
18 May to BCC, statement confirmed unlikely to be in minutes.
to BCC, no confidence in officers.
18 May from BCC, should the Lib Dems again form the administration this
will be an issue that will be addressed.
from BCC, expect statement will form part of the minutes.
9 June to BCC, unacceptable response to presentation.
10 June to BCC, request for meeting to discuss.
17 June to BCC, statement and supplementary answers not in minutes.
23 June to BCC, request for meeting.
23 June from BCC, wait until mid July.
23 June to BCC, unacceptable, involvement now please.
24 June to BCC, request for meeting.
24 June within BCC, request to officer to arrange meeting.
1 July to BCC, nothing heard.
SOUTH GLOCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL 20 MAY 2009
20 May full council presentation to SGC.
20 May supplementary questions confirmed to SGC.
8 June from SGC, supplementary answers received.
9 June to SGC, query when can presentation response be expected.
11 June from SGC, response in due course.
You be the judge, are we making progress?, looks like there's a long way to go.
Wednesday 1 July 2009
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
You may remember that a couple of weeks ago I reported that Stephen McNamara, Head of Legal Services at Bristol City Council was maintaining that we had no right to copies of Council documents or to inspect Council files. The rights of applicants are clearly defined in S11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
He is now trying to pretend the requests do not exist and is crying vexatious requests under S14 of the Act.
However case law has determined that S11 is breached when the applicant has specified their preferred format at the time of making the request and this is then ignored by the authority. His lack of knowledge of the law is hard to comprehend, or is it simply that previous copies provided gave too much away.
Unfortunately the Information Commissioner's Office will have to determine this point, creating more delay. However this should be interesting given that the case law information was obtained from their website.
Sunday 28 June 2009
THE FUEL TANKER ROUTES THROUGH NORTH WEST BRISTOL
Map of North West Bristol showing tanker routes.
Black dot, Hallen fuel storage depot.
Blue dots, the direct route to the A403 and the Motorway.
Red dots, the congested routes through Bristol.
These are the tanker routes caused by South Gloucestershire Council’s selfish policy of sending all fuel tankers from Hallen PSD and all skip transporters from the Hallen land fill site into North West Bristol’s suburban roads. To date Bristol City Council have shown little interest in challenging this policy despite the fact that both Council's are members of the West of England Road Safety Partnership, which aims to reduce the numbers of casualties from road traffic accidents in the Partner’s districts.
This despite the rebuilding of Henbury School and the new Leisure Centre, where for the first time the school and centre entrances discharge directly onto the tanker routes.
Time to wake up Bristol.
Saturday 27 June 2009
ALMONDSBURY PARISH COUNCIL
In the Bristol Evening Post on the 22 June, Councillor Sheila Cook, South Gloucestershire Council's Executive Member for Children and Young People and former Chair of the Parish Council, replied to the Campaign, see Soapbox: "Closer source of plane fuel may help". Did she miss the point, what do you think?, see the Campaign's response below, published 27 June, see Soapbox: "Fuel tankers in city suburbs".
"Further to South Gloucestershire Councillor Shelia Cook’s letter Evening Post 22 June, I am pleased to be able to expand on my own letter of the 5 May. Councillor Cook is South Gloucestershire’s Executive Member for Children and Young People.
The records show that South Gloucestershire’s lack of decision and lack of funding, delayed the replacement by Network Rail of a weak bridge. But that is not the whole story. A contribution of £200,000 pounds to the bridge replacement was approved by the Council in 2008, based on a technical report to Councillor Brian Allinson, Executive Member for Planning, Transportation and Strategic Environment, in 2007. This option did not allow for any changes to the highway alignment.
The report offered three options; Item 11, Allow Network Rail to strengthen the bridge to 24T at no cost to the Council and rescind the existing weight limit in Hallen; Item 12, Increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T, but do not include any changes to the highway alignment. The Council’s contribution would be £200,000; Item 13, Increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T and realign the highway, removing the pinch point at the bridge. The Council’s contribution would be £300,000.
Perhaps Councillor Cook could explain, why South Gloucestershire Council opted for Item 12, instead of Item 13? This appears to be a financial decision, with road safety taking second place.
The old bridge had a varying width sloping roadway with a narrow pinch point to only 5.2m, with only a 1.0m wide footpath on one side. The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. The photograph with Councillor Cook’s letter shows a fuel tanker travelling over the old bridge and down the hill towards the storage depot. The necessity to straddle the white line at the pinch point will be the same when the new bridge is finished.
Our campaign objective is simple, why should aviation fuel tankers travel from South Gloucestershire, into North West Bristol’s built-up suburban areas, when a route along Severn Road, is a level, wide and direct route to the motorway network? Aviation fuel tankers, particularly slow moving full tankers in first gear up Ison Hill, have a detrimental effect on roads and properties, they pollute the environment, add to wear and tear on vehicle tyres, brakes, etc, add to traffic congestion on already busy roads, and they are an unnecessary road safety hazard.
The rapidly growing population of North West Bristol, particularly children, is being put at risk. There are no schools in Hallen, but there are four schools in Henbury alone, accommodating 1500+ children at the last count.
South Gloucestershire Council’s selfish policy of sending all fuel tankers from Hallen PSD and all skip transporters from the Hallen land fill site into North West Bristol’s suburban roads is plain for all to see. This policy is contrary to the Council’s membership of the West of England Road Safety Partnership, which aims to reduce the numbers of casualties from road traffic accidents in the Partner’s districts.
Certainly I support Councillor Cook. Bristol Airport should source its aviation fuel in a more environmentally friendly manner. I sent a copy of my initial ban fuel tankers submission to Bristol City Council, to South Gloucestershire Council, to Amanda Deeks, Chief Executive, and Peter Jackson, Director of Planning Transportation and Strategic Environment, on the 20 November 2008.
In this document I pointed out that Bristol Airport was not connected to the GPSS underground pipeline network, and that there were three network facilities south of the River Avon and closer to Bristol Airport than Hallen PSD. These were Flax Bourton PSD, Redcliffe Bay PSD and Bristol Aviation Fuel Terminal at Royal Portbury Dock. I did not receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement from South Gloucestershire Council".
Come on South Gloucestershire Council it's time to admit, that protecting Hallen at the expense of North West Bristol is no longer a "justifiable case". There are very few residential properties with direct vehicular and pedestrian access on to Severn Road.
A level, wide and direct route to the motorway network has no counter argument, when the alternative is traffic congestion and an unnecessary road safety hazard on already busy roads. The rapidly growing population of North West Bristol, particularly children, is being put at risk.
Let common sense prevail.
"Further to South Gloucestershire Councillor Shelia Cook’s letter Evening Post 22 June, I am pleased to be able to expand on my own letter of the 5 May. Councillor Cook is South Gloucestershire’s Executive Member for Children and Young People.
The records show that South Gloucestershire’s lack of decision and lack of funding, delayed the replacement by Network Rail of a weak bridge. But that is not the whole story. A contribution of £200,000 pounds to the bridge replacement was approved by the Council in 2008, based on a technical report to Councillor Brian Allinson, Executive Member for Planning, Transportation and Strategic Environment, in 2007. This option did not allow for any changes to the highway alignment.
The report offered three options; Item 11, Allow Network Rail to strengthen the bridge to 24T at no cost to the Council and rescind the existing weight limit in Hallen; Item 12, Increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T, but do not include any changes to the highway alignment. The Council’s contribution would be £200,000; Item 13, Increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T and realign the highway, removing the pinch point at the bridge. The Council’s contribution would be £300,000.
Perhaps Councillor Cook could explain, why South Gloucestershire Council opted for Item 12, instead of Item 13? This appears to be a financial decision, with road safety taking second place.
The old bridge had a varying width sloping roadway with a narrow pinch point to only 5.2m, with only a 1.0m wide footpath on one side. The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. The photograph with Councillor Cook’s letter shows a fuel tanker travelling over the old bridge and down the hill towards the storage depot. The necessity to straddle the white line at the pinch point will be the same when the new bridge is finished.
Our campaign objective is simple, why should aviation fuel tankers travel from South Gloucestershire, into North West Bristol’s built-up suburban areas, when a route along Severn Road, is a level, wide and direct route to the motorway network? Aviation fuel tankers, particularly slow moving full tankers in first gear up Ison Hill, have a detrimental effect on roads and properties, they pollute the environment, add to wear and tear on vehicle tyres, brakes, etc, add to traffic congestion on already busy roads, and they are an unnecessary road safety hazard.
The rapidly growing population of North West Bristol, particularly children, is being put at risk. There are no schools in Hallen, but there are four schools in Henbury alone, accommodating 1500+ children at the last count.
South Gloucestershire Council’s selfish policy of sending all fuel tankers from Hallen PSD and all skip transporters from the Hallen land fill site into North West Bristol’s suburban roads is plain for all to see. This policy is contrary to the Council’s membership of the West of England Road Safety Partnership, which aims to reduce the numbers of casualties from road traffic accidents in the Partner’s districts.
Certainly I support Councillor Cook. Bristol Airport should source its aviation fuel in a more environmentally friendly manner. I sent a copy of my initial ban fuel tankers submission to Bristol City Council, to South Gloucestershire Council, to Amanda Deeks, Chief Executive, and Peter Jackson, Director of Planning Transportation and Strategic Environment, on the 20 November 2008.
In this document I pointed out that Bristol Airport was not connected to the GPSS underground pipeline network, and that there were three network facilities south of the River Avon and closer to Bristol Airport than Hallen PSD. These were Flax Bourton PSD, Redcliffe Bay PSD and Bristol Aviation Fuel Terminal at Royal Portbury Dock. I did not receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement from South Gloucestershire Council".
Come on South Gloucestershire Council it's time to admit, that protecting Hallen at the expense of North West Bristol is no longer a "justifiable case". There are very few residential properties with direct vehicular and pedestrian access on to Severn Road.
A level, wide and direct route to the motorway network has no counter argument, when the alternative is traffic congestion and an unnecessary road safety hazard on already busy roads. The rapidly growing population of North West Bristol, particularly children, is being put at risk.
Let common sense prevail.
Thursday 25 June 2009
CAMPAIGN POSTER
This is our campaign poster. Please print a copy(s) and display in a prominent position. Please email your support. The momentum is growing, welcome aboard.
WE SUPPORT
THE CAMPAIGN TO BAN
HALLEN OIL DEPOT TANKERS
AND OTHER HGVs
from
NORTH WEST BRISTOL
SUBURBAN ROADS
Thursday 18 June 2009
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
We have now discovered that Bristol City Council, whilst inviting members of the public to present petitions and statements, and ask questions at Council meetings, they do not fully record what is said in the formal minutes of the meeting. Is this because they have so little interest in what the public has to say between elections, or simply that they do not wish to be held to account, for promises made.
Take the 28 April 2009 Council meeting, the minutes were approved at the Council meeting on the 16 June 2009, see below for what is missing,
AGENDA ITEM 4(B) STATEMENTS
PS06
Hallen Depot falls within South Gloucester adjoining the Bristol boundary. They receive the business rates, but Bristol pick up the cost of maintaining roads carrying increased heavy traffic.
The fuel tankers serve the expanding Bristol Airport and other airports. New developments in Avonmouth and Severn Beach are causing a steady increase in traffic.
The weight limit on Severn Road, Hallen, was imposed by Avon during construction of the Second Severn Crossing from 1992 to 1996.
This limit can no longer be justified. Construction finished thirteen years ago. When the permanent Order was confirmed in 1996, it was stated that, “Suitable alternative routes for heavy traffic are available using motorway or "A" class roads”.
Despite numerous requests over the years, Traffic Management, has failed to object to the permanent Order in 1996, and subsequently failed to explore the options open to them to contest the Order.
Our case is simple, why should fuel tankers from South Gloucester, travel into Bristol’s suburban roads, when a northern route is a much safer option to the motorway network. Fuel tankers, have a detrimental effect on roads and properties, they pollute the environment, add to traffic congestion, and are a safety hazard.
Bristol Airport is not connected to the Government’s pipeline network, but there are three network facilities south of the River Avon and closer to Bristol Airport than Hallen Depot.
The weight limit is absurd in terms of multi-area traffic management. The larger population of Bristol, is being put at risk. There are no schools in Hallen, but there are four schools in Henbury alone.
For half of its length the weight limit on Severn Road, is within Bristol’s Avonmouth Ward. Is the South Gloucester Order legal?
We doubt that they can put up a credible defence of the limit, therefore it is a simple matter of Bristol having the will to act.
The DFT have indicated that they are willing to attend a meeting to help both Council’s find a solution. This campaign has the support of the RHA and the tanker drivers.
This petition will be presented to South Gloucester on the 20 May, and we urge Bristol to add their support.
The impending closure of the railway bridge on the 5 May, is an opportunity for a multi-area reassessment of traffic management.
TO COUNCILLOR/DR JON ROGERS, CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT AND SUSTAINABILITY
AGENDA ITEM 4(C) QUESTIONS
PQ1
Q1
Does the Council have responsibility, from a road safety viewpoint, for the safety of the residents of Bristol. If so how would you describe this responsibility and how is it implemented both in policy terms and day to day?
A1
See published AGENDA ITEM 4(C)
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Given that you have only been an Executive Member for eight weeks can you please ask Cllr Bradshaw if he was aware of the fuel tanker situation described in my statement, and if so what action had he taken as the former Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
That’s a great supplementary and I certainly will ask Councillor Bradshaw in due course. I will probably have to do it through the official channels, I don’t think I am allowed to ask supplementary questions myself at this stage. What I would say is that in my reply to you I didn’t know what, I didn’t know who it was or what the background was to the story.
But what I did say I have asked officers to respond in more detail below but if you have a specific concern about some part of the road network then I will be happy to investigate and you have given a very clear, in both the petition and in the statement, given a very clear and detailed report about the problems there.
They sound like they have been going on for years and really that is not appropriate, so I will give you my assurance I will be taking that back.
Q2
Can you please list all road safety initiatives and policies in the last five years and describe how they have improved road safety for the residents of Bristol?
A2
See published AGENDA ITEM 4(C)
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Given your Cabinet role and your membership of the West of England Partnership, Planning, Transport and Environment Group, in terms of multi-area traffic management, does Bristol Council have a responsibility for the road safety of the residents of South Gloucestershire?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
I think we all have a responsibility for residents everywhere in all our actions that we take.
The particular way in which we try and discharge that cross boundary responsibility is through the Road Safety Partnership which meets, well actually it hasn’t met for quite a long time under Councillor Bradshaw, but it has met quite recently and we have looked at the actions, statistics.
I have spoken, I speak on a number of occasions to Councillor Allinson, Brian Allinson in South Gloucestershire and I will happily take this up with him as well. This is clearly an issue that affects both our areas.
The undertakings have been given, the Lib Dems have been returned with an overall majority, lets see what happens now.
Take the 28 April 2009 Council meeting, the minutes were approved at the Council meeting on the 16 June 2009, see below for what is missing,
AGENDA ITEM 4(B) STATEMENTS
PS06
Hallen Depot falls within South Gloucester adjoining the Bristol boundary. They receive the business rates, but Bristol pick up the cost of maintaining roads carrying increased heavy traffic.
The fuel tankers serve the expanding Bristol Airport and other airports. New developments in Avonmouth and Severn Beach are causing a steady increase in traffic.
The weight limit on Severn Road, Hallen, was imposed by Avon during construction of the Second Severn Crossing from 1992 to 1996.
This limit can no longer be justified. Construction finished thirteen years ago. When the permanent Order was confirmed in 1996, it was stated that, “Suitable alternative routes for heavy traffic are available using motorway or "A" class roads”.
Despite numerous requests over the years, Traffic Management, has failed to object to the permanent Order in 1996, and subsequently failed to explore the options open to them to contest the Order.
Our case is simple, why should fuel tankers from South Gloucester, travel into Bristol’s suburban roads, when a northern route is a much safer option to the motorway network. Fuel tankers, have a detrimental effect on roads and properties, they pollute the environment, add to traffic congestion, and are a safety hazard.
Bristol Airport is not connected to the Government’s pipeline network, but there are three network facilities south of the River Avon and closer to Bristol Airport than Hallen Depot.
The weight limit is absurd in terms of multi-area traffic management. The larger population of Bristol, is being put at risk. There are no schools in Hallen, but there are four schools in Henbury alone.
For half of its length the weight limit on Severn Road, is within Bristol’s Avonmouth Ward. Is the South Gloucester Order legal?
We doubt that they can put up a credible defence of the limit, therefore it is a simple matter of Bristol having the will to act.
The DFT have indicated that they are willing to attend a meeting to help both Council’s find a solution. This campaign has the support of the RHA and the tanker drivers.
This petition will be presented to South Gloucester on the 20 May, and we urge Bristol to add their support.
The impending closure of the railway bridge on the 5 May, is an opportunity for a multi-area reassessment of traffic management.
TO COUNCILLOR/DR JON ROGERS, CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT AND SUSTAINABILITY
AGENDA ITEM 4(C) QUESTIONS
PQ1
Q1
Does the Council have responsibility, from a road safety viewpoint, for the safety of the residents of Bristol. If so how would you describe this responsibility and how is it implemented both in policy terms and day to day?
A1
See published AGENDA ITEM 4(C)
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Given that you have only been an Executive Member for eight weeks can you please ask Cllr Bradshaw if he was aware of the fuel tanker situation described in my statement, and if so what action had he taken as the former Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
That’s a great supplementary and I certainly will ask Councillor Bradshaw in due course. I will probably have to do it through the official channels, I don’t think I am allowed to ask supplementary questions myself at this stage. What I would say is that in my reply to you I didn’t know what, I didn’t know who it was or what the background was to the story.
But what I did say I have asked officers to respond in more detail below but if you have a specific concern about some part of the road network then I will be happy to investigate and you have given a very clear, in both the petition and in the statement, given a very clear and detailed report about the problems there.
They sound like they have been going on for years and really that is not appropriate, so I will give you my assurance I will be taking that back.
Q2
Can you please list all road safety initiatives and policies in the last five years and describe how they have improved road safety for the residents of Bristol?
A2
See published AGENDA ITEM 4(C)
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Given your Cabinet role and your membership of the West of England Partnership, Planning, Transport and Environment Group, in terms of multi-area traffic management, does Bristol Council have a responsibility for the road safety of the residents of South Gloucestershire?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
I think we all have a responsibility for residents everywhere in all our actions that we take.
The particular way in which we try and discharge that cross boundary responsibility is through the Road Safety Partnership which meets, well actually it hasn’t met for quite a long time under Councillor Bradshaw, but it has met quite recently and we have looked at the actions, statistics.
I have spoken, I speak on a number of occasions to Councillor Allinson, Brian Allinson in South Gloucestershire and I will happily take this up with him as well. This is clearly an issue that affects both our areas.
The undertakings have been given, the Lib Dems have been returned with an overall majority, lets see what happens now.
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 it says at Section 11,
Means by which communication to be made
(1) Where, on making his request for information, the applicant expresses a preference for communication by any one or more of the following means, namely—
(a) the provision to the applicant of a copy of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant,
(b) the provision to the applicant of a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record containing the information, and
(c) the provision to the applicant of a digest or summary of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant,
the public authority shall so far as reasonably practicable give effect to that preference.
Means by which communication to be made
(1) Where, on making his request for information, the applicant expresses a preference for communication by any one or more of the following means, namely—
(a) the provision to the applicant of a copy of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant,
(b) the provision to the applicant of a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record containing the information, and
(c) the provision to the applicant of a digest or summary of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant,
the public authority shall so far as reasonably practicable give effect to that preference.
but Stephen McNamara, Head of Legal Services at Bristol City Council, maintains that we have no right to copies of Council documents and have no right to inspect Council files.
The right is there in the Act for all to see, the preference is the applicants, appears to be deliberate delaying tactics. Perhaps we should call him "Speaker of Bristol City Council", and who is that hiding behind his chair, its only the Chief Executive.
Further developments expected.
Wednesday 17 June 2009
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
At the presentation of the campaign's petition and statement to South Gloucestershire Council on the 20 May 2009, it was pointed out to the Council that the new replacement bridge repeated the alignment failings of the old bridge, as follows,
"A contribution of £200,000 pounds to the bridge replacement was approved by this Council in 2008. Item 12 of the Technical Briefing Report by the Highways Structures Team in 2007 does not allow for any changes to the highway and footway alignments.
The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. This was a deliberate decision by this 4 Star Council".
ITEM 12 OF THE REPORT SAID
If Network Rail increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T, but do not include any changes to the highway or footway alignments, South Gloucestershire Council will need to contribute between £175,000 and £200,000. The Council’s contribution would be capped at the upper figure of £200,000.
Two supplementary questions were permitted at the Council meeting, these were,
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO 1
Would you say that these policies caused you to reject Item 11 of the Technical Briefing Report you received from the Highways Structures Team in 2007? That’s the item which gives you the option of removing the 7.5T weight restriction in Hallen and creating a new restriction at the railway bridge?
ITEM 11 OF THE REPORT SAID
If Network Rail are to strengthen the bridge to 24T, there will be no cost to the Council for the bridge works. However, a scheme will have to be included in the Capital programme for 2008/2009 to process a weak bridge order and rescind the existing 7.5T weight limit in Hallen Village. A further 7.5T environmental weight restriction in the vicinity of the bridge would need to be put in place to prevent large vehicles using Hallen Road as a through route from Avonmouth into Henbury. The estimated cost of processing the weight restriction orders would be in the region of £12,000.
THE COUNCIL'S ANSWER
We work to the recommendations in “BD 79/06 Management of sub-standard highway structures” which requires us to put in place plans to bring all structures up to the National Load Carrying Capacity. Network Rail were going to replace the bridge deck anyway and so we took the opportunity to bring the carrying capacity of the bridge up to the National Load Carrying Capacity of 40/44Tonnes.
SUPPLENTARY QUESTION NO 2
Would you say that this concern caused you to reject Item 13 of the Technical Briefing Report? That’s the option which realigns the railway bridge and removes the pinch point. Was this item rejected on financial or safety grounds?
ITEM 13 OF THE REPORT SAID
If Network Rail increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T and realign the highway, removing the pinch point at the North West end of the bridge, South Gloucestershire Council will need to contribute a maximum of £300,000. The contribution would be capped at this level.
THE COUNCIL'S ANSWER
Network Rail are going to replace the bridge deck on the same horizontal alignment as the original bridge without removing the pinch point in the highway (which is seen as a speed reduction measure). The only change South Gloucestershire has committed to is to increase the carrying capacity of the bridge to 40/44 tonnes.
The basic question was, when you have three options, why did you go for Item 12, over Items 11 and 13? We believe that the deliberate policy to send all fuel tankers into North West Bristol suburban roads is plain for all to see. But South Gloucestershire are apparently blind to the error of their decision, but then they have to be now , don't they, "lets see if we can get out of this by jargon and bluff".
No chance, watch this space.
"A contribution of £200,000 pounds to the bridge replacement was approved by this Council in 2008. Item 12 of the Technical Briefing Report by the Highways Structures Team in 2007 does not allow for any changes to the highway and footway alignments.
The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. This was a deliberate decision by this 4 Star Council".
ITEM 12 OF THE REPORT SAID
If Network Rail increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T, but do not include any changes to the highway or footway alignments, South Gloucestershire Council will need to contribute between £175,000 and £200,000. The Council’s contribution would be capped at the upper figure of £200,000.
Two supplementary questions were permitted at the Council meeting, these were,
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO 1
Would you say that these policies caused you to reject Item 11 of the Technical Briefing Report you received from the Highways Structures Team in 2007? That’s the item which gives you the option of removing the 7.5T weight restriction in Hallen and creating a new restriction at the railway bridge?
ITEM 11 OF THE REPORT SAID
If Network Rail are to strengthen the bridge to 24T, there will be no cost to the Council for the bridge works. However, a scheme will have to be included in the Capital programme for 2008/2009 to process a weak bridge order and rescind the existing 7.5T weight limit in Hallen Village. A further 7.5T environmental weight restriction in the vicinity of the bridge would need to be put in place to prevent large vehicles using Hallen Road as a through route from Avonmouth into Henbury. The estimated cost of processing the weight restriction orders would be in the region of £12,000.
THE COUNCIL'S ANSWER
We work to the recommendations in “BD 79/06 Management of sub-standard highway structures” which requires us to put in place plans to bring all structures up to the National Load Carrying Capacity. Network Rail were going to replace the bridge deck anyway and so we took the opportunity to bring the carrying capacity of the bridge up to the National Load Carrying Capacity of 40/44Tonnes.
SUPPLENTARY QUESTION NO 2
Would you say that this concern caused you to reject Item 13 of the Technical Briefing Report? That’s the option which realigns the railway bridge and removes the pinch point. Was this item rejected on financial or safety grounds?
ITEM 13 OF THE REPORT SAID
If Network Rail increase the carrying capacity of the structure to 40T and realign the highway, removing the pinch point at the North West end of the bridge, South Gloucestershire Council will need to contribute a maximum of £300,000. The contribution would be capped at this level.
THE COUNCIL'S ANSWER
Network Rail are going to replace the bridge deck on the same horizontal alignment as the original bridge without removing the pinch point in the highway (which is seen as a speed reduction measure). The only change South Gloucestershire has committed to is to increase the carrying capacity of the bridge to 40/44 tonnes.
The basic question was, when you have three options, why did you go for Item 12, over Items 11 and 13? We believe that the deliberate policy to send all fuel tankers into North West Bristol suburban roads is plain for all to see. But South Gloucestershire are apparently blind to the error of their decision, but then they have to be now , don't they, "lets see if we can get out of this by jargon and bluff".
No chance, watch this space.
Monday 1 June 2009
ALMONDSBURY PARISH COUNCIL
Look what I discovered this weekend.
In the report from Almondsbury Parish Council in the free magazine “Our Community In View”, June 2009, Issue 166, Cllr Sheila Cook says “Hallen also faces major disruption to the village this coming year so that much needed works to the rail bridge can be undertaken”.
By contrast Henbury and North West Bristol suburban roads have suffered from aviation fuel tankers from Hallen petrol strorage depot and other HGV’s every day since the temporary weight restriction in Hallen village, imposed in 1992 during the construction of the Second Severn Crossing, was made permanent by South Gloucestershire Council in 1996.
That is major disruption for seventeen years, Cllr Cook is concerned about fourteen weeks. Fourteen weeks when the school children of Henbury can safely travel to school without fear.
Cllr Cook who has recently resigned as Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, but remains South Gloucestershire Executive Member for Children and Young People, shows little concern for the children and young people of Henbury and North West Bristol.
In her report she refers to the “much needed works to the rail bridge”. However Almondsbury Parish Council and South Gloucestershire Council ignored warnings from Network Rail in 2001, in 2002, and again in 2003, following a Railtrack bridge safety survey in 2000, to place a temporary weight restriction on the bridge until the new bridge works commenced. Why did they ignore these warnings for a period of nine years before work commenced?
South Gloucestershire Council should be embarrassed to call itself a member of the West of England Road Safety Partnership. The actions of both Councils make a mockery of this membership.
In the report from Almondsbury Parish Council in the free magazine “Our Community In View”, June 2009, Issue 166, Cllr Sheila Cook says “Hallen also faces major disruption to the village this coming year so that much needed works to the rail bridge can be undertaken”.
By contrast Henbury and North West Bristol suburban roads have suffered from aviation fuel tankers from Hallen petrol strorage depot and other HGV’s every day since the temporary weight restriction in Hallen village, imposed in 1992 during the construction of the Second Severn Crossing, was made permanent by South Gloucestershire Council in 1996.
That is major disruption for seventeen years, Cllr Cook is concerned about fourteen weeks. Fourteen weeks when the school children of Henbury can safely travel to school without fear.
Cllr Cook who has recently resigned as Chair of Almondsbury Parish Council, but remains South Gloucestershire Executive Member for Children and Young People, shows little concern for the children and young people of Henbury and North West Bristol.
In her report she refers to the “much needed works to the rail bridge”. However Almondsbury Parish Council and South Gloucestershire Council ignored warnings from Network Rail in 2001, in 2002, and again in 2003, following a Railtrack bridge safety survey in 2000, to place a temporary weight restriction on the bridge until the new bridge works commenced. Why did they ignore these warnings for a period of nine years before work commenced?
South Gloucestershire Council should be embarrassed to call itself a member of the West of England Road Safety Partnership. The actions of both Councils make a mockery of this membership.
Friday 29 May 2009
HENBURY WARD FOCUS
Re the Henbury Ward Focus Bristol Evening Post Wednesday 21 May 2009.
SO WHO ARE THESE HENBURY WARD COUNCILLORS, COUNCILLOR MARK WESTON AND COUNCILLOR DEREK PICKUP?
Thank you Tom Morris for the Henbury Ward Focus, Evening Post Wednesday 21 May.
So who are these Ward Councillors? Surely Ward Councillors should either live in the Ward or close by, certainly Henbury Ward Councillors should live north of the River Avon. However all of Derek Pickup’s declared interests on the Bristol City Council website appear to be a long way from Henbury. He lives in York Road, Bedminster. So why is he a Ward Councillor in Henbury Ward? We need Councillors who live and take an interest in the area. Perhaps they don’t want him south of the river.
Derek Pickup’s election handout is all about Central Government and Bristol Council Executive policies, exactly what has he done personally?, apparently little worth reporting. He says, “I get my priorities from YOU……I have been quick to respond”.
However as a result of local developer Newland Homes Ltd’s failure to maintain a stone retaining wall and trees in Hallen Road, Henbury, which was the initial impetus for the Campaign to ban Aviation Fuel Tankers from North West Bristol suburban roads, Derek Pickup emailed on the 13 October 2008, “I will check out what is happening”. At the date of this post we are still waiting for him to tell us what he discovered.
By contrast Mark Weston has been a source of continuous support and inspiration since October 2008.
On the day following the Campaign’s presentation to the Bristol full Council meeting on the 28 April, the Deputy Chief Executive’s Ward visit was cancelled because, “Cllr Pickup’s car had broken down”. Why did he not use the bus? Perhaps he will attend the rearranged Ward visit when it occurs, assuming of course he knows where Henbury is and he can find it.
The former Executive of Bristol Council, represented by Cllr Helen Holland and Cllr Mark Bradshaw have done their utmost to frustrate, ignore and block the Campaign, including failing to question the actions of obviously incompetent Council officers.
At the Campaign’s presentation to the Bristol full Council meeting, Cllr Bradshaw subsequently responded to a supplementary question querying what action he had taken with regard to the tanker issue while an Executive member. His response was, “he had asked officers to investigate, thought they had said it was “South Gloucester's issue” and had left the issue with them”.
Derek Pickup has proved that he is not the slightest bit interested in the Campaign to ban Aviation Fuel Tankers from North West Bristol suburban roads. Next thing we know he will be claiming a second homes allowance.
SO WHO ARE THESE HENBURY WARD COUNCILLORS, COUNCILLOR MARK WESTON AND COUNCILLOR DEREK PICKUP?
Thank you Tom Morris for the Henbury Ward Focus, Evening Post Wednesday 21 May.
So who are these Ward Councillors? Surely Ward Councillors should either live in the Ward or close by, certainly Henbury Ward Councillors should live north of the River Avon. However all of Derek Pickup’s declared interests on the Bristol City Council website appear to be a long way from Henbury. He lives in York Road, Bedminster. So why is he a Ward Councillor in Henbury Ward? We need Councillors who live and take an interest in the area. Perhaps they don’t want him south of the river.
Derek Pickup’s election handout is all about Central Government and Bristol Council Executive policies, exactly what has he done personally?, apparently little worth reporting. He says, “I get my priorities from YOU……I have been quick to respond”.
However as a result of local developer Newland Homes Ltd’s failure to maintain a stone retaining wall and trees in Hallen Road, Henbury, which was the initial impetus for the Campaign to ban Aviation Fuel Tankers from North West Bristol suburban roads, Derek Pickup emailed on the 13 October 2008, “I will check out what is happening”. At the date of this post we are still waiting for him to tell us what he discovered.
By contrast Mark Weston has been a source of continuous support and inspiration since October 2008.
On the day following the Campaign’s presentation to the Bristol full Council meeting on the 28 April, the Deputy Chief Executive’s Ward visit was cancelled because, “Cllr Pickup’s car had broken down”. Why did he not use the bus? Perhaps he will attend the rearranged Ward visit when it occurs, assuming of course he knows where Henbury is and he can find it.
The former Executive of Bristol Council, represented by Cllr Helen Holland and Cllr Mark Bradshaw have done their utmost to frustrate, ignore and block the Campaign, including failing to question the actions of obviously incompetent Council officers.
At the Campaign’s presentation to the Bristol full Council meeting, Cllr Bradshaw subsequently responded to a supplementary question querying what action he had taken with regard to the tanker issue while an Executive member. His response was, “he had asked officers to investigate, thought they had said it was “South Gloucester's issue” and had left the issue with them”.
Derek Pickup has proved that he is not the slightest bit interested in the Campaign to ban Aviation Fuel Tankers from North West Bristol suburban roads. Next thing we know he will be claiming a second homes allowance.
BRISTOL EVENING POST
For a report on the South Gloucestershire full Council submission on 20 May 2009 see Bristol Evening Post 23 May 2009 Page 6.
South Gloucestershire Council had three options for the replacement of the Hallen Road railway bridge,
1 - The option of removing the 7.5T weight restriction in Hallen and creating a new restriction at the railway bridge.
2 - The option of contributing £200,000 that does not allow for any changes to the highway and footway alignments.
3 - The option of contributing £300.000 which realigns the railway bridge and removes the pinch point.
The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. The second option. This was a deliberate decision by this 4 Star Council.
The photograph shows a fuel tanker travelling over the old bridge and down the hill towards the storage depot. The necessity to straddle the white line at the pinch point will be the same when the new bridge is finished.
SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL
Back again, everything moving on at a fast pace, so no time to update until now.
Submission and petition presented to South Gloucestershire full Council on 20 May 2009, text of statement below,
"This petition of 350 signatures, supports a campaign to ban Hallen Depot fuel tankers and HGV’s from North West Bristol roads.
I initially became involved with this campaign because of a stone wall at the rear of my property. Vibration from tankers and HGV’s cause stones in the wall to collapse across the footpath and roadway.
Hallen Depot is within South Gloucester adjoining the Bristol boundary, it serves the expanding Bristol and other airports.
Whilst Bristol Airport is not connected to the Government’s pipeline network, there are three network facilities closer to Bristol Airport than Hallen Depot.
The temporary weight limit on Severn Road, Hallen, imposed by Avon during construction of the Second Severn Crossing, can no longer be justified.
Before the permanent Order was confirmed in 1996, it was stated that, “Suitable alternative routes for heavy traffic are available using motorway or "A" class roads”. That statement was nonsense.
A survey of the old railway bridge was undertaken by Railtrack in 2000, and because of the poor condition of the bridge, Network Rail asked this Council, in 2001, in 2002 and again in 2003, to place a temporary weight restriction on the bridge until the works commenced. These requests were ignored.
A contribution of £200,000 pounds to the bridge replacement was approved by this Council in 2008. Item 12 of the Technical Briefing Report by the Highways Structures Team in 2007 does not allow for any changes to the highway and footway alignments.
The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. This was a deliberate decision by this 4 Star Council.
This Council is a member of the West of England Road Safety Partnership which aims to reduce the numbers of casualties from traffic accidents in the Partner’s districts.
However the current weight limit in Hallen is absurd in terms of multi-area traffic management, and makes a mockery of this Council’s membership of that Partnership.
Indeed for half of its length the limit on Severn Road, is within Bristol’s boundary. Therefore is your Order legal?
This petition was submitted to Bristol Council on the 28 April. It included creating a new 7.5T limit on Ison Hill and Hallen Road, to prevent a through route between Bristol, Avonmouth and Severn Beach.
The DFT have indicated that they are willing to attend a meeting to help both Council’s find a solution. This campaign has the support of the RHA and the tanker drivers.
Our case is simple, why should tankers from South Gloucester, travel into Bristol’s roads, when a northern route is a much safer option to the motorway network. Tankers, have a detrimental effect on roads and properties, pollute the environment, add to traffic congestion, and are a safety hazard.
New developments in Avonmouth and Severn Beach are causing a steady increase in traffic flow, year upon year.
The larger population of North West Bristol is at risk. There are no schools in Hallen, but there are four schools in Henbury alone.
Councillors, you cannot continue to condemn 1500+ Henbury school children, to risky journeys five days a week. You cannot continue to condemn tanker drivers to increasingly stressful journeys.
And finally. This Council receives the business rates, but Bristol taxpayers pick up the cost of maintaining roads carrying ever increasing heavy traffic. We, the residents of Bristol, object.
The closure of the railway bridge from the 5 May to mid August, is an opportunity for a multi-area reassessment of traffic management in North West Bristol".
If you have anything to add, have we missed anything?, please post your comments
Submission and petition presented to South Gloucestershire full Council on 20 May 2009, text of statement below,
"This petition of 350 signatures, supports a campaign to ban Hallen Depot fuel tankers and HGV’s from North West Bristol roads.
I initially became involved with this campaign because of a stone wall at the rear of my property. Vibration from tankers and HGV’s cause stones in the wall to collapse across the footpath and roadway.
Hallen Depot is within South Gloucester adjoining the Bristol boundary, it serves the expanding Bristol and other airports.
Whilst Bristol Airport is not connected to the Government’s pipeline network, there are three network facilities closer to Bristol Airport than Hallen Depot.
The temporary weight limit on Severn Road, Hallen, imposed by Avon during construction of the Second Severn Crossing, can no longer be justified.
Before the permanent Order was confirmed in 1996, it was stated that, “Suitable alternative routes for heavy traffic are available using motorway or "A" class roads”. That statement was nonsense.
A survey of the old railway bridge was undertaken by Railtrack in 2000, and because of the poor condition of the bridge, Network Rail asked this Council, in 2001, in 2002 and again in 2003, to place a temporary weight restriction on the bridge until the works commenced. These requests were ignored.
A contribution of £200,000 pounds to the bridge replacement was approved by this Council in 2008. Item 12 of the Technical Briefing Report by the Highways Structures Team in 2007 does not allow for any changes to the highway and footway alignments.
The Network Rail drawings show the alignment of the new bridge and the pinch point to be identical to the old bridge. This was a deliberate decision by this 4 Star Council.
This Council is a member of the West of England Road Safety Partnership which aims to reduce the numbers of casualties from traffic accidents in the Partner’s districts.
However the current weight limit in Hallen is absurd in terms of multi-area traffic management, and makes a mockery of this Council’s membership of that Partnership.
Indeed for half of its length the limit on Severn Road, is within Bristol’s boundary. Therefore is your Order legal?
This petition was submitted to Bristol Council on the 28 April. It included creating a new 7.5T limit on Ison Hill and Hallen Road, to prevent a through route between Bristol, Avonmouth and Severn Beach.
The DFT have indicated that they are willing to attend a meeting to help both Council’s find a solution. This campaign has the support of the RHA and the tanker drivers.
Our case is simple, why should tankers from South Gloucester, travel into Bristol’s roads, when a northern route is a much safer option to the motorway network. Tankers, have a detrimental effect on roads and properties, pollute the environment, add to traffic congestion, and are a safety hazard.
New developments in Avonmouth and Severn Beach are causing a steady increase in traffic flow, year upon year.
The larger population of North West Bristol is at risk. There are no schools in Hallen, but there are four schools in Henbury alone.
Councillors, you cannot continue to condemn 1500+ Henbury school children, to risky journeys five days a week. You cannot continue to condemn tanker drivers to increasingly stressful journeys.
And finally. This Council receives the business rates, but Bristol taxpayers pick up the cost of maintaining roads carrying ever increasing heavy traffic. We, the residents of Bristol, object.
The closure of the railway bridge from the 5 May to mid August, is an opportunity for a multi-area reassessment of traffic management in North West Bristol".
If you have anything to add, have we missed anything?, please post your comments
Thursday 14 May 2009
ROAD DAMAGE ON THE TANKER ROUTE
These two photos show examples of damage caused by tankers and other HGV's in Henbury.
The damage and back filling to the footpath causing a very uneven surface, at the width restriction at the Marissial Road/Windmill Lane junction with Hallen Road. This is a designated pedestrian crossing point.
The mini roundabout cycle hazard at the Station Road junction with Avonmouth Way.
Both of these defects have existed for many months. Have Bristol City Council made any attempt to repair these defects? No they have not.
The damage and back filling to the footpath causing a very uneven surface, at the width restriction at the Marissial Road/Windmill Lane junction with Hallen Road. This is a designated pedestrian crossing point.
The mini roundabout cycle hazard at the Station Road junction with Avonmouth Way.
Both of these defects have existed for many months. Have Bristol City Council made any attempt to repair these defects? No they have not.
Tuesday 12 May 2009
NEW ROAD SIGNS
It's happened, a week after Hallen Road was closed for the railway bridge reconstruction, some sensible advanced warning road signs have appeared in much more carefully considered locations.
It just shows that if Council Officer's consider what is to be done in a logical and sensible manner, rather than simply work rigidly within procedures, then something is actually achieved.
Monday 11 May 2009
THE RAILWAY BRIDGE
So the Ison Hill/Hallen Road, Henbury, railway bridge was removed yesterday, not too noisy.
Rumour has it the new main structure is being lifted into position during the next two weekends.
Be careful the road is closed about 50m south of the bridge and the warning signs are not too clever, also only minimal lighting at the barrier, be careful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)