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.

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.

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

Please e-mail your support to bantankers@bristol-link.net
or
Sign our petition

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.