Meeting Report Regarding: Date: EDF Energy Hinkley Point C: Transport 28 June 2011 Forum Attending: Alan Ladd Chair Peter Malim OBE Stogursey Parish Council Colin Allen Cannington Parish Council Adrian Moore Bridgwater Town Council Vicky Banham Sedgemoor District Mike O’Dowd-Jones Somerset County Council Council and West Somerset Council Jackie Palmer EDF Energy Lynn Basford JMP on behalf of SCC Claire Pearce Sedgemoor District Council David Bird SBA on behalf of EDF Gary Perrett Hinkley Point Cyclists Energy Charles St George PPS David Eccles EDF Energy Rosemary Woods Williton Parish Council Paul Gripton Otterhampton Parish John Worley SBA Council Paul Hanafin Royal Haskoning Apologies: Alan Hurford Bridgwater Town Council Doug Bamsey Sedgemoor District Council Alyn Jones Somerset County Council Adrian Goodchild West Somerset Council Item Action 1. Minutes of the Meeting held on 24 May 2011 and Matters Arising The minutes were approved. The following matters arising were raised: • Item 1: JP said that the report on Combwich AILs would need to be EDFE – JP carried forward to a future meeting. On working hours she explained that they were pushing the EDFE construction team to consider the local community’s concerns. PG said that the IPC and the Councils would deal with the issue of working hours through the consenting process. • Item 6: PH said that further modelling of the use of the Williton park and ride site showed that workers could be transported to the Hinkley Point C in people carriers rather than buses with only a slight increase in the number of movements. PM welcomed the proposed reduction in size of the vehicles to be used but wanted to know what would Item Action happen if substitute vehicles were required at short notice. Larger vehicles should not use the Stringston/Stogursey route. He said that PM he would raise this proposed change with the Parish Council and bring their views back to the next meeting. Post Meeting Note: PH has subsequently clarified that the vehicles proposed are 15 seater mini-buses which are the same width as a car, rather than the ‘people carriers’ designed for families. GP • Item 8: DB said that a series of meetings were taking place on the subject of cycling/walking. GP commented that progress was being made in this area and there were some good proposals on the table. CP asked that SDC should be involved in these discussions. SCC – MO-J • Item 10: SCC was still considering the issue of lighting on the southern roundabout at Hinkley Point and this would need to be carried forward to a future meeting. 2. C182 Improvements The following subjects were discussed: • Horse Crossing, Farringdon Hill: JW reported that this had moved to detailed design stage following a meeting with PM and the landowner, Mr Ayre. It was estimated that it would take 4-6 months for detailed design and legal agreements and a further 1 month to install. In terms of the suggested horse crossing near Doggetts Farm, JW said that a preliminary investigation had been undertaken. The idea was a EDFE/SBA – JW possibility and he promised to bring a recommendation back to the next meeting. • 50mph Speed Limit and Clearway: JP said that the Police had changed their position and would not now support either a 50mph limit or the Rural Clearway as they felt both would be unenforceable. EDFE had, however, agreed to set aside funds to implement both schemes should these be needed subsequently. PM felt that there was already clear evidence of speeding and said that the Police made little attempt to enforce the existing speed limit. DE promised to raise this change of position with the Police at his next Item Action meeting. MO-J said that the change in their position could probably be explained by a difference of view between the local police and those at HQ in Portishead. AH said that this issue underlined the importance of the Police attending meetings of the Transport Forum. • Claylands Corner: DB said that the assessment of the options for improving this part of the road was progressing. The view of the Police on the speed limit on the C182 could have an impact and he EDFE/SBA – DB hoped to bring further information to the next meeting. PM pointed out that the if the speed limit remained at 60mph, the wider improvement could have the greatest benefit. • Memorial Junction, Cannington: JW reported that proposed changes to yellow lining in Cannington had been advertised and feedback was awaited on whether there were any objections. CA said that he believed that no objections had been raised to the changes at the Memorial Junction but there had been objections to proposed changes in the vicinity of East Street. JW said that if there were no objections to changes at the Memorial Junction these could be introduced relatively quickly. 3. Cannington Mitigation Package DB outlined the proposed mitigation in Cannington for Site Preparation Works to include: • Investigating whether changing the road surface would help to reduce noise • Pedestrian crossing facilities of the High Street • Raised table crossing at the Northern end of Church Street. The following points were raised during the discussion: • DB said that providing an additional zebra crossing of the High Street for college students meant that consideration had to be given to the existing facility. MO-J said that the County’s view was that two crossings was the best option as the pedestrian surveys undertaken demonstrated they would serve different customers. DB said that a Item Action suggestion had been made to upgrade the existing facility to a pelican crossing but there was concern that a pelican and zebra crossing in close proximity could pose a safety hazard. It was agreed by the Forum that two zebra crossings would be the best option. DB said EDFE/SBA – DB that detailed design schemes would be drawn up and presented to the Transport Forum. • DB said that footpath widening outside the pub in the High Street and parking and waiting restrictions were also being considered. CA suggested that if EDFE couldn’t resolve the pinch point outside the United Reform Church then it might be necessary to revert to the idea of a one-way system for HGVs. • DB confirmed that the package of improvements presented were pre- bypass proposals. EDFE needed to look at what might need to be done to calm traffic in Cannington post-bypass and he promised to EDFE/SBA – DB bring some preliminary proposals forward at the next meeting. These would need to be subject to more formal consultation once they had been discussed and agreed with the Transport Forum and the highway authority. • CA expressed concern about the different figures being produced by different people about traffic in Cannington. One resident was claiming that EDFE was deliberately exaggerating existing traffic levels in order to downplay the increases expected as a result of the construction of Hinkley Point C. Was there a better way of providing accurate information about the % increases in traffic in the village? MO-J said that the County had produced a technical note on traffic figures. Once this was agreed with EDFE it could provide definitive guidance. DB suggested that the agreed report might be provided as SCC/EDFE/WSC an appendix to the West Somerset Council committee report on the Site Preparation Works application. CP said that the figures should include traffic from the proposed Construction Skills Centre and asked whether there were any access SCC – MO-J issues to this facility that needed to be considered. MO-J replied that he wasn’t sure but would check this point. Item Action AH said that similar figures needed to be agreed for Bridgwater. 4. J24 and Bridgwater Highways Consultation The Chair combined items 4-6 on the agenda to enable a discussion of proposed changes to EDFE’s proposals in relation to ‘Junction 24 of the M5 and Bridgwater Highway Improvements’. Junction 24 Park & Ride and Freight Management Facility JP explained that EDFE would be consulting from 1 July on a potential change of location for the park & ride and freight management facility near Junction 24 from the greenfield site north west of the Huntworth roundabout to the Somerfield site in the Huntworth business park. Consultation was already taking place with the local authorities in relation to a draft Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC). The Somerfield site had come onto the market since the Stage 2 Update consultation. It was an attractive option because it was not a greenfield site and could be available quickly. Prior to the junction 23 site being completed, EDFE proposed that the Somerfield site would have up to 1,300 car and up to 140 HGV parking spaces, and there would be a temporary induction centre and courier facility. Once the junction 23 site was in use, the facility at junction 24 would be scaled back to the level proposed at the Stage 2 Update consultation. During the discussion the following points and questions were raised: • CP said that SDC was happy to explore the proposed Somerfield site to see whether it would work. She confirmed that formal comments on the draft SOCC would be submitted to EDFE very shortly • PG said that common sense had prevailed in switching the sites • PM made the point that Somerfield had announced their closure some time ago so why couldn’t the site have been considered earlier? A: the timescale for Somerfield’s departure had been accelerated and the site only recently came onto the property market. • PM pointed out that traffic in the Huntworth business park sometimes backed up at the moment and that this would be taking all the traffic in Item Action the short term.