The report
of the Scrutiny Review of Local Speed Limit Policy
Contents.
Recommendations.
3
Introduction.
4
Background.
5
Review Board
Findings.
7
Purpose of the local
speed limit policy and wider policy context. 7
Local speed limit
policy.
7
Wider policy
context.
8
DfT guidance and other
councils’ approach to speed limits 9
Funding for 20mph speed
limits and zones.
10
How local speed limits
are assessed.
11
Impact of lower speed
limits.
12
East Sussex Local
Transport Plan and lower speeds in new development 13
Local Transport Plan 4
(LTP4).
13
Transport Development
Control for new developments.
14
Funding and use of
resources 14
Use of officer
time.
14
Funding and scheme
prioritisation.
15
Communications and
engagement 17
Conclusions.
18
Appendix
1:.
20
Scope and terms of
reference of the review..
20
Board Membership and
project support.
20
Review Board meeting
dates.
20
Witnesses providing
evidence.
21
Evidence
papers.
21
Appendix 2: Policy
PS05/02 Local Speed Limits.
22
|
Recommendation
|
Page
|
|
1
|
The Board
recommends that the Council regularly reviews Policy PS05/02 Local
Speed Limits when there is a change in national
guidance.
|
8
|
|
2
|
The Board
recommends that the ESCC website pages are updated to provide
clearer information on the purpose of local, county wide speed
limits and the wider policy context they are applied in.
|
9
|
|
3
|
The Board
recommends that officers review the speed limit assessment process
and criteria that other local authorities have introduced to manage
demand to identify any potential efficiencies in officer
time.
|
12
|
|
4
|
The Board
recommends that the Council introduces a step-by-step process and
guide for changes to local speed limits.
|
15
|
|
5
|
The Board
recommends:
1) A
review is undertaken on the information provided to local
communities, including Parish Councils; and
2)
Information is provided on the Road Safety section on the ESCC
website, including case studies, on the potential cost of designing
and implementing signed only speed limits and also speed limit
schemes where traffic calming is required. In addition, information
is provided on the length of time it can take to deliver speed
limit schemes.
|
17
|
|
6
|
The Board
recommends that officers refresh the information on speed limits on
the ESCC website pages and create a speed limit change enquiry
page.
|
17
|
|
7
|
The Board
recommends that the Council considers whether additional
communication materials are required that:
1) Outline
the Council’s approach to assessing local speed limits and
the prioritisation process to help local communities understand the
types of speed reduction measures that might be
possible;
2) Explain
that potential schemes that meet our policy, but are not currently
a priority for the County Council, may be implemented if externally
funded and delivered through the Community Match programme or a
Section 278 agreement; and
3) Assist
with the recruitment of volunteers to local Community Speed Watch
groups (e.g. through Parish and Town Councils).
|
18
|
1.
The Place
Scrutiny committee has observed that after potholes, concerns about
road safety including speeding concerns are the most frequently
raised issues with local Councillors as part of their constituency
work. This is reflected in the topic also frequently being raised
with councillors and officers on a county-wide basis. In addition,
in July 2023 a Notice of Motion was debated at Full Council
regarding reviewing and updating Policy PS05/02 on Local Speed
Limits. During the debate it was it was suggested that the Place
Scrutiny committee could look at the issues raised by the Motion as
part of a scrutiny review.
2.
A scoping
meeting was held by the committee to discuss and explore in more
detail what the focus of a potential scrutiny review could be. At
the Place Scrutiny committee meeting held on 12 July 2024 the
committee agreed to proceed with a scrutiny review of Local Speed
Limit Policy with the following
scope:
·
Consideration
of the purpose of a local speed limit policy and examining how
local speed limits are reviewed, assessed and delivered by East
Sussex County Council (ESCC).
·
Examining
whether the ESCC local speed limit policy PS05/02 is in line with
national Department for Transport (DfT) guidance.
·
Reviewing
examples of other local authority speed limit policies (e.g. our
nearest neighbours and those with similar road networks to
ESCC).
·
Reviewing
national and local evidence on the impact and effectiveness of
lower speed limits and zones (including 20mph limits).
·
Exploring
other measures local authorities and developments are bringing
forward to deliver low speed environments in both urban and rural
areas.
·
Exploring
how ESCC currently communicates the local speed limit policy and
wider policy context to residents and considers potential
improvements.
·
Reviewing
the amount of officer time spent carrying out assessments of road
safety concerns and preparing petition reports.
3.
The Review
Board gathered evidence for the review over a number of meetings
held with officers who are involved in delivering the service and
Sussex Police. The Board also examined evidence on the approach
other local authorities are taking to local speed limits, the
Department for Transport Circular 1/2013 Guidance: Setting Local
Speed Limits (updated March 2024), and national studies
undertaken on the impact of setting lower speed limits.
4.
The Board
did not have the capacity within the time available to hear
detailed evidence from officers of other local authorities on their
approaches to 20mph limits and zones, or the outcome of the review
of speed limits on all ‘A’ and ‘B’ roads in
the County. The Board suggests that the Place Scrutiny Committee
may wish to consider these subjects as part of its future work
programme.
5.
Speed
limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to
reinforce peoples’ assessment of what is a safe speed to
travel. They should encourage self-compliance. Speed limits tell
road users about the maximum permitted speed for a road. This is
not the target speed people should travel at and often the
appropriate and safe speed is significantly lower. Factors that
impact the safe speed to travel include weather, light conditions,
forward visibility, road width etc. There are three national speed
limits that apply to the road network:
·
30mph
– where there is a system of street lighting
·
60mph
– which is the national speed limit on single carriageway
roads
·
70mph
– which is the national speed limit on dual carriageways and
motorways
6.
These
national limits are not always appropriate for all roads and local
transport authorities, such as ESCC, can set different limits where
they may be more appropriate for the road conditions. To introduce
a speed limit other than that imposed by restricted road status
requires the making of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and the
provision of traffic signs to give a continual reminder of that
speed limit. Where the road in question is part of the Strategic
Road Network (SRN) which is the responsibility of National
Highways, they are responsible for setting the speed limit, not
ESCC (e.g. the A21 outside of Hastings). East Sussex has a low
proportion of roads that are the responsibility of National
Highways in comparison with other neighbouring local
authorities.
7.
The
Department for Transport (DfT) circular 1/2013, which was updated
in March 2024, provides guidance and advice to local authorities
when considering setting local speed limits. Local speed limits are
determined by transport authorities having regard to guidance
issued by DfT and ensuring compliance with all relevant
legislation. Research has indicated that neighbouring local
authorities are following this guidance to ensure that there is a
safe distribution of speeds, that speed limits are self-enforcing,
that vehicle speeds are safe and appropriate for the road and its
surroundings and there is consistent approach to setting local
speed limits, between different authorities.
8.
The ESCC
Policy PS05/02 Local Speed Limits (Appendix 2) was developed in
order to set out ESCC’s approach to setting local speed
limits. ESCC is not required to change speed limits from the
national default limits but does have statutory duties under Section 39 of the Road
Traffic Act 1988 to take steps to reduce collisions and injuries on
the road network in East Sussex. The Council also has a duty to
investigate with Sussex Police the cause of serious road
collisions, also referred to as Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI)
road collisions. In this context ESCC annually develops a Casualty
Reduction Programme and has also developed an innovative programme
to change driver behaviour with the aim of reducing the number of
KSIs on the County’s roads.
9.
The
DfT circular 1/2013 states that ‘Speed limits are only one
element of speed management’. Local speed limits should not
be set in isolation. They should be part of a package with other
speed management measures including:
a.
engineering
and road geometry that respect the needs of all road users and
raise the driver’s awareness of their environment
b.
education
c.
driver
information
d.
training
and publicity
10.The
DFT circular continues ‘The aim of speed management
policies should be to achieve a safe distribution of speeds
consistent with the speed limit that reflects the function of the
road and the road environment’. The principal aim is to
provide a consistent message between the speed limit and the road
layout and characteristics which will encourage the
self-enforcement of the speed limit.
11.
In the
past ESCC has reviewed the speed limits on the county’s roads
when the DfT guidance has changed, when specific funding has been
allocated or when a road safety issue had been identified at a
specific location. This has led to the introduction of 30mph limits
in most rural villages and changes to speed limits (e.g. 20mph, 40
mph or 50 mph) on other roads. More recently, during 2024, the Road
Safety Team has undertaken a review of speed limits on all
‘A’ and ‘B’ classification roads in the
county.
12.
All road
safety concerns that are raised by Members and residents are
assessed by a member of the Road Safety Team and where appropriate
improvements introduced. When considering how ESCC assesses and
prioritises road safety concerns, including requests for lower
speed limits, it is important to consider not only the Local Speed
Limit Policy PS05/02 but also the wider policy and operational
context. This includes the East Sussex Local Transport Plan (LTP),
as well as the LTP related criteria and prioritisation process
followed when setting the annual Capital Programme for Local
Transport Improvements, and the Annual Casualty Reduction,
Community Focused Road Safety and Speed Management
Programmes.
13.
14.The
Board heard evidence from officers that the purpose of the local
speed limit policy PS05/02 is to achieve a safe distribution of
speeds consistent with the speed limit that reflects the function
of the road and the road environment.
15.It
is based on the DfT guidance as set out in Circular 1/2013 to
ensure that the approach taken is consistent with other transport
authorities across the country and that speed limits are
self-enforcing. A self-enforcing signed only speed limit can be
achieved where the mean vehicle speeds are below those set out in
policy PSO5/02. Where average speeds are higher and it is assessed
a lower speed limit is required, traffic calming measures will be
required to reduce speeds to at or below the mean vehicle
speed.
16.The
Board heard that the primary determinant when assessing and
selecting a speed limit should be the appearance and character of
the road. Road users may not automatically comply with a limit if
it is set unrealistically low for a particular road function and
condition. When looking at the character of the road environment,
consideration is given to the amount of frontage development which
may indicate the greater presence of Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs)
such as pedestrians, wheelers and cyclists. Other criteria used to
determine the appropriate speed limit for a road
include:
·
the type/function of road (e.g. road classification, primary route
etc.);
·
the measured average (mean) speed of vehicles which would suggest
whether a new limit would be self-enforcing;
·
vulnerable road users;
·
where there is a history of speed related personal injury crashes
at a location, engineering measures are investigated to reduce
vehicle speeds to below the required average speed for the
limit.
17.The
Board also heard from officers that in most locations the majority
of drivers drive at or near to the posted speed limit. For the
small minority who do not drive at an appropriate speed, a change
in the speed limit is unlikely to change their driving behaviour,
and engineering measures (such as traffic calming measures and
changes to the road layout) or enforcement measures will be
required to tackle speeding behaviour. Consequently, reducing a
speed limit by signs alone is unlikely to be effective in dealing
with speeding.
18.The
adopted Policy PS05/02 allows for 20mph zones or speed limits to be
considered where they are likely to be self-enforcing. An effective
and self-enforcing 20mph speed limit can be achieved with signs
alone on roads where the mean (average) speed of traffic is below
24mph. On roads where mean speeds are higher, appropriate traffic
management/calming measures would need to be introduced.
19.The
wider policy context is two-fold. Firstly, there are a range of
measures that ESCC utilises to fulfil the Council’s statutory
duties under Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take steps
to reduce collisions and injuries on the road network. Where
appropriate these may include a change to the speed limit in line
with the local speed limit policy.
20.Secondly,
within the context of the adopted East Sussex Local Transport Plan
4 (LTP4) there are a number of policies therein, including the
local speed limit policy which specifically cross-refers to Policy
PS05/02, that will be considered when potential transport and road
safety schemes are being assessed for potential inclusion in future
capital programme. Please refer sections 45-48 below on the
LTP4, and
sections 49-53 on lower speeds in new development.
21.The
Board concluded that if speed limits are set too low there will be
poor compliance. Some Board members also observed that there is a
potential conflict between some residents’ desire to have
lower speed limits near to where they live whilst at the same time
wanting to be able travel more quickly through other parts of the
county. The Board heard from Sussex Police that it can be common,
at speed enforcement sites, that a higher proportion of speeding
tickets are often issued to local people, whilst most speeding
complaints are made by people who live in the local
area.
22.The
Board noted that neighbouring authorities, who are also members of
Transport for the South East (TfSE), have speed limit policies
which are broadly in line with the national guidance. This ensures
that a consistent message about speed limits is given to road users
across a wider geography than East Sussex. The Board heard evidence
that other local authorities (e.g. Surrey County Council and Kent
County Council) have in the last two to three years reviewed some
of their speed limit policies including where they relate to 20mph
speed limits and zones.
23.The
Board concluded that it is important that Policy PS05/02 Local
Speed Limits is reviewed when there are changes to national
guidance.
Recommendation
1:
The Board
recommends that the Council regularly reviews Policy PS05/02 Local
Speed Limits when there is a change in national
guidance.
24.The
Board also concluded that more information about the purpose of
local speed limits and the wider policy context should be provided
on the Council’s website pages to explain how we set local
speed limits. This could include case studies. For example, further
information on the purpose of speed limits could be provided on the
website page:
Speeding and speed limits | East Sussex County
Council
Recommendation
2:
The Board
recommends that the ESCC website pages are updated to provide
clearer information on the purpose of local, county wide speed
limits and the wider policy context they are applied in.
25.The
Board heard evidence from officers that the DfT Circular 1/2013
guidance recommends which factors are taken into account in any
decisions to introduce or change local speed limits. These are
reflected in the ESCC Policy PS05/02 and include:
·
history of
collisions
·
road
geometry and engineering
·
road
function
·
composition
of road users (including existing and potential levels of
vulnerable road users)
·
existing
traffic speeds
·
road
environment
26.The
Board had the opportunity to review the contents of the current DfT
guidance and compare it with ESCC’s speed limit policy. The
Board also considered evidence from Sussex Police, officers and
written evidence from other councils who had based their policies
on the DfT guidance. From the evidence seen by the Board it
concluded that ESCC’s policy is compliant with the DfT
guidance.
27.The
Board also reviewed examples of other councils’ speed limit
policies which included:
·
Surrey
County Council (SCC)
·
West
Sussex County Council (WSCC)
·
Buckinghamshire
Council
·
Oxfordshire
County Council
·
Durham
County Council
·
Hampshire
County Council
·
Kent
County Council (KCC)
28.The
majority of Board members found that ESCC’s speed limit
policy is broadly in line with the majority of examples from
neighbouring and other local authorities with a similar road
network. All refer to, and are based on, the DfT guidance and state
that speed limits should be self-enforcing. Almost all examples
given use the average speed of 24mph as the cut off point for
signed only 20mph limits to be self-enforcing.
29.However,
there are some differences. For example, WSCC uses a cut off of an
average speed of 26mph for signed only 20mph limits but still
requires them to be self-enforcing. Surrey County Council’s
speed limit policies also include a separate policy for rural roads
and for outside schools. Although there were some specific
differences, these often reflect local circumstances and there were
no consistently different approaches to that taken by
ESCC.
30.Several
authorities have prioritised the roll out of new 20mph speed limits
and zones and have allocated significant additional funding to
enable this (e.g. Surrey £2.5 million, Oxfordshire £8
million, Cornwall £4 million). In terms of this recent
investment that some local authorities have made we are unaware
whether they are using existing grant funding (and diverting
funding away from other priorities) or funding the investment from
borrowing or reserves.
31.Although
it is recognised that 20mph speed limits are often well supported
by local communities, national research including a study
commissioned by the DfT has evidenced that signed only 20mph speed
limits only produce a negligible change in driver behaviour with
average speeds reducing by about 1mph to 2mph.
32.The
Board considered examples of other authorities’ approach to
20mph speed limits from Oxfordshire, Cornwall, Surrey, and
Buckinghamshire councils and the Welsh Government’s approach.
The Board noted the comments from officers that, as a result of the
approaches other local authorities were taking, there was a risk
that the increased number of requests for 20mph limits, alongside
all the other requests for transport improvements received (e.g.
pedestrian and cycle improvements, bus infrastructure improvements,
traffic management and traffic calming, junction improvements etc),
would further significantly exceed the level of funding available.
Therefore, a prioritisation process would be required to identify
which schemes would be implemented.
33.The
Board heard that the current ESCC speed limit policy has clear
criteria to enable the introduction of 20mph limits and zones, but
the Board noted that some improvements in initial communications
would be beneficial. Any scheme requests will be assessed
using the Casualty Reduction and LTP4 prioritisation process to
ensure they support the current policies and priorities.
34.The
Board concluded that, given ESCC’s current financial position
and the limited availability of external funding, it would be
unlikely that the Council could adopt a similar approach of
allocating large sums of capital funding to implement 20mph speed
limits and zones (see section 58 below for more details on
funding).
35.The
Review Board heard that when road safety concerns are received by
the Council, including requests to lower the speed limit, the
correspondence is examined, and a desk top study is carried out.
This includes checking to see if there is a scheme already planned
for the area and whether there is a crash history for that
site/location. If required, a site visit is carried out to examine
the issues raised and to make sure there are not any other issues
evident that might be affecting the situation. The site assessment
includes consideration of the following:
·
Existing road signs and street furniture
·
the character of the road and road function;
·
the road environment; and
·
the composition of road users/traffic.
36.If
the request meets the policy criteria in Policy PS05/02 and there
is a history of speed related personal injury crashes (recorded by
Sussex Police) then it will be considered for inclusion within the
annual Casualty Reduction Programme. If there is not a history of
speed related crashes, a scheme to reduce the speed limit will be
assessed for potential inclusion within the capital programme of
local transport improvements.
37.The
Board heard evidence from Sussex Police that they assess requests
to change speed limits against the DfT guidance contained in
circular 1/2013 and consider that all speed limits should be
self-enforcing. Speed limits are also assessed when the Council is
consulted on planning applications for new developments (more
detail is given section 49 below).
38.The
Board noted that, when considering setting local speed limits, it
is important to balance the needs of vulnerable road users against
the need for vehicles to be able to travel across the county in an
efficient and effective way. The Board saw examples where some
local authorities have assessed their A & B class roads and
stated that new requests for lower speed limits would not be
considered due to the function of the road (e.g. Oxfordshire County
Council). This would keep the strategic route network available for
travel around the county. Other local authorities have stated that
they will not consider 20mph limits on roads that have an existing
speed limit above 30mph (e.g. Surrey County Council). These factors
could be used to filter out requests for changes to speed limits
that are unlikely to be successful (see recommendation
4).
39.The
Board observed that there appears to be a disconnect between the
desires of local communities who want to see lower speed limits and
the national evidence that signed only speed limits will only
reduce traffic speeds by 1 to 2 mph. In addition, due to finite
funding it is necessary that schemes are prioritised that will
deliver the greatest benefit to our local communities. This is
evidenced by the high number of requests that the Council receives
and the relatively low number of schemes that are implemented as a
result of community requests (also see section 54-55).
40.The
Board concluded that the Council needs to be clearer with the
community about the criteria that are used to review speed limits
and the financial constraints that exist (see sections 58-62). In
many cases local councillors would like to be able to implement
more transport and road safety schemes but are unable to do so as
the limited available funding has to be prioritised to meet a
number of wider policy objectives.
41.The
Board discussed a number of measures that may improve the
situation, including how officer time is used and the assessment
process. However, the Board also noted that the Council has a legal
responsibility to investigate crashes take place on our road
network and take appropriate steps to reduce collisions and
injuries.
Recommendation
3:
The Board
recommends that officers review the speed limit assessment process
and criteria that other local authorities have introduced to manage
demand to identify any potential efficiencies in officer
time.
42.The
Board heard evidence from officers that the experience of the
introduction of 20mph speed limits by other councils was consistent
with the national research studies on the impact of lower speed
limits, which showed that signed only speed limits would reduce
average speeds by 1-2mph at best. It was therefore likely that in
many locations in Wales and Oxfordshire the new 20mph zones would
not be self-enforcing and therefore would have a poor level of
compliance. In Wales, although there was initially a good level of
compliance due to significant additional police enforcement, levels
of speeding have since increased and, due to a lack of compliance
and following a high number of complaints, a number of the new
limits are being reverted back to 30mph. A Board member noted that
other local authorities are reporting greater reductions in average
speeds as a result of introducing signed only 20 mph speed
limits.
43.The
Board also considered evidence from the national research on 20mph
zones from the Centre for Public Health,
Queens University, Belfast and
Atkins studies. These studies had found that reducing
speed limits to 20mph in towns and city centres did not
significantly reduce road traffic collisions, casualties or driver
speeds.
44.The
Board also heard that a number of 20mph schemes, either as specific
projects or as part of wider transport schemes, have been delivered
across the county through under the auspices of the previous Local
Transport Plan (LTP3) and the Council’s capital programme for
local transport improvements. However, the Board were advised that
many of these have been funded through external sources such as the
Government’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund, Local Growth
Fund, development funding rather than via County Council funding
allocations.
45.The
Board heard that the vision of the adopted East Sussex LTP4 focuses
on ‘planning for people and places’ and moves away from
planning solely for vehicles. There is a transition towards
enabling sustainable modes of transport (walking, wheeling, cycling
and use of public transport), more choice and enabling integrated
journeys. The LTP4
has series of high-level policies which support low speed
environments and connectivity including:
·
B1 – Healthy Lifestyles
·
B2 – Active Travel
·
B3 – Road Safety
·
B4 – Placemaking
·
D1 – Strategic connectivity –
Keeping East Sussex connected
·
D3 – The needs of business and the visitor economy
46.Policy
B3 Road Safety in the adopted LTP4 sets out in paragraphs 6.77
– 6.79 that:
·
To be
effective, speed limits need to be set at a level which appears
reasonable to a driver and be reflective of the environment through
which the road passes.
·
The
delivery of lower speed limits including 20mph speed limits and
zones in the county is done in accordance with the ESCC adopted
Policy PS05/02. This reflects national guidance and best practice
for setting speed limits.
·
The policy
allows for lower speed limits, including the introduction of 20mph
limits/zones, to be considered where they are likely to be
self-enforcing. This may be through engineering measures to bring
the speed down.
47.The
LTP4 policies clearly highlighted that the adopted ESCC Policy
PS05/02 is the determinant for setting lower speed limits in the
county.
48.The
Board also heard that local transport schemes for low-speed
environments could be brought forward as part of the implementation
of LTP4, but this would be subject to the funding being available
and such schemes being identified as a priority relative to all the
other scheme requests received for inclusion in ESCC’s
capital programme of local transport improvements.
The
existing scheme prioritisation process used to assess and identify
which transport schemes, including lower speed limits, that are to
be included in annual capital programme of local transport
improvements is currently being reviewed as part of the
post-adoption work on the LTP4.
49.The
Transport Development Control Team considers the potential impact
on the transport network of planning applications for new
developments. They have 21 days to submit comments during which
time they can make recommendations to local planning authorities
(the district and borough councils and South Downs National Park
Authority) on improvements, changes, conditions, and legal
agreements to attach to planning permissions.
50.The
Board heard that ESCC’s design guidance follows the DfT
Manual for Streets and has been in place since 2007. The Transport
Development Control Team seek to ensure the design of new
residential developments supports lower speeds.
Whilst comments are made to the respective planning authorities on
a development’s layout in relation to Manual for Streets,
ESCC does not have any authority over the final development
design.
51.The
Transport Development Control Team’s guidance states
that:
“The
design speed for new streets is a key principle to their success in
achieving a sense of place. All residential roads should therefore
be designed to achieve an 85th percentile speed of
20mph.”
52.The
Board heard that this is an example of the way that ESCC seeks to
ensure low speed environments are designed into new developments.
The Board also saw examples of other low speed environment schemes
that had been implemented in Lewes Town Centre and Eastbourne Town
Centre phase 1. The Board found that ESCC has been implementing
20mph limits and zones and low speed environments as part of
transport schemes and has been promoting low speed environments in
new residential developments for over fifteen years.
53.The
Board concluded that ESCC has policies and processes in place which
can support the development of low-speed environments including
20mph limits and zones. This can be in new residential
developments, industrial estates and as part of larger transport
related schemes such as those in town centres where there may be
high numbers of vulnerable road users who would benefit from a
low-speed environment.
54.The
Board heard from officers that the Road Safety Team receives around
4,000 pieces of correspondence a year relating to road safety
concerns. Over recent years, the Team also received between six to
twenty petitions a year, with around one third of them relating to
a request for a lower speed limit.
55.The
Board noted the amount of officer time involved in assessing road
safety concerns and requests to lower speed limits, which often do
not lead to a scheme being implemented. However, it is important to
highlight that assessing the concerns raised is a key element of
ensuring ESCC fulfils the Council’s statutory duties under
Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
56.The
Board considered examples of the processes in place at other local
authorities. Some councils state they will not consider requests to
change speed limits unless there have been material changes such as
the occurrence of a number of KSIs, or a change in the road
environment (e.g. Hampshire County Council, Oxfordshire). Some
require there to be evidence of personal injury collisions and
provide a link to a ‘crash map’ for people to check if
there has been any reported KSIs before proceeding with a request
(e.g. Kent County Council). Others such as Surrey and Kent County
Councils set out a step-by-step approach, where making a request is
dependent on meeting the criteria at each step/stage of the
process.
57.The
Board considered the potential for introducing a step-by-step or
sifting process. Members considered that this could reduce the
number of requests for speed limit changes that are unlikely to
proceed, which would be helpful both in addressing community
expectations and reducing officers’ time spent on
assessments. This could enable officers time to be re-focussed on
other road safety work.
Recommendation
4:
The Board
recommends that the Council introduces a step-by-step process and
guide for changes to local speed limits.
58.The
Board reviewed the various sources of funding available for local
transport schemes, which are used to fund transport and road safety
improvements, including speed limit and traffic calming schemes.
The main source of funding ESCC has for this work is the Integrated
Transport Block funding the Council receives from central
Government, which is currently around £3 million per year.
This is used to fund a range of local transport schemes, not just
those related to road safety. External funding is also secured
through bids to external funding sources where available (e.g. the
Local Growth Fund) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) or
Section 106 planning agreement payments. Funding is also available
to help fund schemes jointly with communities through the ESCC
Community Match Fund.
59.The
Board heard from officers that the total costs for the design and
implementation of a signed only speed limit speed limit vary but
could range between £20,000 - £30,000. However, schemes
that require traffic calming to reduce the average speed and ensure
a speed limit is self-enforcing will cost considerably more to
implement. The cost of designing and implementing a traffic
calming scheme will vary significantly and will be dependent on the
type of measures introduced, traffic management, extent of the
scheme, any changes to drainage etc. (Buckinghamshire Council cited
costs of up to £100,000 for traffic calming schemes, however
it is important to highlight that this would be at the lower end of
the cost for implementing a scheme). Some councils publish
estimated costs for various traffic calming measures together with
typical costs for schemes. As a consequence of the relatively high
cost of transport and road safety schemes, funding has to be
prioritised carefully.
60.The
Board heard in evidence that transport and road safety schemes
including lower speed limits, active travel, School Streets, etc.
are assessed either through the road safety prioritisation
processes and/or the LTP prioritisation process, which includes a
scored high level sift, and if the proposed scheme scores highly
enough it goes forward for further development and implementation.
The annual funding for the Casualty Reduction Programme is
prioritised to reduce road casualties and is targeted at locations
that have had four or more KSIs in the last three years.
61.The
Board explored the time it takes to deliver schemes on the highway,
including transport and road safety schemes, and that due to the
legislative framework these contain a number of stages. The stages
include feasibility, preliminary design, consultation and
communications, seeking Lead Member approval to proceed
post-consultation, detailed design, undertaking surveys and the
Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process which involves statutory
consultees. Members heard that schemes can take between two to four
years to design and implement, but this can vary depending on the
scale and complexity of the scheme. If there are significant
concerns raised at the consultation stage, further design and
engagement may be required which can delay continued development
and implementation of a scheme. Similarly, objections at the
TRO stage can also delay implementation as these objections need to
be reported to and considered by the County Council’s
Planning Committee or possibly mean a scheme does not
proceed.
62.The
Board concluded that funding appears to be the main constraint on
the number of local transport schemes that ESCC can deliver, and
that the length of time it takes to deliver schemes can be a source
of concern with local communities. There can be a significant
period of time between a request being made and a scheme being
implemented.
Recommendation
5:
The Board
recommends:
1) A
review is undertaken on the information provided to local
communities, including Parish Councils; and
2)
Information is provided on the Road Safety section on the ESCC
website, including case studies, on the potential cost of designing
and implementing signed only speed limits and also speed limit
schemes where traffic calming is required. In addition, information
is provided on the length of time it can take to deliver speed
limit schemes.
63.The
Board heard from officers that there is information on the ESCC
Council website, including on our road safety policies,
prioritisation process and speed limits. Officers gave examples of
other local authorities who take a similar approach to providing
information on their speed limit policies and for requests to
change speed limits. The Board explored suggested changes to the
way the Council presents the information on the website with
officers and the creation of a dedicated speed limit request page
with the following information on it:
·
The context upon which speed limits are assessed (e.g. DfT
Guidance, Speed Limit policy)
·
The factors which are considered when assessing a speed
limit
·
A photographic guide on how the speed limit policy is used to
assess the appropriate speed for the road.
·
A step by step explanation of the assessment process
·
Information on how to report speeding to the Police
·
Information on how to join Community Speed Watch
64.The
Board considered that refreshing the web page information and
creating a speed limit enquiry page, incorporating the step-by-step
process, would be helpful in better communicating the
Council’s policy approach to local speed limits. The Board
also considered that the proposed webpage content includes the
policy context as mentioned in recommendation 2.
Recommendation
6:
The Board
recommends that officers refresh the information on speed limits on
the ESCC website pages and create a speed limit change enquiry
page.
65.The
Board also considered other forms of communication and engagement,
noting that not everyone looks at website information. In
particular, it is important to communicate with Parish Councils and
other community groups who often make requests for changes to speed
limits. The Board concluded that it was important to maintain
active communication with stakeholders on the Councils’
approach to speed limits.
66.The
Board also heard from Sussex Police about the important role of
local Community Speed Watch groups and the impact they have on
driver behaviour. They are part of a range of speed management
measures that increase compliance with speed limits. Board members
highlighted the challenge of recruiting sufficient volunteers for
these groups and considered what could be done to promote their
work.
Recommendation
7:
The Board
recommends that the Council considers whether additional
communication materials are required that:
1) Outline
the Council’s approach to assessing local speed limits and
the prioritisation process to help local communities understand the
types of speed reduction measures that might be
possible;
2) Explain
that potential schemes that meet our policy, but are not currently
a priority for the County Council, may be implemented if externally
funded and delivered through the Community Match programme or a
Section 278 agreement; and
3) Assist
with the recruitment of volunteers to local Community Speed Watch
groups (e.g. through Parish and Town Councils).
67.The
Board noted that finding solutions to road safety issues and
speeding concerns requires partnership working as well as an
effective local speed limit policy. During the review the Board
became aware that Sussex Police was withdrawing from the Sussex
Safer Roads Partnership (SSRP). Although this is outside of the
scope of the review, the Board considered that it will be important
for the Council to establish the future arrangements for
partnership working with Sussex Police and other partners to ensure
a coordinated and strategic approach to road safety across
Sussex.
68.The
Board has considered a wide range of information and evidence on
the policy approach to local speed limits both in ESCC and other
local authorities. It has also considered other measures the
Council takes to implement low speed environments through local
transport schemes, the LTP4 and the planning system.
69.Overall,
the Board found that the Council’s local speed limit policy
and approach to setting speed limits is in line with the current
DfT guidance and is broadly similar to the approach taken by other
local authorities. The Board has made a number of recommendations
to better communicate the Council’s policy approach and has
suggested changes for dealing with the number of requests the
Council receives for amendments to local speed limits.
The Review
was established to consider and make recommendations on the
following scope of the review which included:
1.
The
purpose of a local speed limit policy and how local speed limits
are reviewed, assessed and delivered by East Sussex County Council
(ESCC).
2.
Whether
the ESCC local speed limit policy PS05/02 is in line with national
Department for Transport (DfE) guidance.
3.
Examples
of other local authority speed limit policies (e.g. our nearest
neighbours and those with similar road networks to
ESCC).
4.
National
and local evidence on the impact and effectiveness of lower speed
limits and zones (including 20mph limits).
5.
Other
measures local authorities and developments are bringing forward to
deliver low speed environments in both urban and rural
areas.
6.
How ESCC
currently communicates the local speed limit policy and wider
policy context to residents and consider potential
improvements.
7.
The amount
of officer time spent on carrying out assessments of road safety
concerns and preparing petition reports.
The aims
of the review were to:
·
Gain an
understanding of assessment criteria and processes used to set
local speed limits
·
Establish
whether the current local speed limit policy PS05/02 is in line
with national guidance.
The
review also sought to
·
Explore
whether improvements could be made in how the Council communicates
the local speed limit policy and wider policy context to residents,
and
·
Whether
the amount of officer time spent on undertaking assessments could
be reduced.
Review
Board Members: Councillors Ian Hollidge (Chair), Matthew Beaver,
Julia Hilton, Eleanor Kirby-Green, Philip Lunn, Steve Murphy, Paul
Redstone and Brett Wright.
The
Project Manager was Martin Jenks, Senior Scrutiny Adviser with
additional support provided by Patrick Major, Scrutiny and Policy
support Officer.
Ismina
Harvey and Kelly Burr provided ongoing support to the Board
throughout the review.
Scoping
meeting - 21 May 2024
Board
meetings
04
September 2024
04 October
2024
22 October
2024
30 October
2024
08
November 2024
19
November 2024
The Board
would like to thank all the witnesses who provided evidence in
person:
ESCC
officers
Nick
Skelton, Assistant Director Communities
Ismina
Harvey, Head of Communities
Kelly
Burr, Team Manager Road Safety
Lisa
Simmonds, Infrastructure Planning & Policy Manager
Jon
Wheeler, Team Manager - Infrastructure Planning &
Place
Michelle
Edser, Team Manager Transport Development Control
Mark
Weston, Assistant Manager - Implementation Team, Transport
Development Control
Other
representatives
Chief
Inspector Matthew Wightwick, Sussex Police
Contact
officer: Martin Jenks, Senior Scrutiny Adviser Telephone: 01273
481327
E-mail: martin.jenks@eastsussex.gov.uk
APPENDIX
2
