Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2019/130

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by Director for Community Operations (CMDE9).

This report considers responses to a consultation for a proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for two sections of the Icknield Way in order to deliver Route 1 of the Science Vale Cycling Network Project, presents arguments supporting and objecting to the proposed TRO along with background and supporting information and includes proposed amendments to the TRO based on submitted representations.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed prohibition of motor vehicles and horse drawn carriages from parts of the Icknield Way, with the single exception that subject to design constraints, technical approvals and project thresholds being satisfactorily met, permit light horse-drawn carriages that meet the stated weight and width limitations.

The Leader of the Council considered (CMDE9) a report setting out responses received to a consultation for a proposed Traffic Regulation Order for two sections of the Icknield Way in order to deliver Route 1 of the Science Vale Cycling network Project, presenting arguments supporting and objecting the proposed Order and a number of proposed amendments to the Order based on submitted representations.

Nicholas Berry a resident of Marlborough then made the following representations. Objecting to the proposed Order he referred to DfT Local Transport Note1/12 Section 3.3 which stated that “in general improved provision should only be made where there was (or would be) a demand for cycle trips and where existing conditions were unsuitable and not simply because an opportunity existed to do so”. He maintained that there was an existing scheme that was suitable and, therefore, no need to create a new opportunity. Regarding the proposed bridge at Ginge Brook the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges BD 29/17 stated that the total width for unsegregated pedestrian versus bicycles or equestrian use should be 3.5m and moreover the bridge should be aligned in such a way that all on-motorized users could see the entire length of the structure from the approaches and suitably sized equestrian waiting areas provided off the structure to allow users the option to cross when the deck was clear. The current design gave a clear width of just 2.5m which was well short of the mandated 3.5m.  Also the curved design of the bridge did not give clear vision across its deck. The report admitted that increasing the width to 3.5m was prohibitive in terms of cost and environmental damage bringing into question the need to build the bridge or impose a TRO. He then stated that an email sent by County Councillor Yvonne Constance to local parish councils on 17 July had, in his view, breached one of the 7 principles of public life that holders of public office should act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

Ilse Lambert likewise a resident of Marlborough but also representing the Trail Riders Fellowship then spoke against the proposal. Access to the countryside for all was integral to the TRF’s ethos of sharing along with respect and responsibility and so rather than imposing a complete mechanically propelled vehicle TRO on the 2 byways in question the TRF saw no need to include motorcycles in the Order.

A TRO needed to be based on facts and not on expectations and prejudices but, unfortunate!y, in this case many of the county council’s arguments in support of the Order seemed to be guided by assumptions such as user numbers would increase substantially, cyclists and other non-motorised users would be deterred from using the route and that there was a strong likelihood that motorcyclists would continue to use the whole route. These were prejudices that the TRF refute and would suggest instead that the situation be reassessed at a later date and, if needed, a follow-up TRO implemented based on the actual impact of the scheme rather than one which simply relied on unsubstantiated speculation. The byways in question do come with challenges but these bear little relation to motorcycle use and most of the objections raised regarding MPV use such as turning space in a cul-de-sac, issues with 2-way traffic flow and enhanced bridge design specifications to allow for 4 wheeled vehicles were all irrelevant when it came to motorcycles. Excluding motorbikes from the TRO would not even result in a bridge cost increase as motorcycles were considerably smaller, narrower, and lighter than a horse and everywhere that a horse could go safely so could a motorcycle. There would be no need to widen the bridge to allow for simultaneous horse and trail rider access, as trail riders would always give priority to other bridge users but, as an extra safety measure, priority signs could be considered. We cannot deny that motorcycles are noisier and potentially faster than any non-motorised user but that did not mean we would not safely and respectfully share trails with them and always slow down for other users and even county officers can confirm that no reports of conflict have ever been reported on these byways and if suspected that increased speed on the new cycle route was a worry then a speed restriction would be perfectly acceptable. It is also claimed that having to share these 2 byway sections with motorbikes might deter non-motorised users from using the route but as more than 20% of the total route is on public roads anyway an additional 1100m on open byways could not seriously be considered a deterrent.  As the report also mentions that it is not county council policy to ban mechanically propelled vehicles from these routes that should be supported by removing motorbikes from the Order unless a real need to do presented itself and in our view that was not the case.

Petronella Nattrass then spoke on behalf of the British Horse Society in support of the recommendation for the exception of light horse-drawn carriages from this proposed Traffic Regulation Order. The Society had objected to the original TRO when formally consulted in August because the Order proposed to exclude all horse-drawn carriages from the BOAT in Part A [between Well Street near Ardington and Ginge Road via the Ginge Brook crossing]. When we looked at the reason for this, it seemed that it related mainly to the specifications for the proposed new bridge over the brook. We accept there are a number of reasons why it is not possible within this scheme to provide a bridge wide enough for larger carriages. However, many recreational carriages are less than 1½ metres wide and have an all-up weight that is comparable to that of 2 ridden horses. This seems a reasonable comparison, given that the 20-metre span of the new bridge is quite likely to have more than one ridden horse on it at any one time. On this basis, we believe that the bridge specification would not need to be altered in order to carry these lighter vehicles – and that there is therefore no reason to exclude smaller horse-drawn carriages from this part of the Icknield Way. All that is needed is for there to be clear indication at each end of the BOAT that there is a weight and width limitation on the bridge. Why does any of this matter as carriage drivers are a minority  and are any even going to use this route? They don’t at the moment even though are legally entitled to do so because of the current impossibility of the Ginge Brook crossing and the log that is blocking the western end. However, carriage driving is more popular than one might expect and it’s also a wonderful way for people who are unable to ride or walk very far to enjoy the countryside.

The Ridgeway attracts carriage drivers from a wide area, who come to explore the area around this historic byway, often using connecting roads and byways to create circular routes. The re-opening of this part of the Icknield Way to smaller carriages would support an attractive off-road circular route starting from the Bury Down car park, which would be greatly welcomed.

It's unlikely that there will be many as carriage drivers are a particularly cautious sub-set of the equestrian community and will avoid taking their horses out when routes are busy, e.g. with commuting cyclists. There is also s another aspect of their caution: they will generally either reconnoitre a route on foot or bicycle or consult others who have driven along it before they attempt it with their own carriage so we are confident that the proposed restrictions on the route would be noted and acted upon.

In conclusion we very much appreciate that county council’s officers have examined our response to the initial Order in great detail and that our comments have been taken into account in today’s recommendation and noting the caveat that permitting smaller carriages to use this section of the BOAT would be subject to design constraints, technical approvals and project thresholds we hope that you will accept the recommendation to permit lightweight carriages to use this part of the Icknield Way.

Having presented the report Mr Harris then responded to questions raised by the leaders of the Council.

Funding was time limited and needed to be used by April 2021.

The Order would need signing suitable for use in an AONB with smaller weight limit signs and green route signs at the start. All signage would be provided in line with AONB status.

The width restriction was compliant as most carriages were 1.4m wide but a 1.5 m width could be accommodated.  There would be no impact on the bridges itself as that was 2.5 wide and considered to be suitable and fit for purpose.

Vision issues had been covered in the detailed design but there were no blind spots.

Thanking all the speakers for their full submissions and having regard to the information in the report before him together with the representations made to him at the meeting which had enabled him to give full weight to the issues the Leader of the Council confirmed his decisions follows:

approve the proposed prohibition of motor vehicles and horse drawn carriages from part of Icknield Way, with the single exception that subject to design constraints, technical approvals and project thresholds being satisfactorily met, permit light horse-drawn carriages that meet the stated weight and width limitations.

Signed……………………………………….

Leader of the Council

Date of signing…………………………….