Minutes of an informal meeting between OCC Transport and Parish
representatives to discuss the current and future situation regarding Newbridge
and the A415
Standlake Village Hall, 30th October 2007
Present:
Cllr. Charles Mathew (Joint Chairman) OCC
Eynsham Division
Mr. Ted Tolputt (Joint Chairman) Chairman,
Standlake PC
Mr. David Bevan Clerk
to Standlake PC
OCC
Cllr. Ian Hudspeth Cabinet
Member for Transport
Mr. Peter Brown County
Bridge Engineer
Mr. Roger O’Neill Local
Transport Plan
WODC
Cllr. Brenda Smith WODC Standlake,
Aston & Stanton Harcourt Ward
Standlake
Mr. Chris Naylor Vice
Chairman, Standlake PC
Mrs. Maureen Nicholas Standlake
resident
Northmoor
Mr. Michael Ryan Clerk
to Northmoor PC
Col. Terry Kirkpatrick Northmoor resident, Chartered
Civil Engineer
Kingston Bagpuize and Southmoor
Mr. John Smith Vice
Chairman, KBS PC
Mr. John Melling Clerk
to KBS PC
Apologies
Cllr. Hudspeth tendered apologies for Mr. Steve Howell (OCC Head of
Transport)
Introduction
The meeting was opened at 7.00pm by Mr. Tolputt who welcomed everyone. He
said the meeting would be informal but would loosely follow the agenda
circulated to members:
1. A
synopsis from the OCC team of the current situation, followed by an explanation
of plans and details of future communications with all parties.
2. Details
of proposed mitigation measures to reduce the effects of any new crossing on
residents of the represented Parishes and further afield.
3. Summary.
Cllr. Mathew stressed to the OCC team that the lack of communication and
any meaningful consultation on their part was a source of great concern and
must not continue.
Background and Current Situation
Cllr. Hudspeth acknowledged that he had been made fully aware of the depth
of feeling caused by this lack of communication, offered his apologies and
promised closer consultation in the future. He continued by saying that he
could not give any definitive answers to what the ultimate outcome of the
present studies would be – that would be decided by the relevant committees
following completion of the studies and consultation; however, he would state
what OCC’s intentions were. Asked by Mr. Melling what consultation meant, he
replied that consultation had taken place in that the provision of a new
crossing at Newbridge was included in the 2006 Transport Plan; also the ‘do
nothing’ option was still there.
Mr. Naylor challenged this interpretation, pointing out that the 2006 Plan
dealt with an upgrade and realignment of the whole A415, including bypasses for
Marcham, Kingston Bagpuize and Standlake; now all that is left is a proposed
new crossing and nothing else. Mr. Hudspeth replied that this was not so. The
proposed purchase of the land on the north bank of the river did not mean that
it would be used; the current studies meant that this land was subject to
possible planning blight and OCC would possibly be obliged to purchase anyway. This
did not mean the route(s) in question was final; the ‘do nothing/do little’
option was still open and had been strongly mentioned at the recent call in
meeting of the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee. This was disputed by
Cllr. Mathew, Cllr. Smith and Mr. Naylor, who attended the meeting, but they agreed
that Mr. Howell had acknowledged this option at the meeting. It was decided to
move on to a discussion of the background and condition of Newbridge.
Mr. Brown proceeded to give a history of the monitoring of the bridge and Col.
Kirkpatrick interjected with technical questions, which were answered by Mr.
Brown. In summary, various degrees of monitoring of the bridge have continued
since 1992; an assessment was made in 1996 which rated the bridge as of ‘low
capacity’ but visual inspection, accepting the difficulty of inspecting the
arches, gave no cause for concern at that time. By 2004 there were signs of deterioration
and Mr. Brown stated he could visually identify the difference between the
condition of the structure in the 1990s and 2004; this led directly to the
imposition of the 18 tonne structural limit in 2006.
Mr. Tolputt and Cllr. Mathew remarked that this was the first comprehensive
explanation they had received of events leading up to the 18 tonne limit. Mr.
Brown expressed surprise at this, but Col. Kirkpatrick agreed and said that his
understanding, from informal contacts with OCC bridge engineers, was that the
decision was based on the 1996 survey and not on what was found in 2004. Mr.
Brown disagreed and a technical discussion followed. Nevertheless, the
structural weight limit was in place and the bridge was now being visually
inspected on a monthly basis.
Col. Kirkpatrick noted that, while there was a continuing visual inspection
regime, he understood that a more specific programme was to be put in place.
Mr. Brown replied that this is going ahead, but Jacobs (contractors) have been
very slow in implementing this, partly because of the need to get agreement
from English Heritage to install the equipment. He agreed that there is a need
for the 24/7 monitoring capability that this equipment would provide. Col.
Kirkpatrick said that this was required, not only for continuous monitoring but
so that reports and recommendations could be made; the information could also
be used in consultations with EH when discussing what could be done to the
bridge, if this was still the plan. Mr. Brown replied that this was still the
intention i.e. to consult with EH on possible future work. Cllr. Mathew said he
understood from conversations with Mr. Howell that consultation with EH had
been carried out re the bridge monitoring. Mr. Brown said this had been done in
principle but EH still needed to come and inspect for themselves.
Col. Kirkpatrick warned against an approach to EH without having a plan for
the bridge to put forward. In his experience EH were more likely to approve a
plan which was sensitive to the maintenance and restoration of the bridge than
being approached for their advice. Mr. Brown and Col. Kirkpatrick discussed
technical details of such a plan. Mr. Ryan asked if the bridge would ever be
able to take 44 tonne vehicles again and Mr. Brown replied that this was
impossible. Mr. Ryan said if that was the case, the whole A415 needed to be
looked at again; the issue being whether the whole route can cope with 44 tonne
vehicles, not just the bridge.
Mr. Mathew referred to a future meeting to be held in November at which a
new weight restriction Traffic Order will be applied for and asked what that
order would contain. Mr. Brown replied that this would be the last of the
temporary orders (only 2 being allowed under the Road traffic Act) and would
run until May 2009; it would continue the 18 tonne limit as, in his opinion,
the bridge was capable of sustaining this. Mr. Tolputt asked why not 7.5 tonnes
as it seemed sensible to reduce the strain on the structure. Mr. Brown replied
that the figure of 18 tonnes was there, in the most part, to ensure the
continuance of the bus service. It was pointed out by Mr. Bevan that OCC had
clearly stated in a press release (19 February 2007) on the X15 bus service
that, no matter if the limit were lowered to 7.5 tonnes, an exemption would be
made for buses. Mr. Brown expressed surprise at this, as no exemption is
allowed for a structural limit. Mr. Mathew suggested that, in that case, an
environment limit of 7.5 tonnes could be imposed, for which exemption is
allowed.
Mr Brown said that in all
probability the maintenance of 18 tonnes was sustainable; however this did not
take into account that the structure was not really suitable for modern traffic.
For example, the bridge parapets are part of the strength of the structure and
this give cause for concern, as they are regularly damaged by vehicles and are
especially vulnerable following frost conditions. Col. Kirkpatrick agreed that
protection of the parapets is essential and he suggested that the answer was to
place physical barriers on both approaches. Mr. Brown replied that this
approach had been suggested elsewhere in the county but had met strong
objections from the Fire Services. Some discussion followed in which the Parish
representatives made clear that there was no reason for Fire Services to cross
the Thames at Newbridge; Kingston Bagpuize and the other South Oxfordshire
villages on the A415 being served by Abingdon and Standlake and Northmoor being
served by Eynsham. Col. Kirkpatrick reiterated that the physical restriction
approach to protect the bridge should not be discounted.
Mrs. Smith and others made the point that, regardless of the present
restriction, the bridge continued to be used by 44 tonne lorries, albeit in
much reduced numbers compared to pre the 18 tonne limit; only three drivers had
been prosecuted out of the many reported to Trading Standards and this was
considered by residents to show lack of conviction in enforcing the limit and
therefore preserving Newbridge. The OCC team were, on the contrary, surprised
that any prosecutions had been successful with Mr. Brown stating that, in his
experience, this was the first time in the County that any prosecutions for
breaking weight limits had been successful. Mr. Brown explained that TS were
understaffed and the work required to put together a prosecution was out of
proportion to the result achieved; TS did, however, write warning letters to
drivers and operators and would prosecute re-offenders. However, TS would be
reminded of the importance of continued monitoring and taking action against
offenders.
Future Plans
Mr. Brown said that there is no evidence that a reduction below 18 tonnes
would be required in the immediate future and that continuous monitoring would
be carried out by Jacobs. However, other options needed to be considered, such
as new routes and a new crossing but he accepted that the ‘do nothing’ – in
reality a ‘do only what is required to maintain the status quo’ – option must
be considered. When looking at a new crossing and approach roads, environmental
and flooding considerations had been taken into consideration and the result
was the two proposed routes (green and blue on the map) on the western, or
upstream, side of Newbridge.
There was general comment from the Standlake representatives as to the
close juxtaposition of the proposed routes, and therefore the new crossing, to
Newbridge itself. Col. Kirkpatrick referred to a letter received by Mrs.
Nicholas from EH dated 18th September 2006, which spoke of any new
structure being outside the immediate setting of an Ancient Monument. This
would suggest that any new structure should be some 1 km upstream and this would
naturally lead to an area which would allow the easy construction of a
Standlake bypass; Col. Kirkpatrick asked if EH had been consulted on the
setting and had this option had been considered. Mr. Brown replied that EH had
not been consulted on this specific bridge (Newbridge) and the option of a
bypass had not been considered because this was a bridge strengthening scheme
and funds were not available for a bypass.
Cllr. Mathew asked what was the proposed timetable for public enquires,
planning and consultations. Mr. Brown said that the likely timetable was as
follows:
An OCC internal consultation with all affected residents – Spring 2008
Planning application (probably OCC Planning) for a new crossing will have
public consultation – unlikely before Spring 2009
DoT Side Road Orders (for construction of approach roads) application,
which could trigger a full Public Enquiry – late Spring/Summer 2009
There were also navigation issues in building across a river which would
have to be submitted to the Secretary of State.
Col. Kirkpatrick asked how many options would be put to internal
consultation and Mr. Brown replied only the preferred option, but could not
totally discount others. Col. Kirkpatrick strongly suggested that other options
were put forward. Cllr. Hudspeth interjected that the meeting should move on to
look at mitigation measures.
Mitigation of traffic levels following possible
replacement of Newbridge
Cllr. Mathew said that the starting point for discussing any mitigation
measures must be to define the baseline for any measures; would these be based
on the pre or post 18 tonne limit traffic levels? Mr. O’Neill replied by clarifying
the reasons for dropping the A415 improvement scheme in that it did not meet Government
agency requirements for funding and was
dropped. Cllr. Mathew pressed Mr. O’Neill on the base line for mitigation
measures and Mr. O’Neill agreed that this would be post limit levels. Mr. Brown
disagreed but said that any mitigation measures would be based on the
restrictions (post limit) now in place at Newbridge. Mr. O‘Neill went on to
describe the measures taken at Marcham and said that the shuttle system recently
trialled was promising, but no decision on the outcome has yet been made. Asked
by Cllr. Mathew what was the position at Kingston Bagpuize, Mr. O’Neill replied
that he was not sure what could be done there. Mr. Smith said the introduction
of pedestrian controlled traffic lights would be a starting point.
Mr. Smith asked for a definition of an A road. Mr. Brown replied that this
was not easy to answer and it could be said that there was no specific
definition; in some areas of the country, e.g. West Wales, there were A
designated roads that were of a much lower physical standard than the A415. Mr.
Bevan said that the public perception was that OCC wants the A415 to take 44
tonne vehicles, and asked if it was OCC policy to make the A415 available, again,
to HGV traffic without restriction. There was no direct answer given to this
question.
Mr. Naylor said that the important consideration was that much of the A415
is not suitable for 44 tonne vehicles; in Standlake’s case, the Parish Council
has, for over 14 years, been campaigning for a limit to prevent HGVs using a
residential road, thus causing damage to the environment, property and quality
of life. The current, post limit, levels of traffic are considered sustainable
and, apart from the rogues, HGV traffic is minimal; mitigation must mean
keeping HGVs off this road. Mr. Brown replied that the remit was to strengthen
all bridges and this meant having to build any new bridges to a 44 tonne limit.
Cllr. Mathew noted that this might solve a problem at Newbridge itself, but it
ignored the problems of Marcham, Frilford, Kingston Bagpuize, Standlake and
Ducklington.
Col. Kirkpatrick said that because the Council’s traffic survey found that most
traffic on the A415 between Abingdon and Witney started or finished at either
destination, as part of the ‘do nothing’ option another route between the two
towns should be looked at for improvement. One route, via Swinford, was less
than ½ mile longer than the A415 route, would have a far less impact on
residential areas and was more easily upgradable. He asked would this be looked
at and Mr. Brown replied that this option would be examined. Cllr. Mathew asked
that this be seriously considered, as a new crossing at Newbridge would have a
fundamental impact on many more people. Mr. Naylor stressed that the intention
was not to move traffic on to inappropriate routes and thereby just pass the
problem to others; however, the infrastructure to deal with HGV traffic is in
place on other routes, not least the A34/A40.
Mr. O’Neill proceeded to outline the mitigation measures proposed for
Standlake. Mr. Tolputt interrupted and said that these were the same ‘traffic
calming’ measures presented to Standlake PC in July by Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Day
(Jacobs); the Parish Council had rejected them then as in no way mitigating the
impact of HGV traffic. Mr. Bevan stated that he had written, to both Mr.
O’Neill and Mr. Day, on 23rd July last giving the Parish Council’s
views, not only on those proposed measures, but the lack of consultation and also
the absence of any apparent action by OCC to examine any other option but that
of a new crossing. Mr. Bevan passed copies of the letters to Cllr. Hudspeth
explaining that the Parish Council had received neither acknowledgement of
receipt nor any reply from OCC. Mr. Hudspeth read and kept the copies but
offered no comment.
Mr. Melling commented that at the public meeting held in October 2006, to
discuss the implications of imposing of the weight limit, it was stated by Mr.
Howell that one option for a new crossing was to restrict it to the physical
limitations then pertaining at Newbridge, i.e. single line working controlled
by traffic lights, and asked if this still an option. Mr. Brown and Mr. O’Neill
agreed that this was an option, as was the reduction to single line traffic at
the entrances to Standlake. Mr. Tolputt pointed out that in his opinion this
would merely slow the traffic flows and cause congestion but, while being a
traffic calming measure, would not stop HGV traffic. Mr. O’Neill said that another
option would be an environmental weight limit on the new crossing. It was
generally agreed that this would be welcome but Mr. Tolputt, supported by Mr.
Bevan, questioned whether this would be enforceable over time.
Mr. Brown asked what would be the public reaction if, having done nothing,
Newbridge had to be closed completely. Col. Kirkpatrick replied that this
proposition was, in his opinion, unduly alarmist;
there were new techniques available to assess ancient bridges and, with the
ultimate imposition of a very low weight limit (perhaps as low as 3 tonnes), he
thought it unlikely that a complete closure would be necessary. Mr. Brown
conceded that this was probably correct.
Future Actions and Summary
There being no further questions, Cllr. Mathew said that it was vitally
important that the contact between OCC and the Parishes be maintained on a
regular basis and asked for monthly updates be sent. Mr. Brown and Cllr.
Hudspeth replied that such a regular cycle would result in many ‘nothing to
report’ communications because events did not move that quickly. Mr. Brown
suggested that minutes of the monthly Newbridge Project Meeting be sent not, he
stressed, for ad hoc questions but for information. This was agreed , and the
minutes will be sent to Mr. Bevan and Col. Kirkpatrick for dissemination to the
other parties.
Before closing, Cllr. Mathew asked Cllr. Hudspeth if his department will be
committed to looking at all options, and not just the building of a new
crossing. Cllr. Hudspeth agreed to this and said that all the points made at
the meeting will be taken on board and promised a greater level of consultation
in future.
Cllr. Mathew thanked everyone for attending and the meeting closed at
9.00pm.
Brief summary of main points in the minutes:
Lack of communication and consultation with local representatives is
acknowledged by OCC and steps will be taken to ensure this will not be repeated
in the future.
Notwithstanding the environmental issues of Thames/|Windrush confluence
area, the prime concern of the Parish representatives, particularly Standlake,
is avoiding a return to the HGV traffic levels pre 18 tonne limit; simply
replacing Newbridge with a new unrestricted crossing is unacceptable to
Standlake and will have a detrimental effect on those residing along the rest
of the route.
The intended purchase by OCC of the land adjacent to Standlake Common does
not mean that it will be used, or that any final decision has been made on
routes.
The present visual monitoring of Newbridge on a monthly basis will
continue, but a system to monitor the structure on a 24/7 basis will be in
place very shortly.
The present 18 tonne weight limit is considered adequate in the short term
and a new Temporary Traffic Order at this limit will be applied for in November
2007, covering the period up to May 2009.
A further reduction in weight coupled with physical barriers to restrict
vehicle size should be considered to protect the structure,
English Heritage have not been formally approached by OCC regarding what
may possibly be done to maintain and restore Newbridge to continue to carry
light traffic; nor have any plans been made for this option.
Likewise, English Heritage have not been consulted as to the acceptance, or
otherwise, of any new crossing in regard to the proximity of the existing
Ancient Monument (Newbridge).
At the time of the meeting, OCC have not examined in depth any option other
than the replacement of Newbridge, but undertake to do this. In particular, this
includes examining the case for maintaining Newbridge to carry light traffic
only and the improvement of an alternative route via Swinford.
Future consultations, enquires etc are likely on the following timescale:
An OCC internal consultation with all affected residents – Spring 2008
Planning application (probably OCC Planning) for a new crossing will have
public consultation – unlikely before Spring 2009
DoT Side Road Orders (for construction of approach roads) application,
which could trigger a full Public Enquiry – late Spring/Summer 2009
There were also navigation issues in building across a river which would
have to be submitted to the Secretary of State.
In the event of a new crossing being constructed, mitigation measures are
proposed to reduce the impact, and the baseline for these measures will be the
post 18 tonne limit traffic levels.
In Standlake these mitigation
measures mainly concern extensive traffic calming schemes none of which the
representatives consider would, in themselves, control HGV traffic; the
imposition of an environmental weight limit would have an effect but there are
concerns about enforcement. The shuttle working trial in Marcham is being
assessed. Kingston Bagpuize requested a pedestrian crossing controlled by
traffic lights.
OCC undertake to send copies of their monthly Newbridge Project Meeting so
that representatives are aware of ongoing developments.