Issue - meetings

This report considers the long term options for the Bridge in response to the concerns received from haulage companies and the residents in the area with regards to the recent introduction of Temporary Traffic Regulation Order on the Bridge.

Resolved:

                     i.        That officers will continue to undertake work to establish the ownership of the bridge and responsibilities for any maintenance, improvements or strengthening works be noted.

                    ii.        That approval be given that officers develop a bridge strengthening scheme as per option 5 of the report.

                  iii.        That authority be delegated to the Director of Environment, Transport & Planning to undertake the procurement of a suitable contractor to carry out the bridge strengthening works in accordance with the Contract Procedure Rules.

                  iv.        That once ownership of the bridge has been ascertained as a Council responsibility, authority be delegated to the Director of Environment, Transport & Planning in consultation with Head of Procurement and Director of Governance to take all necessary steps to award and enter into the resulting contract.

Reason: The temporary weight restriction has caused traffic to displace to other routes and roads which if the bridge is not strengthened would require mitigation in terms of the additional traffic.

The Director of Environment, Transport and Planning presented the report, and responded to questions (assisted on technical matters by the Highways Structure Manager).

Referring to Cllr Steward’s point concerning “ownership of the bridge”, he noted that Sustrans owned the bridge itself but the local authority were responsible for the highway passing over it. Consultation had been made involving both Bishopthorpe and Copmanthorpe councils, and he would be looking into options to progress the plan with haste following the Executive Member’s Decision.

The Executive Member asked for further clarification on implications of this point of ownership to any potential delays to work commencing. The Director of Environment, Transport and Planning answered that under normal circumstances “bridge owner” would be responsible for repairing bridge but Sustrans were also financially struggling and the easiest position for them would be to simply impose a weight limit, which was not the ideal outcome for the authority. Without prejudicing legal discussions he wanted to work with Sustrans within a legal framework to find a mutual solution.

The Executive Member noted the suggestion of a one-way weight limit that had been raised that day, and it was conceded that this would be discussed. Highways Structure Manager explained the extremely high cost of temporary traffic lights.

Resolved:

                     i.        That officers will continue to undertake work to establish the ownership of the bridge and responsibilities for any maintenance, improvements or strengthening works be noted.

                    ii.        That approval be given that officers develop a bridge strengthening scheme as per option 5 of the report.

                  iii.        That authority be delegated to the Director of Environment, Transport & Planning to undertake the procurement of a suitable contractor to carry out the bridge strengthening works in accordance with the Contract Procedure Rules.

                  iv.        That once ownership of the bridge has been ascertained as a Council responsibility, authority be delegated to the Director of Environment, Transport & Planning in consultation with Head of Procurement and Director of Governance to take all necessary steps to award and enter into the resulting contract.

Reason: The temporary weight restriction has caused traffic to displace to other routes and roads which if the bridge is not strengthened would require mitigation in terms of the additional traffic.