Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Issue - meetings

Six Monthly Speed Review

Meeting: 04/01/2011 - Decision Session - Executive Member for City Strategy (Item 52)

52 Six Monthly Review of Speeding Issues pdf icon PDF 145 KB

This report gives an update on the collaborative Speed Review Process set up in conjunction with the Police and Fire Service. The report advises the Executive Member of further locations where concerns about traffic speeds have been raised, and provides an update on progress towards assessing these against the agreed prioritisation framework.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member for City Strategy agrees to:

 

i)             Support the continuation of a partnership approach to dealing with speed complaints, which results in, a wider, more in depth process to tackle speed issues in York (Speed Review Process, Option 1 of the report).

 

ii) Note, that from January 2011 North Yorkshire Police (NYP) will no longer regard the Speed Review Process as a “pilot” in the York and Selby areas.

 

iii) Note that North Yorkshire Police have given notice to CYC that there will be a managed withdraw from the administration and management role they currently perform within the Speed Review Process, resulting in an increased work load within CYC, if the same level of service is to be provided. 

 

iv)                      Note that NYP intend to only undertake action at community speed concern sites, once they have been analysed via the Partnership Speed Review Process.

 

v)                        Request, in the light of (iv) above, that copies of the speed assessment results be made available to the local Capable Guardian teams, via the Council’s Neighbourhood Management Unit, and that the Chief Constable be urged to fully involve local Neighbourhood Policing Teams in addressing residents concerns about excessive vehicle speed.

 

vi)Note that new sites recommended for feasibility reviews by Engineering Services on the 6 July 2010 and in this current report will not be assessed in detail until further capital funding is available. As and when capital funding is available, locations will be prioritised by one or all of the following criteria:

·        Accident data

·        Mean and 85th percentile speeds

·        Proximity to schools and shops.

 

vii)Note the petition from New Lane, Huntington, and that it has been investigated under the review process, with a recommendation to improve the “gateway” to the 30 limit.  The work is due to be carried out from this years (2010/11) Capital budget.

 

viii)            Note the petition from Moorlands Road, Skelton, and that it has been investigated under the review process, and that it will go forward to the Engineering team for assessment of cost effective speed reduction measures, as and when capital funding becomes available.

 

ix)                Request officers to discuss with the originators of the 5 written representations received on the report, ways in which their concerns can be addressed and any necessary action expedited.

 

REASON:To advise the Executive Member of the current status of the speed review process and provide an update on individual petitions and speed complaints.

Minutes:

The Executive Member considered a report, which updated him on the collaborative Speed Review Process, set up in conjunction with the Police and Fire Service. The report advised of further locations where concerns about traffic speeds had been raised and provided an update on progress towards assessing these against the agreed prioritisation framework.

 

The Executive Member reported receipt of representations from a Holgate resident and Cllrs Hyman, Reid and S Galloway, details of which had been republished with the agenda in the annex of additional comments. He also reported receipt of late representations from Cllr Merrett who referred to the omission in the list of petitions of the petition presented to Council in relation to speeding issues on Bishopthorpe Road and that the additional speed survey had been omitted in Annex D. He went onto express support for Option 1 but raised concerns at the Police’s future intention to substantially reduce their commitment to the partnership.

 

Officers confirmed that a petition had been received from residents of Bishopthorpe Road together with an additional speed survey but that these had been received too late for inclusion in the report.

 

The Executive Member confirmed that the report presented mixed news, on the positive side, speeding concerns continued to be documented and the standardised approach sustained, with the continued downward trend in reducing the number of killed and seriously injured on the roads. He expressed some concern at the lack of progress in the automation of the process and introduction of mobile speed cameras. Withdrawal of police administrative support and the lack of high profile police enforcement of speed limits were also of concern. With this in mind he was suggesting the possible use of the Neighbourhood Policing teams in partnership with the Neighbourhood Management Team co-ordinating activities in this area.

 

It was also confirmed that Officers would pursue the issues raised in the additional representations received.

 

The Executive Member then considered the following options:

 

Option 1: To continue with the Speed Review Process, in Partnership with the Police and Fire Service.  However Members do need to be aware that in the last 12 months over the last two reports, all complaints have scored criteria as three, (low accidents, high speeds) or four, (low accidents, low speed).

Option 2: To revert back to our own, independent, but smaller process, which would exclude the help from Partners with speed surveys, and analysis of data and targeted enforcement. This would leave agencies and systems running concurrently.  It would also mean that the 111 sites looked at over the last year, which scored three and four on the criteria would not have been investigated.  As North Yorkshire Police (NYP) are also stating that they will not undertake any enforcement at any community concern site, without it first going through the Speed Review Process, it could leave community concern sites, that could benefit from Police enforcement without any investigation.

 

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member for City Strategy agrees to:

 

i)             Support the continuation of a partnership approach  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52


 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page