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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)