Future Services Consultation 2024 - Highways Winter Service Proposal

Insight Summary

Background

From 8 January to 31 March 2024, Hampshire County Council invited residents, partners, and stakeholders to provide their views on options to change and reduce some local services to help the Authority address a £132 million budget shortfall faced by April 2025.

One of the options proposed was to reduce the amount of money spent on the County Council’s Highways winter service each year by £1 million. Specifically, the proposal was for Highways winter service to comprehensively review and revise the criteria used to determine which roads should be treated as part of the Priority One network to better align with current national guidance and reflect changes in travelling and commuting patterns, and to update the routes accordingly.

Who responded to the proposal?

4,665 responses to this proposal were received via the consultation Response Form. 4,552 responded as an individual, 44 responded in an official capacity on behalf of an organisation, group or business, and 43 responded in their capacity as a democratically Elected Representative of a constituency in Hampshire. 26 responses did not specify the capacity in which they were responding
Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on this proposal via an open-ended question. This allowed people to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action. ,respondents left an open text comment in relation to the proposal. 8 respondents also commented on the Highways winter service proposal in the any further comments open text box at the end of the consultation, designed to capture any further feedback to any of the proposals in the consultation
In addition, 27 unstructured responses relating specifically to the Highways winter service proposal were received (via email or letter). Eight of these were from individuals, 16 from organisations, one from a DER and two were from multiple Councillors who had sent collective responses
In order to capture the views of young people about the consultation, an event was held during the consultation period in which members of the Hampshire Youth Forum were invited to attend a discussion group to share their feedback

Who responded: Demographics of individual responses

Nearly half (47%) of responses from individuals were from those aged 45 to 64, with a further third (33%) aged 65 or over. Only around 1% of responses were from those aged under 25, and around a fifth (19%) were aged 25 to 44
Over half (55%) of the respondents who responded to this proposal via the Response Form were female, compared to 44% who were male, and less than 1% were of non-binary gender
The majority of responses were from non-ethnic minority groups (i.e. White British, English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish), with 9% of responses from an ethnic minority group
While the majority (65%) reported no health or disability issues, around 1 in 5 (20%) reported a health or disability issue that impacted their day-to-day activities either a little or a lot
Responses were received from residents of all districts in Hampshire, ranging from 125 responses from residents in the borough of Gosport, to 699 responses from those in the district of East Hampshire
Respondent’s household income was generally proportional to the Hampshire population, although those on incomes up to £20,000 were under-represented in the proposal response compared to the Hampshire population

Who responded: Types of organisations responding

Among the 44 organisations who responded via the Response Form, 19 were from other local authorities (City, Borough, District, Parish or Town Councils), 15 from charity, voluntary or local community groups, four from local businesses or business representatives, one from a nursery, school, college or place of education, one from a public sector organisation and four from other types of organisations
Among the 17 unstructured responses from organisations, 15 were from other local authorities (County, City, Borough, District, Parish or Town Councils), one was from a charity organisation and one from a local NHS trust

Who responded: Responses from service users

Hampshire Highways provide a universal service, so service users are broadly anyone living, working, studying, visiting or travelling through Hampshire who use the roads. However, the mode of transport can vary which was captured in this consultation to understand any differences in views based on the type of transport being used on Hampshire roads
Around 9 in 10 (92%) of those responding to this proposal reported using a car, and just over a third reported using the bus or train (39% and 37% respectively). Around a fifth (22%) reported using a bicycle and 14% used taxi services. A smaller percentage reported using a motorcycle or moped (3%), a wheelchair or mobility scooter (2%) or a community transport scheme (2%)

Please note that respondents were able to select all of the different modes of transport they used so these categories were not exclusive.

Levels of agreement with the proposal

Overall, a larger proportion disagreed with this proposal compared to those who were in favour, specifically:

60% overall disagreement (37% strongly disagreed)
27% overall agreement (7% strongly agreed)
12% were neutral

Who is driving disagreement with this proposal?

Certain groups of people were notably more likely to disagree with the proposal compared to the total sample, these were:

Those aged 75 and over (65% overall disagreement, 36% strongly disagreed)
Those with health or disability issues that impact their day-to-day activities (64% overall disagreement, 38% strongly disagreed)
The small number (20) of White Irish ethnic respondents (85% overall disagreement, 50% strongly disagreed)
Those on low incomes (£20,000 annual household income or less) (64% overall disagreement, 38% strongly disagreed)
Those living in East Hampshire (66% disagreed, 44% strongly disagreed) or the New Forest (66% overall disagreement, 40% strongly disagreed)

A higher proportion of disagreement was also seen for wheelchair/mobility scooter users (67%) and community transport users (67%) so although these groups had a small base size these this is still worth noting when considering how the proposals may impact different types of road users
Another group where a higher proportion of disagreement was also seen was for local authorities (78%). Again, while this group had a low base size it is still worth highlighting the higher opposition seen for this group due to their position as a key stakeholder

What are the main reasons driving disagreement with this proposal?

600 of those who disagreed with the proposal commented on a potential impact of the proposal, of which:

63% cited safety issues as a potential impact of the proposal, specifically that the proposal could cause more accidents due to dangerous driving conditions on icy roads and that it may stop emergency services getting to people in need. Some also mentioned that the proposals could cause more fatalities on the roads

"Any reduction in highways winter services, will lead to an increase in accidents and personal injuries."

20% mentioned negative financial impacts, commenting that the saving is a false economy and that it would lead to increased costs in the future due to increased damage to roads and more claims for damage to vehicles

"Icy roads cause accidents and the resulting overall cost of repairs could outweigh the cost of treating the road initially."

19% expressed a concern that the proposal could reduce day-to day activities, such as people (including key workers) not being able to get to work, people being unable to attend appointments, children unable to get to school, and concerns about isolation during bad weather in areas where roads would not be treated, with rural areas mentioned specifically

"By only treating major roads you will be leaving side streets unsafe and reducing the ability to get to and from work or appointments."

41% commented that the current service should be maintained, and no reduction should be made, an additional 12% went further and stated that the service should be increased.
“It's essential for the safety and wellbeing of all that the highways winter service is maintained."
793 of those who disagreed left a general comment about the proposal, of which:
39% gave a comment on the current state of the road and/or service, specifically that the roads are already in a state of disrepair (e.g. potholes and other hazards such as overgrown vegetation and flooding) and that the roads are not gritted or not gritted enough currently. A further 15% also specified that there are already safety issues currently, such as accidents caused by potholes and the roads already being dangerous to drive on

“How can you reduce winter maintenance from bugger all. The roads are wrecked and dangerous because of lack of investment and overpaying contractors to cover holes with blue tac.”

35% made a general comment that safety and/or accessibility is important and should be a priority in any decisions and that it should not be compromised in order to save money

"Roads should be made safe and there should be no compromise on this."

The groups who were most likely to disagree with the proposal shared similar concerns, with some slight variations:

Those on lower incomes were slightly more likely to comment that the service should be maintained, that the service has been reduced for years and that alternative ways of funding it should be found. However, they were less likely to cite safety issues as an impact
Those in East Hampshire and New Forest were more likely to have commented on the current state of the roads and/or service
Those using wheelchairs/mobility scooters or community transport schemes were more likely to mention that the proposal could limit day-to-day activities, and that it would have an impact on older or disabled people, particularly those with mobility issues, who would find it difficult to navigate icy streets and would impact their ability to travel
Local authorities were more likely to cite impacts of the proposal on safety and limiting day-to-day activities, as well as the impact on rural areas and emergency services
In terms of suggestions, organisations were more likely to comment that the current service should be maintained, and to call out specific roads or routes that should continue to be treated. Reducing speed limits and the number of road users, providing more salt bins for residents and the importance of notifying people of any changes also had a higher proportion of mentions from this group
In the unstructured responses from local authorities, where there was opposition or concerns about the proposal these primarily related to safety issues

Who is driving agreement with this proposal?

Despite the majority of respondents opposing this proposal, just over a quarter of respondents (27%) were in favour.

Democratically Elected Representatives had higher levels of overall agreement (39%) with the proposal than individuals (27%) or organisations (22%)
Agreement was also higher among younger age groups with support for the proposal decreasing with the increased age of the respondent, i.e. 33% of those aged under 35 agreed with the proposal, compared to 26% agreement from those aged 65 or over
Men were also more likely to agree with the proposal compared to women (31% agreement compared to 26%)
Those with no health or disability issues were also more likely to agree compared to those who had issues that impacted their day-to-day activities (30% agreement compared to 23% agreement)
Those with household incomes over £60,000 were also more likely to agree with the proposal (37%) compared to those on lower incomes (22% agreement among those with a household income of £20,000 or less)

What are the main reasons driving agreement with this proposal?

Those who agreed were less likely to mention any impacts of the proposal (only 38 impact comments from those who agreed compared to 600 impact comments from those who disagreed) and those that did comment were more likely to comment on the positive impacts on the environment (8% compared to 1% overall) or no/ minimal impact (13% compared to 1% overall).

171 of those who agreed with the proposal gave a suggestion, of which:

23% commented that more personal responsibility should be encouraged among residents during winter conditions
20% suggested of specific roads or routes that should be treated (e.g. main roads / major routes)
20% commented that the service should only complete the statutory minimum
17% felt that the service should be more efficient in their use of resources (10%)

"I would like to see communities take a more active role in dealing with the impact of wintry weather rather than total reliance on council. Advice from council on what to do would be welcome though!"

"With generally warmer winters a more targeted approach seems sensible. Approaches to main roads, especially sloped down approaches, should be treated if conditions require it."

220 of those who agreed left a general comment about the proposal, of which:

29% understood the reason for the proposal, such as the financial limitations and that regularly reviewing criteria based on current road usage seems sensible
A number of unstructured comments also stated that they agreed with the review process part of the proposal as this seemed sensible and necessary (although some stated they may not or would not support a reduction of the service as an outcome)
20% caveated that their agreement was based on the assumption that any changes would be properly considered, such as carrying out risk assessments and ensuring any impacts or are minimised and safety is not compromised
20% also commented on the weather being less severe and warmer winters means there is less of a requirement on the service

"I agree, that as with all services, reviewing and revising operational criteria is essential to providing an efficient and cost effective service, however the key issue is road safety, any cuts in budget should not cause cuts in road safety."

Main impacts of the proposed change

The overall comments provided about this proposal were also analysed to understand what potential impacts the proposal could have if it were to be implemented.

717 out of 1,721 people (42%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal mentioned a potential impact of the proposal in their feedback.

Overall, the most frequently mentioned impact was safety issues (60% of those who mentioned an impact), where there were concerns that a reduction in the service could cause accidents, injuries and fatalities, or limit access in emergency or life-threatening situations. Comments around safety issues were also reflected in the unstructured comments

"This will be a safety issue, possibly stopping emergency services getting to people in need."

This was followed by concerns that the proposal would limit day-to-day activities (18%) such as access to work, school or other commitments such as appointments

“This may mean that people are forced to stay at home affecting services, schools and businesses.”

The proposal was also felt to have negative financial impacts (18%) such as costing more in the long run due to increased repairs and claims for damages, as well as financial implications on individuals if they were unable to get to work and lose out on income

“Short sighted proposal, the roads will only get worse. Future costs will escalate and cause more budgetary heartache.”

The main impacts mentioned by the Hampshire Youth Forum were also around safety, in particular that there would be more accidents due to slippery surfaces and potentially more deaths. They also mentioned that snow and ice would build up on non-priority roads

Perceived impact on protected characteristics

Those who commented were asked whether the impacts they had highlighted related to any protected characteristics.

The protected characteristic most likely to be selected was rurality with 42% of those responding selecting this as an impact, specifically that the roads would be less likely to be treated in rural areas. This could result in people in those areas being unable to travel and at risk of becoming isolated. It could also mean a greater risk of accidents or other safety issues in those areas

“These roads are essential routes in rural areas and any removal will result in a greater chance of injury resulting from road crashes, given a lack of gritting. There is also likely to be a lack of other viable transport options (ie buses network) in rural areas, which makes the need to use a car and essential option.”

Respondents living in rural areas were more likely to select rurality as an impact compared to those living in urban areas (50% compared to 36%)
Just over a third (35%) of those responding felt that there would be an impact on the environment. In the open ended comments, feedback about the impact on the environment included both negative and positive impacts
Negative impacts on the environment included increased car usage due to people not wanting or being able to cycle or use other more sustainable transport options on untreated roads. This was also linked to the poor condition of the roads which it was felt would deteriorate further if the proposal was implemented. This could cause a greater need for repairs which would be damaging to the environment and that the poor road conditions (icy, increased potholes) could encourage people to drive larger and less environmentally friendly cars to cope, or increased braking and swerving causing more pollution

“This has an environmental impact, as people are discourage from cycling, and for using motor vehicles the poor roads means that they have to slow down to avoid potholes and then accelerate. The poor roads cause damage to motor vehicles which has both a financial impact on council tax payers, as well as having an environmental impact by increasing repairs.”

Conversely, the positive impacts on the environment included the benefits of using less salt which people commented was damaging to the environment and can end up in water ways. Some also felt it would reduce the number of vehicles on the road if less people would drive in icy conditions and reducing the mileage of gritting vehicles

“This will reduce mileage from the trucks, and hopefully reduce people trying to drive in the icy conditions to some degree, so a double environmental benefit.”

Age, disability and poverty were also selected as being impacted by this proposal (28%, 28% and 14% respectively). The proposal was felt to impact these groups’ ability to travel and could lead to isolation or being unable to access vital services or travel to work. Some mentioned that winter was already a difficult time for these groups so this would add to their worries. It was also felt by some that older drivers may be more unsure how to drive on untreated roads which could lead to more accidents, and also the risk of more slips and falls for pedestrians

Suggested alternatives to the proposal

728 out of 1,721 people (42%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal made a suggestion about any alternatives to the proposal or how they felt the service could be carried out differently.

The most frequently mentioned suggestion was that current service should be maintained (30% of those who made a suggestion) at the current level and not reduced or changed, and a further 9% suggested that the service should be increased with more investment needed and more roads needed treatment more often during winter conditions

"Roads are dangerous in the winter. More roads should be treated, not less.”

16% commented that it is the Council’s responsibility to ensure safety and that they would be directly responsible for any accidents caused by a lack of service

"You have a duty of care to make sure roads are safe.”

12% commented that savings could or should be made by a better or more efficient use of resources, such as gritting at the right times, better use of forecasting and other data tools, and better planning and management of the service

"If more money was spent during the year more wisely by permanent, experienced (years of service) staff, there may well be less need to spend money on winter maintenance."

Also linked to efficiency, 11% suggested that only the essential/statutory minimum should be carried out, such as only gritting when it is absolutely necessary, and not going above and beyond national guidance

"Only treat road when there is a credible threat and not just salt/grit road when it is cold and really no need."

Some (11%) also mentioned specific routes or areas that should be or remain treated during icy conditions, specifically main or major roads and public transport routes. Fast roads, schools, access to emergency services, sloping roads and roads that encounter flooding or have significant potholes, or routes used for commuting were also mentioned

"All major roads should be gritted and made safe"

There were also suggestions that more education or communication is needed to encourage personal responsibility (8%), such as adapting to conditions such as changing travel plans or working from home or investing in better tyres, how to drive responsibly in winter conditions, and information and resources to help communities take responsibility for their local roads

"A public education initiative might also be required to ensure people are aware of the importance of driving to the conditions.”

General comments

In addition, 1,192 out of 1,721 (69%) of those who chose to provide comments gave a general comment rather than specifying any impacts or giving alternative suggestions.

Most of these comments were about the current state of the roads (34% of those who gave a general comment), the importance of safety and accessibility (28%), current safety issues (11%) and general statements of agreement / disagreement with the proposal.

The following feedback was also given about the proposal which may also be useful for decision making and mitigating any impacts:

A number of comments were made about the weather that could have an impact on the service:

These included comments that the weather was getting worse / more severe (8%), specifically that weather is getting more extreme and unpredictable and that there is a greater risk of ice forming ice due to an increase in flooding and surface water.
Conversely, some also commented that the weather is getting warmer / less severe (6%), with some mentioning this was due to climate change, and therefore less winter treatment would be needed.

In the unstructured comments, there was a number of mentions that it was difficult to comment on the impacts or give a definitive views until after the review of the roads had been completed so they knew which routes would be affected.

Local authorities also commented that they would expect to be consulted again after the review had taken place, ahead of any changes made to the current service.

Document

Download this Insight Summary as a Word document