Agenda item

(Report by Head of Transportation and Development)

(Mr J Wilson, Chairman of East Farleigh Parish Council and TRAMP, was present for this item)

(1)        All Members of HAB had been provided with a copy of the Leicestershire County Council report on “Mitigating the effects of HGVs on Leicestershire’s roads”. The work would be helpful in aiding Kent County Council in shaping its Freight Strategy and revised lorry route plan.

(2)        Leicestershire was centrally located within the UK; it had high mineral output and a multitude of industrial estates, particularly in the North West of the County. Increasing levels of HGV movements were generated by the industries resulting in greater use of rural roads to access the motorway and trunk road network. Many of the rural roads were unsuitable for such traffic and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV’s) were causing extensive damage to roads. Problems encountered included: - rural roads/verges, noise, vibration, road safety issues, pollution and dirt on the highway network.

(3)        The initial public pressure came from residents in the north-west of the county. North West Leicestershire was home to several of the largest coalmines in England. The majority of the outputs of the sites (pre1990) were transported by rail network.  Due to rail strikes in the late 1980’s, the cost of railway links to shipping ports was high resulting in the road haulage industry expanding significantly. The modal shift in transport created implications within Leicestershire mainly due to the industrial areas and coal-mines being sited well away from the main trunk roads and motorways. This meant that travel through villages and other small hamlets (approx 700 a day) was inevitable as drivers would take the most direct and fuel efficient route to the primary road network.

(4)        Public pressure for remedial action to alleviate the HGV situation grew in the late 1980’s. As a result, the County Council undertook a review and came up with a proposed area wide 7.5Tonne (Except for loading and unloading) weight restriction, bounded by non weight restricted ‘peripheral’ routes. The initial scheme was a success resulting in Leicestershire County Council proposing an extension which also proved a success. The scheme now covered the whole of Leicestershire.

Benefits of Lorry Restrictions – Based on Leicestershire County Council’s  HGV Scheme

        * Improved Road Safety – decrease in HGV related accident statistics on rural routes within Leicestershire.

        * Improved Environment – Reduction in HGV result in Lower vehicle emissions within the rural areas.

        * Maintenance Costs – reduced damage to minor carriageways caused by HGV’s resulting in less frequent repair work.

        * Improved Signage – Signage directing HGV’s on certain routes could be coupled with directional signage to smaller villages.

        * Better communication with Highway Authority – Public relations could improve as dedicated personnel were able to act as a contact to solve Lorry related issues.

        * Improved Image – Successful Lorry restrictions would enhance the image of the rural nature of roads, offering more protection to both the environment and wildlife in the TRAMP area.

        * Less damage to vehicles – Taking HGV’s off of unsuitable routes reduced maintenance costs on the carriageway.

        * Improved/Safer environment – Restricting roads within rural areas would improve the environment for residents within the affected villages.

Negatives of Lorry Restrictions based on Leicestershire County Council’s HGV Scheme

        * Concentration of HGV movements through villages – residents would be pleased with lorry ban on their route/road, however, the problem was not alleviated, effectively, the HGV traffic was simply moved onto a neighbouring route resulting in a problem for somebody else.

        * Capital Cost – initial outlay of the cost, TRO’s, Signage, and Diversion Routes. Leicestershire was smaller than Kent, to date, the cost of the Lorry ban was £2 million solely on signage.

        * Additional Staff – FT employment would need to be undertaken to control the Lorry restrictions. Leicestershire had at one time a team consisting of 5 F/T employees dealing with the work. There were 2 F/T employees covering the Lorry Ban today.

        * Additional Fuel Costs – Due to the fact that drivers could no longer take the ‘shortest route’ to join onto the major road network, fuel costs might increase due to excessive mileage undertaken to do this. This also posed damage to the surrounding environment as drivers would in fact be covering more miles than need be.

        * Removal of Freedom of Routes – Many local residents would feel restricted to join major routes as these would predominantly be served for HGV purposes.

        * Greater Route Planning Required – Easy task for local drivers who were familiar with local routes. Potential hazard for foreign lorry drivers, who were dependant of Satellite Navigation Systems.

*   Prosecution – Enforcement was initially imposed by Leicestershire CC’s Trading Standards dept. reporting to Haulage companies of driver activity. This proved unsuccessful due to letters being ignored. LCC now paid local Police £60k annually to enforce the ban.

(5)        The Leicestershire work was clearly an example of good practice and this would be used in the Freight Strategy work being undertaken by the County Council’s Transport Strategy team. The key issue in Leicestershire was 700 HGV movements daily travelling from the NW of the County mainly in a westerly direction to join onto the M1. These HGV’s were travelling to/from a busy national/international industries located in a fixed place within the county.

        (6)        Leicestershire’s costs were in the region of £2 million purely for signage; this did not include the maintenance costs. The £2 million had been contributed over 15 years and was still using public funding to date. Kent was larger in scale compared to Leicestershire so funding would be a key issue in this regard.

(7)        An issue evident in Leicestershire was higher vehicle emissions due to extra mileage on diversion routes. In some cases the routes were in excess of 15 miles. This needed careful thought in a Kent context.

(8)        During debate the following issues were referred to:-

·         The report was pertinent to Kent – benefits outweighed dis-benefits – look at pilot in Kent

·         Would Leicestershire’s project work in Kent – higher percentage of foreign drivers/signage implications

·         Need policy and need to include rail freight

·         Question of managing restrictions; added problem of sat navs

·         Width an added problem.  Lorries should be told which route to take

·         Look at on area basis, not individually

(9)    The Board noted the contents of the report, and advised that the contents should be used during the preparation of the KCC HGV policy document.