|
Report to:
|
Lead Member for
Transport and Environment
|
|
Date of
meeting:
|
25 September
2023
|
|
By:
|
Director of
Communities, Economy and Transport
|
|
Title:
|
Petition: Introduction
of a lorry route network
|
|
Purpose:
|
To consider the request to
introduce a lorry routing network similar to that as outlined in
West Sussex County Council’s Local Transport Plan 2022
– 2036, so that heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) are redirected
away from narrow local roads in our villages
|
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Lead Member is
recommended to advise the petitioners:
(1)
That the existing
freight routing network will be reviewed as part of a new East
Sussex Freight Strategy which will form part of the County’s
fourth Local Transport Plan; and
(2)
That a route study
of the B2192 from Earwig Corner to the A265 at Cross in Hand,
undertaken in 2021, has identified a package of measures which, if
implemented, will seek to encourage those driving through Ringmer
village to do so more sensitively.
1
Background Information
1.1.
A petition containing 400 signatures was submitted to Full Council
on 21 March 2023 calling for the introduction of a lorry route
network in East Sussex, similar to that of West Sussex County
Council (WSCC), so that Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) are redirected
away from narrow local roads in our villages.
1.2.
The principal issues raised in the petition referred to damage to
property/vibrations, safety of non-motorised users, road
surface/quality and speeding and the issue of noise arising from
HGVs. Whilst most comments made as part of the petition related to
freight movements through Ringmer, other locations mentioned
include the C7 (Lewes – Newhaven), Firle, Newhaven,
Ditchling, Glynde, Barcombe and South Chailey.
1.3.
A copy of the petition is available in the Members’ Room.
Standing Orders provide that where the Chairman considers it
appropriate, petitions are considered by the relevant Committee or
Lead Member and a spokesperson for the petitioners is invited to
address the Committee. The Chairman has referred this petition to
the Lead Member for Transport and Environment.
2
Supporting Information
East Sussex County Council’s approach to road
freight
2.1
The current approach and policy to (road) freight in East Sussex is
set out in the County’s third Local Transport Plan (LTP3)
adopted in 2011 and ‘Control of Heavy Goods Vehicles’
policy
PS4/5 (see Appendix 1). LTP3 and the policy advise that
as so few roads in the County are really suitable for HGVs, it is
expected that the “A” and “B” roads in the
county should be available to carry heavy lorries thereby allowing
them to disperse over the available road network rather than to
concentrate them on selected roads. LTP3 also elaborates on
opportunities to ‘support the transfer of freight by
rail’, ‘work with Ordnance Survey and the freight
industry to help address inappropriate use of routes identified by
satellite navigation systems’ and ‘encourage more
sustainably accessible locations for new business premises’,
ESCC have introduced restrictions on a small number of especially
unsuitable roads across the County with the aim of improving the
environment for residents and other users. Unless there is a
specific structure along a route (for example, a bridge with a
weight restriction), the Council are only able to implement these
restrictions to HGVs using the route by way of a Traffic Regulation
Order. In considering a potential prohibition for HGV movements,
the following issues are taken into account:
·
Is there a more suitable alternative route available?
·
Can this route be adequately signed?
·
What level of enforcement is available by the Police who have to
follow the offending vehicle through the entry and terminal point
of the restriction in order to enforce?
·
What is the real extent of the problem – where is the
evidence to support the claims of increased HGV use?
·
How many of these HGVs would be impacted by a prohibition
(origin/destination or number plate surveys would be required for
each road under consideration)?
·
What are the economic impacts – how would any prohibition
affect local businesses which form part of our rural economy?
·
What is the environmental impact of additional signage (i.e.
assessing that it is not contributing to over-provision of signage
and considering the impact of the sign in terms of its size,
placement and lighting) the cost of implementing the necessary
Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), and the whole life cost of
maintaining the signs both at the restriction as well as the
alternative route signing?
2.2
However, HGVs are still able to use these roads where HGV
restrictions are in place for legitimate access reasons, for
example deliveries to residential properties, removals and access
to local businesses.
Freight movements
in East Sussex
2.3
A combination of factors has, in recent years, increased the number
of light and heavy goods vehicles on some roads on the network,
with these factors not unique to the County, including:
·
many rural farms/premises now
being used for commercial and leisure purposes as part of the
diversification of the local economy, which result in increased HGV
movements at these sites;
·
the use of in-vehicle Satellite Navigation (satnav) systems or
mobile phone mapping often misdirecting HGV drivers down unsuitable
routes;
·
centralised deliveries by many businesses, resulting in one large
HGV making many deliveries across a wide area instead of smaller
commercial vehicles delivering from local depots, and
·
movement to e-commerce increasing the level of online orders and
deliveries, especially since the Covid-19
pandemic.
West Sussex
County Council’s Lorry Route Network
2.4
The petition requested that the County Council adopt a freight
routing network similar to that of WSCC. Whilst West Sussex’s
Local Transport
Plan (2022-2033) does not include a thematic Freight
Strategy, it includes a section on freight which highlights
constraints similar to East Sussex as set out in section 2.1 of the
report, and a
lorry route
network map (see Appendix 3). There is an
expectation that lorries in West Sussex will use the recommended
freight routes, except for when local access is required, and using
all other roads must be in accordance with traffic signing.
2.5
The main difference between the WSCC and ESCC approach regarding
freight routing is that West Sussex recommends use of A roads only
in their freight routing network, whereas the County Council
recommends both A and B roads. As outlined above, this is due to so
few roads in the County being suitable to carry HGVs in comparison
to West Sussex’s network.
Local
Transport Plan 4 – review of Freight Strategy
2.6
The County Council is currently developing the County’s
fourth Local Transport Plan (LTP), which will be subject to public
consultation later this year ahead of adoption in spring 2024.
Alongside this process the Council will be developing a Freight
Strategy during 2023/24, as a supporting document to the LTP.
However, this will be available for consultation separate to the
LTP, with the timescales for this to be determined. The development
of the Strategy will need to consider whether amendments are
necessary to the current approach to freight routing which promotes
the use of A and B class roads and the policy PS 4/5 (Appendix 1)
controlling HGVs on the network in the context of the need for the
decarbonisation of transport and the opportunities for the safer
and sustainable movement of freight.
Freight
movements in Ringmer
2.7
As highlighted in section 1.2, the majority of the comments
received in the petition related to freight movements in Ringmer.
Ringmer is situated on the B2192 and therefore under the
Council’s current approach to freight routing, HGVs are able
to use and traverse through the village.
Assessment of traffic
and HGV flows
2.8
A detailed assessment regarding traffic movements in / around
Ringmer, is outlined in Appendix 2. This has included a review of
automatic traffic counter (ATC) surveys during 2019 and 2022 and
using a five-day average flow to look at traffic and HGV flows
through Ringmer and identify any trends. The ATCs are continually
counting traffic and some of the counters include vehicle
classifications. Whilst the Council recognises that there are also
one-off video surveys, these are less comparable (only 12 hours)
and have fewer classification groups. Therefore, to ensure that the
report is underpinned by robust and comparable data Officers have
referred to only the data collected from relevant ATC sites.
2.9
The key issues identified are:
·
in relation to the data from the ATC sites reviewed the overall
traffic flows in East Sussex (including HGV flows) are lower
post-pandemic compared to pre-pandemic.
·
there has been a reduction in the total flow and number of HGVs on
the B2192 west of Ringmer (Site A43 Earwig Corner to New Road,
Ringmer).
·
there are approximately 408 HGV movements a day on the B2192 west
of Ringmer (between Earwig Corner and New Road). This equates to
approximately one HGV every 3.5 minutes.
·
on the B2192 west of Ringmer (Site A43 Earwig Corner to New Road,
Ringmer) there is a decrease of 3% in HGV flows.
·
the site (site A43) between Earwig Corner and Ringmer saw an
increase in HGVs as a percentage of total flow (+0.2 percentage
points). The increase is due to a larger fall in other vehicle
classes (e.g. cars), resulting in HGVs now making up a larger
percentage of vehicles on the B2192.
·
HGV movements at comparable villages and towns in East Sussex
(Udimore Road, Rye, C7 – Swanborough), which have B roads
running through them - have been considered. Data shows that there
are some locations where HGV flows have increased and others where
this has decreased.
Vehicle
speeds
2.10
The petition also identified vehicle speeds through Ringmer as
being high. Two speed surveys were undertaken in November 2022 on
the B2192, one west (site A6092) of Kings Academy and the other to
the east (site A6093). Average speeds at the site to the east were
29mph and 25mph at the site to the west albeit speeds by vehicle
classification are not available. However, from the data available
there is not considered to be any particular risk associated with
vehicle speeds on this stretch of road.
Route Study on the
B2192
2.12 The
B2192 between A26 at Earwig Corner and A267 at Cross in Hand was
identified for a Strategic Casualty Reduction (SCR) study, with
this being undertaken in 2021. Due to the length of the route, the
works order has been split into two phases:
·
Phase 1 - A26 at
Earwig Corner to A22 at Halland, which includes Ringmer,
and
·
Phase 2 – A22 at
Halland to A267 at Cross In Hand.
2.13 Improvements have been identified
including traffic signs and road markings to help drivers better
understand the road alignment and hazards along the route in order
to adjust their behaviour accordingly. The cost estimates for the
delivery of these schemes are currently being developed. However,
the schemes will be subject to a prioritisation against other
Strategic Casualty Reduction studies identified specifically in
consideration of the availability of funding and number of personal
injury crashes on each route. The prioritisation will be undertaken
during the remainder of 2023/24.
3
Conclusion and Reasons for Recommendations
3.1
The current approach for the freight routing network in East Sussex
is that as so few roads in the County are really suitable for HGVs,
it is expected that the “A” and “B” roads
should be available to carry heavy lorries thereby allowing them to
disperse over the available road network rather than to concentrate
them on selected roads. As the road through Ringmer is a B class
road (B2192), heavy goods vehicles using this route are complying
with existing policy.
3.2
The petition cites that the County Council should adopt a similar
lorry route network approach to West Sussex, which encourages all
HGV movements to be undertaken on A roads apart from access only,
and that local access trips using all other roads must be made in
accordance with traffic signing and these roads should be avoided
as far as possible. The County Council is currently reviewing their
Local Transport Plan, which will include the development of a
Freight Strategy. It is recommended that the petitioners are
advised that as part of the development of the Freight Strategy the
Council will be considering whether any amendments are necessary to
the freight routing network for the county and policy, PS4/5, for
the control of heavy goods vehicles.
3.3
In addition, it is also recommended to advise the petitioners
that a route study for the B2192 has identified a package of
measures which, if implemented, will seek to encourage those
driving through Ringmer village to do so more sensitively.
Director of Communities, Economy
and Transport
Contact Officer: Tessa
Sweet-Escott
Tel. No. 07701 394 463
Email: tessa.sweet-escott@eastsussex.gov.uk
LOCAL
MEMBERS
Councillor Johnny
Denis and All Members
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENTS
East Sussex County Council Local Transport Plan
3
West Sussex
County Council Local Transport Plan 2022-2036