The JSP Inspectors have now provided their response to the JSP plans. Basically they are asking for the JSP to be re-started from a sound strategic basis in which Strategic Development Locations can be selected along with the Transport implications. The 4 Councils that make up the Joint Plan are now considering their reply.
Once the Councils reply TRAG will consider the next steps to continue putting our case forward for traffic impacts to Tickenham.
Here is the response from the Inspectors:
We have received a letter from the JSP Examiners stating that they do not feel that the selection process for the Strategic Development Locations (SDL) has been sufficiently robust. Therefore the examination is suspended and the sessions addressing the remaining matters are cancelled.
A further letter on next steps will be issued mid August, but it looks likely that the JSP will be withdrawn from the examination.
You can view the letter here:
The TRAG submitted the following documents to the JSP Examination for Matters 6.3, 7.4 and 7.7.
- Statement of Tickenham Road Action Group. This document summaries the traffic issues of the B3130 through Tickenham
- Traffic analysis that reviews the current capacity and future capacity projections of the B3130 through Tickenham
The Examination is due to be held late September/October this year. The TRAG will be presenting at the Examination.
The following information
was forwarded to the Joint Spatial Plan Administrator, Helen Wilson by the
Tickenham Parish Council:
- Response to Matter 6 – Place Shaping Principles and Strategic Infrastructure Requirements (Policies 5 and 6), Matter 6.3 Is there robust evidence to demonstrate that, having regard to mitigation measures, the development envisaged in the JSP would not give rise to severe transport-related problems?
- Response to Matter 7.4 – Backwell SDL (c) Is there evidence that the development of the SDL is viable and developable, including in respect of necessary infrastructure provision, during the JSP plan period?
- Response to Matter 7.7 – Nailsea SDL (c) Is there evidence that the development of the SDL is viable and developable, including in respect of necessary infrastructure provision, during the JSP plan period?
The same response (below) was used for each of the Matters.
The TRAG Steering Group reviewed and updated the Terms of Reference to include clauses suitable for operating a bank account. The changes were reviewed and agreed at the March TRAG Steering Group meeting.
The ToR can be accessed here:
Terms of reference 20190429
The TRAG response to the JLTP4 consultation is now complete and available below. You may wish to review ahead of making your own individual response.
JLTP4 – TRAG response to consultation_8 March 2019 (signed)
A word of warning, the JLTP4 questionnaire does not allow for large or complex responses. So if you are submitting a larger response you may wish to note in the text box that you are emailing, or posting, your response.
Post: West of England Combined Authority, 3 Rivergate, Bristol, BS1 6EW.
To respond to the JLTP4 consultation you will need to complete the survey at the address at the bottom of this post. In the Strategy and Approach section (Q7) there is a small data entry box for you to type or paste in your response. Please only use very simple formatting as this a text only input.
You might want to include comments about the road plans impacting Tickenham (suggestion only):
The JLTP4 proposes new roads linking Tickenham with Nailsea and Clevedon. The impact of these changes will be significantly increased traffic volumes through Tickenham (B3130) which is currently at capacity during peak hours using a road that is not fit for purpose. These changes do not support the vision, objectives and outcomes of the JLTP and have very real negative impacts for the village of Tickenham.
I strongly object to the proposed routes impacting Tickenham.
A more strategic approach of providing a direct link between Nailsea and M5 J20 would better meet the outcomes set out in the JLTP and help alleviate current transport conerns in Tickenham.
This is the link to the JLTP4 questionnaire:
A print version of the questionnaire is also at the above site which you can complete and take to the local library or post to West of England Combined Authority, 3 Rivergate, Bristol, BS1 6EW.
To make sure your response is received, you can also email it to:
Please get in touch at email@example.com if you need help filing your response as the more people we have responding the greater the impact.
Following the TRAG meeting held 15th February we have consolidated the comments people have raised regarding the proposed new road routes. We have collated these under the headings:
- Current issues – problems being experienced today
- Issues with Proposed Routes – what we don’t like about the proposals
- Benefits of Strategic Link – why it’s a good idea to adopt the direct link from Nailsea to the M5 J20
- Issues with reports – Problems with the reports (e.g. not taking existing traffic volumes in to account)
The consolidated list is here: TRAG Consolidated comments 20190227
If you have any additional comments/issues to add then please email these to: firstname.lastname@example.org
We will using these comments and issues as a base for the TRAG response to the JLTP4 consultation.
The TRAG held their Inaugural meeting at 7pm on Friday 15th February at the Tickenham Village hall.
The meeting was well attended by approximately 90 residents.
John Crew provided an overview of the TRAG objectives, achievements to date and the Steering Group structure.
The meeting then elected the following members of the Steering Group:
Bob Beale, Bruce Campbell, John Crew, Dave Ellison, Alan Hooley and Alan Raines.
Bruce Campbell then provided a summary of the planning process and proposed routes.
The slides used at the meeting can be found here:
TRAG Inaugural meeting 20190214V3
The meeting was then opened for questions and inputs with the following points raised for consideration by the Steering Group:
Why hadn’t NSC had a greater influence to date in the transport draft – why might they want this to go ahead – e.g. is there pressure/reward from Bristol council as they will ultimately most benefit with improved accessibility to Bristol.
What about challenging NSC on mitigating things as they are now (calming, reduced speed limit etc).
When this B road was approved as a major route as it is now (I forget the term used) what was in the permissions/conditions and stated or predicted vehicle capacity.
Have we researched accident rates over the years – is there a scale prorata to traffic flow such we can thus predicted a worsening rate with even more traffic.
Extent of road safety issues – compile a list of the types and risks that occur.
Any data from speedwatch as to the % of vehicles that speed through the village.
Why not have an average speed camera set up.
Do we have ‘now’ in the Terms of Reference of TRAG.
What is traffic flow NOW and where is it going (up Tick hill or to Nailsea etc). How does current level compare with capacity and saturation point.
Night or working closures on M5 – all traffic routed through village as the default alternative route?
Position of regional firestation in Nailsea – why – was it due to new road plans (at that time) – can we see them?
Monitor pollution (air and noise).
Sub-strata and design of current road not man enough for traffic as it is.
Backwell and other local RAG – join forces for pressure?
Currently unsafe to walk dogs.
Water and gas mains frequently damaged by heavy traffic – frequency rate?
Can we use Freedom Of Information to gain some of the data we want e.g. road closures, incident and accident rate etc.
Can NSC, likes of TRAG etc influence the housing layouts and plans.
What will / will there ever be, a safe cycling route through Tickenham – now and in the future.
Use technicalities in response to consultation e.g. road width guidelines.
Can the EDF Haul Roads become permanent.
The meeting closed at 8:15pm.
Thank you for signing up to and supporting the Tickenham Road Action Group. We aim to get regular communications out to you to help influence the road traffic plans impacting the village.
There are some key dates and actions for you:
- Tickenham Road Action Group Inaugural meeting to be held at 7pm on Friday February 15th 2019 at the Tickenham Village Hall. The meeting will confirm the group’s terms of reference, elect the Group committee members and update on progress/upcoming events. We hope as many of you as possible will be able to attend. The terms of reference are on the website. We will put an agenda for the meeting on the website near to the meeting time.
- Public Meeting with CLLR Nigel Ashton organised by the Tickenham Parish Council. A further consultation document will be issued early in February. Known as the Joint Local Transport Plan, it is really the detail of the proposals in the Joint Spatial Plan (November 2018). Cllr Nigel Ashton and an appropriate North Somerset Council officer have agreed to attend a meeting for Tickenham residents on MONDAY 4th MARCH from 6.00 until 7.00 p.m. at the NSC offices, Castlewood, Clevedon. Visitors’ parking at Castlewood is very limited, so please share transport with your neighbours. The key dates for the JLTP are: Consultation opens – 6th Feb, Consultation closes – 20th March
- We would recommend that you register on the Joint Spatial Plan website to receive the JLTP at the earliest opportunity. To register you will need to visit the following page: https://www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk/consult.ti/system/register
- Please share this email with any concerned residents and encourage them to signup to support the TRAG at www.trag.org.uk. Please also encourage all individuals in your household to sign up – as the more members we have the bigger the voice we speak with.