Members considered responses to the consultation on the proposal to reduce the current weight limit on Chobham Road railway bridge, Sunningdale from 18 tonnes to 7.5 tonnes.

Cabinet was addressed by Councillor John Furey of Surrey County Council. Councillor Furey thanked Cabinet for allowing him to speak on behalf of Surrey County Council. He explained that the confirmation of the previous reduction of the bridge to an 18 tonne limit was implemented in November 2015. Any further reduction should require a significant change, validation and assessment. No evidence was presented within the report on either of these factors.

The main thrust of the report related to safety. Local Member and residents’ concerns were noted as:

·         No improvement to public safety since the reduction to an 18 tonne limit

·         18 tonne lorries continuing to cross the centre line

·         Continued damage-only collisions on the bridge

No data had been considered within the report to validate these concerns, they were merely perceptions. The previous Cabinet report also indicated ‘quality of life for local residents regarding reduction in pollution’ was part and parcel of the original argument.  Then, no data was provided and this was not present in the current report. He found this difficult to understand.

Since the report dated 26 November 2015, local feedback was quoted throughout the current report, such as increasing volumes of traffic by HGVs, increasing incidents of damage-only accidents or near misses. Again, no data was available to validate these perceptions, such as HGV and vehicle counts, alongside personal-injury or damage to vehicles. Vehicle displacement caused by this further reduction increased risk to the general public on the suggested alternative routes. These routes had poorer safety records, poor alignment of bends, high levels of on-street parking, raised tables, pinch points, and several schools. 

The suggested alternatives had been presented in the report without discussion or collaboration with Surrey, which was a matter inherent within the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, both section 122 and specifically section s2(b). Regulation 7 schedule 2(c) applied to alternative routes and their consideration to changes in a holistic manner.  This had not been addressed by RBWM officers, which was a problem. No evidence was shown within the report regarding the alternative route’s suitability for vehicles over 7.5 tonnes.

Finally, the lack of validation and data within the report did not lead to the recommendation as set down. Councillor Furey requested that Cabinet refuse or defer the item until validation and data collection had been completed as requested within his objection. He was of the view that insufficient detail had been provided.

Councillor Goodman explained that he was a divisional Member for Chobham and Bagshot. In 2015 the borough implemented a reduction to 18 tonnes despite objections from Surrey County Council, the police and residents. Concerns were not taken into account, including HGVs driving past schools. The alternative routes were difficult to manoeuvre due to a number of pinch points and safety issues.  He was genuinely concerned at the safety of residents, especially children.

When the borough considered the original decision to restrict limits one reason was to reduce traffic on the A30 through Sunningdale. Six months later a different set of reasons was being given. Parish councils were not consulted on the decision to reduce the limit to 18 tonnes and only heard about it via the highways department. In contrast notification was received for a raised pedestrian crossing, for which no objection was made. It was vital that residents were listened to and the impacts on the wider network were taken into consideration, which was a statutory requirement. Councillor Goodman valued working together in partnership with other local authorities and he requested Cabinet delay the decision until meaningful dialogue had taken place with Surrey County Council and parish councils in Surrey.

The Lead Member thanked the speakers and acknowledged the petition that had been submitted by Surrey residents. On a number of occasions he had met with officers and Councillor Furey, who had indicated that if the consultation were sent to him he would circulate it to parish councils, therefore the Lead Member was was unsure why this had not happened.

The proposal came from the grass roots; the council had received a petition of over 1000 signatures in September 2015 to reduce the weight limit. In November 2015 Cabinet resolved to consult with residents in the Royal Borough and Surrey, parish councils, Surrey County Council, Thames Valley and Surrey Police. The Lead Member highlighted that all responses including objections were attached to the report for transparency. He had been assured by officers that the consultation had been carried out to the correct timings and extended by nine days because it was over the Christmas period.

Members noted that Chobham Road was a busy road carrying both local and through traffic, in the region of 10,000 vehicles a day. It was a residential road in a busy town centre visited by many elderly residents as well as mothers of young children. Residents had complained that 18T lorries were continuing to be unable to cross the bridge without travelling across the centre white line and into the path of oncoming vehicles. There were concerns over the continuing damage-only collisions between lorries and cars and continuing congestion in Chobham Road in the vicinity of the shops.

A total of 174 responses to the consultation had been received, of which 73.6% support the implementation of the 7.5T weight limit. This did not include the petition from Surrey residents. Objections were received from 46 respondents, which included Surrey County Council, Surrey Police, Surrey Heath Borough Council, Chobham Parish Council, Windlesham Parish Council and Neville Surtees Ltd.

The Lead Member explained that if the proposal went ahead, costs would be absorbed by existing budgets. The consultation on the 7.5T weight limit had been carried out in accordance with The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The formal consultation period ran from 16 December 2015 until 14 January 2016; a total of 30 days. This exceeded the statutory minimum period of 21 days to allow objections to the proposed Order. It was subsequently agreed that responses would be permitted up to and including 22 January 2016. This was in response to a request from Surrey County Council to allow extra time due to the Christmas period. Surrey Heath Borough Council had objected to the proposed order on the basis that the proposal would generate additional lorry movements through Windlesham village. Surrey County Council was the relevant Highway Authority for Windlesham village and could consider the introduction of a weight limit in the village or positively sign a preferred lorry route in order to address concerns from some respondents.

In order to provide advance warning of both the existing 18T restriction and the proposed 7.5T should it proceed, signage would be recommended for installation  at the Surrey end of Chobham Road, which would give drivers advance warning; currently this had been refused by Surrey County Council. Thames Valley Police had raised concerns about the practicality of enforcement and suggested a lorry watch scheme should the scheme go ahead. Lorry Watch was a scheme operated using local observers, often coordinated through parish councils, working alongside council Trading Standards teams, to detect the misuse of weight restricted routes by heavy goods vehicles.

Cabinet was addressed by Councillor Dr L Evans, on behalf of the Parish Council. Councillor Dr Evans explained that she lived close to the bridge. The bridge had been built in the 19^th Century and designed for horse and cart traffic. Many vehicles did not slow down for the bridge despite the blind bend and double white lines. The picture painted in the appendix by objectors was an idealised view; even four wheel drive vehicles could not use the bridge without crossing the centre line. She had witnessed a very bad accident in November 2015 which had resulted in an injury. In the last year there had been as many recorded accidents as in the previous five years.

The Chairman requested confirmation that it was not a requirement to collect the data referred to by the objectors and the decision was not unreasonable given the consultation. The Lead Member stated that he had been advised by officers the report was robust and had followed regulations. The survey had been carried out when the first weight limit was imposed. The Strategic Director of Operations and Customer services confirmed that the survey showed the need to introduce the weight limit. The petition was received a few months after the weight restriction had been in place. The Lead Member explained that owing to Surrey County council not putting up signage the council was unable to ask the police to undertake enforcement

The Leader asked for confirmation that an assessment of the alternative routes had taken place. The Lead Member responded that the plans showed the alternative routes; he had been assured by highways officers that the report was robust. The last decision had not come through Cabinet; he had felt it important to bring this decision to Cabinet for transparency.

The Lead Member for Ascot & the Sunnings commented that the council had put up signage as soon as the 18 tonne limit had been put in place; Surrey had refused to do so. This surprised her because lorries travelling from the Surrey side had no opportunity to turn round when they reached the bridge; she felt this was negligence. The bridge was dangerous due to the S-bend. If two cars collided they would go down an embankment towards a row of houses. The bridge was used by cyclists and pedestrians as well. The road had been very busy since 2010 when the application for the DERA site was approved. A crossing was now needed on the road due to the volume of traffic. Cars parked all along one side of the road. There were alternative routes as detailed in appendix A. In her opinion the route through the outskirts of Chobham and over the M3 was the best route as it was less built up and the road was better.

The Lead Member highlighted that whilst it was recognised that the proposed TRO would generate increased HGV traffic on the other ‘preferred route,’ if no other changes to the construction traffic routes were made within Surrey, it was considered that the road safety risks caused by the current use of the Chobham Road bridge outweighed the inconvenience caused to the affected construction and other HGV traffic, and thus that the proposed 7.5T weight restriction was justified. The current dangers included the risk of collisions between lorries and cars travelling over the bridge, increasing the risk of injury to pedestrian traffic, damage to vehicles, or collision with the bridge itself. Furthermore, there existed a possible alternative HGV route within Surrey as detailed in paragraph 2.10, which Surrey County Council may wish to consider designating and signing as an alternative lorry route, to alleviate concerns about any possible increases in HGV movements on the alternative route identified in the CEMP or through Windlesham, should they consider those routes to be wholly unsuitable for any increased traffic volumes. The Lead Member stated that he would personally work with Councillor Furey to identify solutions. Councillor Furey had agreed at a meeting earlier in February that if the order was robust, he would not object to signage being put up if paid for by the borough. Councillor Mrs Bateson stated that she would be happy to donate her Member Participatory Budget money towards a camera for enforcement.

Councillor Brimacombe commented that he held a HGV licence. Driving such a vehicle was a skilled and difficult job. Drivers did not wish to risk their life or prosecution because the council failed to identify problems. He urged both parties to ensure drivers were given fair warning.

The Lead Member concluded by stating that reducing the weight limit would address the concerns raised by residents living in the Chobham Road area, reduce road safety risks and provide environmental benefits to the residents of Chobham Road and those living in the vicinity. He already held six monthly meetings with his counterpart at Bracknell Forest and suggested the same should occur with Surrey going forward.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That

(i)           The Weight Limit on Chobham Road be reduced from 18T to 7.5T with effect from 4 April 2016

(ii)          Those who formally objected to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order be notified of the decision in accordance with Regulations

Councillor Dr L Evans left the meeting at 8.12pm.