Purpose

To reach a decision on whether the
experimental trials in Winifred's Lane, Catharine Place and Gay
Street should be made into permanent schemes following 6 months of
statutory public consultation.

Decision

To make the trial schemes permanent.
 
In making this decision, the Cabinet Members have reviewed
the recommended mitigations detailed in paras 3.10-3.12 of the SMD
report. However, irrespective of whether or
not the potential mitigations are introduced, the Cabinet
Members’ decision is that the schemes will be made
permanent.
 
The Cabinet Members confirm delegation on progressing any
potential mitigations to the Director of Place
Management.
 
The Cabinet Members support making the scheme permanent as
soon as possible. This will be reflected within the formal
statutory Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO)
decision-making process, noting that the final sign-off is via a
delegated decision made by the Director of Place Management within
which the Cabinet Member and ward members will have the opportunity
to give formal comment.
 
The Cabinet members agree when noting and taking account
of, as part of this decision, the information provided in
Single Member
Decision (SMD) E3667 together with the appendices and links in
the report relating to:
 
(1) 
public consultation
responses
(2) 
key stakeholder
engagement including that with The Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA)
and Active Travel England (ATE)
(3) 
traffic, air quality,
and driver behaviour monitoring
(4) 
the Public Sector
Equality duty
(5) 
duties under Section
122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and section 16 Traffic
Management Act 2004 to secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe
movement of vehicular and other traffic
(including pedestrians).
(6) 
Recommended potential
mitigations (detailed in paras 3.10-3.12) subject to their own
individual statutory consultations and final decision on those
potential mitigations
 
That the aim of the scheme, in line with the wider
Liveable Neighbourhoods programme, is to support the local neighbourhood, enable more local trips by active
travel (walking, wheeling, cycling) and to address excessive
traffic on residential roads - often used as shortcuts to and from
the A46/M4 north of Bath City Centre - by encouraging through
traffic to remain on the main roads.
 
Key conclusions from the trials informing this decision to
make the trials permanent are outlined below.
 
1. 
Public Consultation
Outcomes
 
· 
The results of a
six-month public consultation survey held from November 2024 to
April 2025, and with the trials in place, were:
 
· 
Winifred’s Lane:
Out of 1,289 responses, 84% were in objection and 16% were in
support. Support was higher among residents living in the trial
area (26%) than those living outside (9%).
 
· 
Catharine Place: Out
of 50 responses, 62% were in objection and 34% were in support.
Support was similar inside and outside the trial area.
 
· 
Gay Street/The Circus:
Out of 157 responses, 60% were in objection and 37% were in
support. Support was significantly higher among residents living in
the trial area (71%) than those living outside it (31%).
 
· 
Supporters were more
likely to walk or cycle, while objectors predominantly used motor
vehicles.
 
· 
Objectors were more
likely to use motor vehicles and be travelling through the
area.
 
· 
A wide spectrum of
views was submitted. People who supported the trials felt that the
restrictions have had a positive impact on roads previously
affected by motorists taking short cuts, and that it was quieter
and safer to walk and cycle as a result.
 
· 
People who objected
mainly felt that traffic and congestion had increased elsewhere,
especially on Sion Road, where more cars were passing the rear exit
from Kingswood School, making the area more congested and less
safe. Other key themes in objection were that the restrictions only
benefited a few people while they inconvenienced many; and that
they increased journey times on other routes making air quality
worse.
 
· 
Supporters and
objectors also highlighted that drivers were ignoring the
restrictions and displaying poor driver-behaviour.
 
· 
Significant evidence
and data on the impact of the trials on traffic, air quality and
driver-behaviour was provided by
council officers in the SMD report so that public consultation
outcomes could be weighed up against the monitoring data and wider
policy objectives.
 
· 
It is acknowledged
that there are some areas of concern that may be mitigated,
including congestion on Sion Road due to the displacement of
northbound vehicles from Winifred’s Lane. This congestion is
primarily during term time at school pick-up and drop- off. More
information on the potential mitigations proposed are outlined in Section 3.
 
· 
Also acknowledged, and
evidenced by traffic monitoring, is the non- compliance with the
new turning restrictions at Winifred’s Lane into Sion Hill
(East) and with the new restrictions on motor vehicles exiting
Upper Gay Street. As a potential mitigation, it is proposed that
ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) enforcement is introduced
at these junctions following the necessary statutory consultation
requirements. More information is provided in Section 3.
 
· 
While the levels of
objection are high, the evidence collected (and covered in in more detail in later sections of this
decision notice) suggests that in some cases objectors have
overstated the potential harm of the scheme in their responses and
that, overall, the three trials have been successful in meeting the
objectives of a Liveable Neighbourhood. In support of this, the following is
noted in summary (and outlined in more detail in the original
Single Member Decision reports and following sections):
 
· 
There was an overall
reduction in traffic volume across all roads in the three trial
areas across all five in-trial monitoring periods.
 
· 
Traffic has dispersed
over a wider area.
 
· 
The volume of vehicles
using the junctions of Cavendish Road/Winifred’s Lane and Gay
Street/A4 George Street has reduced.
 
· 
Monitoring has not
demonstrated a detrimental impact on air quality overall when
compared with baseline data.
 
· 
There has been an
uplift in active travel in Winifred’s Lane and
Gay Street, and levels remain constant in
Catharine Place.
 
· 
The reductions of
traffic across the trial area and the creation of quieter active
travel routes are offering more travel choice to benefit those who
do not have vehicles or who choose to walk and cycle.
 
· 
During weekday-peak
travel periods, increases in average travel times were minimal (up
to 20 seconds more compared with baseline). During off-peak travel
times, journeys were no more than eight seconds longer.
 
· 
Reasonable access to
premises on the trial streets is maintained, albeit some residents
may have to take a different route.
 
· 
For more information
on public consultation outcomes see
Annex
A, B and C: Public Consultation Reports attached to the Single
Member Decision Report.
 
2. 
Active Travel
outcomes
 
· 
One of the aims of the
Liveable Neighbourhoods programme is to help more people make short
journeys by walking, wheeling, or cycling.
 
· 
Active travel can
improve people’s lives by contributing to better health and
wellbeing. By reducing through traffic
on unsuitable residential roads the schemes make active travel more
appealing.
 
 
· 
The trials support
public health and sustainable transport goals and provide fair road
space for those who don’t drive or can’t afford a
vehicle. In these ways they support the council’s corporate
strategy to improve people’s lives and reduce
inequalities.
 
· 
Looking at the
active-travel monitoring data collected during five periods of
in-trial monitoring, the following was noted and has informed the
decision:
 
· 
Active travel data
collected during the trial confirms that the through-traffic restrictions have encouraged more
people to use the routes for walking and cycling.
 
· 
On Winifred’s
Lane, the average number of people walking and cycling each day was
higher than baseline during all five in-trial periods, with 65-75
more people travelling actively on the lane each day (85-185%
uplift).
 
· 
On Upper Gay Street,
cycling was monitored. During baseline, 77 cyclists a day (on
average) were recorded. More cyclists were recorded each day (on
average) during each of the five in-trial periods (108, 89, 99, 87,
81 respectively).
 
· 
It is acknowledged
that Catharine Place saw fewer people walking than recorded during
baseline monitoring. However, cycling remained constant or slightly
up against baseline.
 
· 
It is acknowledged
that these initial results are good and show the trials have
encouraged and enabled active travel. This is a desired outcome
aligned with council policy.
 
· 
For more information
on active travel outcomes see
Annex D: Traffic Monitoring Analysis Report attached to the
Single Member Decision Report.
 
 
3. 
Traffic monitoring
outcomes
 
· 
During earlier
consultation, residents said they were concerned about motorists
avoiding the main roads and instead using residential streets in
the area to travel to and from the A46/M4. This included using
upper Gay Street and The Circus area via Queen’s Square; and Cavendish Road into Winifred’s
Lane. Winifred’s Lane is inappropriate for traffic and a lane
where traffic speeds went unhindered due to a northbound one-way
system.
 
· 
It is noted from the report that the three linked trials have
inhibited these direct short cuts, with minimal increases to
traffic flow and travel times on the alternative routes. There are
manageable exceptions where potential mitigations may help.
 
· 
One exception where potential mitigations may help is Sion Road.
Traffic monitoring and public feedback indicated increased traffic
flows and congestion on Sion Road due to the Winifred’s Lane
trial during the school run. Sion Road carried around 1,022
vehicles a day, on average, during baseline monitoring. During the
trial, average daily traffic flow during term time increased by 87
to 115% (representing around 887 to 1174 more vehicles a day).
 
· 
The SMD Report recommends that a revised parking scheme would allow
for more visibility around the exit to Kingswood School and more
passing spaces to reduce congestion. Other measures will also be
considered under the Local Active Travel Scheme, and the council
can work with the school to encourage more sustainable and active
travel among its community, including staff. Footways on Sion Road
lead to the School’s rear
entrance.
 
· 
Poor driver behaviour on Sion Road has been noted. Some users are
not driving safely, and we will continue to work with the police to
consider enforcement for any offences and provide evidence if
necessary. The levels of congestion are not so significant that the
highway (by design) is flawed, and most congestion is limited to
school drop-off and pick-up times. Motorists are responsible for
driving in accordance with license requirements and for adhering to
the Highway Code.
 
· 
Another exception where potential mitigations may help is non-
compliance with some of the new restrictions, including:
 
· 
The no-right-turn at the junction of Cavendish Road and Sion Hill
(East)
 
· 
The mandatory left-hand turn from Upper Gay Street into George
Street
 
· 
The non-entry signs at the northern end of Winifred’s Lane
(by cyclists).
 
· 
Potential mitigations put forward in the SMD report which include
ANPR cameras installed at the Cavendish Road/Sion Hill junction and
the Upper Gay Street/George Street junctions will support
compliance and inhibit poor driver behaviour. The introduction of
ANPR cameras is subject to the necessary statutory consultation
procedures and the final decision following that consultation.
 
· 
A review of signage at
the northern end of Winifred’s Lane will reinforce the
no-entry for motor vehicles and cyclists, and this can be
monitored.
 
· 
With reference to the
Traffic Monitoring report, the following is noted and has
contributed to this decision:
· 
Winifred’s Lane
carried an average of 1,303 vehicles a day before the trial. This
is a narrow lane with no footway and vehicle speeds went unhindered
due to the northbound one-way system. During the trial, traffic
here reduced by 99-100%.
 
· 
Cavendish Road, which
fed vehicles into Winifred’s Lane, carried 3,248 vehicles a
day during baseline monitoring. This fell by 16-25% during the
trial’s term time monitoring (up
to 729 fewer vehicles) and by up to 41% during the school holiday
weeks.
 
· 
The Cavendish
Road/Winifred’s Lane/Sion Hill junction saw fewer vehicles
during each of the trial periods compared with baseline
counts.
 
· 
Catharine Place
carried 392 vehicles during baseline, supporting short cuts by
drivers through the historic centre of
Bath. Traffic here has reduced by 94-99%. Nearby Crescent Lane saw
a 32 to 27% reduction, and Russell Street up to 60% reduction.
However, Rivers Street saw up to 65 more vehicles a day, on
average.
 
· 
The restrictions on
Gay Street and The Circus saw reductions in vehicles using this
busy junction during each of the five in- trial periods.
 
· 
Bennett Street (east
of The Circus) carried 2,839 vehicles a day during baseline
monitoring. It saw the greatest absolute reduction in traffic flows
(between 1,484 and 1,755 fewer vehicles a day) which is a 66%
reduction. Brock Street saw up to 22% fewer vehicles during five
in-trial monitoring period.
 
· 
Sion Hill
East/Lansdown Crescent carried around 1502 vehicles a day during
baseline monitoring and saw 661 to 769 fewer vehicles during the
trial’s term-time monitoring periods and even fewer during
the school holidays
 
· 
Changes in travel
times were minimal on all roads across the study period, with
drivers experiencing an average increase of no more than 20 seconds
during peak times and no more than eight seconds during off-peak
times.
 
· 
It is noted that
Julian Road and Morford Street saw more traffic during the trial
but that the increases are considered to
be within normal variances for the road network. Julian Road
is a main road and saw 1-9% more vehicles but also a reduction of
vehicles during one of the monitoring periods.  Morford Street carried around 4,040
vehicles a day, on average, before the trial. During the three
term- time monitoring periods it carried 9-12% more vehicles (369,
400, 505 respectively) and during the school holiday periods it saw
18% more (730) and 4% (170). There were, however, negligible
impacts on air quality in these areas with all locations in the
trial area well below the Government’s and the
council’s strict limits.
 
· 
Prior to the launch of
the trial in November 2024, a Transport Planning Review completed
by SLR Consulting on behalf of Heart of Lansdown Conservation Group
(HOLCG) was submitted to the Council. On review of this report,
officers took the decision that there was no reason not to conduct
the trial. The HOLCG also submitted another traffic monitoring
report during the trial which had been independently commissioned
by themselves. An independent review of this report by the Council
is published in Annex H. The review concluded that the analysis
undertaken on behalf of HOLCG is limited in scope and scale; it
cannot be validated or verified; and makes use of methods that are
unrepresentative and inappropriate. On this basis, the analysis
should not take precedence over the extensive traffic monitoring
undertaken by the Council in determining the outcomes of the
trial.
 
· 
For more information
on traffic monitoring outcomes see
Annex D: Traffic monitoring analysis attached to the Single
Member Decision Report.
 
4. 
Air Quality monitoring
outcomes
 
· 
The air quality
monitoring report provides nitrogen dioxide concentrations in terms
of annual nitrogen dioxide concentrations (to align with the
Government’s air quality objective of 40 µg/m3) and quarterly results (which are not
directly comparable with the annual average objective).
 
· 
25 sites were
monitored. All the quarterly results show that the NO2
concentrations at all locations in the trial area are below 40
µg/m3 in 2024 and 2025.
 
· 
It is noted that
several sites show improved air quality.
 
· 
It is also noted that
during the first two months of the trial, five sites saw small
increases against baseline as a quarterly average. The fluctuations
are in line with regional trends and are not considered concerning
in terms of its impact on
health.
 
· 
There are mixed
results on Julian Road and Morford Street with small increases
against baseline monitoring in some quarters but also improvements
in others. The increased levels are small, and readings are well
below legal limits.
 
· 
For more information
on air quality outcomes see
Annex E: Air Quality Report and Annex G Driver Behaviour Analysis, attached to the Single Member
Decision Report.
 
5. 
Communications and
stakeholder engagement outcomes
 
· 
It is noted that
officers conducted extensive communications and stakeholder
engagement, outlined in detail in
Annex F to the SMD report.
· 
This included early
engagement and consultation on the introduction of Liveable Neighbourhoods
to elicit the types of issues experienced by residents on their
streets, and the possible solutions. Engagement was conducted over
several years (since 2021) and informed the decision to run the
trials in November 2024.
 
· 
During the trial,
workshops were delivered by Sustrans (now The Walk, Wheel, and
Cycle Trust) with Kingswood School pupils, at the Bath Spa
University Campus, and with Curo
residents living around Julian Road. Council officers held pop-up events on streets in the area to engage
people who might not otherwise engage in consultations. It is noted
that while the numbers choosing to engage was small, the comments
received were valuable and insightful.
 
· 
During the trial,
officers maintained ongoing dialogue with residents and certain
stakeholder groups to address their concerns; and the feedback and
the evidence submitted by residents (such as videos) was fully
considered and informed mitigation measures.
 
· 
Prior to the decision,
Cabinet Members and officers met, in person, with resident groups
to hear about their experiences of the trials. These groups
represented arguments both for and against making the trials
permanent.
 
· 
For more information
on air quality outcomes see
Annex F: Stakeholder Engagement Report attached to the Single
Member Decision Report.
 
6. 
Other issues raised
and considered prior to the decision
 
Queries over Winifred’s Lane inclusion in the
Movement Strategy.
 
· 
More recently the
council has been asked whether the inclusion of Winifred’s
Lane within the Council’s Movement Strategy
pre-judges the decision on whether the scheme should be made
permanent.
 
· 
The Movement Strategy
for Bath aligns its active travel routes with those identified in
the Active Travel
Master Plan. Within this plan, Winifred’s Lane is
designated as a quiet active travel route rather than a strategic
route.
 
· 
The decision to
classify Winifred’s Lane as a quiet route is consistent with
the broader objectives of the LN programme, which is to keep through traffic on main
roads, disperse local traffic more evenly, and create better
walking and cycling routes.
 
· 
The Active Travel
Master Plan was adopted in February 2025, however it is continually
reviewed and updated. If a road’s status changes, the plan is
updated.
 
 
· 
The inclusion of trial
scheme should not therefore be regarded as a predetermination on
its future permanence.
 
· 
Quiet routes enable a
wider demographic to embrace active travel, addressing concerns
from individuals who may feel apprehensive about cycling alongside
vehicles on busy roads. Quiet routes are typically traffic-free
paths, quiet roads and lanes, bridleways, and greenways, providing
a more pleasant and peaceful experience.
 
Confirmation on whether Winifred’s Lane is required
to meet
LTN 1/20 guidance.
 
· 
Officers have been
engaging with a residents’ group on whether the
Winifred’s Road scheme should meet LTN 1/20 guidelines with
regards to gradients. LTN 1/20 (Local Transport Note 1/20) is the
UK Department for Transport guidance, published in July 2020, for
creating high-quality, safe cycle infrastructure design.
 
· 
It should be noted
that the scheme is primarily a through-traffic restriction on an existing lane,
which has created a quiet route for active travel. It is not an
official cycle lane or track.
 
· 
LTN 1/20 guidelines
acknowledge that it is difficult to alter vertical dimensions on
existing routes without major reconstruction (5.9.4) and that cycle
routes along existing roads and paths usually must follow the
existing gradient (5.9.8).
 
· 
Prior to installation,
following engagement with residents, the council made several
improvements to the original design to better accommodate cyclists
in response to concerns about the gradient.
 
· 
The council has
followed the guidance as far as possible and where it needs
to.
 
· 
It was recorded during
the trial (via traffic monitoring) that some cyclists have ignored
the no-entry signs at the top of Winifred’s Lane
(southbound). These signs apply to cyclists as well as motor
vehicles. Cyclists can only head south on Winifred’s Lane
from the junction with Somerset Lane. 
As outlined in the SMD report (3.13), a potential mitigation is to
review the signage at the northern end of Winifred’s Lane to
reinforce that cyclists should not enter at this point. They are
free, however, to travel northbound along the length of the
lane.
 
Engagement with Active Travel England
 
· 
Council officers have
also consulted and engaged with the Mayoral Combined Authority
(MCA) and Active Travel England (ATE) to receive technical guidance
on this trial, and other Liveable
Neighbourhood schemes.
 
· 
As part of this
engagement, officers attended a Benefits Outcome Panel (BOP)
convened by the MCA in February 2025. This is a normal and required
process for all City Regional Sustainable Transport Settlement
(CRSTS) funded projects.
 
· 
At the Panel, it was
jointly decided by the MCA and ATE that as the scheme was a trial,
it would return to the BOP for endorsement if it was made
permanent.
 
· 
As this decision is
yet to be made, the scheme has not yet returned to the BOP, however at the request of the
BOP, officers have participated in a design surgery with an ATE
Inspector where Liveable Neighbourhood schemes were discussed.
 
Linking of the three trials
 
· 
The three
interventions, while independent of each other, have been designed
to work together to improve the Lower Lansdown and The Circus area
in line with Liveable Neighbourhood objectives.
 
· 
While it’s clear
from public consultation feedback that the trial in
Winifred’s Lane is less popular than the trial in Catharine
Place and Gay Street, they are considered as a package and the
decision to make them permanent relates to all three
trials.
 
· 
Traffic and air
quality monitoring shows that there is less traffic across the LN
area, with no detrimental impact on air quality. Potential
mitigations as outlined may help to improve congestion on Sion Road
as a result of the Winifred’s Lane
trial.
 
Consideration of signage design on Gay Street and claims of
reduced footfall on Margarets Buildings
 
· 
Concerns regarding the
impact of traffic restriction signs on Gay
Street’s heritage setting have been noted. Subject to this decision notice,
these signs and their impact on the heritage setting will be
reviewed.
 
· 
Despite concerns
raised by businesses about reduced footfall on Margarets Buildings
due to the trials, the independent analysis shows a long-term
downward trend prior to the trial and a short- term uplift after
installation. Decision makers do not consider this a
concern.
 
7. 
Concluding
comments
 
· 
The decision to
approve the scheme is based on clear evidence that the schemes
deliver the objectives of the Liveable
Neighbourhoods programme: reducing
through traffic on unsuitable residential roads and enabling
more everyday trips by walking, wheeling, and cycling.
 
· 
The trials addressed
long-standing issues with motorists cutting through streets not
designed for high volumes of traffic, creating quieter and safer
conditions for residents. Monitoring shows significant reductions
in traffic on the restricted roads, minimal increases in travel
times across the wider network, and air quality that remains well
below legal limits.
 
· 
The data also
demonstrates that the scheme has encouraged more active travel,
with substantial increases in walking and cycling on key routes
such as Winifred’s Lane and Upper Gay Street. These outcomes
support wider council objectives around improving health, reducing
inequalities, and offering fairer access to safe, pleasant streets
for people who do not drive or prefer to travel
actively.
 
· 
While public
consultation showed strong views both for and against, many
concerns about major congestion and associated safety issues were
not supported by monitoring. At the same time, valid issues,
particularly around congestion on Sion Road at school times and
noncompliance with new restrictions, have been recognised, with potential mitigations proposed
which are subject to statutory consultation and a final decision on
those potential mitigations.
 
· 
The potential
mitigations include parking changes on Sion Road to improve
visibility and flow, additional enforcement measures to support
compliance at the junctions, and continued work with Kingswood
School to promote more sustainable travel.
 
· 
A letter submitted
from the Heart of Lansdown Conservation Group (HOLCG) during the
decision-making period has been considered in detail and their
points have been addressed as part of the decision-making process,
in particular regarding adhering to LTN 1/20 guidance, consulting
with Active Travel England, acknowledgement of displacement on Sion
Road, driver behaviour/non-compliance
and potential mitigations for this; and the inclusion of
Winifred’s Lane in the Movement Strategy.
 
· 
Taken together, the
monitoring evidence, statutory duties, equalities considerations,
and the programme’s wider
objectives show that the trials have been successful overall. The
benefits outweigh the manageable downsides and align with the
council’s policy objectives. Due consideration has also been
given to the Equalities Impact Assessment on the scheme, included
as an appendix to the SMD Report.
 
Comments from Cllr Joel Hirst, Cabinet
Member for Sustainable Transport Strategy:
 
“The consultation is interesting. There is clearly a
gap between perception and what was evidenced by data, and inputs
from objectors seem to overstate the potential harm from the
scheme. While stakeholders did not always provide equalities data,
it seems the opinions of younger residents under 55 are
under-represented.”
“Active travel outcomes are encouraging and
supportive of the trial’s objectives. It takes time to embed,
but the data is clear that active travel has improved and enabled
by the interventions.”
 
“While traffic volumes overall are reduced, and the
objectives have been achieved, the scheme could be enhanced with
the adoption of the potential recommended mitigations to reduce the
impact on Sion Road during school term times which are subject to a
separate statutory procedure. Otherwise, in terms of the overall
network, traffic flow and travel times have not been materially
impacted. Had we seen a significant impact on air quality this
would have been a concern, but this has not materially
changed.”
 
“Officers have gone above and beyond on the quality
of communication with residents and stakeholders. There is no doubt
that views were heard and presented clearly, and we would like to
thank officers for their work and diligent approach. We also
appreciate the feedback and interest we’ve received from
residents which has brought some important issues to our attention
during the trial.
 
“Significant traffic interventions are controversial,
and we expect to hear some strong opinions, especially from those
who oppose them. We hear the strong
sentiment, but there is clear evidence that this LN has met its
objectives. This is why evidence and public feedback needs to be
considered together.”
 
“On balance, we believe the trial was
successful in delivering the policy objective. We support the
officer recommendations to provide additional mitigations to help
manage congestion on Sion Road and to prevent non-compliance with
the new turning restrictions.”
 
Comments from Cllr Manda Rigby, Cabinet
Member for Communications and Community:
 
“The scheme can’t be viewed in isolation from
the other elements of the programme. We
have engaged and listened to a very wide range of views from many
parties and from opposite ends of the spectrum, and we have
reflected carefully on the points made.”
 
“In reaching the decision, we have balanced these
competing views with consideration for the overall LN policy, the
evidence, and the officer reports. This scheme aligns with the
aspirations for the scheme, which is to create routes for walking
and cycling and to minimise
opportunities for motorists to short cut
through residential areas. We saw active travel go up on the trial
roads, and we are confident that we’ll see this trend
continue as the schemes continue to bed in.”
 
“It is clear from the monitoring that there has been
displacement onto Sion Road, but it’s also clear that the
issues with congestion occur at school drop-off and pick-up.
It’s good that the school has engaged with us, and we will
support them to pursue schemes to
encourage staff and families to use alternative modes of transport
to get to school.
Given the video evidence we have seen, we are very keen to
see those mitigations in place to improve the visibility of drivers
exiting the school onto Sion Road.”
 
“Air quality monitoring showed fluctuations that were
in line with regional trends and so not adversely affected by the
trials.”
 
“There was a great effort to engage with all
stakeholders, which is important and for which I am grateful. I
received many messages from residents myself, which were all read
and considered, before being added to officers’ records.”
 
“I have weighed up the many strong opposing views
along with the evidence and monitoring data that was submitted.
This scheme has been very widely consulted on and has met the
criteria for the LN programme overall.
Whilst we know the recommendation to make the scheme permanent will
not please everyone, the potential mitigations recommended in the
SMD report, which will be subject to their own independent
statutory consultation and final decision, will address some of the
issues raised in objection, including the congestion on Sion Road
during school term times and the noncompliance with the new turning
restrictions at the junctions.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Reasons for the decision

A decision on the permanency or otherwise of
the scheme is required to be made within 18 months of the trial
becoming operative which was in November 2024.

Alternative options considered

None, as a decision on the permanency or
otherwise of the scheme is required to be made within 18 months of
the trial becoming operative.