Agenda item

To consider a petition received calling on the Council to improve road safety on Cumwell Lane/Kingsforth Lane.

At the Council meeting on 13 April 2022, it was noted that a petition had been received in respect of a request to the Councilto improve road safety on Cumwell Lane/Kingsforth Lane. As the petition had 622 valid signatures under the Council’s petition scheme, it was referred to Overview and Scrutiny Management Board for review.

The Chair welcomed Cllr Ball to the meeting as Lead Petitioner. Cllr Collingham joined Cllr Ball as a signatory to the petition, having declared an interest in this item. The Cabinet Member for Transport and the Environment and officers were also welcomed.

The Chair opened by offering the Board’s condolences to those affected by the recent fatal accidents. Following this, she outlined the process for consideration of petitions in accordance with the Council’s petition scheme.

The Chair invited to Cllr Ball to present the call for action. He noted with regret the need to submit the petition. Referring to previous serious accidents including some fatalities, he stated that the lanes were used as a shortcut between villages. Residents and professionals had approached him to raise concerns about road safety. He noted that the actions taken by the Council to date were welcome however, it was the view of the petitioner that the installation of an average speed camera would act as a greater deterrent and lead to reduced speeds on this stretch of road. Cllr Collingham speaking in support of the petition, cited widespread public backing to the concerns raised.

Board Members were invited to ask questions of Cllr Ball, as the Lead Petitioner. Clarification was sought if there were actions other than the installation of an average speed camera that could be taken by the Council to improve road safety. In response, the Lead Petitioner noted that proposals including the installation of barriers, road resurfacing, and introduction of speed limits had been made. Whilst these would offer additional safety measures, it was his view that average speed restrictions would be an effective deterrent. He further clarified that Council officers had been responsive to requests to meet to discuss proposals. While this was welcome, the petitioners asked that the proposals be translated into clear measures to improve road safety in the local area.

The Chair invited the Cabinet Member for Transport and the Environment to outline his response. In opening, the Cabinet Member also offered his condolences to the families and friends in respect of the two recent fatalities. He stated that the Council was committed to taking this matter seriously and this could be demonstrated by what the Council has done, was doing and what future action the Council had planned to address concerns. 

He noted that a meeting had been organised with ward members and officer to discuss action taken and forthcoming plans. An offer was made to organise another meeting to keep members abreast of developments and inform future working.  The Cabinet Member reminded the Board and ward members that the Council was obliged to follow statutory processes in respect of changes speed limits, including consultation with the public and statutory undertakers, which necessarily would take time to conduct.

The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment outlined that swift action was taken following the accident, including an immediate road closure, changes to signage, regular inspection and engagement with site owners.  Steps had been taken to enact Traffic Regulation Orders which involved following a legal process. Other actions included improving and replacing road studs, improving verges, installation of speed activated signs and warnings including ‘cross hatching’ outside key sites on the road. 

The Interim Head of Transport Infrastructure outlined that the Road Safety Investigations Team and Road Safety Measure Team were looking proactively at incidents to identify safety mitigations across the road network. In respect of the matters under consideration at this meeting, action was in train prior to the petition being submitted. The officers were working closely with South Yorkshire Police, ward councillors and local communities to identify solutions.  It was noted that informal enquires had been made to ascertain the feasibility of installing average speed cameras. However, in doing so it was outlined that wider consideration was needed to locating cameras in places where safe maintenance could be undertaken.

The Chair invited Cllr Ball to put questions to the Cabinet Member for Transport and the Environment and officers following the contributions. Cllr Ball thanked the Cabinet Member and officers for providing details of its proposals and looked forward to their implementation. Cllr Ball referred to previous concerns raised by ward members regarding road safety and asked if the issue had been taken seriously by the Council at the time. The Cabinet Member stated that the authority had acted prior to the petition’s submission following the first fatal accident but as outlined, some measures had taken time to implement because of legal process. He welcomed the petition as adding greater weight and focus to this important issue.

Cllr Collingham asked that a progress report be submitted to scrutiny on the implementation of the proposals outlined. He expressed some concerns about the amount of time taken to respond to the incidents. In response, the Strategic Director asked that assumptions are not made about the circumstances of the fatal accidents until the coroner had concluded their enquiries. He stated that the authority gave regards to specific incident information spanning a number of months to establish if there are clusters or patterns and had taken action accordingly.  He reiterated that officers had met with ward councillors to seek intelligence and share information and committed to keep them updated.

The Chair opened the discussions to other Board Members. Clarification was sought as to why a speed limit of 50mph was proposed rather than a lower limit (e.g. 40mph) and if measures such as the removal of road marking to reduce speeds had been considered. It was outlined that the management of road markings and speed limits followed Department for Transport (DfT) regulations. The removal of white lines would not be recommended on the road in question because of its classification and the risk of increased hazards. Speed limits were also determined on based the road’s classification. A speed limit survey was conducted in February which demonstrated that average speed was between 45- 55 mph for most drivers (85^th percentile) which would justify a speed limit of 50mph. This measurement was in line with DfT and Police guidance. The Chair queried if the survey had been undertaken at different times of the year when lighting and other conditions may be different. The Cabinet Member gave a commitment that this would be undertaken.

Assurance was given that a priority was given to the implementation of the proposals outlined within tight timescales. A commitment was given to providing further updates.

Further details of what assessments had taken place to establish the feasibility of average speed cameras were requested. It was outlined that the Speed Camera Partnership operated across South Yorkshire and early assessments had been shared with them. The authority was pressing for this road to be prioritised, however, the decision to install average speed cameras were made ultimately by the Speed Camera Partnership. Extensive work needed to be undertaken prior to installation, including site surveys, maintenance access, and levels of investment. It was expected that the process for installing average speed cameras could take up to two years to come into operation. It was noted that the Borough did not have any average speed cameras currently. A further question was asked to clarify if any benchmarking had been undertaken with comparative authorities which have average speed cameras in operation.

Clarification was sought if there were any plans to improve street lighting. Whilst there were no plans to install additional lighting, road studs along the centre of the road were being replaced to improve road marking visibility at night.

It was noted that there had been previous fatal accidents on the road. Further details were sought on lessons learnt from these accidents.

Prior to opening the debate on the merits of the call for action, the Chair requested that a seminar takes place to inform members of current road safety issues and how concerns can be raised. It was stated that one was planned to take place in the near future.

Members were invited to debate the issues raised in the discussions. The petition was given unanimous support with the following recommendations endorsed by the Board.

Resolved:

1.             That the call for action as outlined in the petition be supported.

2.             That the following proposed actions outlined by the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment be supported:

3.             That an evaluation is undertaken by the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment and the Speed Camera Partnership to assess the feasibility of installing average speed cameras on Cumwell Lane/Kingsforth Lane.

4.             That this evaluation includes benchmarking of comparable local authorities with average speed cameras in their areas, any learning from the installation and their impact on road safety.

5.             That Cabinet and the Speed Camera Partnership be asked to support the resourcing of the infrastructure required for the installation and maintenance of average speed cameras on Cumwell Lane/Kingsforth Lane should their feasibility be established.

6.             That the Council’s response to and lesson learnt from the fatal traffic incidents in 2018 and 2019 on Cumwell Lane/Kingsforth Lane be circulated to Board Members and the Lead Petitioner by the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment.

7.             That an update on progress in respect of the recommendations outlined, is provided to this Board in 6 months with a further report to be provided to Improving Places Select Commission in 12 months.