Latest updates

NSC New Local Plan

Having withdrawn from the Joint Spatial Plan North Somerset Council are commencing with a new Local Plan.

The Local Plan, which will guide housing, business investment, transport and infrastructure until 2038, will take around three years to produce.

Undoubtedly there will be transport implications and the TRAG will be involved in the consultation.

We also encourage all TRAG subscribers to sign up for news and updates from NSC. You can do this by signing up to the NSC database – see the last paragraph ‘How to get involved’ on this NSC link.

Outcome of North Somerset Council meeting

The TRAG attended the North Somerset Council meeting held on Tuesday 18th February.

Bruce Campbell spoke outlining the concerns that the TRAG had with the interim JLTP4.  This was based on the submission the TRAG made to the Council a week prior (you can view at:

Councillor James Tonkin (Executive Member for Planning & Transport) and Lucy Shomali (Director of Development and Environment) put forward proposed changes to the interim JLTP4 in order to address the concerns raised by TRAG and other action groups. These were:

  • References to new road links removed and major schemes map updated to reflect this
  • References to connections to M5 J19 & 20 amended to refer to Clevedon-Nailsea-Bristol transport corridor improvements
  • Text amended to acknowledge the need to do further work on any requirements for improved transport connections along key corridors

This means that the planned link roads to Tickenham from Nailsea and Clevedon will be removed from the interim JLTP4. There will also be further work done on the strategic Clevedon, Nailsea and Bristol traffic routes. This is what TRAG wanted and we are very pleased to see this outcome.

The Council voted to accept the interim JLTP4 with the above amendments to be made by the Planning Director ahead of being submitted to the West of England Joint Committee on 20/3 for final approval and adoption of the interim JLTP4.

This outcome is the result of ongoing support from the residents of Tickenham. This covers the earlier JLTP4 surveys that a number of residents completed, the TRAG and Tickenham Parish submissions to the JSP/JLTP consultation, press articles and engagement of Councillors and our MP.  

The next step for TRAG will be to make contact with the Planning Director to request involvement in any further work on traffic routes that may impact Tickenham.  We need to continue to be aware of any further developments and be prepared to contribute at an early stage.

If you would like to see the Council meeting in full you can view the meeting on YouTube at:

Joint Local Transport Plan 4 – Adoption as interim JLTP

North Somerset council are proposing the adoption of a revised JLTP4 as an interim Transport Plan in conjunction Bath & North East, Bristol, Gloucester South and North Somerset councils.

The proposal was put to the North Somerset Executive committee yesterday 5/2 and received approval for debate and review at the Full Council meeting to be held on 18/2. Should the Full Council approve the JLTP4 it will then be put to the WofE Joint Committee on 20/3.

The TRAG Steering Group attended the Executive Committee meeting to understand the proposal. It is the intention of the TRAG to input our concerns of any plans to increase traffic volumes through Tickenham Village at the Full Council meeting on 18/2.  

You can view the revised JLTP4 at the Travelwest website:

Although there are some good initiatives to support the Climate Emergency, Public transport and multi-modal transport it is disappointing to see that the link roads from Nailsea and Clevedon to the B3130 are still in the plan

Our initial thoughts and concerns are:

  1. The JLTP4 is based on projected demand from the JSP (which is now defunct)
  2. Traffic analysis/impact was based on the Strategic Development Areas (as part of the JSP) and did not consider existing traffic volumes
  3. Any additional traffic volume through the village will exacerbate safety and environmental concerns

Over the coming days we will review the documentation carefully and prepare our input to the Full Council meeting. If you have any observations that you would like us to include then please get in touch with a TRAG Steering Group member or email  

Detailed response from Inspectors

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:

Letter from Examiners

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:

TRAG response to JSP Examination

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.

Tickenham Parish Council submission to JSP 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.