REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Middleton Township Committee th 8 September 2011

Director of Highways and Engineering

Middleton Traffic Initiative - 26T Limitation Scheme

Wards affected: North Middleton, South Report Author: Dave Stewart Middleton and East Middleton Telephone: (01706) 924608

To update Committee about the developments relating to the experimental 26T restriction order in Middleton and obtain approval to progress the scheme.

1. It is recommended that: 1.1 Committee note the contents of the report and decide which alternative to proceed with.

1.2 The financial implications of the decision should be considered.

2. Reasons for recommendation: To update committee in light of the recent High Court Challenge in response to attempts to introduce the 26T experimental order in Middleton with a view to instructing Highways and Engineering to proceed with the consultation necessary to introduce Experimental order.

3. Alternatives and risks considered: Alternatives 3.1 Not to proceed with progressing the scheme and authorise the removal of the gateway signs. 3.2 To recommence the procedure and write to statutory consultees informing them of our intent to continue with the experimental order.

Page 1 of 5 Middleton HGV

Risks considered 3.3 The issues outlined below present a potential risk moving forward of future legal action when trying to implement the scheme as it stands, and additional legal costs generated by any future legal challenge to the scheme. • The “Middleton Traffic Initiative” (MTI) a sub group of Middleton Township, is currently unable to provide evidence of previous dialog with local businesses and haulage companies that had identified locations for the 26T gateways and formed the statement of reasons. This presents difficulties when dealing with objections relating to the scheme from local companies and national associations representing these companies. • A lack of consultation regarding the scheme and support for the introduction for the experimental order. • The lack of approval to permit introducing the advance direction signs; City Council (MCC) refusing to allow advance direction signs and no confirmation from The Highways Agency (HA) who may also refuse to introduce the signs. These issues remain subject to further information being identified / provided on the effect of introducing a 26T experimental order. • Dominance of anecdotal evidence used; therefore unknown effects of the introduction of the scheme on neighbouring highway network, thus expectations as to the resulting reduction in HGV movements can not be measured as to what would be determined as a successful scheme. • There is no authority to suspend or modify an experimental order under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. Therefore the fundamental actions of an experimental order had been removed preventing Highways services from changing the order once it had been introduced.”

4. Consultation undertaken/proposed: 4.1 A feasibility study was carried out by traffic consultants Peter Brett Associates in 2004, 26 organisations were contacted by letter. Of those that replied 5 had concerns; • Freight Transport Association • Road Haulage Association • Police • Greater Manchester Fire Service • Chamber Business Connections These concerns were brought to the attention of Middleton Township Committee. 4.2 MTI informed Middleton Township Committee that all haulage companies in the Middleton area had been consulted. 4.3 The signs required to support the experimental order are not included in the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 manual, for this reason the proposed scheme was submitted to the DFT for approval and they suggested various amendments to the signs before approval was obtained in December 2008.

Page 2 of 5 Middleton HGV

4.4 On installing infrastructure comments were received from local business and national associations regarding the introduction of the scheme. These concerns were discussed by Middleton Township Committee and approved to continue with the implementation given.

JW Lees, Greengate Brewery, Middleton Junction (2009) Require HGV access to their two access points situated on Lees Street and Collinge Street due to the fact that they cannot facilitate vehicles turning around once they are on site. The proposals will prevent access to the Collinge Street for their HGV vehicles and will be highly restrictive on their operations. They request that the signs are removed immediately and are concerned that they have not been consulted on these proposals.

Express Parcel Services (W Harrison & Sons), Grimshaw Lane (2009) The restrictions will cost the company both financially and environmentally as they have a major customer situated on Townley Street and these proposals will result in additional fuel being used. They are concerned that they have not been consulted on these proposals.

Edna Gill (Road Haulage association): Roadway House, Little Wood Drive, West 26 Industrial Estate, Cleckheaton (2009) There has been no consultation with local haulage companies on this matter.

4.5 Council had previously objected to the scheme being situated within the Oldham boundary due to the concerns of Oldham residents relating to the diversion of HGV’s onto local roads. However Oldham subsequently gave approval for RMBC to their advance direction signs to indicate the presence of the weight limitation scheme within Rochdale’s boundary. 4.6 Lengthy negotiations have taken place with Manchester City Council regarding the scheme and sign locations within the Manchester boundary which had led to support being withdrawn including any advance signing. This is on the basis that questions regarding the impact of the scheme within Manchester remain unanswered. 4.7 The HA have previously agreed to the erection of an advance sign on their off– slip, however more recently they are requesting further information on the impact of the scheme prior to approval. 4.8 Bury Council have agreed to the amendment of one advance direction sign within their boundary. 4.9 Traffic Management Unit (TMU) meeting of 20 th October 2005 discussed the introduction of the scheme. The Police stated that resources will not allow for the scheme to be enforced to any degree.

5. Background: 5.1 On 11 th March 2010 Middleton Township Committee made a decision to authorise the Head of Highways and Engineering Service to promote and implement an Experimental Order prohibiting goods vehicles exceeding 26 tonne, except for loading and unloading, along various streets in the Middleton area.

Page 3 of 5 Middleton HGV

5.2 The process of progressing the installation of advance signing prior to the scheme becoming operative lead to some issues which caused subsequent delay. 5.3 Oldham Council had previously agreed to pay for the signs within their boundary and set aside funding that was carried through to 08/09, unfortunately this funding was withdrawn and Middleton Township were approached to provide this additional funding from their devolved budget.

5.4 Previous approvals to site signs within HA land were also withdrawn and discussions took place regarding the proposed impact of the scheme prior to agreeing to erect the advance direction sign. As the impact is unknown due to not having any original and destination survey data, securing the HA approval looked likely to further delay and increase costs to the scheme.

5.5 With Manchester City Councils’s previous refusal to allow advance signing within their boundary, and the funding from Oldham Council for the advance signs situated within their boundary being removed, a decision was made to introduce the scheme with just the gateway signing and monitor the scheme. As the scheme is experimental, it was expected that advance signing could be introduced at a later date and as required.

5.6 Highway and Engineering instructed legal to promote the order on the 30 th March 2011 and the Order was subsequently made on 12 th May 2011.

5.7 On 27 th May 2011 the Council received a High Court Challenge to the making of the Order by The Road Haulage Association on the grounds that they had not been consulted as required by Regulation 6 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) ( and Wales) Regulations 1996, and that the Council had regard to an immaterial consideration, namely that the Order was made on the incorrect assumption that it had the support of all local haulage companies. 5.8 Statute sets out the procedure that must be followed when making a Traffic Regulation Order. Regulation 6 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 sets out a list of organisations/bodies that must be consulted prior to making an Order, the Road Haulage Association is one of the organisations listed. 5.9 In addition to The Road Haulage Associations High Court Challenge an additional request from Malcolm Bingham representing the Freight Transport Association was received asking for the names of haulage companies that had been consulted and the support / evidence that we held.

5.10 On receipt of the High Court Challenge, an investigation took place into whether the consultation process had been undertaken in line with the provisions of Regulation 6 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. It was found that consultation had not been undertaken in line with the Regulations. The Council, therefore, conceded that the Order was flawed due to lack of consultation and consented to the quashing of the Order. The Order was subsequently quashed by the High Court on 15 th June 2011.

6 Personnel Implications: 6.1 None.

Page 4 of 5 Middleton HGV

7. Financial Implications: 7.1 The cost of quashing the scheme at the High Court was £4,000. 7.2 Further expenditure for this scheme will be incurred in order to consult and then progress implementation and subsequent monitoring. 7.3 The legal costs for consulting and implementing the scheme has been estimated at £6000 and the costs of monitoring the scheme has been estimated at £12000. 7.5 To remove the scheme, there would be still an associated cost to the removal of the gateway signs of approximately £6000.

For further inform ation and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Dave Stewart Tel: 01706 924608

David Nicholson Head of Highways and Engineering Service

Page 5 of 5 Middleton HGV