Closed call for evidence

Volumetric concrete mixers review

Published 19 October 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Introduction and background

Volumetric concrete mixers (VCMs), sometimes referred to as mobile concrete batching plants, are a type of construction lorry that carry all the components for concrete to be mixed on site. This enables concrete to be made when it is needed, which reduces waste and helps to keep costs down.

Two significant regulatory changes were made in 2017 and 2018 affecting VCMs when exemptions from annual vehicle testing and operator licensing were removed. The Department for Transport (DfT) is not considering changing the position in these areas, but it is important background information. For heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), annual vehicle testing is usually associated with ‘plating’, which identifies information including the maximum on-road laden weight.

This led to VCM maximum weights being considered by government and DfT announcing a temporary arrangement for increased weights for specified VCMs during the period from 2018 to 2028. This allows the operation of the relevant vehicles, as specified in vehicle special orders (VSOs), in excess of the weights normally applicable to HGVs of a similar configuration.

The only other exceptions to the standard weight limits are for vehicles that cannot practically comply, either due to the function they conduct – for example, heavy construction vehicles such as mobile cranes – or because they are carrying a load that cannot be practically broken down any further – for example, wind turbine blades. Movements of such vehicles are limited to specific parts of the road network and require advanced notification.

VCM weight, as well as annual vehicle testing and operator licensing, are regulated by the UK government for the whole of Great Britain. This call for evidence relates to the operation of VCMs in Great Britain.

Operator licensing

Between 11 December 2014 and 5 March 2015, DfT ran a public consultation on removing the exemption from goods vehicle operator licensing applicable for a mobile plant that also carries goods used in connection with the plant. There was broad support at consultation for removing this exemption, primarily on the grounds of fair competition with goods vehicles that were already subject to operator licensing and on the grounds of road safety. See the consultation questions and the summary of responses for more.

A government response to this consultation was then published in December 2017. It covered the proposed amendment to the Goods vehicles operator licensing regulations to bring VCMs into scope alongside other changes not affecting VCMs.

These legal changes were implemented under the Goods and motor vehicles (miscellaneous amendments) regulations 2018 (‘2018 regulations’).

Rationale for 2018 legal changes

The inclusion of VCMs in goods vehicle operator licensing ensured that they are included within the same regulatory regime as most HGVs, including traditional barrel concrete mixers. Operator licensing is a regulatory regime that exists to ensure the safe and proper use of goods vehicles and to provide for overnight parking of large vehicles at operating centres.

Prior to the 2018 regulations, VCMs were exempt from operator licensing as part of a specific legal exemption for an ‘engineering plant’, as defined within the 2018 regulations. The engineering plant exemption is for vehicles with mounted fixed plant or machinery, which also carry goods (including materials) for use in relation to that plant.

It is understood that some in the industry believed this exemption meant that VCMs also met the definition of engineering plant under other regulations and were, therefore, exempt from HGV driver licensing rules and the vehicles could be loaded up to their chassis design weight. Traditional ‘barrel’ concrete mixers were devised before VCMs existed in their current form, and so did not benefit from this exemption.

Vehicle testing and plating

The Goods vehicles (plating and testing) regulations 1988 (as amended) specifies which vehicles must undergo roadworthiness testing, such as:

• MOTs for light vehicles
• annual heavy vehicle testing for HGVs

The regulations also set the technical standards these vehicles must meet. This legislation had several exemptions from testing, including for many large and heavy vehicles, which had been in place for several decades.

DfT consulted on removing some of the exemptions from testing for certain specialised heavy vehicles, including a category of heavy vehicles covering VCMs. The proposals were with a view to ultimately reducing the number of defects in then-exempt vehicles and, consequently, the number of road traffic collisions to which these defects contributed.

The outcome of the consultation was that exemptions for 9 categories of vehicle were then removed by legislation – VCMs were within one of these categories.

The focus of the consultation was on the requirement for annual roadworthiness testing. Heavy vehicles within the scope of this test are also, by default, within the scope of vehicle plating, which involves the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) issuing a plating certificate. This certificate is given in advance of a vehicle’s first test and is attached to the vehicle that denotes the maximum vehicle weight and maximum train weight. This assists with vehicle testing and enforcement.

Further to the consultation, the default scope of plating was also applied to those categories of vehicle whose exemption from testing ended. However, it should be noted that VCMs currently operating at higher weights under a VSO are exempt from the plating requirements.

The legislative changes further to the consultation were made by the Goods vehicles (plating and testing) (miscellaneous amendments) regulations 2017.

Temporary weight limits dispensation

Given the significant investment by industry in vehicles that operate in excess of the standard vehicle weight limits (up to 32 tonnes for the heaviest type of rigid goods vehicle), DfT put in place a temporary arrangement allowing a limited number of VCMs to operate at:

• 38.4 tonnes for 4 axle rigid VCMs
• 44 tonnes for the rare 5 axle rigid examples

This arrangement is for the purpose of allowing the gradual transition of VCMs to standard weights. It expires in 2028 or on the 12th anniversary of the vehicle’s registration (whichever is sooner). The controlled number avoids breaches of standard bridge tolerances and precedent creation. It should be noted that the number of VCMs on the road in the UK is relatively low. Previous industry estimates suggest there are less than 1,000 in circulation.

The temporary arrangement was communicated to stakeholders in a ministerial letter in April 2018 (Annex A) ahead of the coming into force of the regulatory changes on 1 September 2018.

DfT has previously carried out work that found that even a small percentage increase in axle weight significantly increases the level of road wear. For example, a 10% weight increase means about a 44% increase in some wear types. This would mean a significant cost and environmental impact of allowing VCMs to operate at higher weights.

About this call for evidence

We are considering whether there is evidence to justify amending the current policy approach to the weight limits applied to VCMs. Previously, when considering stakeholder views and impacts, it was decided that these vehicles should comply with the standard 32-tonne weight limit (as well as bringing them into scope of operator licensing). 

This was based on concerns of ensuring fair competition with other goods vehicles, increased road safety risk associated with the extra weight and considering the increased infrastructure costs – for example, bridge damage and road wear. It was further recognised that the industry had made significant investment in vehicles in excess of the standard weight limits and so the temporary arrangement detailed above was put in place.

Any changes will need to maintain assurances for the safe operation of vehicles on the road. Over some years, VCMs have operated at higher than permitted weights. Before 2017, vehicles that carry and deliver a product were exempt from HGV operator licensing rules under the ‘engineering plant’ exemption. The industry considered that VCMs fell within this exemption. This meant some were not meeting the standard HGV vehicle weight limit and were instead operating up to vehicle design limits.

We recognise concerns about the impacts of the existing weight limits on VCM operators and their customers.

We are now seeking evidence from all interested parties, including a response to the full list of questions provided in this document. The intention is to then consider a way forward, noting the existing temporary arrangement ends in 2028 and that vehicles often have operational lives in excess of 10 years.

Any consideration of the way forward will also be subject to National Highway’s feasibility study. The call for evidence will consider both potential short- and longer-term changes. We are keen to understand the implications of:

• maintaining these weight limits set out in the Temporary weight limits dispensation section
• potential challenges
• any safety and environmental concerns that may arise

We welcome the views of individuals, groups and organisations with specific interest in roadworthiness assurance. For example:

• vehicle operators, leasers and other users
• vehicle manufacturers and their dealerships
• organisations or individuals that maintain vehicles
• trade bodies representing those in the sectors
• motorists and other road users
• road safety organisations
• local transport and highways authorities

Pending the outcome of the call for evidence, there may be further consultation if there is a decision to make legal changes or a change in policy.

Weight limits and structures

Operation of vehicles outside the standard vehicle weight limits

Standard vehicle weights, in the context of this section, means vehicles used in conformity with the Road vehicles (authorised weight) regulations (1998) (as amended) (1998 Regulations) or the provisions connected with weight in the Road vehicles (construction and use) regulations 1986 (as amended).

Important relevant provisions of the 1998 Regulations include the maximum authorised weight of 32 tonnes for motor vehicles with 4 or more axles (subject to meeting some conditions) and the relevant provision for weight by reference to axle spacing (between the frontmost and rearmost axles). The 1998 regulations also provide for maximum weights for individual axles.  

DfT has taken forward some changes and continues to consider others in respect of larger, heavier vehicles. None of the changes envisaged provide for the ability for vehicles outside the bridge assessment models to operate on routes in general. The 2 implemented changes and the feasibility study set out below are different types of approaches to that in place for VCMs. The fourth proposal is similar in some ways to one of the potential options for VCMs in this call for evidence but is different from the current temporary exceptional arrangement for VCMs.

The changes through the Road vehicles (authorised weight) (amendment) regulations 2023 enabled certain axle configurations of zero emission and alternatively fuelled vehicles (mainly goods vehicles) to operate legally at higher vehicle weights than their conventionally powered (usually diesel) counterparts. These permitted weight changes are consistent with structural design and assessment parameters. They do not involve changes to the 32 tonne maximum weight for the heaviest type of rigid vehicle.

The Road vehicles (authorisation of special types) (general) (amendment) order 2023 provides for the operation of longer semi-trailers, within articulated lorry vehicle combinations, outside of a trial which has been operating since 2012. The longer semi-trailer combinations are subject to all the relevant provisions of the 1998 regulations. They are not allowed to operate at heavier weights than similar combinations with standard-sized trailers.

DfT commissioned consultants WSP, Apollo Vehicle Safety and Risk Solutions to undertake a feasibility study of whether a national trial of longer heavier vehicles (LHVs) could be conducted, and if so, how would such a trial be designed. For the study, LHVs up to 25.25 metres and 50 or 60 tonnes (gross vehicle weight) were considered.

The LHV trial feasibility study final report provides a summary of findings related to the possibility of running an LHV trial in Great Britain. Further work is underway to consider the trial design. No decision about a trial has been made, but the work being undertaken envisages the operation of LHVs on pre-approved routes. They will operate under additional requirements to mitigate the additional risks arising from the extra length and weight. The study does not consider any changes to maximum axle weights as the additional length allows additional axles over which the extra weight can be distributed.

Following disruption to fuel supplies in autumn 2021, government has been considering how to reduce the risk of further supply disruption. One option is to allow road fuel tankers to temporarily operate at weights higher than usually permitted to allow more fuel to be transported during temporary periods of fuel supply disruption.

DfT consulted on road fuel tankers to temporarily operate at weights higher than usually permitted in 2023 and the responses received are currently being considered. The proposed temporary operation of increased-weight fuel tankers, as consulted about, would require advance notification of intended routes to roads and bridge owners, the use of VSOs and envisaged usage of VSOs for periods of about a month at a time.

To note the initiatives described above, the VCM VSOs and options in the call for evidence concern legal heavy loading. This is not the same issue as illegal overloading, which can make the vehicle less stable, difficult to steer and take longer to stop.

Illegal overloading

Vehicles react differently when the maximum weights are exceeded and the consequences can be fatal. Overloading vehicles can cause massive strain on vehicle tyres, which can cause the tyres to overheat and wear rapidly. This increases the chance of premature, dangerous and expensive failure, such as blowouts. 

If Illegal overloading occurs, insurance cover can be voided if the vehicle is involved in a crash. Overloading causes excessive wear and damage to roads, bridges and pavements at the expense of the taxpayer and is unfair to other operators as more load is moved per journey. In addition, fuel consumption increases significantly when carrying extra load, which will increase costs.

VCM temporary VSOs and structures

In 2017, National Highways (then Highways England) undertook a study to understand the potential effect of VCMs being used above the standard weight limits on highways structures. The study looked at 2 theoretical types of VCM, based on the typical use of the vehicles at the time:

• 41.48 tonnes on 4 axles
• 44 tonnes on 5 axles

Their report concluded these vehicles would cause load effects greater than that used for the assessment of bridges. This means the effects from these VCMs are greater than the load effects for which bridges are assessed. Therefore, operators of these VCMs need to provide notifications to bridge owners on proposed routes to ensure it is safe for these vehicles to travel across bridges.

The temporary VSOs for VCMs, implemented from 2018, provide for a slightly lower maximum weight – 38.4 tonnes for the usual 4 axle design and note overloading in excess of legally permitted weights of goods vehicles does occur in practice. 

The temporary VSOs for VCMs allow their operation beyond the standard weights for goods vehicles with the relevant axle configurations. The gross vehicle weights and weights with reference to axle spacing are both higher than standard. The values permitted under the VSO are outside the parameters used for the assessment of structures. The VSOs do not provide for individual axle weights higher than in the 1998 regulations.

The VSOs permit VCMs at the unusually high weights to use the whole public road network, except where weak structures have been identified and weights limits put in place for them. VCMs operating under the VSOs are not required to notify bridge owners in advance of their operations, which was recommended in the Highways England study. There is a risk of excess wear and damage to structures, particularly if they are used repeatedly.

The VSOs were introduced as a temporary, transitional measure for VCMs – a small part of the whole heavy vehicle fleet. This recognised the feedback provided ahead of the 2018 decision, where VCMs had been used at higher operating weights in the context of being treated as engineering plants for other regulatory regimes – testing and operator licensing.

The operation of some other prescribed specialised heavy vehicles is allowed in excess of the usual weight limits. See the Road vehicles (authorisation of special types) (general) order 2003 (STGO) for more information.

Part of the STGO concerns vehicles used for:

• haulage
• lifting
• engineering
• vehicle recovery

Vehicle types related to the transport of abnormal indivisible loads, mobile cranes, engineering plants and road recovery vehicles are also identified and defined in the special types general orders (STGO).

In respect of the engineering plant, one of the conditions of inclusion in the STGO is that the vehicle involved must be specially designed and constructed for the special purposes of engineering operations and that the operation cannot be safely carried out by a motor vehicle or trailer that complies in all respects with construction and use and goods vehicle type approval regulations.

We believe VCMs do not meet the definition of engineering plant within the STGO as their function can be safely carried out in conformity with the Road vehicles (construction and use) regulations 1986 (as amended). This includes the 32 tonne limit for 4 axle rigid goods vehicles.

If there is a permanent increase in weight for VCMs, further work will be commissioned by DfT to assess the potential impact on roads and bridges.

We invite respondents to provide evidence related to the legal position of maximum weights for VCMs not covered by VSOs. This can include any information about the highest legal maximum allowed weight of any laden 4 axle VCM that is not covered by a VSO.

Our assumption is any amendments made to the current regime for VCMs will need to comply with the conclusions of the National Highways structures study being undertaken in autumn 2023. The options that will follow this call for evidence will depend on the conclusions of that study.

Operation of VCMs conditional on advanced notification to structures owners is consistent with the previous study and it is unlikely the principle of this will change.

Options for consideration for VCMs

We have identified 3 potential options moving forward in relation to the weight increases for VCMs. This will be subject to the National Highways assessment of structures.

It is important to emphasise that ‘no change’ is a possible outcome arising from this call for evidence. The existing VSOs would continue until their planned expiry dates.

Some evidence demonstrates VCMs had reduced unladen weights in their design. This weight reduction cannot be as large as the permitted gross weight of temporary VSOs – up to 6.4 tonnes – for the most common type of 4 axle VCMs.

For 5 axle VCMs built without VSOs or another legal change, they are restricted to 32 tonnes – the maximum authorised weight. This also applies to 4 axle rigid vehicles.

Existing vehicle weight limits for all goods vehicles allow VCMs to operate up to 44 tonnes if they:

• are an articulated vehicle fitted with 6 or more axles
• comply with individual axle weight limits

However, previous feedback from industry was that an articulated VCM with 6 or more axles would not be commercially viable. This is because these vehicles are longer in size, which makes them difficult to use by drivers in some work settings.

For example, on constrained construction sites or on minor streets and roads where there is limited space to manoeuvre the vehicle, this restricts operations that can be carried out by an articulated VCM.

Option 1: maintain the current exceptional temporary arrangement for VCMs

This means VCMs can operate at higher weights than standard weight limits until 2018 or the 12th anniversary of the vehicle’s first registration (whichever comes first).

This option provides operators with enough time to meet the standard lower weight limits for VCMs. It will bring VCMs in line with other goods vehicles and mean the vehicles fall within the load models used for bridge assessments.

Option 2: allow all VCMs to operate at the weights of the temporary VSOs if there are advanced route notifications

This is the same practice used for category 1 abnormal indivisible loads.

The main requirement under this option would be for operators to give 2 working days’ notice ahead of any relevant movement with indemnity to road and bridge authorities. The process would only involve the parts of journeys where a VCM would be laden higher than the standard weight limits.

This type of process is already used for abnormal indivisible load vehicles, although indemnity requirements only apply to heavier weights (as opposed to wide or long loads) and requirements for very heavy or large loads are more onerous.

An abnormal indivisible load involves a vehicle with load that has any of the following, including:

• a weight of more than 44 tonnes
• an axle load of more than 10 tonnes for a single non-driving axle and 11.5 tonnes for a single driving axle
• a width of more than 2.9 metres
• a rigid length of more than 18.65 metres

This option would involve a transitional period to move from the existing arrangement, after which VCM operators would be permitted to operate permanently at higher weights subject to providing advance warning of their intended movements to the police, relevant highway authorities and bridge and structure owners such as National Highways and Network Rail.  

It is likely DfT would need to introduce secondary legislation to implement this option and that the existing VSOs would be terminated when the legislation came into effect. DfT could provide a period of, for example, 6 months from when the legislation is made until when it came into force to allow operators with VSOs to adjust their operations.

The responsibility for notifying the relevant authorities would be on the VCM operator and they would need to use National Highways electronic service delivery for abnormal loads (ESDAL) system or similar:

• to plot their route for each journey
• give advance notice of any possible route problems
• save vehicle details and routes for future use

Sufficient time would need to be allowed by the VCM operator beforehand to notify the relevant authorities. Notice must be given at least 2 clear working days (not including weekends or national holidays) in advance of the planned movement. Multiple planned loads on different dates could be notified together.  

Operators would need to notify the appropriate authorities of their movements but there is no need for them to be registered to be able to submit notifications.   

For heavy weight abnormal indivisible loads and the use of engineering plants for weights up to 80 tonnes, the following speed limits would apply (in addition to any lower speed limits:

• 40 mph on single carriageway roads
• 50 mph on all-purpose dual carriageway roads
• 60 mph on motorways would apply (in addition to any lower local road speed limits)

These limits could be applied to VCMs operating under notifications in this option.

This option can only be useful for operations that can be planned sufficiently well in advance for the notification process to be done in time. We recognise some VCM operations are planned on shorter timescales and could, therefore, not be in the scope of this option.

However, key and large parts of the market segments within which VCMs operate should be capable of being planned in advance and may well already be planned in advance. Examples include the deployment of VCMs in major construction projects, the deployment of VCMs in scheduled infrastructure engineering works (for example overnight motorway or rail works) and single-place residential work.

This option is a significant legal adaptation for the benefit of VCM operators. It provides for operation at higher weights of vehicles involved in concrete transport that can technically be undertaken using vehicles operated at standard on-road weights. This is also a significant legal development in the use of the notification system, which is currently used for vehicles that cannot be designed and operated at standard weights and dimensions, or in relation to loads that are physically indivisible.

Option 3: Allow for further vehicle special orders (VSO) until further notice, subject to vehicle age and the operator being accredited by DVSA for earned recognition

Like the existing temporary arrangement of 2018, the mechanism for allowing the higher standard weights would be via the issuance of VSOs on a per-operator basis. The VSO scheme is administered by the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).

To facilitate the operation of VCMs at increased weights while ensuring safety, compliance and efficiency, we may consider providing further VSOs for post-2018 vehicles, which would be valid for 12 years post-registration if the operator is in the Earned recognition (ER) scheme. The weights allowed would be the same as for the 2018 VSOs.

This would continue to control the number of VCMs operating above the standard weight limits. It would also continue to allow the VCMs involved to operate across the road network, except where there were local weight restrictions. This would mean there could be some excess damage to weak bridges from the vehicles, particularly in areas where there were repeated operations of VCMs.

In 2018, when the temporary scheme was set up, VCMs had just been brought into annual testing and were being brought into operator licensing, which are both designed (among other things) to help protect the safety of the public and workers. This option would extend what was designed to be a temporary approach to allow the industry to adjust into an enduring approach. In doing so, it would seek to encourage the participation of VCM operators in a scheme based on very high compliance and safety standards.

DVSA’s earned recognition scheme for vehicle operators is a way for vehicle operators to prove they meet driver and vehicle standards. VCM operators would be required to regularly share performance information with DVSA. In return, their vehicles would be less likely to be stopped for inspections. Earned recognition is a voluntary scheme for organisations that have had an operator licence for at least 2 years and is designed to work for operators of all sizes.

See the details of the general standards VCM operators would need to meet to join the earned recognition scheme, which includes how you would be assessed and the supporting evidence you will need.

Specific Concrete operational audit standards have been developed by the DVSA in partnership with the British Aggregates Association.

As indicated in published material about earned recognition, operators can lose the accreditation. It is envisaged that weight-related VSOs for any such VCM operator would be revoked if the operator had not regained the earned recognition status within 6 months or more quickly if significant safety concerns had been identified.

We anticipate that as their vehicles fall outside standard HGV weight limits, VCM operators would be expected to demonstrate compliance with these additional standards to qualify for a VSO extension. The existing VSOs made in 2018 could be terminated earlier than their planned duration (which could be up to 2028) in favour of this new approach and with a notice period envisaged to be at least 6 months.

Further potential options

DfT has presented 3 potential options, including a no-change approach. It invites respondees to identify any other options they would like to bring to DfT’s attention, with supporting evidence.

Important possible effects

The consideration of an enduring change for VCMs needs to include how useful it would be, whether it can be done safely, whether there are adverse side effects and whether it is fair. It must be compliant and implemented consistently with competition law and the public sector equality duty.

Existing use of VSOs enabling extra weight

DfT needs to understand the scale of use of the existing VSOs, particularly how much mileage a VCM under a VSO is doing in a typical year or week, when laden to about 38 tonnes, and what types of road (motorway, main ‘A’ road or lesser road) this laden mileage is on. 

It is important also to understand the types of operation involved at weights allowed by VSOs whether this is at the beginning of multi-drops, single destination journeys to small sites, for planned infrastructure engineering (for example, for overnight road or rail works), urgent/emergency operations or major projects (where total concrete volumes required exceed in the order of 100 cubic metres).

The development of an enduring change for VCMs would benefit from evidence about what it would achieve including the level of empty running avoided by the use of the existing VSOs per VCM.

Wider effects of more average load per journey

One effect of more weight carried per vehicle would be fewer journeys and, therefore, a lower associated environmental impact, but this is not unique to VCMs.

The effects on carbon emission levels from the use of VCMs during their transport operations can be assessed if there is information about how much difference the regulatory interventions would make to the numbers and types of journeys. Fewer vehicles on roads will also have effects on congestion and air pollution.

To support the consideration of what to do next DfT is seeking information about:

• the commercial effects of a capability for VCMs to transport loads under the existing VSO arrangement
• the effect on the wider market in concrete transport and rates for concrete work

Some of this information is commercially sensitive and DfT would appreciate approaches from representative organisations. It also advises discussions at an early stage about such information and the responsibilities of DfT in relation to the disclosure of information it receives. 

Finally, data analysis done by DfT found that increasing the weight limit for 4 axle VCMs from 32 tonnes to 38.4 tonnes could increase average road wear by between 110% and 220% per vehicle. The exact impact is heavily dependent on the vehicle’s loading. The figures quoted are based on some road wear costs increasing linearly with axle weight and others increasing by a ratio of the power of 4.

DfT invites road and bridge authorities and their representatives to provide evidence relevant to road and bridge wear associated with VCMs.

Safety

Vehicles which are overloaded beyond their design weight are less able to stop quickly in an emergency and the steering of the vehicle can be affected.

Construction-related vehicles (including VCMs) have been a strong focus for enforcement and standards work during the past 10 years in London to control risks to cyclists and pedestrians. Improving the interaction of construction-related vehicles and cyclists and pedestrians was also one of the reasons for VCMs being brought into annual vehicle testing and operator licensing.

Safety considerations remain very important. Therefore, DfT requests any evidence about compliance and safety be provided to it in this call for evidence, including from policing, highways and other public authorities. Braking, tyres and other vehicle systems are under increased pressure under high loads. 

DfT also invites evidence about compliance and safety issues associated with the operation of vehicles within their manufactured design weights but at heavy loads (as is the case of VCMs under the existing VSOs). The use of rigid goods vehicles in excess of 32 tonnes in the UK is extremely rare and it is our current view there is no direct international comparator case. We will, however, consider evidence of any international situations considered comparable if these are put forward further to this call for evidence.

Competition, other possible cases and equity

Permitting higher weights for a specific type of goods vehicle would provide them with an unfair advantage over other operators that have to work within the constraints of the plated weight limits set by the law. For example, rotary (barrel) cement mixers and volumetric concrete mixers both carry and deliver similar products.

Therefore, the temporary arrangement allowing 4 axle rigid VCMs to operate at 38 tonnes is already in itself a significant exception from standard vehicle weight limits.

An enduring change for the operational weights of VCMs will need to meet the principles of Competition Law and the Public Sector Equality Duty. 

DfT seeks evidence relevant to the law and duty through this call for evidence.

Some special types of vehicle (including some engineering plants) are allowed to operate at higher weights than standard vehicles because of the load they carry or the way the vehicles have to be designed. VCMs are a clearly identifiable type of vehicle and have important characteristics of engineering plants. However, they carry loads that can be split and can physically be operated effectively at the usual maximum weights applicable to similar configurations of vehicle.

When operating at the standard maximum on-road authorised weight for 4 axle goods vehicles, VCMs do incur a substantial payload penalty (estimated to be similar for 4 axle vehicles to the 6.4 tonnes extra allowed via the temporary VSOs) compared to a barrel concrete mixer.

DfT requests information and evidence about whether other vehicle types should be considered to be treated in a similar way to VCMs, meaning there is an increased weight allowance.

How to respond

The call for evidence period will begin on 19 October 2023 and will run until 23:59 on 15 December 2023. Ensure that your response reaches us before the closing date.

You can contact freight@dft.gov.uk if you need alternative formats (for example, braille or audio CD).

The best way to respond is by completing an online survey.

Or you can download a response form and you can send it by post to:

Department for Transport
Roadworthiness
3rd Floor, Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR

Alternatively, you can email your response to: freight@dft.gov.uk.

Please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If responding on behalf of a larger organisation, make it clear who the organisation represents and, where applicable, how the views of members were assembled. If you have any suggestions about others who may wish to be involved in this process, please contact us.

What happens next

A summary of responses, including the next steps, will be published once responses to the call for evidence have been analysed. Paper copies will be available on request.

If you have questions about this call for evidence, contact freight@dft.gov.uk.

Full list of questions

This list provides an overview of the questions we are asking.

1. Provide your name and email address.

2. Are you responding on behalf of an organisation?

3. Are you a motorist?

4. Do you mechanically maintain concrete mixers (VCMs)?

5. If you are providing a response as an organisation, what type of organisation does it represent?

• VCM operator
• VCM leaser
• VCM manufacturer
• seller of VCMs
• organisation that maintains VCMs
• trade body that represents those in the construction sector
• a local transport or highways authority
• a road safety organisation
• a road enforcement organisation
• other

6. How many VCMs are there in your fleet that operate in Great Britain?

7. How many active VSOs do you have for VCMs in your fleet?

8. How many VCMs in your fleet operate at the below weight limits?

• 32 tonnes on 4 axles
• 32 tonnes on 5 axles
• 38.4 tonnes on 4 axles
• 44 tonnes on 5 axles

9. Do you have any VCMs operating at other configurations?

10. How many VCMs and how much do they weigh? Specify the weight limit, number of axles and number of VCMs in this configuration.

11. What type of construction applications do you use VCMs for?

12. What type of construction projects do you use VCMs for?

13. Are there activities your VCMs do that cannot be supported by barrel mixers?

14. Are there projects your VCMs do that cannot be supported by barrel mixers?

15. What issues related to the maximum legal weight of laden 4 axle VCMs, particularly when they are not subject to VSO (including examples or data)?

16. What challenges related to the maximum legal weight of laden 4 axle VCMs, particularly when they are not subject to VSO (including examples or data)?

17. Would you seek to join the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) Earned Recognition scheme if option 3 was put in place?

18. What percentage of VCM journeys under VSO typically involve motorway travel?

19. How does your answer compare to journeys on a main ‘A’ or lesser roads?

20. What costs would you anticipate to your business or members of requiring VCMs to operate at their legal weight limit (32T for a 4 axle rigid VCM)?

21. What impacts would you anticipate to your business or members of requiring VCMs to operate at their legal weight limit (32T for a 4 axle rigid VCM)?

22. What benefits would you anticipate to your business or members of requiring VCMs to operate at their legal weight limit (32T for a 4 axle rigid VCM)?

23. How many extra journeys will be required to deliver the same volume of concrete if VCMs were required to operate at their legal weight limit?

24. What is the payload difference between operating at 32 tonnes (T) and 38.4 T?

25. How much less concrete does this equate to when operating at 32T?

26. In your view are there specific regions or areas where VCMs operating under a VSO are more prevalent?

26. Where and how does the road type distribution vary in these regions?

27. How difficult would it be for your VCMs to comply with the standard axle weight limits if higher weight VCMs were allowed?

28. Why do you think this? Explain your answer to question 27.

29. What would you estimate to be the total amount, not limited to your organisation, of VCMs that are currently operating across Great Britain?

We are asking about the potential effect of option 2 allowing all VCMs to operate at the weights of the temporary VSOs if there are advanced route notifications on your organisations practices.

30. In your view what percentage of current operations would option 2 permit?

31. In your view what percentage of current operations would be altered to use option 2 if it were the only way of allowing heavier loads?

32. In your view what percentage of current operations in excess of 32 T could not be moved to work under option 2?

33. Why do you think this? Explain your answer to question 32.

34. How does your organisation monitor the weight of laden VCMs (describing when this monitoring occurs, who is responsible for it, and where the findings are recorded)?

35. How frequently are these checks undertaken?

Standard axle weight limits remain a legal requirement for alternatively fuelled heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and longer semi-trailers.

36. How difficult would it be for your VCMs to comply with the standard axle weight limits if higher weight VCMs were allowed?

37. Why do you think this? Explain your answer to question 36.

38. What would you estimate to be the total amount, not limited to your organisation, of VCMs that are currently operating across Great Britain?

We are asking about the potential affect of option 2 allowing all VCMs to operate at the weights of the temporary VSOs if there are advanced route notifications on your organisation’s practices.

39. In your view, what percentage of current operations would option 2 permit?

40. In your view, what percentage of current operations would be altered to use option 2 if it were the only way of allowing heavier loads?

41. In your view, what percentage of current operations in excess of 32 T could not be moved to work under option 2?

42. Why do you think this? Explain your answer to question 41.

43. How does your organisation monitor the weight of laden VCMs (describing when this monitoring occurs, who is responsible for it and where the findings are recorded)?

44. How frequently are these checks undertaken?

We are asking about your view of the potential effect comparison of the following options with regard to road infrastructure and your activities.

We are subsequently asking for insight into your current and existing option 1 practices.

45. Would, in your view, the application of the notification system in option 2 improve the protection of weaker structures sufficiently to justify any time or cost you may need to spend in considering routes planned to be used by VCMs, compared to option 3?

46. Why do you think this? Explain your answer to question 45.

47. Give any data and estimates on unit costs of option 2 movement notifications.

48. In your view, what are the compliance or safety challenges that arise when operating VCMs under the existing VSO within their manufactured design weights?

49. How do you think regulations and practices could be adapted to address these challenges more effectively?

Specific organisation data retention consent

We are asking if we can retain your contact details, email and name for 3 years if you have identified yourself as an organisation that the road freight regulation has a particular interest in, such as:

• VCM operator
• VCM leaser
• VCM manufacturer
• seller of VCMs
• organisations that maintain VCMs
• trade bodies representing those in the construction sector
• a local transport and highways authority

50. Do you agree or disagree with us keeping your details for these purposes?

We have identified 3 potential options moving forward in relation to the weight limits for volumetric concrete mixers (VCMs) and are asking for your views as to your preference and the potential effects of these choices.

51. What is your preferred approach?

• option 1: maintain the current exceptional temporary arrangement whereby VCMs are permitted to operate at higher weights than the standard limits until 2028 or the 12th anniversary of the vehicle’s first registration, whichever comes first
• option 2: allow all VCMs to operate at the weights of the temporary VSOs if there are advanced route notifications (as used for category 1 abnormal indivisible loads)
• option 3: allow for further VSOs until further notice, subject to vehicle age and the operator being accredited by DVSA for Earned Recognition
• an alternative approach

52. Why do you think this? Explain your answer to question 51.

53. What is your alternative approach? Explain your answer to question 51.

54. What are your views on the current legal position regarding maximum weights for VCMs that are not covered by VSOs?

The Department for Transport estimates that the unladen weight of a volumetric concrete mixer (VCM) is 19 T.

55. Do you agree or disagree with this estimate?

56. If you disagreed with question 54, what do you believe should be the average unladen weight of a VCM?

Our internal analysis has estimated that if VCMs were allowed to operate at 38.4 T, average road wear would increase by between 110% and 220% per vehicle, depending on where the weight is loaded.

57. Do you agree or disagree with this estimate?

58. If you disagreed with question 57, why do you disagree?

59. Are there justifiable reasons to allow VCMs to continue to operate at higher weight limits?

60. Why do you think that? Explain your answer to question 59.

In addition to capturing your preferred option, we are further inviting your views and insights into each of the 3 options proposed.

61. Do you agree or disagree that option 1 will ensure fair competition with other goods vehicles?

62. Why do you think that? Explain your answer to question 61.

63. Give any evidence you have about how you think the use of VCMs could develop under option 1.

64. State your points of concern, if you have any, about option 1.

65. Which option would you support or oppose if it were the only option available?

66. Why do you think that? Explain your answer to question 65.

67. Do you agree or disagree that the DVSA earned recognition scheme is fit to be used as a necessary criterion to enable option 3?

68. Why do you think that? Explain your answer to question 67.

69. In your opinion does inclusion in the DVSA Earned Recognition scheme provide sufficient assurance of safety for future VSOs?

70. Why do you think that? Explain your answer to question 69.

71. In your view what are the risks of operating at the higher weight limits permitted under the existing exceptional temporary arrangement?

72. Have these risks changed since 2018?

73. Give evidence of your view to question 72.

74. In your view, what specific risks to infrastructure do you see in allowing VCMs to operate at higher weights?

75. What recommendations do you have for improving compliance or safety outcomes for VCMs under VSO at heavy loads?

76. Give evidence you have of any environmental costs, including fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

77. Give evidence you have of any benefits of operating higher weight VCMs beyond 2028.

78. If VCMs are allowed to continue to operate at above the standard weight limit, how reasonable in your view is it to pass on extra road wear costs to operators?

79. Why do you think this? Explain your answer to question 78.

80. Do you have any other comments?

Further information

Freedom of Information

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory code of practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, among other things, with obligations of confidence.

In view of this, it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on DfT.

DfT will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Data protection

DfT is carrying out this consultation to gather evidence on volumetric concrete mixers (VCMs). This consultation, and the processing of personal data that it entails, is necessary for the exercise of our functions as a government department. If your answers contain any information that allows you to be identified, DfT will, under data protection law, be the controller for this information.

As part of this consultation, we’re asking for your name and email address. This is in case we need to ask you follow-up questions about any of your responses. You do not have to give us this personal information. If you do provide it, we will use it only for the purpose of asking follow-up questions.

Your personal data is processed on behalf of DfT by Smartsurvey, as they run the survey collection software. You can view their privacy policy.

Your personal data will be securely deleted 12 months after the consultation analysis report has been published.

DfT’s privacy policy has more information about your rights in relation to your personal data, how to complain and how to contact the data protection officer.

Consultation principles

The consultation is being conducted in line with the government’s key consultation principles.

If you have any comments about the consultation process, contact:

Consultation Co-ordinator
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR

Email consultation@dft.gov.uk.