Documents

Highways: Grove Hill – Position Statement

Highways Uploaded on October 8, 2024

Grove Hill, Stansted Mountfitchet – A Longterm Problem Which Will Not Go Away Position paper – Summary of Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council’s Views and Response

In summary:

Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council is challenging an Essex Highways 2024 report which claims that HGVs cannot be diverted away from Grove Hill.

The Parish Council has asked to see the full report.

You will find our conclusion and questions to be asked on pages 7 and 8.

Background

Grove Hill is a narrow, in part single-carriageway, road on a hill with a blind bend which has long been recognised as a problem resulting from a rising volume of traffic and in particular the increasing number of HGVs.  The worsening situation can, for the most part, be attributed to the numerous new developments at Elsenham and Henham which have added several hundred new dwellings. These developments have been supported by Essex Highways and the Planning Inspectorate during the planning process.

Resolving The Problem – Essex Highways Proposed Solution

For in excess of 7 years Essex Highways has recognised the problem of HGVs in the lower part of Stansted Mountfitchet and notably the issue of Grove Hill.  A way to resolve the problem was reached – to exclude HGVs (other than those serving the village) with Hall Road in Takeley being identified as the alternative route.  Once legislation permitted, breaches by HGVs of the exclusion would be identified remotely and automatically penalised.

For a long time, this solution was pursued with no changes in the assumptions throughout:

  • Only 2 routes are under consideration – Grove Hill or Parsonage Road, Takeley, through to Hall Road, Elsenham
  • Developments in Elsenham and Henham, (1,335 dwellings approved to date), are pushing up the volume of traffic and HGVs. There are a further 619 dwellings pending.
  • Grove Hill and the lower centre of Stansted bear the consequences of these developments
  • The position of signage to identify the alternative routes for HGVs, ie prohibiting use of Grove Hill has been proposed
  • Legislation would be passed enabling ECC to position cameras to allow remote enforcement of breaches of the exclusion order by HGVs

Throughout this period ECC has informed us that:

  1. It has pursued a consistent policy to resolve the problem of Grove Hill.
  2. That in 2023 Traffic Orders were being prepared, ready to be advertised and, at that point, objections would be received and evaluated.

This Council believes that, if this is not correct, then the Grove Hill residents and Parish Council have been misled.  The about-turn by Essex County Council – with neither indication nor consultation – shows an insulting disregard for those suffering the impact of the rapid growth in traffic supported by Essex Highways.

The Essex Highways 2024 report on Grove Hill

In August 2024 Essex County Council made us aware that they commissioned a report on the situation at Grove Hill. As of this September the Parish Council has only received a limited two-page summary of their report which concludes that, “it is unlikely that any scheme looking to enforce an HGV restriction in Grove Hill is going to be feasible”.  This Parish Council feels that this is a clear indication that Essex Highways is reneging on its previous promises, despite these being published in the local press in September 2023, by completing a full turnaround on the intention to relieve the residents of Grove Hill of this ‘nightmare scenario’ – on the following grounds: –

  • The alternative route through Takeley is ruled out on the grounds that Takeley already has a higher share of HGV movements
  • Essex has not taken up powers to enforce moving traffic offences while the DfT has stalled on moving traffic enforcement roll-out (according to Essex)
  • Other options which would ameliorate the impact of HGV movements are discounted
  • There appears to be an implication that costs, of implementing such a scheme, are an overriding factor in its conclusion.

Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council’s Response to the Essex Highways’ Report

This Council believes the summary report is unconvincing in explaining the rationale and evidence for the turnaround. The reasons for the change of heart on the alternative route are deemed unsound and unacceptable from the following facts: –

  • Parsonage Road supports a free flow of all types of traffic.
  • Grove Hill cannot support free flow as, by its very nature, it acts as a compression point.
  • Parsonage Road in Takeley is wide, around 6 metres, and purpose built to take heavy traffic flows, including HGV’s. It has strategically placed lay-bys to maintain traffic flow.
  • Conversely, Grove Hill and parts of Elsenham Road in Stansted are narrower, being rural roads, where HGV’s barely have room to pass each other, and clearly not designed for the modern 40T leviathans of today. Here lay-bys would not improve matters, owing to the width of the carriageway. At its narrowest point the width of Grove Hill is around 3 metres
  • The vast majority of properties along Parsonage Road are relatively modern, and are set back from the carriageway, separated from it by wide footpaths either side plus, in many places, a wide, grassed verge beyond them. Furthermore, the depth of vegetation, hedging, trees and fencing, is present to deaden the effects of traffic noise.
  • By comparison, Grove Hill provides no such amelioration with a single footpath, (a designated school walking route), barely 1 metre wide with hardly room for a child’s buggy. The properties on one side of Grove Hill are small and old with those closest to the narrowest part barely 2 metres from the carriageway. On the opposite side of Grove Hill is a stone wall which reflects sound back to those houses. The effect is to doubly amplify the sound of traffic, including the rumblings of full and empty 40T earth moving HGV’s. There is no vegetation to deaden noise.
  • The Highways’ report shows a comparison of traffic flow between Grove Hill and Parsonage Road with Grove Hill having a traffic flow 18% higher than that Parsonage Road. These figures clearly show that Essex has turned a blind eye to the predicament of the residents of Grove Hill with it seems, a clear intention of turning its back on those worst affected.
  • There is a need for a comprehensive assessment of air pollution in all its aspects to take account of two factors. First, as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is heavier than air the impact will be greater than that shown as the monitor located at Grove Hill is 3m above ground level.  Second, although NO2 is the only gas routinely monitored in Uttlesford, other oxides of nitrogen will be present, as well as vehicle-related particulates, which may be considered even more dangerous to health.

Other Arguments and Historical Factors Ignored in the Highways Report

  • Grove Hill is a critical, if not strategic, route between Stansted, Elsenham, Henham and Thaxted. Since 1987, when a weight restriction of 7.5T was introduced going up the hill, the volume of traffic has increased substantially due to on-going housing development in Elsenham and Henham. This has resulted in a flood of HGVs – including earth moving trucks in excess of 40T – regularly using this route from 5.45am.  At its narrowest point, Grove Hill is barely 3m wide and this has resulted in a frequent spectacle of vehicles forced on to the narrow footpath – a designated school walking route to Gorsefield and from Elsenham – damaging cars and property as well as being a danger to pedestrians.
  • The impact on pedestrians is not restricted to Grove Hill with the HGVs using both Chapel Hill and Church Road. They regularly mount footpaths rather than slowing down or stopping (time is money!) and pose a significant risk to the elderly, parents with buggies and children attending St Mary’s Primary and Forest Hall Secondary schools.  The original proposal to remove HGVs* from the lower part of the village reflected the need to abate this threat.

(*those using the village as a through route)

  • It is worth reflecting on the failure of planning policy with Essex Highways playing a significant role. UDC’s application in 2013, to have a new town of 3,200 dwellings between Elsenham and Henham, failed on appeal through the inadequate road infrastructure. However, since that decision, Essex Highways has, with very few exceptions, made no comment on one planning application after another so that, in piecemeal fashion, the number of new houses in Elsenham and Henham is increasing towards that number. Later, in 2020, an application by Fairfield to build 350 dwellings was approved on appeal, with no objections raised by ECC, despite the Inspectorate’s ruling of 2013. This stance angered the local communities affected by this decision, as it showed a disregard of the need for an improved road network. To residents, this looks like it is supporting a policy of expansion by stealth.
  • At the heart of the turnaround in ECC’s policy towards Grove Hill is the analysis of HGV movements on the two possible routes. ECC has not released the details of the traffic survey undertaken in 2023, but we understand that it took place for 13 hours on 23rd February 2023, the last day of the half term. The survey should have been at least 7 days/24 hours per day like other Ringway Jacobs traffic counts carried out in Stansted Mountfitchet. The percentage of HGV movements are stated as 1.5% uphill and 2.5% downhill – much lower numbers than in Takeley but also lower than in an earlier survey.  It would be helpful to know how those percentages translate into numbers of vehicles.  The apparent decline in the percentage of HGV movements must be set against the increase in car traffic movements.  It is relevant to consider the all-traffic survey conducted by WSP Consultancy over a 14-day period in February 2022, connected to an application for 200 dwellings east of Station Road, Elsenham.  The numbers and projections were as follows:
  • The average daily two-way traffic movement for Grove Hill was 5,711 and the junction of Hall Road with Parsonage Road in Takeley was 4,838.
  • The queues for the Grove Hill traffic lights could increase by 27-32%.

A further 619 dwellings committed to be constructed in Elsenham up to 2027, the extension to Elsenham Quarry for gravel extraction and the fact that Elsenham Waste are based at Gaunts End, are likely to increase HGV movements. The pressure on Grove Hill will, therefore, increase.

  • Featuring significantly in the inadequate 2-page report from ECC is the issue of costs:
  • Cameras would be required to track HGVs to check whether they should be using the alternative route
  • Administrative cost to run vehicle checks with the DVLA
  • Support from an organisation to chase enforcement of unpaid fines
  • Legal challenges would add to costs

It should be stressed that none of these costs are new but have never previously been highlighted as a reason for not pursuing the scheme to exclude HGVs from Grove Hill.

This Parish Council believes that this is a ‘created concern’ to support a thin argument to justify the change of stance. It is interesting to note that within the successful Fairfield application, for 350 dwellings, Essex Highways were prepared to levy £25,000, plus other S106 funding, together with Local Highways Panel input, for a study of CCTV enforcement at Grove Hill. This was on condition that the planning application was passed. It is a puzzle that such a condition was not sought on the many other planning applications in Elsenham. There are still opportunities to pursue this policy, but it is clear that no forward strategic policy has been drawn up.

  • Essex Highways has placed no traffic signs to deter HGVs from approaching Stansted Mountfitchet from the A120. The only blue sign that indicates an alternative is south of the A120 on Stansted Road in Bishop’s Stortford.  This still indicates the A120 (east) without including the B1256 Takeley.  Neither is there any visible blue sign on the A120 between the A1184 and the M11.  Apart from more prominent weight restriction signs along the B1383, within the bounds of Stansted parish, there has been no effort to divert HGVs from Grove Hill.

Are There Other Options?

The possibilities are limited, and most are unlikely to be pursued:

  • Another route should be pursued. HGVs should take Hall Road and then skirt the airport via Cooper’s End roundabout and Thremhall Avenue towards the M11 and A120 without needing to enter Takeley.
  • Prohibit parking on Grove Hill. This action would be severely damaging to the residents and is supported by no party.  Further, it would not overcome the issue of the very narrow stretch of road at the bottom of the hill.
  • The installation of bollards would reduce the risk of HGVs mounting the footpath but could only meet ECC policy if the carriageway was narrowed. ECC’s own words have stated that “a very narrow footway is present at this site”. This demonstrates that the only pedestrian footway is hazardous. Narrowing the road, even if possible, would limit HGV use but would also impact use by buses, refuse lorries and, most importantly, emergency vehicles.  By default, the route to Elsenham would be through Takeley.
  • Constructing a by-pass for Grove Hill. This is by far the most effective option as it would, at a stroke, solve the issue of Grove Hill. This was once considered by ECC but shelved without consultation. Cost would be a factor here.
  • Provision of a junction on the A120 with Parsonage Road, Takeley. As with the by-pass option, cost is a factor.
  • Negotiate with MAG to allow HGVs to use the airport road infrastructure from the Cooper’s End roundabout to the A120, thus relieving both Stansted and Takeley of further issues with those lorries.

What policy should Essex Highways pursue?

The longstanding policy to remove through routes for HGVs from the roads feeding the lower centre of Stansted.  Although it is accepted that the residents of Takeley would oppose any increase in the number of such vehicles, Essex Highways must recognise that Hall Road is a much less damaging route to residents – and not just those on Grove Hill.  Apart from the DfT refusing to endorse a moving traffic enforcement rollout, the other objections can be overcome if Essex Highways does its job.

In the event that this policy is not pursued, then the Parish Council considers that the following actions should be the minimum, and urgent, response:

  1. Moving back the top set of traffic lights. ECC has consistently rejected this proposal.  However, the recent works by Affinity Water have provided experience in the variation of the lights improving the traffic flow.  This possibility needs to be revisited.
  2. Prevention of red light jumping which carries the higher possibility of serious accidents. This requires camera enforcement.
  3. Establish a 7.5T weight limit in both directions to prohibit HGVs from Grove Hill.
  4. The footpath on Church Road must be widened. This may already be under consideration.

Despite empty promises, Essex Highways has, by the release of their report, walked away from a problem that could be interpreted as one which they never intended to solve, thus leaving the residents on Grove Hill with having to continue facing instances such as that which occurred in late August 2023 and published online 5th September.  Apart from the incident reported below, the residents of Grove Hill have a comprehensive pictorial record of serious incidents over a period of years.  This is available on request.

Incident Reported Online – 5th September 2023 by Hollie Ryder of The Bishop’s Stortford Independent newspaper

[NB this article is behind a paywall]

Conclusion

It is clear from the news article above that the Essex Highways’ report is a sham, without substance, and fails to acknowledge the suffering of the residents living on Grove Hill,

The Parish Council does not accept the conclusions on the basis of the partial report which has been released.

  • There is no question that the route through Takeley is safer and less intrusive than through Grove Hill. Although we sympathise with Takeley residents, the health and safety concerns require action to be taken on Grove Hill, (a point emphasised by the Police officer in the above article).
  • A weight limit needs to be imposed, both ways, and enforced by CCTV.
  • The need to obtain permission from government to impose moving traffic enforcement is recognised – the success or otherwise of such a request needs to be tested
  • Until this report, the issue of costs (the outline of which cannot have changed) has not been put forward as a reason not to proceed. Until at least the end of 2023 we were led to believe that the revised traffic orders were being prepared for publication and consultation.
  • Whatever the eventual conclusion on routes, there should be an urgent reconsideration of the positioning and phasing of the traffic lights at the top of the hill, along with camera enforcement to discourage jumping the red light.

ECC has maintained an unhelpful stance since the Fairfield Appeal decision. The report is clearly rushed and incomplete, after having over 4 years to prepare a viable strategy. We see no reason to detract from the views expressed by councillors in the Bishop’s Stortford Independent’s article published December 31st 2020.

The Parish Council requests a copy of the full report and answers to the following questions if these are not already in the report:

1  When was the traffic survey undertaken and over what time periods? We have subsequently discovered that the survey was undertaken on Friday 23 February 2024 – the Friday of Essex Schools’ half term week.

2  What proportion of the HGV movements on Grove Hill relate to construction traffic?

3  What other destinations do the HGVs serve?

4  Is the airport a destination?

5  What are the numbers of HGVs counted in the survey using Grove Hill and the Takeley route?

6  Was the traffic count restricted to vehicles over 7.5T in weight – the restriction in force in one direction on Grove Hill, or was it all vehicles over 3.5T, the official classification of a HGV?

7 What has changed (ignoring costs) for ECC to back away from the camera enforcement scheme?

8  Why has ECC added a S106 levy on only 350 out of 1,335 dwellings approved since 2012?

9  Why has ECC not instituted a Strategic Transport Policy, despite clear evidence of the increasing pressure on Grove Hill, through developments in Elsenham and Henham?

10 Why has ECC deliberately ignored historical instances such as the incident reported above on 5th September 2023?

11 Does the incident above not show that Essex County Council has more sympathy for those living alongside Parsonage Road, Takeley, and has dismissed the safety concerns of those living on Grove Hill who are regularly confronted by similar nightmare scenarios?

12 Has Essex Highways requested full reports on air quality and noise pollution on Grove Hill?

13 Has ECC attempted to negotiate with MAG to allow HGVs to use a route from the Cooper’s End roundabout to gain access to the A120 via the airport’s road infrastructure? If not, why not?