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.