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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
