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.
Tuesday 25 August 2009
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)