Subject: Middleton Traffic Initiative - 26T Status: For Publication Limitation Scheme

Report to : Middleton Township Committee Date: 24 th May 2012

Report of: Director of Highways and Email: Engineering [email protected]

Tel: 01706 924608 Cabinet Member : Portfolio Holder for Highways and Engineering

Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer

Key Decision: Yes / No

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To update Committee on the outcome of consultation relating to the Experimental 26T Restriction Order in Middleton and to seek a decision on whether or not to proceed with promotion of the Traffic Regulation Order.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Committee consider the contents of the report and decide which alternative to proceed with (see para 3.1 & 3.2).

2.2 The financial implications of the decision should be considered.

Version Number: Page: 1 of 11

Reasons for recommendation

2.3 In May 2011, RMBC advertised its intention to promote a 26T Experimental traffic order in Middleton. The order was challenged in the High Court by the Road Haulage Association (RHA). The RHA considered that there had been insufficient consultation. In response Corporate Services has now written directly to all statutory consultees listed in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 seeking their views relating to the proposed scheme.

2.4 The response received must now be considered and if needed be acted upon prior to the committee reaching its decision to proceed with the Traffic Order.

3. MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

Alternatives considered

3.1 Not to proceed with progressing the scheme and authorise the removal of the gateway signs at a cost of approximately £6000.

3.2 To continue with the scheme by carrying out an Origin and Destination survey at a cost of approximately £40 000 to create an evidence base for the justification for the introduction of the scheme.

Consultation proposed/undertaken:

3.3 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 • Greater Police • Fire Service • Chamber Business Connections

3.4 The Middleton Township committee was reminded of the concerns expressed during the 2004 consultation process at the meetings held on the 11 th March 2010 and the 8 th September 2011.

3.5 Further consultation letters inviting comments were distributed on the 2nd December 2011 by the Legal Services Section.

Version Number: Page: 2 of 11

3.6 The consultation period was extended to the 31st January 2012 at the request of the Road Haulage Association with the following comments having been received;

3.7 Issues raised by Edna Gill (Road Haulage Association): Roadway House, Little Wood Drive, West 26 Industrial Estate, Cleckheaton

The Road Haulage Association (RHA) have a number of concerns and would like to submit a formal objection to the proposal. They are aware that there have been concerns expressed, over the last ten years, regarding the movement of HGVs in the Middleton area and will continue to try to help minimise any problems that arise from these movements.

The RHA have requested copies of any surveys or assessments that have been conducted recently and state if surveys have been conducted, they would be interested to know on what basis these proposals have been put together.

RHA have consulted a number of haulage companies in the Middleton Junction area and all have reported that an access restriction would bring about considerable costs to their local business both financially and environmentally. With an increase in congestion there would also be additions to fuel costs, vehicle maintenance driver time and driver wages. Two of the local companies, alone, have report an total additional 34,424 miles per annum would have to be driven by their vehicles just to gain access to Middleton town centre from the Middleton Junction area. This would result in displacing these HGV movements to other residential areas within Rochdale Borough.

The RHA state that there would also have been a significant problem for Haulage companies members whose ability to access and serve businesses in the centre of Rochdale will be impacted. It is a balance between the perceived benefit to the Town Centre to be Heavy Goods Vehicle free, and the economic impact to business dependent upon HGV’s for deliveries.

RHA are concerned that given the current economic climate and the National Planning Policy Framework, consideration should be given on the balance between economic and environmental interests and therefore would like to scrutinise both the factual assumptions and political/policy reason for making this order.

3.8 Response of the Director of Highways

The weight limit proposals for Middleton were initiated by the Middleton Traffic Initiative (MTI) prior the opening of the M60 during 2000. This was due to a perceived increase of traffic and general HGV movements diverted from the Motorway onto the local road network through Middleton.

Version Number: Page: 3 of 11

Prior to progressing the scheme Rochdale MBC commissioned Origin and Destination traffic surveys to identify the issue of general HGV through movements in order to justify the proposals. These Origin and Destination Surveys were carried out in 1998, 2000 and 2001, by Greater Manchester Transportation Unit over a 10 hour period during the day (8am-6pm).

It is important to mention that these surveys took into consideration “all HGV’s” and not specifically those over 26Tonnes which this experimental order will be affecting. HGV’s over 26Tonnes will make up a proportion of the “all HGV’s” figure however the proportion of which was not observed at the time and is therefore unknown.

The results of the surveys indicated the numbers of all HGV vehicles “unmatched” (those that have some legitimately purpose in Middleton town centre) were considerable. The percentage of all HGV movements recorded in Middleton as being legitimately in the area were 61% in 1998 (prior to M60 opening), 73% in 2000 and 64% in 2001.

With Traffic Surveys indicating the majority of HGV traffic in Middleton being legitimately in the area servicing local business, private consultants “Peter Brett Associates” (PBA) were brought in during 2004 to investigate the benefits of the scheme.

While the Origin and Destination survey only considered daytime movements, additional general traffic counts were carried and analysed by the PBA report and concluded that overall the number of night time HGV movements in Middleton were low and are likely to be generated from by Robert McBride Ltd.

The expected benefits highlighted in the PBA report were based the Origin and Destination data from the 2000 survey, predicted a two way average daily reduction of general HGV traffic at each gateway of 22 vehicles. Again these figures are based on “general HGV movements” which includes vehicles classed as 26 Tonne and under which are not affected by the proposed Experimental order.

The benefits of a 26tonne scheme would therefore be much lower and can only be predicted by commissioning a more extensive Origin and destination survey.

Another issue is that the expected benefits were based on a number of assumptions such as the provision of advance signing that currently do not form part of the minimal scheme proposed due to budget constraints.

Version Number: Page: 4 of 11

One of the key challenges of such a proposal is to reduce the impact of traffic whilst maintaining economic prosperity and meeting peoples needs. Where access is precluded such as on Grimshaw Lane special consideration should be made to the business adversely affected by these proposals. Since we have received legitimate concerns and are aware of issues concerning other companies, this needs to be seriously considered and mitigated before we proceed with the introduction of the scheme to avoid further legal challenge.

3.9 Issues raised by Sergeant Dean Memory, Police Greater Manchester Police (GMP)

GMP is concerned that business premises off Grimshaw Lane will not be allowed to have deliveries from a vehicles over 26 tonnes.

He feels the scheme as it stands is unworkable from an enforcement aspect due to the large area of the scheme, access to any terminal point within the “except for loading/unloading” zone will mean that a significant number of over 26 tonne vehicles will still be allowed in the area as they will be going to roads / premises within the extended restricted area and any enforcement action will necessarily be difficult in proving that the vehicle was in effect just passing through the area.

GMP states when the experimental order is not proving effective then the remedy for this should not be for enforcement activity, proper solutions to the problem need to then be sought. Accordingly Greater Manchester Police will not do any pre-planned enforcement of the scheme. This does not of course preclude an officer who observes a contravention from dealing with it.

He is also concerned about the lack of advance warning signs notifying vehicles over the 26 tonnes of the gateways. Where a vehicle over 26 tonnes may legitimately turn around or deviate from the restricted road. Due to difficulties encountered in gaining approval to site advance signs any vehicle turning left off the motorway will not be warned of the restriction and will be unable to turn around.

3.10 Response of the Director of Highways

As previously mentioned in section 3.8, there may be businesses who are situated on Grimshaw Lane who are inconvenienced by the restriction unable to have deliveries from Vehicles over 26T. One such business identified in previous Township reports would be JW Lees. The active enforcement by the Greater Manchester Police is integral to ensuring the scheme is adhered to by HGV drivers, without a robust enforcement regime in place the positive effect of the scheme on the residents of Middleton will be negligible.

Version Number: Page: 5 of 11

It is the view of Highways and Engineering that a Traffic Order should not be promoted unless it will be complied with and fully enforced.

Due to issues with lack of clarity regarding the impact of the scheme we have been unable to acquire the necessary co-operation to site advance warning signs within Highways Agency and Manchester Councils land. The advanced signs are not mandatory and are advisory only. Whilst they are considered essential their absence does not prevent the experimental order.

3.11 The Highways Agency

The Highways agency request information on the likely amount of transfer of HGV’s onto the Strategic Road Network (SRN) would be useful to understand likely volumes so that appropriate monitoring, measures and planning can be put in place. Depending upon the volume of traffic to be identified, the need for appropriate signing on the SRN will need to be addressed to ensure that any transfer of traffic can be safely accommodated:

They are concerned that depending upon any sign locations, there may be an issue of potential u-turning traffic at M60 Junction 20 (also dependant upon the understanding of likely traffic volumes); They also state that the enforcement of such a scheme will be difficult.

3.12 Response of the Director of Highways

Origin and destination surveys looking specifically at 24hour vehicle movements will need to be carried out to provide the Highways agency with the information they require.

The location of some of the gateways may encourage irregular vehicle movements by Heavy Goods Vehicles over 26 Tonnes who have no legitimacy within the zone. Unfortunately there is not the budget available to install the necessary highway measures to ensure possible highway manoeuvres created by the location of the gateways can be carried out in a relatively safe manor.

As already mentioned in section 3.9, the Police have stated enforcement of the scheme to be unworkable.

3.13 Malcolm Bingham, Head of Policy North of , Freight Transport Association

He believes that the scheme is ill founded and will only serve to add mileage and delays to Freight operators who have a need to carry out their legitimate deliveries. This type of scheme is also not helpful to operators who are trying to meet with their and the national needs to reduce carbon usage. The Freight Transport Association object to the proposal.

Version Number: Page: 6 of 11

3.14 Response of the Director of Highways

The scheme may add millage to companies whose most used direct route for vehicles over 26Tonnes is via Grimshaw Lane, or companies who are situated just outside the “Loading” zone wishing to travel through the zone. It should also assist in removal of none legitimate Heavy Goods Vehicles travelling through Middleton Town Centre.

3.15 Jason Matthews, Matthews Transport (Manchester) Ltd, Greengate

Mr Matthew’s company requires direct access to Middleton via Grimshaw Lane to service his customers in Middleton town centre. He is concerned about the extra costs he will incur and environmental damage to divert around the town. The additional economic costs for access to his Vita Mill client cost for just fuel in introducing the Grimshaw Lane restriction will be £3446.32 per year and will double the mileage compare to the direct route. Access to Grimshaw Lane is essential for Matthews Transport to continue to provide cost effective road transport in Middleton.

He is also worried about the additional congestion caused by trucks from outside the area trying to avoid the weight restriction and states that any Lorries over 26 Tonne to Middleton via Greengate would meet a dead-end when they arrived at the traffic light at J W Lees brewery. With a weight restriction to their left (Grimshaw Lane) a low bridge straight ahead ( Road) and another low bridge to their right at (Grimshaw Lane/ Lane), they would be effectively 'trapped' with the only option being a 'U' turn in the middle of Greengate which he considers to be a dangerous manoeuvre.

3.16 Response of the Director of Highways

The proposals will restrict Mathews Transport direct access to Middleton via Grimshaw Lane. Heavy Goods Vehicles over 26Tonnes in weight and greater than 11’6”” in height travelling north along Greengate towards the junction of Grimshaw Lane will not be able to proceed any further once the proposed order is introduced. Therefore the vehicle would be required to turn around. No engineering works are proposed at the junction to accommodate Heavy Goods Vehicles turning around at Grimshaw Lane/ Green Gate junction, this could prove to be a dangerous manoervre.

Version Number: Page: 7 of 11

3.17 Martin Hill, W. Harrison & Sons (Carriers) Ltd ● BST Carriers Ltd

The proposed 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 have provided financial information indicating the proposals will adversely affect their company costing the company an additional £36,269 per annum.

3.18 Response of the Director of Highways

The proposals will restrict W. Harrison & Sons (Carriers) Ltd access to Townley Street Middleton via Grimshaw Lane for HGV’s over 26T.

3.19 Dave Clough, Middleton Transport

Mr Clough states he has very recently been aware of the proposals, despite having had a transport business in the centre of Middleton for many years. As a resident and business owner in Middleton he is in favour of having a more environmentally friendly transport systems consisting of less traffic and more efficient vehicle fleets.

He feels the congestion and pollution on our roads is not caused mainly by trucks but by cars, which outnumber trucks. The cost of introducing the scheme would cause a massive drain on their profits in what are already testing times for all involved in the transport industry, not to mention the constant pressure from various Government Agencies to reduce Carbon footprints where ever possible.

This proposal sends out a very anti-business message when Middleton needs all the jobs it can get. Due to the number of low bridges and residential streets between their depot and their customers, the route taken via Grimshaw Lane is the shortest and most economical route for their vehicles to take. They have a hand full of contracts within Middleton and in particular the Vita Mill on Road. Two of their major accounts work out of the Vita Mill and as such they make regular journeys along Grimshaw Lane to collect and deliver to these customers. They also have a customer on Hilton Fold Lane (Milliken Industries Ltd) for whom they provide transport. The company also stores a large amount of the raw materials in their warehouse which they use for their production; this again incurs many daily journeys along the proposed restricted route.

Version Number: Page: 8 of 11

He states scheme is unenforceable as Middleton Police is already overstretched and has some experience of these schemes in the south of England, although they are generally in small rural areas and not on main arterial routes. He feels the problem is that if you are not local you cannot be sure if your destination is in or out of the zone and will be committing an offence in choosing the more direct route on satellite navigation systems.

He feels for his business and other local haulers the situation is far from clear as they will be banned from using Grimshaw Lane entirely which is the shortest route for both of them to get to their respective major customers in the centre of Middleton. This means that they will have to find an alternative route. The shortest of which seems to be down Victoria Ave, and then down Manchester New Rd. This is not an appealing prospect as he fails to see why neighboring areas in Middleton should accept the excess traffic from Grimshaw lane to divert past their houses.

He believes the scheme to be costly and unnecessary and should be dropped entirely. Or alternatively make it all “except for loading” by including Grimshaw Lane in the order to avoid local haulers having to make costly detours past other residents of the boroughs houses, increasing the vehicle emissions.

3.20 Response of the Director of Highways

As mentioned in section 3.3, PBA did carry out initial consultation during 2004, whilst it was not with individual businesses it did contact the relevant representative’s organisations.

Middleton Transport being situated just outside the zone on John Lee Fold are just within a 7.5tonne except for loading zone. If Middleton Transport wishes to enter the 26Tonne zone at the junction of Hanson Street, John Lee Fold they must ensure they load or unload within the 26 Tonne zone otherwise they will be acting illegally. By amending the scheme and including Grimshaw Lane in the “Except for Loading” zone will require further approvals from Department for Transport. It would also lessen the impact of the scheme at reducing the volumes of HGV’s through Middleton and by increasing the Except for Loading zone would make the scheme even more difficult to enforce.

It would be difficult to identify the benefits of an amended scheme to local residents or businesses without first carrying out new extensive Origin and Destination surveys to identify specifically a 26 tonne HGV issue in Middleton. This evidence base will ensure a mandate to initiate further works to proceed with the scheme along with amendments to the Grimshaw Lane part proposals by possibly removing the total ban.

Version Number: Page: 9 of 11

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 There is currently £10,000 Budget remaining for the scheme consisting of £6,000 Township allocation and £4,000 Highway funding.

4.2 To remove the scheme, there would be still an associated cost to the removal of the gateway signs of approximately £6,000.

4.3 The cost of carryout an Origin and Destination survey prior to progressing the scheme that will assess the extent of vehicles over 26T in and out of the zone for 24hours a day for a period of 7 days will be in the region of £40,000.

4.4 The Legal and Highway costs for implementing the Experimental Order has been estimated at £4000.

4.5 A further £34,000 is therefore required to carry out the Origin and Destination survey and should the Origin and destination provide the necessary justification, introduce the Experimental scheme.

4.6 If the Experimental scheme is made permanent there would be further costs associated with lighting the signs and possible advance signing.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 See para 7.1.

6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 None.

7. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The issues outlined below present the potential risks to the implementation of the scheme in its current format :

• The risk of a legal challenge resulting in the Order not being permitted and over £5000 costs paid out is extremely high.

Version Number: Page: 10 of 11

• One of the main reasons for the risk of a legal challenge is that there is currently a lack of justification for the introduction of the experimental order and it is therefore difficult to assess benefits of the scheme. This presents difficulties when dealing with concerns regarding increase economic burden on local businesses affected by the proposals.

• The effects of the introduction of the scheme on neighbouring Highway network are unknown which results in the lack of approval to permit introducing the advance direction signs; Manchester City Council (MCC) and The Highways Agency (HA) refusing to allow advance direction signs. These issues remain subject to further information being identified / provided on the effect of introducing a 26T experimental order.

• Only Township has the authority to suspend or modify an experimental order under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. This could effect the ability to quickly modify if required an element of the scheme which is adversely affecting local residents or businesses.

• Any amendments to the Experimental scheme involving relocation of the gateway locations or advance warning sign using the 26T symbol for Environmental reasons will require Department for Transport approval, this will result in considerable delay to the scheme.

• The adverse effect of the proposals on businesses in the Grimshaw Lane area who are not members of the Road Haulage Association or Freight Transport Association and may not be aware of the proposals and the restriction on over 26T accessing their premises.

• Even if it is introduced the scheme will not be the subject of any targeted enforcement by Greater Manchester Police.

8. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

8.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

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

8.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

Community impact highlighted in section 7.1.

Version Number: Page: 11 of 11