Agenda item

Proposed by: Councillor Rawson

Seconded by: Councillor Massey

This Council, bearing in mind the impact on the local community of the proposed replacement of the overbridge at junction 10 of the M5 (Piffs Elm), including:

a)      potential traffic disruption and congestion resulting in longer journey times;

b)      extra costs to Cheltenham residents, such as higher fuel costs and potentially higher bus fares; and

c)      extra operating costs for local businesses at a time when the economy is already weak;

resolves as follows:

1. To urge the Highways Agency to look at every possible way of keeping the duration of the work to a minimum, and certainly to a significantly shorter timeframe than the period of up of a year that has been quoted;

2. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to work with Gloucestershire Highways, the County Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Cheltenham Borough Council to resolve the traffic problems arising from the lengthy closure of the motorway bridge and part of Tewkesbury Road, bearing in mind this may require measures such as weight restrictions, road resurfacing and junction improvements to cope with displaced traffic on minor routes; and to urge the Department of Transport to provide additional funding to Gloucestershire Highways to carry out these works;

3. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to reconsider offering financial compensation to businesses worst affected by the bridge and road closure, bearing in mind the relatively long duration of the works and the impact they will have;

4. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to reconsider combining the bridge replace with works to create a full motorway interchange at Piffs Elm; or, failing this, to ensure that the specification of the new bridge is such that it could be part of a full interchange at a later date; and

5. To seek the support of Cheltenham's local MPs for these measures.

Councillor Rawson, seconded by Councillor Massey, proposed the following motion;

This Council, bearing in mind the impact on the local community of the proposed replacement of the overbridge at junction 10 of the M5 (Piffs Elm), including:

a)     potential traffic disruption and congestion resulting in longer journey times;

b)     extra costs to Cheltenham residents, such as higher fuel costs and potentially higher bus fares; and

c)      extra operating costs for local businesses at a time when the economy is already weak;

resolves as follows:

1. To urge the Highways Agency to look at every possible way of keeping the duration of the work to a minimum, and certainly to a significantly shorter timeframe than the period of up of a year that has been quoted;

2. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to work with Gloucestershire Highways, the County Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Cheltenham Borough Council to resolve the traffic problems arising from the lengthy closure of the motorway bridge and part of Tewkesbury Road, bearing in mind this may require measures such as weight restrictions, road resurfacing and junction improvements to cope with displaced traffic on minor routes; and to urge the Department of Transport to provide additional funding to Gloucestershire Highways to carry out these works;

3. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to reconsider offering financial compensation to businesses worst affected by the bridge and road closure, bearing in mind the relatively long duration of the works and the impact they will have;

4. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to reconsider combining the bridge replace with works to create a full motorway interchange at Piffs Elm; or, failing this, to ensure that the specification of the new bridge is such that it could be part of a full interchange at a later date; and

5. To seek the support of Cheltenham's local MPs for these measures.

In proposing the motion, Councillor Rawson had no doubt that the work on the proposed replacement of the overbridge was needed. The Highways Agency had indicated that the work would start in March 2012 and last for up to a year and he considered it was absurd that it should take so long. Whilst the work was in progress it would be impossible to get on the motorway at J10, large sections of the Tewkesbury Road would be closed and there would be significant displacement of traffic on to Gloucester Road, Lansdown Road and Princess Elizabeth Way.  There would be additional travel costs for residents and commuters and considerable impact on local businesses.  In his view the Highways Agency should be considering 24-hour working and it was a wasted opportunity if they did not make J10 a four way junction at the same time. This would have enormous benefits to Cheltenham.

As seconder, Councillor Massey spoke in support of the motion.  He had a particular interest as the Ward Councillor for Swindon Village and whilst there were a number of diversion options available, these routes would unavoidably include minor roads and/or lengthy diverts.  The impact on congestion and residents in Cheltenham would be massive, he felt that 12 months was excessive and the work would need to properly managed in order to minimise the impact. 

All members who spoke supported the motion.  They raised concerns that inevitably traffic would be diverted on to roads which were not suitable for heavy traffic and the negative impact on businesses and residents. They supported the view that 24-hour working should be an option as in view of the location, local residents should not be affected by night-time work. A number of members spoke in support of making J10 a four way junction. It was understood that the Highways Agency had been concerned that the motorway could become a link road for cross-town traffic in view of the proximity of the junctions. However this argument had not prevented similar work being done at the junction for Gloucester. Members thought the one-year timescale was excessive and it was suggested that the Highways Agency should speak to their colleagues in Scotland who appeared to have carried out a similar project with significantly less cost and elapsed time.

Councillor Rawson thanked members for their support and said he would pick up the points raised when he contacted the Highways Agency.

Upon a vote on the motion it was CARRIED unanimously.