Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/196

Contact: Natalie Moore, Transport Planner Tel: 07917 534327

 

Report by Director of Law & Governance (CA9).

 

A delegated decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Travel Development and Strategy on the Burford Experimental Weight Limit on 5 January 2022 was called in for review by request of 14 Councillors. 

 

This report includes the executive response to the Burford Experimental Weight Limit – Call In Recommendations of the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2 February 2022

 

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:-

 

a)            Receive the referral made by the Place Overview & Scrutiny Committee following its consideration of a call-in request made on the 2 February 2022 on the decision regarding the Burford Experimental Weight Limit

 

b)           Reconsider the original decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Travel and Development Strategy, in light of the concerns raised by the Place Overview & Scrutiny Committee as listed in paragraph 5 of this report.

 

Cabinet had before it a report from the Place Overview & Scrutiny Committee from its meeting on 2 February 2022 on the Burford Experimental Weight Limit decision which had been called-in following a decision by the Cabinet Member for Travel & Development Strategy on 5 January 2022.

 

Before discussing the item, Cabinet heard from a number of speakers.

 

Councillor Ian Snowden, Chair of the Place Overview & Scrutiny Committee, summarised the proceedings on the called-in item.  The Committee considered the evidence base upon which the Decision was made, including the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), the Euro Classification data and the Tracsis Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data.

 

At the end of the Committee’s consideration of this issue, the Committee sought further clarification on the use of the different data used to inform the Cabinet Member’s Decision and decided to refer the matter to Cabinet in the interests of transparency of the decision making process with reference to the Principles of Decision Making:

(d) a presumption in favour of openness; and

(e) clarity of aims and desired outcomes.

 

The scrutiny committee recommended that greater clarity be provided on the evidence base upon which the decision was made.

 

Councillor Charlie Hicks, Deputy Chair of the Place O&SC, added that there had been some discussion around the meaning of the reference in the Constitution to “material concerns” about a decision.  In the end the Committee used the Principles of Decision Making in the Constitution as the basis for its discussions.

 

The Committee did not find that there was evidence of bias or pre-determination or that the decision should have been made by the full Cabinet.  There were different opinions on the merits of including ANPR data in the report as there was only one data point available.  The Cabinet Member told the scrutiny meeting that he had taken that data into account anyway in making the decision.  In the end the Committee asked for more information to be provided on the basis of the openness and clarity.

 

Rhys Williams, Regional Operations Manager, Road Haulage Association, reiterated that his organisation strongly opposed the reinstatement of the Burford weight limit and, instead, strongly supported the need for an effective freight strategy that allows consumers across Oxfordshire to receive the goods they demand sustainably and efficiently.

 

Banning HGVs from Burford would simply displace large vehicles from a road designed to be suitable for them onto less suitable roads. It caused lorries to travel extra and needless miles.  The RHA stood ready as a key partner to work with Oxfordshire County Council on a freight strategy.

 

Councillor John White, Burford Town Council, stated that responsibility for this decision should never have been imposed on or accepted by Councillor Enright because he was conflicted.  Suggestions that Councillor Enright was bias towards the local haulage industry and that he only decided the way he did because he was a Witney Councillor did not come from Burford Town Council or its advisers.

 

The Town Council contended that Principle (f) which expressly required the decision maker to record a decision “which explains what options were considered and giving the reasons for the decision” was completely ignored.  They suggested that the Council should make a new TRO with a limit of 18 tonnes and the expanded Permit Zone already agreed with Officers.

 

Ken Gray, Burford resident, stated that Councillor Enright cited very narrow criteria that the ETRO had to meet.  He used an ATC traffic monitoring technique that cannot differentiate vehicles above and below the ETRO’s 7.5 tonne limit. However, the ATC method can differentiate HGVs greater than 18 tonnes.  Several on the Scrutiny Committee were surprised that this data was excluded from the report.

 

The ETRO had benefited every resident, visitor, property and the environment all along the 32 hilly miles of the A361 in Oxfordshire. HGVs had mainly been diverted to the straighter A34 or A429 from the ‘rat run’ through Burford with proven minimal harmful effects elsewhere.

 

Hugh Ashton, Burford resident with 40 years’ experience as a consultant in the transport sector, stated that there was clear evidence that the impact of the Burford Weight Limit was not only beneficial to Burford, but had relatively little adverse impact on surrounding communities.

 

Apart from an expected increase on the A44, all other A and B roads showed reductions.  Through the Barringtons, the 14% increase in October equated to only one vehicle a day (from 7 to 8 a day), on a road which already had a 7.5t limit.  He asked Cabinet to impose an 18 ton limit, with a widened Permit Area to meet the needs of local farmers and businesses.  He agreed that an areawide solution was ultimately the best strategy but appealed not to go backwards in the short term.

 

Mark McCappin, Crawley Parish Councillor and representing Windrush Valley Traffic Action Group (WiVTAG), noted that the temporary order had already expired and the Cabinet did not have the power to reinstate it at this meeting.  Providing more data, as requested by the scrutiny committee, would not alter that fact.

 

Villages and businesses in the area had been adversely affected by the restriction.  He suggested that Cabinet should endorse the decision not to make the order permanent and develop instead a regional strategy.

 

 

Jan de Haldevang, Barrington Parish Councillor and also representing WiVTAG, stated that the points made about different data were largely irrelevant.  A weight restriction simply diverts the problem to other towns and villages.  What was needed was an area restriction that allowed local access while removing through traffic.

 

He also stated that Councillor Enright had been fair and transparent through the whole process and had given a full account to the scrutiny committee.  He asked Cabinet to reaffirm the decision and urgently develop the regional strategy.

 

Councillor Julian Cooper, Woodstock & Bladon, West Oxfordshire District Council, stated that in looking at the data one had to take into account the time we live in.  It was wrong to take a narrow view focused on Burford.  There was clearly a need for a proper strategy for the county.  He urged Cabinet to endorse Councillor Enright’s decision.

 

Councillor Yvonne Constance, Shrivenham, agreed that a regional solution was ideal but would take time and she did not think that the Burford restriction should be cancelled in the meantime. The town experienced an improvement in quality of life and there were minimal diversions to other towns or villages and no evidence of increased air pollution.

 

She believed that the ATC data was not reliable and ANPR data was required for enforcement.  It should be noted that freight traffic increased due to the pandemic.  There was enough evidence to justify making the order permanent and extending the permit area.

 

Councillor Stefan Gawrysiak, Henley-on-Thames, emphasised that all decisions should be based on reason and data.  He believed that it was unreasonable to say that ANPR data had been taken into account when there was no reference to it in the report.

 

The decision had implications for other towns that could introduce weight restrictions.  He believed that cancelling the Burford restriction was the wrong direction of travel for this administration.  The evidence showed reduced numbers of HGVs and improved air quality.

 

Councillor Andy Graham, Woodstock, described the restriction as a displacement policy which pitted one town against another and created inequality.  Woodstock had seen a significant increase in traffic.  It was more appropriate for the council to develop a regional freight strategy.

 

Councillor Graham was satisfied that the meeting for the delegated decision took all the available statistics into account and that the Cabinet Member took the correct decision.  He called for a sustainable solution and an end to the displacement policy.

 

Councillor Liam Walker, Hanborough & Minster Lovell, supported the removal of the restriction and the development of a freight strategy.  He noted that this was in line with a motion passed at November Council.  He stated that there had been a lack of clarity at the scrutiny committee meeting over the reasons to support referring this back to Cabinet and it was only passed by the casting vote of the Chair.

 

The trial restriction had not reached its criteria for success and had had a detrimental impact in displacing traffic.  Road hauliers were already facing difficulties with increasing fuel prices without having to add extra miles to their journeys.  He urged Cabinet to support the Cabinet Member’s decision.

 

Councillor Nick Field-Johnson, Burford & Carterton North, stated that the issue of imposing a ban had been under discussion for over 20 years.  HGV traffic was damaging buildings and the streetscape in this historic town.  It was also affecting the important tourist trade.  He criticised the omission of critical ANPR data from the report which showed a significant reduction in 18 ton HGVs through Burford and other towns with no significant diversion elsewhere.  This had to undermine the validity of the decision.

 

Councillor Field-Johnson also noted that the ATC data could not distinguish vehicle size correctly and included smaller delivery lorries that had greatly increased in number during the pandemic.  There was also no mention of air quality in the report.  He believed that there was a reasonable compromise in establishing an 18 ton limit and doubling the size of the permit zone.  He asked Cabinet to instruct officers to look at the data again and work on implementing an 18 ton limit.

 

Councillor Duncan Enright, Cabinet Member for Travel & Development Strategy, responded that the data showed a mixed picture.  He also believed that a delegated decision was appropriate and that he had no reason to recuse himself.  Nobody complained when he extended the restriction in July for six months.

 

He welcomed the withdrawal of accusations of bias or pre-determination on his part and hoped that Burford Town Council would set the record straight in its newsletter rescinding comments previously made.

 

Councillor Enright stated that the debate had shown widespread support for an area-based strategy rather than point-based restrictions.  He believed that it was unjust that a town could implement a restriction because they had the money to afford it.  The County Council should not be contracting out its responsibility.

 

He added that the problem with the ANPR data was that it was a single set with no comparison available.  It also excluded foreign registration plates.  With the ATC data there was before and after data available.  The experiment failed on the three criteria set for success.  It should also be noted that car traffic reduced during the pandemic which accounted for some of the improvement in air quality.

 

Councillor Enright believed that there was now a shared understanding of the HGV problem and that it was possible to arrive at a solution that everyone could get behind.

 

Councillor Pete Sudbury stated that he believed that the decision had been correctly made.  There had been an asymmetry in the criteria which required a reduction of 50% at one point to be successful but required 50% increase in traffic at any one of a number of points to which traffic may be dispersed to fail.  He had been particularly struck by the complaints from Gloucestershire County Council.

 

While there was an argument that this restriction could be retained as a bridgehead to an area strategy, he believed that there was significant evidence of harm and that the Cabinet Member made the correct decision in not extending the restriction.

 

Councillor Tim Bearder stated that he had huge sympathy for Burford given his own familiarity with a similar problem in Wheatley.  There was a need to segregate HGVs from vulnerable road users.  He welcomed the proposal for a wider strategy and, on balance, supported the Cabinet Member’s decision.

 

Councillor Field-Johnson asked if his compromise proposal could be considered.

 

The Chair responded that the Cabinet had been asked to consider the referral from the Place Overview & Scrutiny Committee and seek greater clarity on the evidence base.  She believed that Cabinet had done that.

 

The Chair noted that she had originally supported this restriction but could see that it had caused significant displacement.  She also agreed with the argument that the criteria were unbalanced.  There was a need to work with neighbouring counties on the wider strategy.

 

The Chair proposed that Cabinet endorse the decision made by Councillor Enright and this was agreed.

 

RESOLVED: to endorse the decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Travel & Development Strategy on 5 January 2022:

 

a)            APPROVE officers to consider the costs and benefits of developing area wide restrictions across Oxfordshire including close working with neighbouring authorities, as part of the county wide freight strategy, as soon as practicable. Noting any future approval of area wide weight restrictions would likely see existing environmental weight restrictions revoked subject to consultation.

 

b)           REVOKE the Burford Experimental Traffic Regulation Order of 7.5t weight restriction. Therefore, not making a permanent order.