|
Meeting: |
Executive Member for Economy & Transport Decision Session |
|
Meeting date: |
12/09/2023 |
|
Report of: |
James Gilchrist, Director of Environment, Transport and Planning |
|
Portfolio of: |
Executive Member for Economy & Transport |
Decision Report:
Executive Member for Economy &
Transport – Speed Limits – post consultation
Subject of
Report
1. The Council has received several requests for speed limits to be amended or extended. The statutory consultation for these requests has taken place with relevant stakeholders and the Executive Member for Economy and Transport is asked to make a final decision on if the proposed new speed limits are implemented or not. Information on the locations of the requested speed limit amendments can be found in Annex A.
2. A decision on if the speed limit amendments should be implemented or should be based on all available information, this is important in terms of meeting our responsibility to reach a balanced decision against all available criteria and information.
Pros and Cons
3.
The pros of implementing the requests, which in the main are for
speed limit reductions, are improved vehicle speeds and a reduction
in accident statistics, a less polluted environment (noise and
fumes), and a safer environment for walking, cycling, and for all
types of vulnerable road user.
The Cons are increased journey times and potential for conflict
between different types of vehicles/road users. There is also the
potential for the limit(s) to be ignored and brought to disrepute
owing to the lack of enforcement, which will result rise in
complaints about road safety.
Policy Basis for Decision
4. The Councils current Local Transport Plan, places pedestrians at the top of the transport hierarchy followed by cycling, public transport and then cars. The emerging Local Transport Policy does not significantly change that. Therefore, the review of speed can be considered in the context of the modal hierarchy alongside the national guidance from Department from Transport.
5. This report and recommendations reflect the new administrations priorities in terms of engaging and consulting widely with citizens on transport issues.
6.
The City of York high-level policies that support the decisions
include those from the current Council Plan: A greener and cleaner
city; Getting around sustainably; Good health and wellbeing; and
Safer communities and culture for all.
Recommendation and Reasons
7. A) Sutton Road, Wigginton Extend 40mph (Origin – local residents/business); Recommendation – Take no further action; Reasons – does not meet the Department for Transport criteria for a reduced speed limit, and does not have Police, CYC Officer, or local support, despite the presence of business and residential properties along this stretch of road.
B) Montague Road and Keble Park Estates, Bishopthorpe 20mph
Zone (Origin – local resident); Recommendation –
Defer;
Reasons – There is a proposal from the Ward Councillor in the following pre-consultation speed limit paper considering a village-wide experimental 20mph speed limit for Bishopthorpe, which will incorporate this area.
C) Haxby Road (Clarence Gardens) 20mph (Origin –
local
resident); Recommendation – Approve;
Reasons – This is a busy area close to the hospital, a local
park facility, and an area where the on-street parking arrangements
warrant a lower limit. Those local features, that the proposal
meets the Department for Transport criteria for a reduced speed
limit, and the support from the Police and CYC Officers indicate
the speed limit reduction is appropriate.
D) Wetherby Road Rufforth (Primary School) 20mph (Origin – Parish and Ward Councillors) and extend the 20mph zone to include the streets Maythorpe, Laburnum Close, Yew Tree Close, and Middlewood Close; Recommendation – Approve;
Reasons – to further ensure a greater degree of safety for
all road users in the school vicinity, especially for those who are
vulnerable. This proposal meets the Department for Transport
criteria for a reduced speed limit and has Police and CYC Officer
support.
E) Bradley Lane, Rufforth (Origin – Ward Councillor); Recommendation – Take no further action;
Reasons – the basis for consultation was one fatality in very poor weather circumstances. It is not felt that moving the 30mph limit further away from its existing terminal point will achieve greater compliance within the existing ‘village’ 30mph limit. The proposal does not meet the Department for Transport criteria for a reduced speed limit and does not have Police or CYC Officer support.
F) To note that as part of the review of a new Local Transport Plan the issue of speeds can be reviewed in a wider policy context and that could form part of the consultation on Local Transport Strategy.
Reason: To consider citizen requests and consider against the Department for Transport guidance and Police views alongside the Councils own policies
For full details of each proposal please see Annex C.
In all cases above guidance has been taken from DfT Circular 01/2013 – Setting Local Speed Limits, and especially paragraphs:
26 - Where there is poor compliance with an existing speed limit on a road or stretch of road the reasons for the non-compliance should be examined before a solution is sought. If the speed limit is set too low for no clear reason and the risk of collisions is low, then it may be appropriate to increase the limit. If the existing limit is in place for a good reason, solutions may include engineering measures or changes to the road environment to ensure it better matches the speed limit, or local education and publicity. Enforcement may also be appropriate but should be considered only after the other measures and jointly with the police force.
And
85 - Successful 20 mph zones and 20 mph speed limits are generally self-enforcing, i.e. the existing conditions of the road together with measures such as traffic calming or signing, publicity and information as part of the scheme, lead to a mean traffic speed compliant with the speed limit. To achieve compliance there should be no expectation on the police to provide additional enforcement beyond their routine activity unless this has been explicitly agreed.
For details of speed limits applicable to urban areas please see Annex B.
Background
8. The speed limit amendment requests originate from local residents, Ward Councillors, Parish Councils, and businesses, who have raised concerns about existing speeds, and/or excess or unsuitable vehicle speeds for the road conditions, and/or the incidence of road vehicle collisions or near misses. Requests are also received through the York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership, and through the City of York Council Road Safety Team.
9. In December 2022 the then Executive Member for Transport approved the consultation process with affected stakeholders in these locations, and that has now been completed.
Consultation Analysis
10. Changes to the Traffic Regulation Order have to go through a formal legal process whereby they are advertised for a 3-week period in which time people are able to make a formal representation for or against the proposals.
11. Full details of the consultation responses are provided at Annex C.
Options Analysis and Evidential Basis
12.
Option 1 - Take no action on an item. This is put forward where it
is considered the road environment is such that it is very unlikely
to achieve any real or meaningful change in driver behaviour by
posting a lower limit.
13.
Option 2 – Approve the proposed change in the speed limit as
outlined in Annex C. This is recommended where it is considered
there is a reasonable prospect of achieving a reduction in vehicle
speeds.
14.
Option 3 – Defer a decision based on other factors i.e. other
highway works or decisions for wider inclusion in other proposed
schemes.
15.
Option 4 – Implement an Experimental Traffic Order for a
maximum period of up to 18 months taking further speed and
collision evidence during the period into account as
required.
16. The approximate cost of taking forward the recommendations is around £4,000 for the advertising of the Traffic Regulation Order, and approximately £5.3k for the works on site if implemented.
For details of the draft Speed Limit (Amendment) (No14/15) Order 2023 please see Annex D. This will be further amended when the outcome of the Executive Members decisions is known.
Organisational Impact and Implications
17. The report has the following implications.
· Financial - – The recommended changes put forward, estimated at £9.3k, can be funded through the annual budget set aside for new signs and lines.
· Human Resources (HR) – None.
· Legal - The proposals require amendments to the York Speed Limit Order 2014: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 & the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 apply.
The statutory
consultation process for Traffic Regulation Orders requires public
advertisement through the placing of public notices within the
local press and on-street. It is a requirement for the Council to
consider any formal objections received within the statutory
advertisement period of 21 days. Formal notification of the public
advertisement is given to key stakeholders including local Ward
Members, Town and Parish Councils, Police and other affected
parties.
The Council, as Highway Authority, is required to consider any objections received after formal statutory consultation, and a subsequent report will include any such objections or comments, for consideration.
The Council has
discretion to amend its original proposals if considered desirable,
whether or not, in the light of any objections or comments
received, as a result of such statutory consultation. If any
objections received are accepted, in part or whole, and/or a
decision is made to modify the original proposals, if such a
modification is considered to be substantial, then steps must be
taken for those affected by the proposed modifications to be
further consulted.
Any public works contracts required at each of the sites as a result of a change to the speed limit (e.g. signage, road markings, etc.) must be commissioned in accordance with a robust procurement strategy that complies with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules and (where applicable) the Public Contract Regulations 2015. Advice should be sought from both the Procurement and Legal Services Teams where appropriate.
Any change, or additional signage at any of the sites will be procured in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules and where applicable, the Public Contract Regulations 2015. The Commercial Procurement team will need to be consulted should any purchasing for additional signage take place.
· Health and Wellbeing – Where implemented it is anticipated that the amended speed limits will encourage and support active travel rather than reliance on vehicle usage.
· Environment and Climate action – Where implemented, it is envisaged that lower vehicle speeds will lead to reduced environmental pollution, and a greater engagement for active travel, which will also reduce pollution as there will be fewer vehicle journeys.
· Affordability – None. See financial above.
· Equalities and Human Rights - The Council recognises its Public Sector Equality Duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other prohibited conduct; advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it in the exercise of a public authority’s functions). There are no equalities implications identified in respect of the matters discussed in this report. The process of consulting on the recommendations in this report has not identified any negative equalities implications.
· Data Protection and Privacy – There are no references to private or any other individuals in this report.
· Communications – The process of statutory consultation has been complied with, responses to which form part of this report.
· Economy – None.
· Specialist Implications Officers – As below.
Risks and
Mitigations
19. No detrimental risks have been identified.
Wards Impacted
20.
Haxby and Wigginton
Bishopthorpe
Rural West York (2)
Guildhall
Contact details
For further information please contact the authors of this Decision Report.
Author
|
Name: |
James Gilchrist |
|
Job Title: |
Director of Environment, Transport and Planning |
|
Service Area: |
Place |
|
Telephone: |
01904 552547 |
|
Report approved: |
Yes |
|
Date: |
04/09/2023 |
Co-author
|
Name: |
Peter Marsland |
|
Job Title: |
Traffic Projects Officer |
|
Service Area: |
Highway Regulation, Place |
|
Telephone: |
01904 552616 |
Specialist Implications Officer(s):
Financial: Legal:
Name: Jayne Close Name: Dan Moynihan
Title: Accountant Title: Senior Solicitor
Tel No: 01904 554175 Tel No: 01904 554143
Background papers
Annexes
Annex A Details of requests for Changes to the Speed Limit
Annex B Speed Limit Descriptions - Tables 1 and 2
Annex C Site Information
Annex D Draft Speed Limit (Amendment) Order