Audit & Scrutiny Committee 6

Page 1 – Audit and Scrutiny Briefing - Cabinet Decision on C13

Agenda Item:

Audit & 6 Scrutiny Committee

Date of Meeting 10 June 2015

Officer Chief Executive

Audit and Scrutiny Briefing Subject of Report – Cabinet Decision on C13 Road

Executive Summary At its meeting on 13 May 2015 Cabinet considered a report on the options for the C13. The C13 is a road that has been closed at Melbury Abbas since April 2014, due to the risk of small vehicles being buried by a landslide. The decision to close the road in 2014 was based on the report of two civil engineering consultants.

The Cabinet report sets out the detail of the work that has been undertaken by the County Council engineers, Risk Manager, Insurer and Underwriters to understand and manage the risk associated with the C13. The Cabinet considered the details set out in the report and the representation of a number of members of the public and County Councillors, during its meeting.

Following consideration of all the information presented to the Cabinet, they reviewed the options for the future of the C13 and decided to re-open, following mitigation works, for all traffic.

The Cabinet report and the minutes are attached as appendices in order to assist the Committee in understanding the information available and the decision made.

Following the Cabinet meeting the Chairman of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee received a letter questioning the decision that had been made. The Chairman considered the question, taking into account the options available in the County Council’s Standing Orders and confirmed that this was not a matter that required a Page 2 – Audit and Scrutiny Briefing - Cabinet Decision on C13

“Call In” of the decision, nor was it suitable for a “Call to Account”.

However, the Chairman did ask a question “On what basis was the decision made to allow all vehicles on the C13, as opposed to only light vehicles?”

As the call in period has expired officers are required to act upon and implement the Cabinet’s decision. Only if the Portfolio Holder was to agree, as a result of the question raised above, that there was some shortcoming in the decision making, could the matter be deferred and put back to the Cabinet.

This question had been asked at Cabinet and the answer given to Cabinet is set out at Minute 178.9 for the Committee to consider.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

Please refer to the An Equalities Impact Assessment screening exercise was carried protocol for writing out. The recommendation was not considered to have any negative reports. or differential impact on the equalities of protected groups.

Use of Evidence:

Details as set out in the Cabinet report attached.

Budget:

The budget provision relates to the Dinah’s Hollow Capital project and are set out in the attached Cabinet report, dated 13 May 2015.

Recommendation The Committee is asked to:

Note the details of the Cabinet report and minutes relating to the re opening of the C13 at Melbury Abbas, and the answer to the Chairman’s question.

Reason for To answer the question raised by the Chairman of the Audit and Recommendation Scrutiny Committee. Page 3 – Audit and Scrutiny Briefing - Cabinet Decision on C13

Appendices 1. Minutes from the Cabinet meeting dated 13 May 2015 2. Agenda Item 9 from the Cabinet meeting on 13 May 2015 – Road Closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Background Papers None

Report Originator and Sam Fox-Adams Contact Tel: 01305 224247 Email: [email protected]

Appendix 1: Minutes from Cabinet meeting on 13 May 2015

178.1 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Environment regarding work recently undertaken to better understand and manage the risks associated with the decision to close the C13 at Melbury Abbas. A site visit for Cabinet members was also held on 12 May 2015.

178.2 Mr Paul Reynolds, Resident of Shaftesbury, asked a number of questions of the Cabinet Member for Environment in relation to the road closure at Melbury Abbas and received a written response. The questions and answers are attached to these minutes at Annexure 1.

178.3 Public statements were received from Mr Paul Champagne as a local resident of Melbury Abbas, Mr John Woolley on behalf of Maurice Flower & Son Ltd, Mr Scott Norman on behalf of the A350 Community Group, and Mr Brian Hughes as the Chairman of Melbury Abbas and Cann Group Parish Council. The statements are attached to these minutes at Annexure 2.

178.4 Ms Anne Kaile, resident of Shaftesbury, spoke to a petition received in relation to the road closure. She was supported by two other local residents. The petition comprised of 694 signatures and raised concerns in relation to consultations regarding the closure, tendering works, the main contractors, the number of solutions proposed and bio- engineering. The points raised in the petition were addressed within the Cabinet Members’ report. However, a number of further concerns were raised at the meeting by the petitioners in relation to the ecology and environmental impact of potential remedial works at Melbury Abbas, the Council’s Rural Roads Policy, community impact, and their desire to reopen the C13 to light traffic only.

178.5 On a point of procedure, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services confirmed that although one of the public speakers made reference to members having land ownership interests in the A350 and C13 he was not aware that any Cabinet member had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest to declare on this matter. All Cabinet members confirmed this and remained in the meeting and took part in the discussion and decision making.

178.6 The County Councillor for Shaftesbury, as a local member, referred to the site visit held on 12 May 2015 and suggested that the large mesh netting used in other places such as Cheddar Gorge should not interfere unduly with the ecology of the area.

178.7 The County Councillor for Hambledon, as a local member, addressed the meeting to explain the impact on local communities, increased traffic on the A350, road safety, road erosion, property damage and the impact on local businesses. She acknowledged the options available to the Cabinet to potentially reopen the C13 and felt that re-opening would be the most pragmatic solution and strongly opposed the option of opening the road to Heavy Goods Vehicles only.

178.8 The Cabinet Member for Environment introduced the report and explained that the matter for decision related to the situation at Dinah’s Hollow prior to any rectification of the site and longer term improvements, which would be considered in the next few months. With a detailed explanation by the Director for Environment and the Economy, he also clarified that all information was based on a robust and sensible methodology for risk analysis and had taken account of advice from a range of professional specialisms (risk management, engineers, insurers and underwriters) in order to reach the proposals set out in the Cabinet Member’s report.

178.9 On being questioned, the Head of Highways explained that the initial assessment considered light vehicles to be at highest risk as they could be engulfed by a slippage, but the level of risk had subsequently been reduced as a result of the more detailed analysis if mitigation measures were put in place. It was noted that the balance of risk therefore provided the option to reopen to all traffic and that a permanent solution would be a decision for a later stage.

178.10 The Cabinet expressed views in relation to the scenarios presented within the report noting that there had been a duty to act on the potential risks at the earlier stage of the process and reasons for the closure. The impact on the surrounding communities, road network and businesses was recognised and it was felt that the most appropriate option, based on the balance of risk, was to reopen the road to all traffic with the addition of mitigation works.

178.11 In relation to traffic volumes and types of vehicle, it was confirmed that there would be a signing strategy for the temporary re-opening, but there would also be further detailed consideration required as part of the economic assessment of the north-south transport corridors in Dorset.

178.12 The Leader of the Council clarified that the re-opening would be subject to the usual call-in process following the decision, and the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed that the road would be opened in 2-3 weeks due to the need to order equipment.

Resolved 179. That the C13 be re-opened to all traffic, with mitigation works, prior to any stabilisation work taking place based on paragraph 3.4 of the Cabinet Member’s report, and the Risk Comparison Analysis at Appendix 4 of the report. (Scenario 1)

Reason for Decision 180. To reduce the overall risk to the Council whilst a preferred option for the stabilisation works was agreed.

Page 1 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Agenda Item: Cabinet

Date of Meeting Cabinet – 13 May 2015

Lead Member Peter Finney – Cabinet Member for Environment and the Economy

Local Members Deborah Croney - County Councillor for Hambledon Hilary Cox - County Councillor for Winterborne Barrie Cooper - County Councillor for Blandford Mervyn Jeffrey - County Councillor for Shaftesbury

Lead Director Mike Harries - Director for Environment and the Economy

Subject of Report C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Executive Summary This report updates members on work recently undertaken to better understand and manage the risks associated with the decision to close the C13 at Melbury Abbas.

The closure of the C13 at Melbury Abbas, because of potential slope instability issues, has had significant ramifications on the community and the local road network in terms of both the size and number of vehicles now using unsuitable roads to circumnavigate the road closure and also the subsequent impact this increase in traffic is having on the roads themselves.

In addition, a number of neighbouring hamlets and villages are now experiencing an increase in traffic volumes due to the road closure. This is having a dramatic effect on resident’s “quality of life” and has led to considerable disquiet from those living in these communities.

It has been suggested that the damage and disruption being caused by the road closure outweighs the perceived danger of the Page 2 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

slopes collapsing and that Dorset County Council should reconsider the risks associated with the status quo and re-open the C13 before any slope stabilisation work takes place.

These risks were reviewed with input form the County Council’s Risk Manager, our Insurer and Underwriters.

This report sets out the comparative risks associated with retaining the road closure and those relating to re-opening the road before the slopes have been stabilised.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment: An Equalities Impact Assessment screening exercise has been carried out. There is no equality data specifically relating to this policy, but at this stage the recommendation is not considered to have any negative or differential impact on the equalities of protected groups.

Use of Evidence: Extensive work carried out by the County’s highway engineers and Risk Management team.

Budget/ Risk Assessment: The Dinah’s Hollow project has a capital budget of £4 m.

The Risk Assessment is set out in detail in the report. The risk ratings vary with each option.

Recommendation That Cabinet makes a decision on whether to re-open the C13 prior to any stabilisation work taking place based on a Risk Comparison Analysis.

Reason for To reduce the overall risk to the Council whilst a preferred option Recommendation for the stabilisation works are agreed.

Appendices Appendix 1: Plan of A350 / C13 and surrounding area Appendix 2: Comparative collision data Appendix 3: Notes to accompany the risk assessment for the C13 Appendix 4: Risk Comparison Analysis - Scenario 1 Appendix 5: Risk Comparison Analysis - Scenario 2 Appendix 6: Risk Comparison Analysis - Scenario 3 Appendix 7: Risk Comparison Analysis - Scenario 4 Appendix 8: “Save Dinah’s Hollow” petition

Background Papers None

Report Originator and Name: Steve Howard Contact Tel: 01305 224269 Email: [email protected]

Page 3 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

1. Background

1.1 The C13 runs parallel to the A350 between Blandford and the B3081 at Cann Common, passing through one village, Melbury Abbas and the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB (see Appendix 1). For much of its length the C13 is considered to be of a better standard than the adjacent A350 and as a consequence a large proportion of the north-south traffic, including many HGVs, use the C13 to avoid the A350.

1.2 The C13 through Melbury Abbas is particularly tortuous making it often difficult for HGVs travelling in opposite directions to pass each other within the highway. This creates a significant ‘pinch point’, with larger vehicles being unable to pass each other and blocking the road for long periods many times each week.

1.3 The situation is currently exacerbated by the need for the Council (as Highway Authority) to temporarily close the C13 through Melbury Abbas whilst a scheme is developed to stabilise the very steep slopes that immediately border the road through Dinah’s Hollow.

1.4 The C13 has been closed since April 2014 on the advice of two civil engineering consultants (Brody Forbes and Parsons Brinckerhoff) because of the risk of a landslide burying a small vehicle. The closure of the C13 has created significant problems for local residents and the travelling public, both within the village itself and also on the surrounding road network.

1.5 The re-opening of the C13 has now become firmly linked with the understandable argument for permanent traffic management improvements through Melbury Abbas, most specifically, a ban on HGVs from using the road through the village. In addition, the situation has been made more complicated because the closure of the C13 has highlighted, and re-ignited long-held aspirations, that a bypass or infrastructure improvements need to be introduced to improve north-south routes through north Dorset.

1.6 The minor roads in and around Melbury Abbas are being used by a number of vehicles who are endeavouring to circumnavigate the road closure. A small, but significant, number of these vehicles are HGVs, which are having a disproportionately high impact on the lives of those living alongside these roads. In addition, these HGVs are having a major impact on the condition and integrity of the local road network, resulting in some roads deteriorating noticeably in a very short period of time.

1.7 A number of these roads in the village, including Quarry Lane, West Lane and particularly White Pit Lane have experienced pronounced increases in traffic and a correspondingly high level of road condition degradation. Many other surrounding roads, including the A350, the A357 and the B3081 have experienced a significant increase in the number of vehicles now using them. Anecdotally, a number of other minor roads, such as the B3091 and those roads bordering the A350 are also witnessing increased traffic usage.

1.8 Most significantly, the D32209, Boundary Road, which runs between the C13 and the B3081 at Win Green, has seen an even greater increase in the number of vehicles using it. Many of these vehicles are HGVs, whose drivers see Boundary Road as part of an unofficial diversion route around the closure in Melbury Abbas. Boundary Road, despite already having considerable time and funding expended upon it recently, has seen a major deterioration in its condition, to the point where large sections will need Page 4 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

to be totally reconstructed and the verges reinstated once the C13 is permanently re- opened.

1.9 When the decision was made to close the C13 due to the slope instability in Dinah’s Hollow, it was done so without the knowledge that the road would be closed for some considerable time. The original estimate was that the road would be able to be re- opened in the spring of 2015. Based on emerging information as the project is progressed, the estimated time it will now take to re-open the road has been re- evaluated and been extended to, in the worst case scenario, the summer of 2017. This has obviously has a significant impact on how we manage the road closure and, in particular, how the local community now perceive the work we are undertaking.

2. Requests to re-open the C13 to traffic

2.1 Quite understandably, most of the communities affected by the C13 road closure are anxious to see the road re-opened as soon as is practicable once the slope instability has been resolved. However, a number of these communities, concerned at the time it is taking to progress the project, have suggested that the C13 should be re-opened prior to the slope stabilisation works take place.

2.2 The main reasons for this suggestion are the additional traffic that many surrounding roads are now having to handle; the damage this additional traffic is causing to roads that are already perceived to be in poor condition; the reduction in “quality of life” for residents; and, most importantly, the increased likelihood of serious collisions occurring on the more heavily utilised surrounding road network.

2.3 Calls for the re-opening of the C13 have increased following the difficulties associated with gaining agreement on the best and most economic method of stabilising the banks through Dinah’s Hollow.

2.4 Initial proposals presented at a public meeting at Melbury Abbas were met with opposition from some sections of the local community including the landowners. Modifications have subsequently been made to the proposed extent of works to reduce the effect of the works on the trees. The slopes are heavily vegetated and tree lined. All the trees are protected by a Woodland Tree Preservation Order.

2.5 Current negotiations with the owners of the slopes on either side of Dinah’s Hollow, indicate that there may still be a number of differences between what the County Council is currently proposing and what the local community consider acceptable. The proposals are also subject to the statutory procedures necessary to carry out the works to the protected trees on the slopes.

The landowners have indicated that agreement to access the slopes to carry out the works would be subject to agreement of the proposals with the local community.

However, if agreement cannot be found, there would be a need to compulsorily purchase the land necessary to undertake the stabilisation works, but this approach is problematical and time-consuming. If a CPO is required it may also be appropriate to consider acquiring a greater extent of land. Officers are, therefore, making strenuous efforts to secure agreement where possible, despite the perceived long time this has taken.

2.6 Collisions Anecdotally, there are suggestions that many more collisions are occurring on the A350 and, of late, other surrounding roads. An interrogation of the available collision Page 5 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

data indicates that there is a very small increase in the number of Personal Injury Collisions (PICs) recorded on the A350 (see Appendix 2): this data is compiled by the Police who have attended an incident and where someone involved has been injured and required hospital treatment. However, any slight increase in the number of recorded PICs is difficult to attribute specifically to the closure of the C13 as the incident may have occurred even if this parallel road was not closed.

2.7 Damage to vehicles, property and the highway Again, anecdotally, the number of damage to vehicles only incidents on the A350 in particular has risen dramatically and it is difficult to argue that this is not due to the closure of the C13 and the additional traffic the A350 is now handling. With a greater number of vehicles using the A350, comes the greater chance of two vehicles (especially two HGVs) meeting at one of the many pinch-points along the road.

2.7.1 There has been recorded damage to property along the A350, although again this is difficult to attribute directly to the closure of the C13.

2.7.2 However, it should be noted that damage to vehicles and property was occurring on the C13 through Melbury Abbas before the road closure was introduced. It could be argued, therefore, that this damage is now simply being “shared” more widely since the C13 was closed.

2.7.3 What is very evident since the introduction of the road closure is the serious damage that the additional traffic is causing to highway network itself. An increase in damage to the A350 carriageway and its verges is evident. But it is the damage to the minor roads that are now increasingly being used, particularly by HGVs since the C13 was closed, that is most striking.

2.7.4 The D32209, Boundary Road (the Compton Abbas Airfield road) has especially seen a dramatic deterioration in condition since the road closure. Despite exhaustive attempts to protect, patch and restore the road and its verges, it has not been possible to prevent considerable damage being done to this once little-used road.

2.7.5 In addition, roads in and around Melbury Abbas have seen a demonstrable deterioration in condition of late, as drivers circumnavigate the closure in the centre of the village. White Pit Lane, Quarry Lane, West Lane, Redmans Lane, Mill Hollow Lane and Zig Zag Hill on the B3081 have all seen significant damage caused by greater, and larger, numbers of vehicles that are using them.

2.7.6 This highway damage will need to be repaired at some point soon after the C13 is permanently re-opened: this work and its associated funding have already been accounted for. However, the longer the C13 remains closed, the greater the damage and the greater the ultimate cost will be for returning the aforementioned roads to their pre-closure condition.

3. Risk Comparison Analysis

3.1 Following requests from a number of stakeholders to re-open the C13 prior to any stabilisation work, officers have investigated how best to compare the risks that the continued closure or the temporary re-opening of the C13 pose to the authority.

The Dorset County Council Risk Management template offers a methodology for quantifying the risk to the Council associated with five significant areas of risk: Financial; Strategic Priorities; Health & Safety; Reputation; and Service Delivery.

Page 6 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Utilising this Risk Management template helps to take the emotion out of making difficult, sensitive or controversial decisions and provides a more objective way of identifying the County’s “risk appetite”. Any score resulting in a “High” rating highlights a risk that the County needs to be especially aware of and, potentially, to take remedial action to reduce or mitigate that risk.

3.2 Officers and representatives from Parsons Brinckerhoff and the County’s insurers have undertaken a detailed analysis of the risks associated with a number of possible scenarios to determine a score for the Impact and the Likelihood for each one. Using the determined Impact and Likelihood scores for each of the scenarios gives an overall risk rating for each of the five areas of risk mentioned previously.

3.3 Further information on the rationale behind the Risk Assessment process is attached in Appendix 3. It is important to note that this risk assessment process cannot categorically guarantee that even a well-controlled risk will not occur. However, it does provide a formal and evidence-based tool for informing the decision making process.

3.4 Scenario 1 - Re-opening the C13 to all traffic on a temporary basis (Appendix 4) (pending slope stability works and traffic management works)

3.4.1 Re-opening the C13 contrary to the original advice of the consultants obviously makes for a difficult decision and is reflected in the Medium score afforded to Health & Safety. It was felt that the Impact of a landslip was a 5 (possible fatality), but that the actual Likelihood of a landslip occurring and that this landslip then results in a fatality was low and warranted a score of 2.

3.4.2 If the C13 were to be re-opened before the slope stabilisation works took place the reputational risk to the County would be much reduced and would also lessen the need for extensive traffic calming measures being called for by certain communities living on the A350.

3.4.3 Re-opening the road, but with the addition of mitigation works, would help to reduce the overall Health and Safety risk and would subsequently reduce the risk to the County. It is anticipated that the mitigation works would include narrowing sections of Dinah’s Hollow down to single lane working along with the provision of temporary traffic signals to prevent the queuing traffic waiting to negotiate the narrowed section from blocking the road for oncoming traffic.

The mitigation (road narrowing), managed with temporary traffic signals, in Dinah’s Hollow has been modelled (using the Paramics analysis tool) to ensure that queuing traffic does not block the free passage of oncoming traffic. Even in a worst case scenario, the queuing traffic does not extend beyond the point where engineers consider it is likely to cause a problem. If, however, unexpectedly high volumes of traffic are encountered, it is possible to still manage the situation by increasing the green time available to the queuing traffic.

Despite strenuous efforts, it cannot be guaranteed that poorly positioned queuing traffic will still not create traffic hold-ups, but this was already happening prior to the C13 being closed.

3.4.4 Although the cost associated with the C13 road closure would be much reduced if the road were to be re-opened, the cost of the mitigation works (including signing and barriers, etc.) would mean the overall cost is similar to the scenario without mitigation. Page 7 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

3.4.5 This scenario has resulted in no High risks and represents the second lowest overall risk to the Council of the four scenarios investigated.

3.5 Scenario 2 - Re-opening C13 to HGVs only on a temporary basis (Appendix 5) (pending slope stability works and traffic management works)

3.5.1 As the C13 was originally closed because of the specific risk to small vehicles being inundated by a landslip, re-opening the road just to larger vehicles, which have a lower susceptibility to a landslip, would greatly reduce both the Financial and Health and Safety risks to the Council.

3.5.2 However, it does need to be recognised that this scenario will, in all probability, be fiercely opposed by a small number of residents in Melbury Abbas who have been campaigning for a total prohibition of HGVs in the village for many years.

3.5.3 Although technically feasible, it remains unclear how enforcing an “HGV only” Traffic Regulation Order would, in practical terms, actually be possible.

3.5.4 This scenario has resulted in no High risks and represents the lowest overall risk to the Council of the four scenarios investigated.

3.6 Scenario 3 – Retaining the C13 road closure until January 2016 (Appendix 6) (the shortest estimated time it will take to re-open the road)

3.6.1 The earliest that the C13 could be re-opened is estimated to be January 2016. This is only a possibility if the proposals for stabilising the slopes through Dinah’s Hollow and below the church can be agreed in the very near future. The necessary statutory procedures to carry out the tree works would also need to be completed prior to the start of works.

3.6.2 It is therefore possible that re-opening the road would be delayed beyond January 2016, even if agreement can be reached.

3.6.3 This scenario has resulted in one High risk (in relation to reputational issues) and represents the second highest overall risk to the Council of the four scenarios investigated.

3.7 Scenario 4 – Retaining the C13 road closure until August 2017 (Appendix 7) (the longest estimated time it will take to re-open the road)

3.7.1 If agreement cannot be reached on a preferred method of stabilising the slopes with the landowners and the local community, the County will need to compulsorily purchase the land in order to undertake the necessary slope stabilisation works.

3.7.2 The Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) process is onerous and has been estimated to take 12 months before a decision is made. However, given that there may still be strong opposition to the County’s modified slope stabilisation option, it is possible that a public inquiry may well also be required, which could extend the time frame before a decision is determined by a further six months.

3.7.3 With this elongated estimated timescale, the cost of maintaining the road closure and the reputational risk to the Council is greatly increased.

Page 8 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

3.7.4 This scenario has resulted in two High risks (Financial and Reputational) and the highest risk score of the four scenarios investigated and so represents the highest overall risk to the authority.

3.8 The Council’s insurers were also asked to contribute to the production of the Risk Comparison Analysis and to offer professional advice. Using the insurer’s risk management consultant has provided invaluable new perspective on how best to manage the risk that keeping the C13 closed or re-opening the road, prior to the stabilisation works, pose to the Council.

3.9 The advice provided by the risk consultant concluded that the actual risk associated with the slopes failing through Dinah’s Hollow and for this failure leading to a fatality or serious injury was very small. Any such event would be considered to be a “one off event”, whereas there could be multiple such events occurring on the more heavily utilised local road network since the closure.

4. Mitigation – traffic management

4.1 If the decision is made to re-open the C13 prior to the stabilisation works, efforts should be made to install mitigation in the form of traffic management measures.

4.2 Engineers have developed a number of potential options for ensuring that highway users negotiating the narrower sections of the hollow are properly informed about any potential dangers and protected, as is reasonably practicable, from any minor landslips if they do occur.

4.3 Options include:

- Utilising electronic Variable Message Signs to warn of the potential dangers and of the likelihood of severe delays still occurring; - Warning sign - Diagram 559: “risk of falling or fallen rocks ahead” - Warning sign - Diagram 562: “other danger ahead” - Temporary priority system around the fencing below the Church - Single lane working, controlled by traffic signals, through the section of the hollow

4.4 The barriers on the C13 below the Church were installed before the road was closed and so, although we are aware this will cause some traffic management issues, it has been decided it is best to retain the barriers in-situ.

4.5 Considerable efforts have been made to devise a method of protecting highway users negotiating the sections of the hollow most susceptible to instability. A short section of temporary single lane working, controlled by traffic signals, has been developed and modelled. However, this option is expensive to install and maintain and could be difficult to properly control due to the narrowness of the approaches to the signalled section (queuing traffic blocking the road for passing traffic).

4.6 During discussions concerning the risk ratings, Parsons Brinckerhoff indicated that they would like to see a number of control measures introduced, including warning signs of potential for rock falls, a reduced speed limit through the hollow and regular maintenance of the slopes to remove any loose or unstable ground/tree roots. Should this recommendation be accepted it would be our intention to carry out weekly visual inspections to monitor the on-going condition of the slopes through the hollow. Page 9 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

5. Petition

5.1 A petition has recently been received from local residents concerned that the originally proposed preferred design for stabilising the slopes through Dinah’s Hollow would be “an ecological and cultural catastrophe ….”.

5.2 The petition was undertaken in the middle of February 2015, which was a time where a number of key questions were still under consideration. In the intervening time a considerable amount of work has been undertaken to produce a slope stabilisation design that accommodated some of the concerns expressed and to mitigate the environmental and visual impact of the works.

5.3 The new design for the slope stability works has mitigated the aforementioned concerns and has, very recently, been discussed with the landowners. Unfortunately, the final design for the works are not fully complete and, therefore, not ready for wider distribution at this time.

5.4 In addition, the petition also demanded answers to a number of specific questions. Specific answers to these questions have already been provided and they are reiterated below:

- Why there has been no public or environmental consultations? There have been numerous meetings arranged by locally elected members, officers and the local community at which information, updates and an opportunity to comment on the latest plans. In addition, numerous site visits and meetings between the project engineers and the environmental / ecological experts have taken place in order to progress the overall design.

- Why there is no tendering for the works? Dorset Highways has a partnering arrangement, established through a tender process, with a number of external consultants, who provide specific expertise when required. Our partnership with Parsons Brinckerhoff and Hanson offer value for money and reduces the time and money spent on the tendering process.

- Why the consultees are the main contractors? Parsons Brinckerhoff our Dorset County Council’s engineering consultancy partner.

- Why only 1 serious solution has been considered? Many potential methods of stabilising the slopes were identified and considered by Parsons Brinckerhoff in the initial stages of the design process. Having carefully considered the benefits and disbenefits of the various options, they were gradually reduced down to the best and most cost-effective design, which then became the consultant’s recommendation and the Council’s preferred option.

- Why DCC have used engineering consultants with no bio-engineering experience or expertise? Parsons Brinckerhoff has considerable experience and expertise in the field of bio- engineering. Bio-engineering was initially considered as a possible method of stabilising the slopes, but was ultimately dismissed as a viable option due to the inherent uncertainty it offered.

- Why DCC have not consulted the AONB or used a landscape architect? The AONB was consulted at the soonest possible opportunity, which was as soon as a preliminary design was available. Since then, a number of meetings between Page 10 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

engineers and the AONB have taken place and they have been kept fully appraised of developments. Again, a landscape architect has been widely utilised to help improve and develop the overall design. In addition, external landscape architects will be commissioned to produce a landscape Visual Impact Assessment to aid the design process.

5.5 It should be reiterated that since the petition was distributed, further work has taken place to develop and improve the original design and many, but not all, of the concerns highlighted in the petition have been resolved or at least ameliorated.

6. Legislation

6.1 In considering whether to re-open the C13 at Melbury Abbas the Cabinet will have in mind the tragic circumstances of the landslip at Beaminster tunnel in July 2012.

6.2 The Beaminster tunnel landslip occurred in extreme weather conditions and the landslip could not reasonably have been foreseen by the County Council. The situation at Melbury Abbas is somewhat different in that through specialist advice from consulting engineers the Council has obtained advance information that there is the risk of a landslip sufficient to bury a small car.

6.3 Appendix 3 to this report refers to the paramount importance of the safety of road users and the significant focus that has therefore been placed upon health and safety through the risk assessment process. Three scenarios have been identified that could give rise to a fatality or serious injury but the risk assessment indicates a very low likelihood of fatality or serious injury, which when multiplied with the significance of such an event presents a "medium" level of risk.

6.4 Under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 the County Council as highway authority has a duty to maintain highways maintainable at the public expense. The C13 is such a maintainable highway and the County Council owes a duty of care towards road users.

6.5 In addition to this duty of care the Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007 makes it an offence if an organisation to which the section applies (including the County Council) manages or organises its activities in such a way as to cause a person's death and which amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased. Advice has therefore been sought from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services on whether a decision to re-open the C13 at Melbury Abbas against the background of the advice from the consulting engineers might leave the County Council at risk of prosecution in the event of a landslip leading to a fatality.

6.6 The advice given is that Section 3(1) of the Corporate Manslaughter Act provides that any duty of care owed by a public authority in respect of a decision as to matters of public policy is not a "relevant duty of care". The Act specifically singles out the allocation of public resources or the weighing of competing public interests as matters of public policy which do not give rise to a relevant duty of care. The risk comparison analysis set out in this report and the consideration given to the various scenarios is exactly the sort of weighing competing public interests contemplated by the legislation and so the decision to be made by the Cabinet is a public policy decision which falls outside of the Act. In addition to the Corporate Manslaughter position, the level of detailed risk analysis work undertaken in the preparation of this report is such that in the unlikely event of a fatality no individual is thought likely to be at risk of personal prosecution. Page 11 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

6.7 In order to progress a scheme to stabilise the banks alongside the C13 at Dinah's Hollow it will be necessary for the County Council to carry out engineering works on the adjoining land. This can be done with the agreement of the land owners but failing agreement the County Council has the power to compulsorily purchase land or rights over land. As set out above, whether the County Council is able to proceed by agreement or needs to acquire land compulsorily in the face of opposition from land owners will impact significantly on the timetable for completing stabilisation works. If a compulsory purchase order does become necessary then this will be the subject of a further report to the Cabinet detailing the works to be undertaken, the land or rights that are needed and the efforts made to proceed by agreement.

Mike Harries Director for Environment and the Economy May 2015 Page 12 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Appendix 1: Plan of A350 / C13 and surrounding area

Page 13 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Appendix 2: Comparative collision data

A350 - junction with Blandford Bypass to A30, Shaftesbury

Apr 14 to Dec 14 Apr 13 to Dec 13 Apr 12 to Dec 12 Apr 11 to Dec 11 Apr 10 to Dec 10 Apr 09 to Dec 09 Fatal 0 1 0 0 0 0

Serious 3 1 1 1 1 2

Slight 2 1 7 7 2 4

ALL 5 3 8 8 3 6

Apr 14 to Mar 15* Apr 13 to Mar 14 Apr 12 to Mar 13 Apr 11 to Mar 12 Apr 10 to Mar 11 Apr 09 to Mar 10

Damage only 6 2 4 0 2 N/A

C13 - Higher Shaftesbury Road

Apr 14 to Dec 14 Apr 13 to Dec 13 Apr 12 to Dec 12 Apr 11 to Dec 11 Apr 10 to Dec 10 Apr 09 to Dec 09 Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0

Serious 1 0 0 1 1 0

Slight 3 6 1 4 5 5

ALL 4 6 1 5 6 5

Apr 14 to Mar 15* Apr 13 to Mar 14 Apr 12 to Mar 13 Apr 11 to Mar 12 Apr 10 to Mar 11 Apr 09 to Mar 10 Page 14 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Damage only 2 4 7 2 8 N/A Eastern corridor (routes east of A350 to the B3081, excluding C13)

Apr 14 to Dec 14 Apr 13 to Dec 13 Apr 12 to Dec 12 Apr 11 to Dec 11 Apr 10 to Dec 10 Apr 09 to Dec 09 Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0

Serious 0 1 0 2 0 0

Slight 4 4 3 1 5 4

ALL 4 5 3 3 5 4

Apr 14 to Mar 15* Apr 13 to Mar 14 Apr 12 to Mar 13 Apr 11 to Mar 12 Apr 10 to Mar 11 Apr 09 to Mar 10

Damage only 3 2 2 1 3 N/A

Western corridor (A357, B3091 'triangle', including minor routes within)

Apr 14 to Dec 14 Apr 13 to Dec 13 Apr 12 to Dec 12 Apr 11 to Dec 11 Apr 10 to Dec 10 Apr 09 to Dec 09 Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0

Serious 0 1 0 1 2 1

Slight 1 6 8 8 8 11

ALL 1 7 8 9 10 12

Apr 14 to Mar 15* Apr 13 to Mar 14 Apr 12 to Mar 13 Apr 11 to Mar 12 Apr 10 to Mar 11 Apr 09 to Mar 10

Damage only 4 3 9 6 6 N/A

Page 15 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

* Damage only data for March 2015 is only available up to 14 March. NB: Damage only collision data is available from April 2010 to 14 March 2015. It is more 'up-to-date' than injury collision data as it is not subject to the same level of scrutiny and validation as reported injury collisions. Western & Eastern corridors Page 16 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Appendix 3: Notes to accompany the risk assessment for the C13 road closure

The risk assessment process provides an evaluation and estimation of the levels of risk associated with an activity or scenario. When assessing risk, it is good practice to examine both the likelihood of a risk occurring, together with its potential impact. Risks that are deemed to be of both a high impact and high likelihood would indicate a high risk.

The scoring for impact and likelihood is defined by an organisation’s “risk appetite”. In layman’s terms, this is ‘the level of risk that an organisation is prepared to accept’. The council has defined its risk appetite against five key risk categories:

Financial risk; Strategic priorities and opportunities; Health and safety; Reputation; Service delivery.

Those risks identified as ‘high’ based on their impact and likelihood would be deemed to be above the council’s usual appetite for risk. However, an informed decision may be taken to tolerate high risks where they are agreed to be acceptable (for instance, based on further actions proposed).

For this risk assessment methodology, both impact and likelihood are given a score between 1 and 5, and then multiplied to provide a risk score. A risk score of 15 or above is deemed ‘high’.

For the purposes of the C13 Melbury Abbas risk assessment, the impact and likelihood of risks across each of these five categories have been considered for the following scenarios:

1) Reopening the C13 on a temporary basis to all vehicles; 2) Reopening the C13 on a temporary basis to HGVs; 3) Retaining the C13 road closure until January 2016 (the shortest estimated time to reopen the C13 pending further works); 4) Retaining the C13 road closure until August 2017 (the longest estimated time to reopen the C13).

This risk assessment has been populated following discussions with technical officers within the council, together with input from the council’s insurers and its strategic partner Parsons Brinckerhoff. Scoring reflects both the level of risk without any further action being taken (i.e. without mitigation) and then reassessed with additional measures that can be taken to reduce the level of risk (i.e. including mitigation).

Health and safety of road users is paramount and rightly a very emotive issue. Significant focus has therefore been placed on health and safety throughout this risk assessment process. This recognises that the road was closed in April 2014 due to concerns relating to the instability of the banks and the perceived risk of a collapse leading to a fatality or serious injury. Page 17 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

The potential impact of a fatality or serious injury is recognised with the highest score of 5.

The scenarios identified that could give rise to a fatality or serious injury are:

i) The collapse of the bank leading to a vehicle being engulfed; ii) The collapse of the bank leading to a tree falling in to the road and onto a passing vehicle; iii) An over-turning tree falls onto a vehicle.

The likelihood scoring takes account of a number of factors:

a) The perceived hazardous nature of the cutting; b) The controls (mitigation) that are in operation to prevent the risk occurring; and c) The presence of an individual that could be harmed (i.e. traffic flow).

These considerations indicate a very low likelihood of fatality or serious injury, which when multiplied with the high impact presents a “medium” level of risk. he health and safety risk could be reduced further by limiting traffic to larger vehicles such as HGVs, thus removing any potential for vehicles to be engulfed following the collapse of the bank, although it is recognised that this would be difficult to police. Retaining the closure is not without health and safety risks, as the increase in traffic provides a greater potential for collision.

The risk assessment identifies a number of high risks relating to retaining the closure. A high financial risk reflects the inevitable additional maintenance costs associated with on-going repairs / signing / maintaining road closure / reconstructing roads. Reputational risks are similarly identified as high, appreciating that negative public attention is likely to be sustained.

Conclusion Although there are some variations within the scoring across the four options, the health and safety risk is identified as a Medium level risk regardless of whether the C13 is reopened or the closure maintained. It is the reputational risk and “almost certain” financial risks associated with retaining the closure that suggest that reopening the C13 is the lowest risk option.

In summary, the risk assessment process cannot categorically guarantee that even a well controlled risk will not occur. However, it does provide a formal and evidence- based tool for informing the decision making process. Page 18 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Appendix 4 to 7: Risk Comparison Analysis Matrices

Risk to Dorset County Council - Risk Comparison Analysis

Scenario 1: Re-opening the C13 on a temporary basis (pending slope stabilisation works and additional traffic management works) Total Risk Total Risk Risk Register for: LIKELIHOOD Financial Risk Medium Financial Risk Medium 1 2 3 4 5 Strategic Priorities Low Strategic Priorities Low C13 Road Closure (Risk Comparison Analysis) 5 5 10 15 20 25 4 4 8 12 16 20 Health & Safety Medium Health & Safety Medium 3 3 6 9 12 15

Last Review by: M. Eyre / S. Howard IMPACT 2 2 4 6 8 10 Reputational Medium Reputational Medium Date: 22/04/2015 1 1 2 3 4 5 Service Delivery Low Service Delivery Low Without mitigation Including mitigation Impact Likelihood Score Risk Impact Likelihood Score Risk No Risk Description Risk Category Notes Rating Notes Rating

1 Increase in maintenance costs Financial Although there would be minor ongoing costs associated 1 5 5 Medium There would be costs associated with the mitigation works 1 5 5 Medium with the continuing maintenance, these costs would be (£100,000), but these would be low in relation to the costs Increase in staff costs much lower than those for maintaining the highway during of the overall project. Increase in cost for TM on other roads a long closure. Increase in final construction costs 2 Negative impact on the Council's Strategic Priorities Negligible impact on the Council's strategic priorities. Re- 1 1 1 Low Low risk. No further mitigation proposed 1 1 1 Low opening the C13 has a positive bearing on the Council's strategic priorities "Economic Growth" priority. (Enabling Economic Growth, Health, Wellbeing & Safeguarding)

3 Risk of fatality or serious injury Health & Safety The impact of one or both of the slopes in Dinah's Hollow 5 2 10 Medium Installing various traffic management works, such as single 5 1 5 Medium failing should not be underestimated. From a likelihood lane working through Dinah's Hollow, traffic signals/"give Damage to the highway network perspective, the risk is based on the potential for a "one and take", average speed cameras, etc. will help to Damage to property time event", as against the health and safety risks within mitigate the potential risk of an incident involving death or the other three main scenarios where collisons are serious injury from occurring. recognised as being potentially more regular events. The Likelihood ranking noted within this risk assessment has been agreed in conjunction with the professional consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff and the Council's liability insurer.

4 Sustained and long-term negative public Reputation There will be reputational damage in the short term, but 2 5 10 Medium Ensure that communication is clear and transparant, 2 4 8 Medium this will quickly reduce. including an explaination as to why we had to initially close attention the road because of the danger of slope failure pending further analysis. The actual risk to the network,as a whole, is now greater than this risk.

5 Negative impact on service delivery Service Delivery Negligible impact on service delivery. 1 1 1 Low Low risk. No further mitigation proposed 1 1 1 Low (delivering the Council's core functions)

Total 27 Total 20

1 Risk to Dorset County Council - Risk Comparison Analysis

Scenario 2: Re-opening the C13 to HGVs only on a temporary basis (pending slope stabilisation works and additional traffic management works) Total Risk Total Risk Risk Register for: LIKELIHOOD Financial Risk Medium Financial Risk Medium 1 2 3 4 5 Strategic Priorities Low Strategic Priorities Low C13 Road Closure (Risk Comparison Analysis) 5 5 10 15 20 25 4 4 8 12 16 20 Health & Safety Low Health & Safety Low 3 3 6 9 12 15

1 Increase in maintenance costs Financial Although there would be minor ongoing costs associated 1 5 5 Medium There would be a minor additonal cost of installing 1 5 5 Medium with the continuing maintenance, these costs would be additonal signing, a Traffic Regulation Order, and electronic Increase in staff costs much lower than those for maintaining the highway during enforcement cameras (ANPR) so that enforcement could Increase in cost for TM on other roads a long closure. take place without the need for extensive Police presence. Increase in final construction costs * Steve I've adjusted the figures to match scenario 1* * Steve I've adjusted the figures to match scenario 1*

2 Negative impact on the Council's Strategic Priorities Negligible impact on the Council's strategic priorities. Re- 1 1 1 Low Negligible impact on the Council's strategic priorities. Re- 1 1 1 Low opening the C13 has a positive bearing on the Council's opening the C13 has a positive bearing on the Council's strategic priorities "Economic Growth" priority. "Economic Growth" priority. (Enabling Economic Growth, Health, Wellbeing & Safeguarding)

3 Risk of fatality or serious injury Health & Safety The impact of one or both of the slopes in Dinah's Hollow 2 1 2 Low Whilst the likelihood of a slope failure is considered to be 2 1 2 Low failing would be restricted. There is a low likelihood of this low, if such an event were to occur it is very unlikely that it Damage to the highway network occurring (perceived to be a "one time event") would have any significant impact on the occupant of an Damage to property HGV.

5 Negative impact on service delivery Service Delivery Negligible impact on service delivery. Re-opening the road 1 1 1 Low Low risk. No further mitigation proposed 1 1 1 Low (delivering the Council's core functions) will return the network to its original capacity.

Total 19 Total 17

2 Risk to Dorset County Council - Risk Comparison Analysis

Scenario 3: Retaining C13 road closure until January 2016 (approx. 8 months) (the shortest estimated time it will take to re-open the road) Total Risk Total Risk Risk Register for: LIKELIHOOD Financial Risk Medium Financial Risk Medium 1 2 3 4 5 Strategic Priorities Low Strategic Priorities Low C13 Road Closure (Risk Comparison Analysis) 5 5 10 15 20 25 4 4 8 12 16 20 Health & Safety Medium Health & Safety Medium 3 3 6 9 12 15

Last Review by: M. Eyre / S. Howard IMPACT 2 2 4 6 810 Reputational High Reputational High Date: 22/04/2015 1 1 2 3 4 5 Service Delivery Low Service Delivery Low Without mitigation Including mitigation Impact Likelihood RiskScore Impact Likelihood RiskScore No Risk Description Risk Category Notes Rating Notes Rating

1 Increase in maintenance costs Financial Estimated cost of on-going repairs / signing / maintaining 2 5 10 Medium There is little or no additional traffic management 2 5 10 Medium road closure / reconstructing roads after the C13 is re- remedial / mitigation works that can be considered over Increase in staff costs opened is estimated to be £467,000 (see notes below) that which is already being undertaken. Increase in cost for TM on other roads Increase in final construction costs

2 Negative impact on the Council's Strategic Priorities Negligible impact on the Council's strategic priorities in 2 2 4 Low Low risk. No further mitigation proposed 2 2 4 Low the short-term. Re-opening the C13 has a positive bearing strategic priorities on the Council's "Economic Growth" priority. (Enabling Economic Growth, Health, Wellbeing & Safeguarding)

3 Risk of fatality or serious injury Health & Safety The 8 months of ratified collision data (April to November 4 2 8 Medium There is little or no additional traffic management 4 2 8 Medium 2014) that we have since the C13 was closed does show a remedial / mitigation works that can be considered over Damage to the highway network small increase in the number of collisions on the A350, that which is already being undertaken. Damage to property when compared to the same 8 month period in 2013. However, as the numbers are so small it could be argued that there is no statistical significance. Likewise, the number of collisions on the other roads being used by increasing numbers of vehicles since the closure of the road has not changed significantly.

4 Sustained and long-term negative public Reputation Having the C13 closed until the beginning of 2016 will 4 5 20 High Ongoing clear and transparant communication will keep 4 4 16 High result in sustained and long-term negative public the public informed and is essential. However, negative attention attention. repuatation would continue to be likely.

5 Negative impact on service delivery Service Delivery Negligible impact on service delivery, although it is 2 2 4 Low Low risk. No further mitigation proposed 2 2 4 Low (delivering the Council's core functions) envisaged that there may be a drain on officer time in responding to complaints and maintaining the road network. Total 46 Total 42

* Cost of remedials gang: £2,300 per week - 2 men @ £25 per hour x 8 hours per day x 5 days per week + £300 for plant x 40 weeks ≈ £92,000 ** Estimated cost of road repairs, maintaining signing, fixing drainage problems, etc.: £500 per week x 40 weeks ≈ £20,000 *** Cost of 1 FTE engineer: charge out rate of £50 per hour x 7.5 hrs per day x 5 days per week x 40 weeks ≈ £75,000 **** Cost of additional TM on surrounding roads: estimated at £200,000 ≈ £200,000 ***** Cost of reconstructing minor road network after the re-opening C13: estimated at £2,000 per month x 40 weeks ≈ £80,000 Total: £467,000

3 Risk to Dorset County Council - Risk Comparison Analysis

Scenario 4: Retaining C13 road closure until August 2017 (approx. 27 months) (the longest estimated time it will take to re-open the road) Total Risk Total Risk Risk Register for: LIKELIHOOD Financial Risk High Financial Risk High 1 2 3 4 5 Strategic Priorities Medium Strategic Priorities Medium C13 Road Closure (Risk Comparison Analysis) 5 5 10 15 20 25 4 4 8 12 16 20 Health & Safety Medium Health & Safety Medium 3 3 6 9 12 15

Last Review by: M. Eyre / S. Howard IMPACT 2 2 4 6 810 Reputational High Reputational High Date: 22/04/2015 1 1 2 3 4 5 Service Delivery Medium Service Delivery Medium Without mitigation Including mitigation Impact Likelihood RiskScore Impact Likelihood RiskScore No Risk Description Risk Category Notes Rating Notes Rating

1 Increase in maintenance costs Financial Estimated cost of on-going repairs / signing / maintaining 3 5 15 High There is little or no additional traffic management 3 5 15 High road closure / reconstructing roads after the C13 is re- remedial / mitigation works that can be considered over Increase in staff costs opened is estimated to be £737,900 (see notes below) that which is already being undertaken. Increase in cost for TM on other roads Increase in final construction costs 2 Negative impact on the Council's Strategic Priorities Re-opening the C13 has a positive bearing on the Council's 2 3 6 Medium No further mitigation proposed 2 3 6 Medium "Economic Growth" priority. The longer the C13 is closed strategic priorities the greater the chance that it will impact on the way that (Enabling Economic Growth, Health, Wellbeing & the County operates. Increased riski of network Safeguarding) disruption, especially if there are problems on adjoining routes. 3 Risk of fatality or serious injury Health & Safety The 8 months of ratified collision data (April to November 4 2 8 Medium There is little or no additional traffic management works 4 2 8 Medium 2014) that we have since the C13 was closed does show a that can be considered over that which is already being Damage to the highway network small increase in the number of collisions on the A350, undertaken. Damage to property when compared to the same 8 month period in 2013. However, as the numbers are so small it could be argued that there is no statistical significance. Likewise, the number of collisions on the other roads being used by increasing numbers of vehicles since the closure of the road has not changed significantly.

4 Sustained and long-term negative public Reputation The reputational damage associated with having the C13 4 5 20 High Ongoing clear and transparant communication will keep 4 5 20 High closed until the summer of 2017 would be huge and the public informed and is essential. However, this is attention would require considerable officer time to manage. unlikely to have any significant effect in preventing negative repuatation. 5 Negative impact on service delivery Service Delivery Negligible impact on service delivery. 2 3 6 Medium Low risk. No further mitigation proposed 2 3 6 Medium (delivering the Council's core functions)

Total 55 Total 55

* Cost of remedials gang: £2,300 per week - 2 men @ £25 per hour x 8 hours per day x 5 days per week + £300 for plant x 68 weeks ≈ £156,400 ** Estimated cost of road repairs, maintaining signing, fixing drainage problems, etc.: £500 per week x 68 weeks ≈ £34,000 *** Cost of 1 FTE engineer: charge out rate of £50 per hour x 7.5 hrs per day x 5 days per week x 68 weeks ≈ £127,500 **** Cost of additional TM on surrounding roads: estimated at £250,000 ≈ £250,000 ***** Cost of reconstructing minor road network after the re-opening C13: estimated at £2,500 per month x 68 weeks ≈ £170,000 Total: £737,900

4 Risk to Dorset County Council - Risk Comparison Analysis Assessment of Impact

Score Financial Strategic Health & Safety Reputation Service Delivery

Total loss in public confidence; Complete failure to deliver on a Unable to deliver critical services 5 Over £3 million Fatality; multiple permanent injuries sustained/long term negative public strategic priority (level 1) attention (national)

Major injury or illness (incapacity/ Sustained/long term negative public Unable to deliver critical services 4 £1 million - £3 million Major impact on a strategic priority disability); multiple significant attention (local) (level 2) injuries

Moderate injury or illness Receives local press attention with Moderate impact on a strategic Unable to deliver critical services 3 £500,000 - £1 million (professional intervention); multiple medium term impact on public priority (level 3) minor injuries memory

Minor injury or illness requiring Receives local press attention with Unable to deliver critical services 2 £100,000 - £500,000 Minor impact on a strategic priority minimal intervention or treatment short term impact on public memory (level 4)

Negligible impact on a strategic Unable to deliver critical services 1 Up to £100,000 None / no intervention or treatment Minor complaints or rumours priority (level 5)

Assessment of Likelihood

Score Likelyhood Percentage chance of occurring LIKELIHOOD 5 Almost Certain 80 – 100% chance of occurring 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 10 15 20 25 4 Likely 51 – 80% chance of occurring 4 4 8 12 16 20 3 Possible 21 – 50% chance of occurring 3 3 6 9 12 15 IMPACT 2 Unlikely 6 - 20% chance of occurring 2 2 4 6 8 10 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 Rare 0 – 5% chance of occurring

5 Page 19 – C13 road closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Appendix 8: “Save Dinah’s Hollow” petition

[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Drawing Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]