Subject: HGV Restrictions in the Smithy Status: For Publication Bridge area.

Report to : Pennine Township Committee Date: 6th November 2012

Report of: Service Director – Corporate Services Author Email: Chris.woods@.gov.uk Author: Chris Woods Tel: 01706 924581 Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer

Key Decision: No

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To discuss the implications of restricting access for large goods vehicles to the Smithy Bridge area. Specifically Wildhouse Lane, Hollingworth Road and Smithy Bridge Road. A plan is attached in Appendix 1 for reference.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Members note the report and decide whether further work should be undertaken in relation to the information provided in this report.

MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

3.1 It has been noted that there is a small group of residents from the Smithy Bridge area who are concerned about the use of local roads by large goods vehicles. Residents met Councillors and Highways Officers to discuss their concerns on 20 August 2012. 3.2 For the purpose of this report a Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) is a vehicle designed and constructed to transport goods and has a gross vehicle weight greater than 7.5Tonnes. 3.3 Vehicles greater than 7.5T are generally those with 3 and more axles. Such a restriction would not prohibit large vans and some rigid two axle lorries, which often weigh less than 7.5T. 3.4 The public highway is designed and maintained for the safe passage of people and goods. 3.5 The route in question comprises of Wildhouse Lane, Milnrow Road, Smithy Bridge Road, Lake Bank and Hollingworth Road is public highway and forms

part of the B6225. Classified roads such as the B6225 are where Rochdale Council as Highway Authority expect goods vehicles to travel. 3.6 Smithy Bridge Road, Lake Bank and Hollingworth Road provides a diversion route for vehicles greater in height than 13’ 3’’ needing to travel between east Rochdale and Halifax and are prevented by the Littleborough Railway Viaduct. 3.7 Consideration should be given to businesses that require access to Old Road using LGV’s, in contacting the companies with the details provided by residents, Highways have established that one haulage company is based in Littleborough but requires access to Blackstone Edge, however they can not use the low bridge meaning they are required to use Smithy Bridge Road and another company is based in Littleborough and has customers in Milnrow centre meaning the quickest route in terms of fuel and time is over Wildhouse Lane. 3.8 To restrict vehicles over 7.5T from using Wildhouse Lane, Hollingworth Road and Smithy Bridge Road would require a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), the only appropriate TRO available to the Council to control LGV’s using Wildhouse Lane, Hollingworth Road and Smithy Bridge Road is the ‘Prohibition of Goods Vehicles’ which can be used to restrict vehicles over 7.5T. Cost 3.9 In order for the Council to start the process of introducing a TRO the Council would need strong justification for the reasons as to why the TRO is being introduced. 3.10 In order to accurately assess the number and type of vehicles using the Smithy Bridge Road area, the Council would be required to undertake a comprehensive series of traffic surveys. • Tube surveys; to first determine the volume of all categories of vehicles. • An origin and destination survey; to determine numbers of vehicles entering and leaving the proposed TRO zone and the amount of time spent within the zone. • An interview survey of goods vehicle drivers to determine original origin and final destination. 3.11 The above surveys would provide the Council with the appropriate information to either justify or not the introduction of a TRO for the ‘Prohibition of Goods Vehicles’. The approximate cost of completing the surveys is £40,000.00 3.12 After the surveys are complete and the results would be reported to Township Committee with a recommendation. Additional funds would need to be sought if there is a resolution to support a TRO for the ‘Prohibition of Goods Vehicles’. 3.13 Prior to promoting any TRO the Council is legally obliged to consult with statutory consultees; • Manchester Fire & Rescue • North West Ambulance Service • Police • Transport for Greater Manchester • Freight Transport Association • Road Haulage Association 3.14 The Council would expect to receive strong objections from the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association. 3.15 Should a TRO be advertised we also expect strong objections from local businesses that rely on LGV’s for deliveries. 3.16 Accident statistics for the area show that there have been no recorded incidents involving LGV’s.

Alternatives considered

3.17 The ‘Prohibition of Goods Vehicles’ TRO could be extended to ‘Except for access’ in this instance LGV’s could still access the area providing there was a reason for access.

3.18 This TRO is more difficult to enforce due to the fact that a Police Officer would need to observe a LGV entering the zone and then check whether or not the LGV stops to access a property or drives straight through the zone.

Consultation proposed/undertaken

3.19 Highways & Engineering have sought the views of Greater Manchester Police on the feasibility of potentially raising a TRO of this nature in this area and they commented as follows;

“In general terms GMP do not support the introduction of environmental weight limits where no physical measures are provided to make the restriction self enforcing. There is ample evidence of such schemes failing to persuade drivers of these types of vehicles not to use the restricted roads. GMP will concentrate enforcement activity where we can have the greatest effect in reducing casualty rates. In this proposal there are no recorded injury collisions and therefore the scheme is environmental only.

In looking at this individual proposal, due to the height restriction on the A58 in Littleborough the proposal would effectively sever the roads to Todmorden, Halifax & beyond. It would not be possible for these vehicles to be allowed 'except for access' as they are not accessing premises on or adjacent to the proposed restricted roads.

As they stand GMP would formally object to the proposals if they proceeded to formal consultation.”

3.20 Highways & Engineering have already spoken to the 3 haulage companies perceived to be using Wildhouse Lane, Smithy Bridge Road and Lake Bank to seek cooperation in not using the route. 3.21 The companies indicated that they use Wildhouse Lane and Smithy Bridge Road when the A58 is busy and because they have customers in the local area i.e. based in Littleborough and have customers in Milnrow.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 As discussed in paras 3.9 and 3.10 Pennine Township would need to allocate £40,000.00 to have the surveys completed to form an evidence base for potentially raising a TRO. 4.2 The Highways & Engineering Service is not able to fund the cost of the surveys from its existing budget provision. Should Members be minded to approve surveys and subsequently a Traffic Regulation Order then Pennine Township would need to provide the budget.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 If committee decide to approve surveys and consultation to take place the results of the surveys and consultation will be brought back to this committee for further consideration.

6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 None.

7. CORPORATE AND TOWNSHIP PRIORITIES

7.1 The Pennine Township Plan has set targets for the Township in the coming year.

7.2 One of the targets is to make improvements to local roads, reduce congestion and improve road safety.

8. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

8.1 There are no specific risk issues for members to consider arising from this report.

9. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising from this report.

9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

There are no (significant) equality/community issues arising from this report. Having considered the Equalities Impact Assessment, this report is principally for information purposes at this stage and as we are not statutory obliged to provide a HGV restriction or are we changing procedures or practices then an Equalities Impact Assessment is not required.

There are no background papers.