Agenda item

Paragraph 1 (Notice of Motion – Bishopstone Junction, Seaford)

 

29.1     The Chairman stated that as the recommendation of the Lead Member for Transport and Environment was to reject the motion rather than proposing an amendment the Council would vote on the original motion as proposed by Councillor Lambert and seconded by Councillor MacCleary as set out in paragraph 1.1 of the report.

 

29.2     Councillor Claire Dowling introduced the reserved paragraph in the Lead Member’s report.

 

29.3     A recorded vote on the following motion was requested and taken:

 

On 15 February 2021, Cllr Darren Grover and Cllr Carolyn Lambert submitted a Notice of Motion (NOM) to the Lead Member for Transport and Environment. The NOM called attention to two accidents in two days that closed the A259 in Seaford, the biggest town in Lewes District.

The NOM requested the Cabinet to undertake a proper survey of the whole town, not just the Buckle by-pass, with particular focus on all the junctions with the A259, to identify the areas of greatest risk to both car users, cyclists and pedestrians, and to come up with some concrete proposals to enhance road safety.  The NOM recognised that the County Council was already undertaking a review of the A259 from Seaford to Brighton in terms of congestion and argued that the safety of both car users, pedestrians and cyclists should form part of that study. The Cabinet was asked to:

 · impose lower speed limits on the approaches to Seaford and to work with partners to ensure these are enforced;

 · provide safe pedestrian crossings at key points of the A259 including at the Bishopstone junctions.

These requests were refused on the grounds that:

-               a study was already being carried out;

-               reducing the speed limit would require a significant level of engineering work;

-               the request for a pedestrian crossing at Bishopstone needed to be considered    holistically as part of the study and in any event, funding was not available.

At the County Council meeting of 7 February 2023, Cllr Carolyn Lambert submitted a further written question to the Lead Member, pointing out that the situation with the A259 was now critical and that Seaford, in particular, was suffering. The A259 continues to be regularly gridlocked and there have been further serious accidents. The outcome of the study has been delayed and any practical proposals are still awaited leaving residents still regularly facing dangers and delays on this difficult road. 

Given the further delay to the study, and the length of time residents have been waiting for improvements, this NOM calls on Cabinet to:

-               Provide temporary traffic lights at the Bishopstone junction to assess the effectiveness of this as a traffic management solution.  The County Council is reminded that, despite initial resistance from the local authority, temporary traffic lights have worked well at Exceat and have been well received by residents;

-               Seek to provide a safe route for pedestrians and cyclists over the A259 at Bishopstone by bidding for funding for a footbridge using the £750k still in the County Council’s Active Travel Fund.

 

 

 

 

29.4     The motion was LOST with the votes being cast as follows:

 

FOR THE MOTION

 

Councillors Collier, Denis, Field, Hilton, Holt, Lambert, MacCleary, Maples, Murphy, Osborne, Rodohan, Daniel Shing, Stephen Shing, Shuttleworth, Swansborough, Taylor, Tutt, Ungar, and Webb.

 

AGAINST THE MOTION

 

Councillors Adeniji, Azad, Beaver, Belsey, Bennett, Bowdler, Clark, Chris Dowling,

Claire Dowling, Fox, Galley, Geary, Glazier, Hay, Hollidge, Kirby-Green, Liddiard,

Lunn, Marlow-Eastwood, Maynard, Milligan, Pragnell, Redstone, and Standley.

 

ABSTENTIONS

 

None.

 

 

Paragraph 2 (Notice of Motion to review and update policy PS05/02 Local Speed Limits)

 

29.5     The Chairman stated that as the recommendation of the Lead member for Transport and Environment was to reject the motion rather than proposing an amendment the Council would vote on the original motion as proposed by Councillor Denis and seconded by Councillor Taylor as set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report.

 

29.6     Councillor Claire Dowling introduced the reserved paragraph in the Lead Member’s report.

 

29.7     Councillor Maples proposed the following amendment to the motion.

 

 

This Council agrees:

 

(Delete)

 

a)    To request the Lead Member for Transport to demonstrate that PS05/02 and its operational implementation is fully in line with the Circular 01/2013 with a full audit of speed limit assessments completed in the last 2 years.

b)    To request that the Lead Member shares the results of this audit with Full Council within two months.

c)    That PS05/02 be reviewed within the next two months and be presented to Full Council to ensure it is fully in line with all aspects of Circular 01/2013

d)    That community and resident experience, quality of life and fear of speeds are included as explicit criteria in PS05/02 as clearly indicated in Circular 01/2013

 

 

 

 

(Insert)

 

a)    That the updated scheme assessment in the local transport plan will appropriately prioritise the criteria relevant to community and resident experience, quality of life and fear of speeds are included as explicit criteria as clearly indicated in Circular 01/2013.

b)    That the definition of an “effective speed limit” includes consideration of the investment in engineering, street markings and community education, rather than just being about changing the speed limit alone.

c)    The Speed Management Programme review identifying lengths of the main road network that would benefit from a reduced speed limit, should consider all of the roads where residents and/or local councils have requested a reduced speed limit and provide an estimate of the cost for each of those projects so that local councils can decide whether to fund these projects through local fundraising.

 

29.8     Councillor Dowling raised concerns regarding the validity of the motion and

Councillor Maples addressed the Chair in support of the proposed amendment.

 

29.9     The Chair decided that the proposed amendment which replaced the motion in its entirety and has been presented once the original motion had been responded to was not relevant to the original motion and therefore not a valid amendment. The Chair considered that if Members wanted Council to consider it, it should instead be treated as a new motion and considered at a future meeting.

 

29.10   A recorded vote on the following motion was requested and taken:

 

Policy PS05/02 sets out the Council’s policy on local speed limits. It claims to be in line with Government best practice guidance and legislation on road safety. (Road Traffic Regulation Act, and more recently the Department of Transport Circular Roads 01/2013.)

 

The Policy sets out speed limits in section 5 of this policy with average speed limits and it states that if average speeds are above that level then, subject to “available resources”, where injury or crashes at a site justify the necessary expenditure, engineering measures will be implemented first and, if this is not possible, then a lowering of the speed limit may be introduced.

 

This policy oversimplifies an approach to road safety and speed limits that is not consistent with the guidance outlined in the Department of Transport Circular Road 01/2013.

 

The above Circular sets out that “Local traffic authorities are responsible for determining speed limits on the local road network”.

 

It continues: “The underlying aim should be to achieve a ‘safe’ distribution of speeds. The key factors that should be taken into account in any decisions on local speed limits are:

 

·         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

 

While these factors need to be considered for all road types, they may be weighted differently in urban or rural areas. The impact on community and environmental outcomes should also be considered” [my emphasis].

 

The following parts of the policy PS05/02 are not consistent with national Circular 01/2013: specifically:

 

·         Paragraph 5. Speed limit table is an over simplifcation of a complex assessment and as such is only one part of the overall process. Using this table in this way means that the views and experiences of residents are not being taken into account when assessing speed limits as set out in the Circular. (ref 23 Circular 01/2013)

·         Paragraph 6. Refers to speed limits being investigated will be subject to “available resources”. The Circular outlines a cost benefit analysis that includes a wide range of non monetary benefits that have to be considered including quality of life factors and fear of speeds [my emphasis]. (ref: 31 Circular 01/2013)

·         Paragraph 7a: casualty reduction: The Circular further sets out that the assessment is not simply about casualties on a road or killed or seriously injured, but is a more complex process of assessment that has to include the experience of other road users, pedestrians, cyclists, horses and riders [my emphasis] (ref 32 Circular 01/2013)

·         Paragraph 7c: The self enforcing requirements of PS05/02 is not a defacto requirement.  It is a factor to consider and as such the danger is that policy is used to uphold existing speed limits rather than consider why compliance might be an issue and how to address compliance. (ref 26 Circular 01/2013).

·         Appendix A outlines an approach to speed limit criteria that is equally outwith of the national guidance, which requires local traffic authorities to perform an assessment that includes listening to local residents, and introduce 20mph speed limits in towns AND villages, “particularly where the streets are being used by people on foot and on bicycles, there is community support and the characteristics of the street are suitable” (ref 84 Circular 01/2013).

 

Such priorities are given further emphasis in the January 2022 revisions to the Highway Code, in particular, the clear notation on the ‘Hierarchy of Road Users’, which “places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. … [These are] pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists, with children, older adults and disabled people being more at risk.”

 

This Council agrees:

 

e)    To request the Lead Member for Transport to demonstrate that PS05/02 and its operational implementation is fully in line with the Circular 01/2013 with a full audit of speed limit assessments completed in the last 2 years.

f)     To request that the Lead Member shares the results of this audit with Full Council within two months.

g)    That PS05/02 be reviewed within the next two months and be presented to Full Council to ensure it is fully in line with all aspects of Circular 01/2013

h)    That community and resident experience, quality of life and fear of speeds are included as explicit criteria in PS05/02 as clearly indicated in Circular 01/2013.

 

 

29.11   The motion was LOST with the votes being cast as follows:

 

FOR THE MOTION

 

Councillors Collier, Denis, Hilton, Maples, Daniel Shing, Stephen Shing, Taylor and Webb.

 

AGAINST THE MOTION

 

Councillors Adeniji, Azad, Beaver, Belsey, Bennett, Bowdler, Chris Dowling, Claire Dowling, Fox, Galley, Geary, Glazier, Hay, Hollidge, Kirby-Green, Liddiard, Lunn, Marlow-Eastwood, Maynard, Milligan, Pragnell, Redstone and Standley.

 

ABSTENTIONS

 

Councillors Field, Holt, Lambert, MacCleary, Murphy, Osborne, Rodohan, Shuttleworth, Swansborough and Tutt.