|
Meeting: |
Executive Member for Transport Decision Session |
|
Meeting date: |
22/09/2026 |
|
Report of: |
Garry Taylor – Director of City Development |
|
Portfolio of: |
Councillor Ravilious, Executive Member for Transport |
Decision Report:
Alness Drive/ Acomb Wood Drive Speed Management Scheme
Subject of Report
1. This report presents the results of the external consultation undertaken for the Alness Drive Speed Management Scheme and outlines recommendations for the Executive Member to consider and approve.
2. Speed concerns were raised by residents and reviewed through the Speed Management Protocol (SMP), and this review confirmed speeds being above the recommended levels. Subsequent annual speed surveys have since confirmed that the speeding issue is an ongoing concern.
3. Alness Drive and the adjoining streets are subject to a 20mph speed limit, which was introduced as a sign-only limit around 2013/14 as part of the city-wide rollout of 20mph limits.
4. The latest survey (September 2025) indicated that mean speeds were 22mph southbound and 23mph northbound, with 85th percentile speeds at 26mph and 28mph respectively. Over 70% of vehicles were shown to be exceeding the signed limit, with 30% southbound and 44% northbound exceeding the enforcement limit.
5. A feasibility study was undertaken to review the concerns and to recommend potential treatments to better manage speeds to an acceptable limit. The study recommended a hybrid approach using a combination of speed cushions and raised tables. The recommendation was approved at Transport Board for progression to detailed design and delivery.
6. Subsequent to Transport Board approval, the option progressed into detailed design was revised after review of current guidance and incorporated sinusoidal ramps as opposed to a combination of speed cushions and raised tables. Consultation has taken place to seek the views of key stakeholders and residents.
7. The Executive Member is asked to consider the results of the consultation and to approve the recommended action (Option 1).
8. The decision is required so that the council can respond in an appropriate manner and demonstrate that the concerns of all residents are being carefully considered and actions are being progressed to address these concerns. The main aim of this project is to provide measures to encourage drivers to travel at more appropriate speeds along Alness Drive, thereby improving road safety, greater compliance with the signed speed limit and lowering of the enforcement burden, and would be in line with the council’s core objectives.
Benefits and Challenges
Benefits
9. The scheme, as proposed, will meet the original desire from residents to reduce excessive speeds and will achieve the wider aims of the project.
10. The original proposal presents a well-balanced and considered solution.
Challenges
11. The project was identified through the legacy speed reduction programme and is funded from the Safer Neighbourhoods programme through the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Local Transport Grant. The estimated scheme cost (including fees and implementation costs) is £150k and funding for design and delivery of the scheme in 2026/27 is included in the Capital Programme.
12. Consultation with 448 properties on Alness Drive and the adjacent streets has demonstrated that there is not a consensus view of support. There is support for the proposed treatment from many of the residents. However, several did not agree that there are problems with speeding despite the speed survey evidence and consider that no action is required, whereas other residents consider there is an issue but would prefer different solutions to those suggested.
13. Results are included in Annex C and summarised in the consultation section of this report.
Policy Basis for Decision
14. Alness Drive is a legacy project raised via our previous speed reduction programme, the need for the project was highlighted by residents and engineering works recommended by the road safety partnership following the results of speed surveys. Future considerations for targeted speed reduction will be aligned to wider strategic priorities and continued work with the Road Safety Partnership / York North Yorkshire Combined Authority.
15. This scheme has been developed in response to concerns being raised by residents following the original 20mph limit implementation and the measured traffic speeds following this are shown in Annex B and demonstrate that compliance with the speed limit is poor with over 70% of vehicles exceeding the limit.
16. The proposed scheme addresses this issue whereas the alternative option to suspend the scheme would not achieve the desired results.
17. This scheme reflects the four core commitments:
18. By referencing national guidance in developing potential solutions, which will address the road safety concerns of residents, the proposal reflects best practice and offers appropriate responses to the concerns and does not have any intentional or unintentional bias built into its aims and outcomes.
19. The proposed solution of sinusoidal ramps will result in greater accessibility for mobility impaired users of scooters, trikes and wheelchairs. Sinusoidal ramps in comparison to more traditional tables are a more effective method of speed control and a deterrent measure as they allow the slowing of all vehicles and not just those with a wider wheel track.
20. Engagement has been undertaken with residents and key stakeholder groups (including equality/accessibility groups) to determine their views on the proposed scheme, and consideration has also been given to suggestions put forward as part of the consultation exercise.
21. A Human Rights and Equality Assessment (HREA) has been undertaken and has demonstrated that the proposal has a beneficial impact on some protected characteristic groups and no differential impact identified for others. The Access Officer is supportive of the proposals. In response to the discussion with the Access Officer, the proposal now includes for the provision of tactile paving at a location where this is currently missing, further serving to improve accessibility.
22. Not applicable – this scheme does not have any impact on affordability.
· Climate –
23. The introduction of engineered speed controls provides creates disruptive construction. However, the work is to be coordinated with maintenance work which will provide extensive resurfacing of the carriageway, removing numerous surface defects which cause noise, vibration and air pollution. The measures serve to reduce excessive speeds reducing vehicular emissions.
24. The reduction in vehicular speeds and improvements to walking and cycling provision will add to the reduction of carbon emission and improve air quality.
25. Although the proposed scheme won’t significantly help to reduce driven miles, a core objective of the climate change strategy and transport strategy. It is anticipated as a result of the proposed traffic calming measures it will assist in improving user comfort and enabling people using a greater diversity of cycles to use this route, increase cycling and, and reducing and deterring non-essential traffic using Alness Drive to avoid other busier routes. The calmer road environment and addition of tactile paving will also enable more people to choose to walk or use wheeled mobility aids.
· Health –
26. The proposed measures serve to reduce excessive speed on Alness Drive thereby improving local conditions so that pedestrians, cyclists and other road users can travel more safely. Some residents have indicated that they have young children who walk or cycle to school nearby, whilst others walk dogs. The safer environment will in turn lead to improved health and wellbeing.
Financial Strategy Implications
27. The project is being progressed as part of the current Safer Neighbourhoods / Speed Management programme, through the Local Transport Capital Programme.
28. The estimated scheme cost (including fees and implementation costs) is £150k and this funding is currently available from the 2026/27 programme.
Recommendation and Reasons
29. The Executive Member is recommended to approve Option 1 to implement the measures as proposed in the layout plan in Annex A to introduce Sinusoidal ramps on Alness Drive.
Reason:
The high volumes of traffic exceeding the 20mph limit and poor compliance is likely to continue without further control measures. Increased compliance would be in accordance with the council’s speed management plan, and with the new national road safety strategy.
In addition, the scheme provides a localised approach to improving road safety and would bring about localised benefits.
Background
30. Speed concerns were raised by residents and reviewed through the Speed Management Protocol (SMP). The project was subsequently added to the Speed Management programme. A review at feasibility stage confirmed speeds being above the recommended levels. Subsequent annual speed surveys have confirmed that the speeding issue is an ongoing concern.
31. A feasibility study was undertaken to investigate the key concerns / issues and to consider potential options for progression to design and delivery. The study took account of available factual data (speed surveys, accident records, traffic flow data, existing restrictions) in consideration of the views of residents.
32. A range of potential solutions were considered, and a proposed option was considered to offer the desired results and benefits. The study and its recommendation was approved at Transport Board.
33. Subsequent to Transport Board approval, the option progressed into detailed design and was revised after review of current guidance (LTN 1/20). The modified proposal now incorporates sinusoidal ramps as opposed to a combination of speed cushions and raised tables.
Consultation Analysis
34. Internal consultation was undertaken with officers commencing from Thursday 12th March to Friday 3rd April 2026. The Dringhouses and Woodthorpe ward councillors were also consulted at the same time.
35. A wider consultation with residents and key stakeholder consultees was undertaken between 5th – 26th June 2026.
36. Consultation with residents was undertaken by means of posted letters to 448 properties on Moor Lane, Alness Drive, Carron Crescent, Dalmally Close, Helmsdale, Burns Court, Nevis Way, Tarbert Crescent, Coeside, Acomb Wood Drive, Deveron Way, Etive Place, Halladale Close, Irvine Way, Torridon Place, Ashmede Close, Girvan Close, Kinbrace Drive, and Dee Close. A detailed description of the key findings of the study report together with reasoning for the proposed scheme were included in the letters.
37. A summary of the feedback is provided in Annex C.
38. Of the stakeholder consultees, only York Walk and York Civic Trust replied and did not raise any objection to the proposal. The Council’s Accessibility Officer contributed to the content of the Human Rights and Equality Assessment (Annex D).
39. Responses were received from 63 households (14% of the total number of properties). Of these:
· 15 of the 63 responses were supportive of the proposal (23.8%).
· 28 were unsupportive / objected to the proposal measures (44.4%).
· 20 did not indicate their preference (31.7%)
· 22 respondents suggested using the money for pothole repairs, mentioned patching or resurfacing the road, which is part of the proposals (38%).
Options Analysis and Evidential Basis
Option 1:
Proceed with option as per Annex A to introduce Sinusoidal ramps on Alness Drive.
40. This option will serve to reduce vehicle speeds using Alness Drive. This is the outcome desired to address the concerns of residents and to ensure greater compliance of the signed speed limit.
41. The measures would be relatively inexpensive to implement, and funding is available to deliver this project in 2026/27.
42. Only 14% of the households responded to the consultation. Of these 15 households support the option (23.8% of the responses and 3.34% of the total number of households), whilst 28 objected to the proposed measures (44.4% of the responses and 6.25% of the overall number of households).
43. This option provides a localised approach to improving road safety and would deliver wider benefits to the area.
Option 2: Do nothing and leave Alness Drive as existing.
44. As mentioned above, the total number of responses was low and there is a limited amount of support of the proposed scheme in the replies, despite the concerns and subsequent measured speeds. A number of the residents do not consider there to be any road safety issues on Alness Drive and consider the proposed scheme to be unnecessary.
45. If the scheme is halted and not delivered, the only costs incurred against the project would be the design fees incurred to date. The remaining budget could be reassigned to other projects in the programme. However, resource time invested in this project to date would be lost and it is not guaranteed other projects could be developed to fully utilise the funding available within the current financial year.
46. Poor compliance of the signed speed limit would likely continue without further control measures, resulting in the aims of the project not being achieved. Increased compliance would be in accordance with the council’s speed management plan, and with the new national road safety strategy.
Organisational Impact and Implications
47. The project will have the following implications:
· Financial.
There are currently no financial implications arising from the recommendations in this report.
If the Executive Member agrees with the option not to proceed, the allocated budget may be reassigned to other schemes within the Safer Neighbourhoods / Speed Management Programme.
If the project proceeds through delivery, it will be funded from the Safer Neighbourhoods / Speed Management Programme budget for 2026/27. The estimated cost of the scheme is £150k, which includes fees and implementation costs. Implementation of the speed management project represents an opportunity to carry out other improvements including the introduction of tactile paving and to bring in larger maintenance activities and patching works that would otherwise have taken place on a reactive basis in accordance with the council's highways inspection manual.
Any additional costs associated with this scheme will reduce the funding available for other schemes within the programme.
· Human Resources (HR)
There are no HR, ICT or Business Support implications
· Legal, contact: Head of Legal Services.
Any capital works, and any supplies of goods and/or services relevant to the proposed scheme under Option 1, must be commissioned in line with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules and (where applicable) the Procurement Act 2023.
A Local Highway Authority has a duty under s122 Road Traffic Regulation Act to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) on and off the highway.
A Local Highway Authority has a duty to manage the road network with a view to securing the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority’s road network under s16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
· Procurement, contact: Head of Procurement.
All works and/or services must be procured via a compliant, open, transparent, and fair process in accordance with the council’s Contract Procedure Rules and where applicable, the Procurement Act 2023. Further advice regarding the procurement process and development of procurement strategies must be sought from the Commercial Procurement team
If the intention is to utilise in house departments to carry out works/services, there are no direct procurement implications.
· Health and Wellbeing.
Road safety has significant implications for public health. Cars offer great convenience and mobility but can also reduce the mobility of others – discouraging walking, cycling and scooting because of the way the built environment is designed to favour cars.
· Environment and Climate action.
The reduction in the speeds of traffic will mean that any change will likely have material impact on operational emissions from vehicles in the area. The introduction of engineered speed controls support the increase in cycling, scooting, and walking reducing vehicle movements supporting the reduction of associated embodied emissions.
· Affordability
This scheme does not have any impact on affordability.
· Equalities and Human Rights
A full Human Rights and Equality Assessment (HREA) is included at Annex D and did not identify any negative impacts of the scheme.
.
· Data Protection and Privacy, contact:
No comments provided.
· Communications.
Any further work in the area undertaken as part of the movement and place programme will be picked up as part of communications around that wider priority.
· Economy.
An efficient transport network is an essential component of a robust and resilient economy, and it is therefore welcomed that a ‘root cause’ solution to the issues identified by residents is proposed to be explored’.
Risks and Mitigations
48. The risks are largely set out above.
49. Despite 44.4% of respondents not being in support of the proposals this equated to only 6.25% of the overall households consulted. Despite comments stating that some residents did not feel there was an issue with speeding, the actual measured speeds disprove this. Proceeding with the delivery of the proposed scheme would meet the required outcomes and would be seen as an appropriate use of the funding.
50. Delivery of the proposed scheme would result in a reduction in overall speeds and likely improvements in cycling, scooting and pedestrian activity. Without the engineered speed controls proposed the existing 20mph limit will likely continue to be unobserved and speeds will remain excessive.
51. There is sufficient budget available to deliver the scheme and the proposals will address the main areas of concern.
Wards Impacted
Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward
Contact details
For further information please contact the author of this Decision Report.
Author
|
Name: |
Ricky Watson |
|
Job Title: |
Senior Project Manager |
|
Service Area: |
Transport |
|
Telephone: |
07983 953303 |
|
Report approved: |
Yes/No |
|
Date: |
22/09/2026 |
Background
papers
None
Annexes
Annex A – Proposed Layout
Annex B – Speed and traffic data
Annex C – Consultation Responses
Annex D – Human Rights and Equality Assessment