Archived decisions

Contact: Peter Bayless, tel 874610 email: [email protected]

Graham Carter, tel 874581 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Authority is sought to place Notices of Intention to make Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which would be to introduce 30 mph speed limits in specified villages included in the `Village 30' programme.

1.2 In seeking Police agreement to formally advertise the proposals under the requirements of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Police have stated that they are unable to support, but do not object to, the proposals in villages where measured mean speeds are above the proposed new limit but not above 45 mph. Above that level they maintain objection to the proposed new limits. For the schemes in the `not supported' category to proceed to advertising, a decision is required to place the relevant Public Notices without Police support and to consider all outstanding comments or objections when the individual schemes are brought forward for authority to implement them. For the `objection maintained' category, the proposal is to refer the schemes back to the relevant Hampshire Action Team (HAT) for reassessment of options, including consideration of traffic calming features depending on local priorities.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That proposed 30 mph speed limits for villages in the `Village 30' programme that the Police are supporting continue to be progressed through the Traffic Regulation Order process as soon as practicable.

2.2 That authority be given to place Notices of Intention to make Traffic Regulation Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which would be to introduce 30 mph speed limits in those villages in the `Village 30' programme which are not supported by the Police but to which they are not raising specific objections.

2.3 That proposed 30 mph speed limits for villages in the `Village 30' programme that the Police are objecting to be referred back to the relevant Hampshire Action Teams for further assessment and consideration.

2.4 That objections which arise through the Traffic Regulation Order process be determined by the Executive Member for Environment in the normal way when the individual schemes are brought forward for authority to implement them.

3. Background

3.1 On 18 December 2006 the Cabinet resolved that, as a priority, speed limits in villages throughout Hampshire should be positively reviewed in accordance with the revised Department for Transport (DfT) guidance that 30 mph should be the norm in villages, and according to locally determined priorities through the HATs. (Section 6.3 - Villages - of DfT Circular 1/06 is attached as Appendix 1 for information). Having undertaken local consultation with the villages selected by the HATs for the 2007/08 programme and developed firm proposals on the basis of the agreed frontage development criteria, a number of the schemes have reached the stage where they are ready to be formally advertised as part of the TRO statutory processes. It is normal practice to obtain both local Member and Police agreement to this and, at the request of the Police, speed monitoring was undertaken for each village.

3.2 Under the usual technical criteria used for assessing appropriate levels of self-enforcing speed limits, the Police state that, apart from a few cases, the majority of the speed surveys undertaken do not support the case for the 30 mph limit being proposed for each village, and on that basis they do not support such measures being formally advertised by the County Council for public comment. They recognise, however, that the speed limit proposals are keenly supported by the relevant local County Members for each village and by the Cabinet as a county-wide policy initiative. Their position therefore is that they are not actually objecting, provided mean speeds are not greater than 45 mph, and on that basis the recommendations of this report are made.

3.3 In the interests of clarity, the Police have also made a number of specific observations and these are reproduced in Appendix 2 (see email from Peter Hughes to Councillor Kendal dated 14 December and e-mail from Superintendent Mark Bradford of 21 December).

3.4 The following two quotes are taken from a communication by Police Superintendent Mark Bradford:

"At the core of this issue is are we in the business of putting 30 mph speed limits in place or are we seeking to get motorists to drive through these villages at 30 mph or less? Enforcement is only one of the "E's" and Education and Engineering also have their parts to play."

"The aim should be to align the local speed limit so that the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit for that road."

3.5 The main issue seems to centre on the Police concern that a speed limit should reflect the mean speed of traffic (which is seen to reflect the character of the area in which the road passes). To apply a speed limit to a road where the mean speeds are in excess of 30 mph but less than 45 mph, they believe is unsafe or should be supported by further physical restraint measures which should be introduced before the speed limit is changed. They interpret the guidance (section 6.3 Villages) for speed limits in villages to mean that the Government intends that such speed limits should only be used where appropriate speeds already exist or can be reduced by other measures.

4. Director of Environment's Response

4.1 There is clear public demand for 30 mph speed limits in villages (the April 2007 ICM survey showed overall 69% supported this approach - 74% in villages). Villages are discreet settlements usually located within a rural area. As with other urban areas, motorists are normally aware that they have entered a constrained environment and, as such, expect a change from the prevailing rural speed limit. Introducing speed limits in such areas, together with further driver education and perhaps some physical measures, will all play a part in assisting in driver compliance. The risk identified by the Police that pedestrians will always assume that drivers are complying with the speed limit and therefore cross the road without appreciating the real speed of vehicles, appears to be low. Pedestrians as now will use their own judgement of the situation, and with the additional driver education there would appear to be no increased risk to pedestrians. The onus will still be on the driver to comply with the speed limit. Whilst Members must consider the risk to all highway users, if they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the introduction of speed limits and that it is unlikely to increase the risk of accidents as a result then the risk of civil or criminal liability is low.

4.2 Clearly past guidance on the introduction of speed limits has been based on criteria that place greater emphasis on the prevailing speed of traffic. The recent guidance (DfT Circ 1/06, paragraph 111) clearly states that 30 mph should be the norm for villages. It also states earlier in the guidance (paragraph 37) "The aim should be to align the local speed limit so that the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit for that road." The guidance is seemingly confusing. However, the two issues may not be mutually exclusive, in that it is accepted that for these speed limits to be successful there will be a need for an awareness campaign and some physical measures where necessary. The main difference is that of emphasis and commitment to future possible measures. The Police have accepted that there is scope for introducing new speed limits and have indicated this by accepting some proposals, agreeing not to object to others (the bulk) and objecting to a few, which in any event may not meet the Government's definition in the Guidance and the criteria that have been agreed for drawing up the programme. The numbers of schemes objected to is likely to be very small.

4.3 Members can be satisfied that in taking the village speed limit initiative forward there are few risks and certainly legal advice would not preclude this action. Where the speed limit is monitored as being ineffective, further measures may be required and would have to be considered at that stage, subject to normal priorities. The expectation may be for measures or enforcement to quickly achieve compliance and this is a risk arising from the decision, which can be compared with the risks to reputation from not proceeding with these Orders.

4.4 For those villages where the speed of traffic is currently between 30-45 mph it is proposed initially not to introduce specific engineering works to slow traffic, but the situation will be monitored. On roads where the speed of traffic is over 45 mph, and the Police have objected to these situations, it is proposed that they will require further physical measures to bring speeds down and should be referred back to the local HAT for consideration and funding priority. It should be noted that at present there are only a few in this circumstance.

4.5 To ensure that this initiative is taken forward it is intended that the Council funds some additional Police enforcement capacity, subject to funding being identified through the Safer Road Partnership. On this basis, it is suggested that a Service Level Agreement is entered into with the Police. A local target in the Local Area Agreement with regular reporting could be pursued.

5. Impact Assessments

5.1 There are no impacts in terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act.

6. Conclusion

6.1 In order to make progress with the formal advertising of the proposals the proposed way ahead is to note the Police views with regard to speed limits in relation to measured traffic speeds, authorise the Public Notices to be published for the schemes where the Police do not object and to consider all relevant comments when the individual schemes are brought forward for authority to implement them.

1534Rpt/PDB/GSC

APPENDIX 1

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CIRCULAR 01/2006

SECTION 6.3 - VILLAGES

111. Fear of traffic can affect people's quality of life in villages and it is self-evident that villages should have comparable speed limits to similar roads in urban areas. It is therefore Government policy that, where appropriate, a 30 mph speed limit should be the norm in villages.

112. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/04 (DfT, 2004) sets out current policy on achieving lower speed limits in villages, including a broad definition of what constitutes a village. For the purpose of applying a village speed limit of 30 mph, a definition of a village can be based on the following simple criteria relating to frontage development and distance:

- 20 or more houses (on one or both sides of the road); and

- a minimum length of 600 metres.

113. If there are just fewer than 20 houses, traffic authorities should make extra allowance for any other key buildings, such as a church, shop or school.

114. The above criteria should give an adequate visual message to drivers to reduce their speed. However, many drivers are unlikely to reduce their speed to the new 30 mph limit if it is over a very short stretch of road, particularly if the end of the limit can be seen at the entry point. It is therefore recommended that the minimum length is at least 600 metres to avoid too many changes in speed limits along a route. Traffic authorities may, however, lower this to 400 metres when the level of development density over this shorter length exceeds the 20 or more houses criterion and, in exceptional circumstances, to 300 metres. Shorter lengths are, however, not recommended.

115. In some circumstances it might be appropriate to consider an intermediate speed limit of 40 mph prior to the 30 mph terminal speed limit signs at the entrance to a village, in particular where there are outlying houses beyond the village boundary or roads with high approach speeds. For the latter, traffic authorities might also need to consider other speed management measures to support the message of the speed limit and help encourage compliance so that no enforcement difficulties are created for the local police force. Where appropriate, such measures might include a vehicle-activated sign, centre hatching or other measures that would have the effect of narrowing or changing the nature and appearance of the road.

116. Where the speed limit commences at the village boundary, the village nameplate sign and speed limit roundel may be mounted together using the format prescribed in diagram 2402.1 of TSRGD. The combined sign should be located as near as practicable to the start of the development, so that drivers see housing at the same time as the signs, reinforcing the visual message for reduced speed.

117. If there are high approach speeds to a village, or the start of the village is not obvious, village gateway treatments can also be an effective way to slow drivers down. Further guidance on the use of gateway and entry treatments is included in Appendix B of this guidance. Advice can also be found in Traffic Advisory Leaflets 13/93 Gateways (DoT, 1993a), 01/94 VISP - A Summary (DoT, 1994a) and 01/04 Village Speed Limits (DfT, 2004).

118. In situations where the above criteria for a village are not met and there is a lesser degree of development, or where engineering measures are not practicable or cost-effective to achieve a 30 mph limit, but a reduction from the national 60 mph speed limit is considered appropriate, traffic authorities should consider alternative lower limits of 40 or 50 mph.

119. It may also be appropriate in some larger villages to consider 20 mph limits or zones, or Home Zones if lighting and other considerations allow. Such limits should not, however, be considered on roads with a strategic function or on main traffic routes.

APPENDIX 2

Email exchange between the Police and Executive Member for Environment

These are reproduced with the permission of Superintendent Bradford

From: Hughes, Peter

Sent: 14 December 2007 14:03

To: Bayless, Peter; Kendal, Cllr M J

Subject: Hampshire Village Speed Limits

Councillor Kendal.

Supt Bradford has request I send you our response to the introduction of 30 mph speed limits in villages in Hampshire as agreed at the meeting last Friday  You will see with the introduction of this criteria that three villages have moved from the Supported group as shown in the update on the 27th November to the Not Supported group.

If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate in contacting me.

Peter Hughes

Hampshire Villages 30 MPH Proposal

In the normal run of events the Hampshire Constabulary would object to new changes in speed limits unless mean vehicle speeds are at or close to the proposed limit. We do however acknowledge that current Government thinking is to allow 30 mph limits for villages that want such limits "where appropriate". We also note that it is the wish of Elected Members and many Hampshire residents (MORI poll) to introduce these 30 mph limits as soon as practicable. It was not the intention of the Constabulary to thwart efforts by Elected Members to deliver these new village limits but we wanted to ensure that what was delivered were 30 mph limits which would be complied with rather than simply signs that were universally ignored.

With our thinking clarified the Constabulary position is changed thus:

1. Schemes where Mean Speeds are at or below the proposed new limit - Supported. These schemes to date include:

Mottisfont

Upper Wield

Lower Wield

Fritham

Woodgreen.

2. Schemes where Mean Speeds are above the proposed new limit but not above 45 mph - Not Supported. These include:

Corhampton

Brook

Highclere

Newfound

Newham

Upton Grey

Weston Patrick

South Warnborough

Ashurst and Colbury

Bramshaw and Furzley

Breamore

Hale

Braishfield

Boarhunt

Itchen Abbas

Lindford

Avon and Sopley

Godshill

Wellow

Kingsley

Copythorne

Enham Alamein

Headbourne Worthy

Littleton

Old Alresford

Ampfield Village.

3. Schemes where the Mean Speeds are in excess of 45 mph (proposed 30 mph limit) and 55 mph (proposed 40 mph limit) - Object

Newtown

Mattingley

Pamber End.

In the interests of clarity we feel that the following observations should be noted in respect of category 2 above.

I. The Constabulary note the intention of HCC (Cllr Kendall 7/12/07 Monument House) to fully fund 2 Speed Enforcement Vans and 4 x PC posts for the Hampshire Constabulary from mid 2008 to facilitate a meaningful enforcement capability for these and the other 200 or so villages already subject to 30 / 40 mph schemes. Funding to be sourced through Driver Awareness Scheme income to SRP HCC refund of loan / other identified medium term funding. This will be circa £55K one off camera purchase and a further £200K per annum.

II. We understand that HCC will continue to monitor all new schemes and take remedial engineering action where speeds continue to be a concern. There should be an aspiration that schemes secure proper and meaningful compliance by the motoring public. This will require a blend of Education, Enforcement and Engineering.

III. Crashes should be monitored and engineering solutions should be considered where problems arise. Changing speed limits and introducing traffic calming measures have both been known to increase the numbers / severity of crashes and this needs to be monitored very carefully.

IV. Constabulary concerns should be noted that introducing new schemes where the speed limit is not within reason self enforcing could have road safety implications and will raise public expectations that either the Police "enforce the problem out" or that money will be spent on engineering till it is resolved. Neither option will be able to meet the expectation raised.

V. In the eventuality of a fatal or serious injury crash in these new limits there may be questions of civil or criminal liability if the HCC knowingly introduces a new scheme which will be ignored by the driving public. A matter for Legal Advisors.

VI. HCC should be clear in their intention with this project. Do you want to get drivers to drive through these new limits at 30 mph or do you just want to create a raft of new schemes that will simply by ignored?. Nothing can replace good quality engineering interventions to best bring speed down in the longer term.

VII. Not actually objecting to these schemes should not be seen as any kind of approval by the Constabulary. It is fair to say we continue to have real reservations about the way this Project is being delivered. A more measured approach would be to have ascertained Mean Speeds, carried our engineering, ascertained Mean Speeds etc until such time as you have the Mean Speed down to a level close to the proposed new limit. Then introduce the limit knowing that the limit will achieve meaningful compliance.

From: Kendal, Cllr M J

Sent: 20 December 2007 15:35

To: Hughes, Peter , Inspector Police Traffic Division

Subject: RE: Hampshire Village Speed Limits

Importance: High

Dear Peter

Thank you for your email dated 14 December 2007 which will be placed before my Cabinet colleagues in order for them to make a decision on the second category of schemes which you have indicated the police cannot support.  Before doing so, I would like clarification of your reasoning contained in your paragraphs IV-VII, as it appears to conflict with Government guidance on speed limits as set out in Section 6.3, headed, "Villages", of the DFT `Setting Local Speed Limits' Circular 01/2006.

For convenience sake, I attach, herewith, a scanned copy of paragraphs 111-119.  Our understanding of this guidance is that it was the Government's intention that the existing rural villages of England which contain 20 or more houses within a minimum length of 600 metres (with extra allowance for any other key buildings) "should give adequate visual messages to drivers to reduce their speed" (paragraph 114).

It seems to me that you are attaching a different meaning to the words "where appropriate" in paragraph 111 and that if we continued with the system used in the past, as indicated in your paragraph VII, we would be able to give effect to the guidance in only isolated cases.  It is important to understand that government guide lines indicates that "the norm in villages should have comparable speed limits to similar roads in urban areas". (paragraph 111).  Very few urban area roads have special engineering or traffic calming to indicate that the traffic speed is 30 mph and it is a requirement that the police enforce those urban limits.

Indeed, if paragraph VII of your email is taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no need for Government guidance contained in paragraph 6.3 Villages, to have been published at all in August 2006.

Section 6.3 signals a very clear intention from Government to local authorities and partners that we need to change our attitude to speed limits, so that they are regarded as the same as urban areas and that is the intention of our programme, as agreed by the Cabinet.  I am, therefore, troubled at your statement that "it is fair to say that we continue to have real reservations about the way this project is being delivered".

I would, therefore, like your comments on the points I have specifically mentioned above so I am able to provide Cabinet with a proper understanding of your misgivings.  I would also be grateful if you would reply to this aspect of our discussion as soon as possible.

Insofar as providing you with the extra support, using Hampshire County Council's (HCC) share of the Safer Roads Partnership assets, I confirm that we would be happy for these to be used to help to support additional road police units for enforcing village speed limits in Hampshire.  My intention is to provide funding from the driver awareness training income, which the Partnership agreed will be used to refund the County Council loan to the Partnership. As these courses have only just started, I cannot yet commit to a firm start date, although I am keen on this being as soon as possible after the signs are installed and I intend to base the decision on trend data rather than necessarily wait for a specific amount of money to have been refunded.

I would think that trend data should be apparent around the end of March and the SRP will have set a budget by then.  It would be helpful to know how long after HCC give the go ahead, that the units could be in place, as I understand there is some lead in time.  Also the minimum period you would be looking for us to commit to.

I think it would be reasonable to expect the surplus on the driver awareness training courses, generated directly by the units, to be paid in full to HCC.  My Finance Officer has some suggestions for this, but I would welcome any views about the simplest way to achieve it.  I would expect there to be a service level agreement with you and if you are content with this I will commission an initial draft.

Finally, it does seem to me that in addition to continuing with reducing road safety accidents in the Local Area Agreement, there would be merit in setting a local target for improving compliance with 30 mph village speed limits, subject to the new units being supported by HCC, as set out.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Melville Kendal

Executive Member Environment

Hampshire County Council

Tel: (01962) 845160

From: Bradford, Mark

Sent: 21 December 2007

Subject: Hampshire Village Speed Limits

Dear Cllr Kendall,

Hampshire Village Speed Limits

Further to your e mail of 20/12/2007 I have considered the points you have raised and would respond as follows.

At the core of this issue is are we in the business of putting 30 mph speed limits in place or are we seeking to get motorists to drive through these villages at 30 mph or less? Enforcement is only one of the "E's" and Education and Engineering also have their parts to play.

Taking the DfT circular 106 in its entirety I would refer you to:

Section 1 Key Points

"This guidance is to be used for setting all speed limits on single and dual carriageway roads in both urban and rural areas."

Section 3 The Underlying Principles of Local Speed Limits - P11

37. For the majority of roads there is a consistent relationship between mean speed and 85th percentile speed. Where this is not the case, it will usually indicate that drivers have difficulty in deciding the appropriate speed for the road, suggesting that a better match between road design and speed limit is required. It may be necessary to consider additional measures to reduce the larger than normal difference between mean and 85th percentile speeds or to bring the speed distribution more in line with typical distributions. The aim should be to align the local speed limit so that the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit for that road.

In considering the intention of the Government in framing the wording of Para 111 my interpretation is that "where appropriate" has its literal meaning (ie suitable/fitting/proper/correct). Whether or not it is appropriate has to be set in the context of the underlying principles and that means

"The aim should be to align the local speed limit so that the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit for that road."

An "aim" to me is something which is a defined objective which we have a clear plan to work towards. So if HCC have a clearly defined plan for each location that will deliver compliance with the underlying principles then I would say the plan is in the spirit of the guidance. I regret that with funding constraints the reality is that many of these new limits will remain with Mean speeds in the 40 mph range for

many years to come. Another stark reality that has to be acknowledged is that the Police are not resourced to deliver meaningful enforcement capability to this new raft of schemes even with the HCC sponsored resources.

In the interests of clarity I believe most urban roads that are 30 mph limits do have a number of environmental flags to tell the driver they are in a 30 mph zone.

My continuing reservations around the roll out of the new limits are to do with the introduction of new limits onto roads where we know the Mean speeds are well in excess of the new limits. The Police would prefer to see a programme designed to reduce Mean speeds before introduction of the new schemes rather than trying to reduce them post scheme introduction.

In so far as the funding stream for the new vans and officers I am concerned that there is no guarantee of the funding into the future - simply because we don't know what the LTP will look like in 3 years time, similarly the Driver Awareness Training Scheme's future viability.

With that backdrop my proposal would be that HCC pump prime the set up costs then underwrite the running costs till the project is self funding or is decommissioned. In reality it should be self funding within a year which would remove the need for additional HCC funding to be applied. If the funding stream dries up I can then decommission the units or reduce staff levels, equally I can expand the capability if demand / expectation necessitates.

A Service Level Agreement can be negotiated but it will need to take account of Operator Court commitments and enquiries generated. Experience tells us these can be a significant draw on resources.

Target setting for compliance would need to be based on all three of the "E's" not just Enforcement. We will need a supply of Speed Recording Devices and Speed Indicator Devices. Consideration will also need to be given as to how we deploy these devices in terms, we may need to pump prime a technician and van. The Enforcement vans have a lead in time of 4-6 months so the earlier the order is placed the more quickly enforcement can come on line.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Bradford

Superintendent - Roads Policing Unit

Dear Sir,

Village 30 mph speed limit proposals

I refer to your recent correspondence with the Executive Member for Environment on this matter.

Your position on the above proposals is noted and a report by the Director of Environment on this matter will be considered by the Cabinet on 21^st January 2008. I will forward you a copy of this report as soon as it becomes available.

The Director remains of the view that the Police interpretation of the guidance in Circular DfT 1/06 is incorrect. I am aware that you have rehearsed arguments about the text with the Executive Member but it remains this council's view that it is quite appropriate for villages to be offered a 30 mph speed limit, subject to certain restrictions. It is our view that settlements identified as meeting the village definition do provide sufficient perception to drivers that a speed limit would be acceptable.

Where you have expressed support for a limit we are seeking to proceed. Also where you have expressed not to object but do not support a speed limit, it is proposed to promote a speed limit. Where you have expressed objection to a speed limit we intend to refer these sites back to the local Hampshire Action Team.

It is accepted that where current speeds are between 30 -45 mph other measures will be considered to improve compliance (unlikely to be physical), where speeds are over 45 mph it is accepted that physical measures will be required to reduce speed in order to enable a 30 mph speed limit.

As part of this initiative it is proposed to undertake further information and education measures to improve compliance.

Thank you for you time in considering this matter and I will contact you further on this issue.

Yours sincerely

Stuart Reynolds

Assistant Director - Highways and Transport