Ivinghoe Area Freight Proposal

Title Value
Last updated: 10 November 2020
Contents

1.0 Overview:

The countywide Freight Strategy recognises the need to allow access of HGVs to support local businesses, whilst managing impact on residents and the environment. In order to help ensure HGV through-traffic is directed along appropriate strategic routes and that only necessary journeys occur on the local network, an area-based approach has been investigated for managing freight movements. Five areas have been identified for the delivery of interventions in the period until the end of March 2022.

The Ivinghoe Division was selected as the ‘Pilot’ location for the delivery of interventions as a result of the following:

  • Feedback received from the Freight Strategy consultation process.
  • Communications from the public on the challenges presented by freight movements.
  • Results from a structural survey carried out by the Canal and Rivers Trust (C&RT) of the Brownlow Bridge over the Grand Union Canal just outside Cheddington.

 

2.0 Ivinghoe proposal:

A proposal for Ivinghoe was developed and approved to be taken forward for presentation to stakeholders, representative bodies and the public in order to solicit views and gain feedback.

Proposal: To restore the Brownlow Bridge to a 44 tonne weight bearing capacity at the earliest opportunity (accommodating local access need) and, to introduce a 7.5 tonne environmental traffic regulation order across a defined zone, with exceptions for local access.

The ‘Ivinghoe Freight Proposal Map’ included in Appendix 1 shows the extent of the proposed zone. Further information on the proposed zone is available on the Ivinghoe area freight engagement webpage.

 

3.0 Informal engagement:

An informal engagement process on the Ivinghoe proposals took place over a 4 week period from 17 February 2020 to 14 March 2020. This process included online materials, public drop-in events in Ivinghoe and Wing and the use of an online and hardcopy survey to solicit feedback. The survey attracted a total of 332 responses.

This report provides a summary of the 322 responses received to the informal engagement survey. Further analysis has been conducted to identify if any adjustment to the Ivinghoe proposal is justified, and if any work outside of this intervention may be appropriate.

The next step is to progress the proposed interventions. This will involve a formal public consultation exercise, providing an opportunity to comment on the final Ivinghoe proposals.

 

4.0 Summary of results: Interest in the Ivinghoe area freight zone

 

4.1 Respondent representation:

Question 1: Which best describes the role in which you are responding to the survey?

Type of Respondents

Numbers of respondents

Percentages of respondents

Resident in the zone

220

66%

Resident elsewhere in Bucks

86

26%

Local Councillor - Parish, Town, District or County

12

4%

Official Representative of a Parish, Town, District or County

6

2%

Resident outside of Bucks

5

2%

Business representative & Other respondents

3

1%

Totals

332

100%

* ‘The zone’ refers to the Ivinghoe area shown in the proposal map included in Appendix 1.

This table shows the breakdown of the respondent types; resident, representative or business and; by broad location, in the proposed zone, elsewhere in Buckinghamshire and outside of the county.

 

4.2 Respondent locations:

Questions 2, 3 and 4: As a resident, where do you live? As a council representative where do you represent? As a business representative, where is it located? 

  • Councillors and Official representatives of councils (Parish, Town, District & County) responded representing the following locations

 

Bierton (with Broughton)

3

Wingrave (with Rowsham)

1

Ivinghoe

2

Billington

1

Slapton

2

Mentmore

1

Wing

2

Cheddington

1

Buckland

1

Dagnall

1

Pitstone

1

       
  • The business representative respondent operated and lived in Cheddington
  • ‘Other’ responses included a landowner from Leighton Buzzard
  • The location of all respondents including councillors and business representatives

Origin of Respondents

Number

Percentage

Origin of Respondents

Number

Percentage

Aylesbury

6

2%

Ledburn

1

0%

Bierton

1

0%

Leighton Buzzard

3

1%

Buckland

1

0%

Linslade

2

1%

Burcott

1

0%

Long Marston

4

1%

Cambridge (Wingrave)

1

0%

Marsworth

4

1%

Cheddington

53

16%

Mentmore

7

2%

Crafton

2

1%

Northall

13

4%

Dagnall

3

1%

Pitstone

32

10%

Edlesborough

9

3%

Rowsham

1

0%

Ford End

2

1%

Slapton

4

1%

Great Gap

7

2%

Soulbury

1

0%

Gubblecote

3

1%

Stewkley

1

0%

Hockliffe

2

1%

Other *

25

8%

Horton

5

2%

Weston Turville

1

0%

Iver

1

0%

Wilstone

1

0%

Iver Heath

1

0%

Wing

49

15%

Ivinghoe

62

19%

Wingrave

18

5%

Ivinghoe Aston

5

2%

Totals

332

4.3 Response to the proposal:

Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the ‘freight zone’ area outlined on the map (Appendix 1), has the most appropriate boundaries?

 

Reponses to Proposal

Disagree & Strongly Disagree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Agree & Strongly Agree

Totals

Respondents in Zone

5

6

200

211

Respondent in Bucks out of zone

61

11

16

88

Respondent out of Bucks

2

2

4

8

Respondents not stating location

7

5

13

25

Totals

75

24

233

332

This table shows the numbers who agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal; disagreed or strongly disagreed or neither agreed or disagreed broken down by locations identifying those within the zone; in Buckinghamshire out of the zone; outside of Buckinghamshire and; those that did not identify their location.

  • 70% of overall respondents either Agree or Strongly Agree with the proposal.
    • 95% of these were respondents within the zone
  • 23% of overall respondents either Disagree or Strongly Disagree with the proposal.
    • 69% of these were respondents in Buckinghamshire, but outside of the zone.
  • 7% of overall respondents Neither Agree or Disagree with the proposal.

Note: Written comments received from respondents, including reference to the boundaries of the proposed zone, are included under questions 7 and 8.

 

4.4 Option preference:

Question 6: There are three feasible steps we can take. Which of the following would you most like to see happen? Please select only one option.

 

Responses

Apply a weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes on Brownlow Bridge and on roads in the proposed ‘freight zone’ with an exception for local access

238

72%

Suggested an alternative solution*

39

12%

Do nothing – no change to the movement of HGV traffic over Brownlow Bridge or on local roads

28

8%

Not sure

15

5%

Apply a weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes on Brownlow Bridge but  not on roads in the proposed ‘freight zone’

12

4%

Total number of respondents

332

 

This table shows the responses in support of the three identified options, along with those offered an alternative suggestion.

  • The responses received show significant support for the proposed intervention, with 238 respondents (72%) selecting this option.
  • 39 respondents (12%) offered an alternative suggestion – detailed below.

 

4.4.1 *Summary of alternative solutions suggested:

This section shows the alternate suggestions as received with reference to the location of the respondent. This has been bullet pointed below.

  • 9 suggestions received about improving the A418 or providing a Wing by-pass
  • 3 suggestions that the zone is extended to cover Wing and side roads
  • 1 suggestion that the zone be delayed until the Aylesbury Eastern Link Road is ready
    • Received from respondents in Wing, Rowsham and Bierton
  • 9 suggestions to extend the zone to cover the B440 and villages on the route
  • 2 suggestion regarding concerns about Bellington, Northall and the B440
    • Received from Bellington, Northall and Edlesborough

 

  • 1 suggestion that all of Slapton be included in the zone
  • 2 suggestions regarding the provision of additional traffic management
  • 1 suggestion expressing concerns for farmers, businesses and policing
  • 1 suggestion regarding monitoring and enforcement
    • Received from Wing, Wingrave, Slapton and Ivinghoe

 

  • 3 suggestions to introduce restrictions in all Buckinghamshire villages
  • 4 suggestions to place 7.5t or less restrictions on all Buckinghamshire B roads
  • 2 suggestions to allow heavy vehicles across the Brownlow Bridge
  • 1 suggestion to exclude the Marsworth Airfield as local traffic
    • Received from Weston Turville, Wing, Northall, Linslade, Pitstone and Cheddington

 

4.5 Reasons and additional comments:

Question 7 and 8: Asks for reasons for selecting the option choice and any additional comments or suggestions. Respondents were able to make multiple comments. 

 

Respondents were able to give open text responses to questions 7 and 8. The comments received have been grouped into the following categories and are summarised below:

 

Category

Number of comments

Comment on current challenges

399

Comment on the proposed intervention

210

Other comments and suggestions

80

                                                                 Total: 689

This table breaks down the comments received into grouped categories.

 

4.5.1 Current challenges:

A total of 399 comments were received. Many respondents made multiple comments.

Current challenge

(key comments received, in frequency order)

Number of comments

Percentage   (of all comments received)

Safety and wellbeing

· HGV risks, school pick up and drop off

103

26%

Roads and unsuitability

· Condition, damage, lack of pavements

125

31%

Quality of life and negative HGV impact

· Damage, disturbance, risk to others

51

13%

HGV operators and driver behaviour

· Inconsiderate driving, routings, timings

50

13%

Out of zone issues and road congestion

· A418, B440, Wing, Bierton, Dagnall and            Northall

70 

17%

This table identifies by grouping similar issues aspects on which respondents commented, these groups are summarised by comment numbers and the percentages of all comments received.

 

Analysis:

Within the zone, the proposed intervention will help to alleviate (although not completely eliminate) the challenges that are currently faced.

  • Safety and wellbeing: Risks to the person will be reduced through fewer HGV movements and more considerate driving by commercial vehicle drivers with greater community responsibility. Reduced HGV traffic, the restoration of the Brownlow Bridge and more considerate parking will aid challenges at school pick up/drop off.
  • Roads and unsuitability: The highway authority has spent a significant amount on road maintenance. Fewer HGV movements will help to reduce future damage, particularly on unsuitable roads (i.e. those that have a narrow and twisting nature and narrow pavement).
  • Quality of life: Reduced HGV traffic in the area will go some way to reducing the reported noise, vibration and damage issues.
  • HGV operators and driver behaviour: The proposed restriction to local business and access only presents an opportunity for greater commercial and community engagement.

Concerns raised about ‘out of zone’ issues and major route congestion are outside of scope for the proposed intervention, however they do signal issues that may need to be addressed.

 

4.5.2 Proposed intervention:

A total of 210 comments were received.

Feedback on proposed intervention

(key comments received, in frequency order)

Number of comments

Percentage

(of all comments received)

Positive feedback on the proposal

· Reduces HGV impact (numbers, safety, damage, routing), community benefits

72

34%

Negative feedback on the proposal

· Lack of enforcement, environmental impact, fitness for purpose, lack of strategic picture, inappropriate timing

51

24%

Negative feedback (scope / out of zone concern)

· Scope of routings, scope of zone coverage

87

42%

The above table focuses on the proposed intervention and the comments received relating to the proposal. The comments were grouped, linking the positive comments; the negative comments about the proposal and those comments negative comments relating to elements out of the zone.

 

Analysis:

  • Positive feedback on the proposal: The positive feedback noted the intended benefits of the proposed intervention, including reduced impact of HGVs, improvements to safety, enhanced quality of life, support for the aspirations of local businesses and greater collaboration between businesses and communities.
  • The negative feedback on the proposal: The negative feedback concerning a lack of enforcement capability is identified in the proposal. Consideration of environmental impact of the proposal is being addressed with support from the Chilterns Conservation Board, Natural England and in line with legal expectations on local authorities.

 

Other concerns were around fitness for purpose and the impact of national traffic policies and infrastructure projects. England’s Economic Heartland (EEH) facilitate national traffic policies in our region. EEH have been consulted in the development of, and are supportive of, this pilot intervention. Major infrastructure projects, such as High Speed 2 and East West Rail, do not have detailed construction plans available; however we continue to work with colleagues at Buckinghamshire Council to understand any potential impacts.

Further concerns were around the timing of the proposed intervention and alternative locations.  The option of delaying the proposed intervention until after the delivery of the Eastern Link Road was reviewed and it was deemed appropriate not to delay it.

The Ivinghoe area was selected as the ‘pilot’ location due to structural concerns regarding the Brownlow Bridge, which offered us an opportunity to trail the implementation of the adopted Freight Strategy. Lessons learned from this pilot will be taken forward to future critical areas for intervention.

  • Negative feedback (out of zone/scope): Other comments related to routing impact, displaced HGV traffic flows on local roads and the scope of the area covered in the proposed ‘zone’.

 

4.5.3 Other suggestions:

A total of 80 comments were received.

This table summarises other suggestions not specifically related to the proposal however, they are useful suggestions and ones we should consider outside of this freight intervention.

 

Suggestions Offered (key comments received, in frequency order)

Number of comments

Percentage (of all comments received)

Out of zone network changes

· Creation of Wing by-pass, improvements to the A418, creation of a northern link road, introduction of restrictions on minor roads.

31

39%

Enforcement and sat nav tools

· Use of digital reporting tool, license scheme.

· Resolve issues with GPS and sat nav routing.

16

20%

In-zone road network changes

· Improve Dark Lane, Wingrave.

· Replace Cheddington Station Bridge.

· Introduce defined routes for HGVs.

· Remove speed humps and Horton chicane.

· Lower the restriction to 3.5tonnes (not 7.5t).

14

18%

Other comments

· Close streets at key school start/end times.

· Exclude the airfield as local traffic.

· Require businesses to compensate damage.

· Investigate alternative goods transit options.

· Compensate local residents.

8

10%

Planning considerations

· Alignment with housing and commercial developments and national road policies.

· Consideration of other vehicle traffic flows.

6

8%

Environmental considerations

· Consideration of alternative vehicle types.

· Use of rail options

5

6%

Total

80

100%

 

Analysis:

  • Out of zone network changes: The infrastructure suggestions of a Wing by-pass and Northern Link Road around Aylesbury are outside of the scope of the Freight Strategy which has a limited budget. Responsibility for the maintenance of the A418 sits with the Highway Authority, Transport for Bucks. Feedback received relating the condition of the route and safety suggestions will be forwarded on to them for consideration. The Freight strategy seeks to promote the use of the most appropriate routes available, rather than less suitable roads through villages. It is necessary to make use of some ‘B’ class roads for HGV traffic in support of ‘A’ and ‘M’ class routes in order to effectively move goods and services throughout the county.
  • Enforcement and sat nav tools: Enforcement of the proposed intervention is identified as a challenge. Discussions have taken place with Trading Standards and the Police. The use of a public reporting function, including unauthorised photographic evidence, does not meet the legal criteria for prosecution. A permit scheme to identify local access traffic has been considered. ‘Local access’ would cover vehicles not originating in the zone, but providing services to businesses and residents, meaning such a scheme would be impractical in this zone. The question of enforcement by local authority is being escalated to the Secretary of State for Transport. This would require enabling Part VI of the Transport Management Act 2006 to allow local authority empowerment. It will also require approval monies to be allocated to build the technical infrastructure and back office functions to deliver an effective enforcement capability.

 

The use of GPS and sat nav systems is a national and international issue. Many HGV drivers do not use HGV specific navigation tools that identify HGV restricted areas or weight, height or width restricted structures. This can result in vehicles taking routes they cannot manoeuvre safely. There is no legal requirement for HGV drivers to use truck based systems. As part of the Freight Strategy, we are working to ensure accurate information is provided to mapping and navigational organisations; we are also promoting the use of the appropriate navigation systems as a legal requirement, and we are ready to engage in this initiative.

  • In-zone network changes: comments relating to suggested alterations to road layouts have been shared with the relevant Buckinghamshire Council teams. It should be noted that many of the suggestions are complex and would require consultation with multiple external agencies. The suggestion of implementing a 3.5 tonne restriction was considered as part of this proposal, however the widespread use of smaller commercial vehicles is much less regulated and would be complex to manage, monitor and enforce.
  • Other comments: The suggestion of closing roads at school drop-off and pick-up times has been shared with Transport for Buckinghamshire. The proposal could offer an opportunity for local community engagement, meaning there may be a possibility to reach a local agreement for HGV’s to avoid school locations at key times. This is in line with guidance and recommendations of the Road Haulage Association.

Comments around compensation focused on additional HGV flows and business compensation for damage. A study of local and through traffic was undertaken as part of the development of the proposal. This identified that the proposal would potentially add 2 vehicles an hour to the A418 through Wing across a 12 hour weekday window. This is not viewed as being a significant additional HGV increase and as such would not demand financial compensation. Heavy Goods Vehicles, like all motor vehicles, pay vehicle excise duty to use the highways across the country. Dependent on the type of vehicle, the number of axles and the class of engine it can cost in excess of £2,000 for the year. There is no legal basis to charge a commercial location’s operators a fee for use of roads or for potential damage to those roads.

The use of alternative transit modes, such as rail, was suggested. Rail is a key mode of transport for freight, especially between points of manufacture and as a connecting point for goods importing and exporting the UK. As such, it is a focus area for the Buckinghamshire Council’s Freight Strategy. Initial investigations do not identify industrial manufacturers of products in sufficient quantities, or of a suitable nature, for rail transportation in Buckinghamshire.

Further comments suggested that businesses on the airfield be excluded as requiring local access. It is a key objective of the Buckinghamshire Council’s Freight Strategy to support local business’s aspirations for growth. As such in the same way we are allowing access for farmers, essential service providers, hospitality locations and retail sites, we need to allow access for all businesses in the zone. It should be noted that the airfield is the largest site of employment in the zone, employing in excess of 400 people, the majority of whom are residents of the zone. 

  • Planning considerations: Comments received related to the need to take a wider strategic view, accounting for forthcoming development and compatibility with national policies. The Freight Strategy provides an insight into the planned interventions over the coming years. Further engagement is planned to influence developments covering ‘last mile deliveries’, the use of alternate fuels and the potential development of Urban Consolidation Centres. Buckinghamshire Council is a founding partner of England’s Economic Heartland, who provides a role as the Regional Sub-Transport Group. EEH offer a facilitation, data management and initiative design function between local authorities and central government departments. It is through EEH that we are able to seek compatibility with wider policies.
  • Environmental considerations: The comments received relating to moving away from Diesel vehicles towards the use of alternative fuels such as electric and hydrogen are issues of national concern. The government has committed to carbon neutral freight transportation system by 2050. Buckinghamshire Council are supportive of this target and are working with partners towards it.

 

5.0 Next Steps:

The results from the informal engagement on the Ivinghoe area freight proposal is used to help shape the statutory consultation phase that follows. Relevant consideration is given to the valuable feedback received to see if fine-tuning of the proposal is appropriate. Suggestions received and comments are passed on to the Buckinghamshire Council functions for their assessment and, if suitable, actioning. If comments relate to locations and responsibilities outside of Buckinghamshire they will be forwarded onto the appropriate local authority.

 

Appendix 1: Ivinghoe Freight Proposal Map

Appendix 1: Ivinghoe Freight Proposal Map

To request an accessible format please email webcontent@buckinghamshire.gov.uk.

This map defines the area covered by the proposed freight zone. It is effectively bordered by the A4146 and A505 in the North; the A418 and the Aylesbury Eastern Link Road¹ in the West; in the South it is bordered by the A41 and the B489; to the East the border of the zone is the B440².

 

Notes:

1 – At the time of publishing the Aylesbury Eastern Link Road is only partly completed. This would recommend that HGV traffic use identified alternate local roads until the link road is complete.

2 – Although the B440 provides a boundary to the proposed Freight Zone in the East, with signage expected along the B440 and roads off to the West, the B440 is not proposed as a preferred Freight Route.

 

Was this page helpful?

Very poor
Poor
Neither good nor poor
Good
Very good