Appendix C AREA 9 SPEED LIMIT REVIEW:PUBLIC CONSULTATION RESPONSES & FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The public consultation period commenced on 29th Nov 2007 with a deadline for responses of 7th Jan 2008 . Details of the proposals, inviting comments, were sent to:

South Bucks District Council , Council, Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, Slough Borough Council, Corporation of London( Burnham Beeches Open Spaces Department) ; Beaconsfield Town Council, Burnham Parish Council, Parish Council, Dorney Parish Council, Farnham Royal Parish Council, Parish Meeting, Parish Council, Taplow Parish Council, & Bourne End Parish Council,

Thames Valley Police, Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust, Fire Brigade, The Road Haulage Association, Freight Transport Association, Chilterns Conservation Board, National Farmers Union, Association for the Blind, Living Streets (Pedestrians Association), British Horse Society, Campaign to Protect Rural , Buckinghamshire Community Action, Sustrans, Motor Cycle Industry Association, On 29th November 2007 an advertisement appeared in The Bucks Examiner and on 30th November 2007 in the Bucks Free Press and the Slough Observer . A press release was circulated to the local media,resulting in articles in local papers. Notices( for pedestrians) concerning the proposals were posted on the length of roads subject to proposals. A copy of the Orders and maps showing the lengths of road referred to, together with the Statement of Reasons were deposited for public inspection at: County Hall Aylesbury,Aylesbury Study Centre,Beaconsfield Library, Bourne End library, Burnham library, Farnham Common library , library, Library, Marlow Library, library, Chiltern & South Bucks Area office, Wycombe Area Office. 'Have Your Say' Posters (2.5m x 1.6m) ,to alert drivers to find out about the proposed changes were placed: A40 west of Beaconsfield ,A4155 east of Marlow bypass; A4 west of junction with Hitcham Road and Lake End Road near motorway bridge. Detailed information was available on the Buckinghamshire County Council website.

A spreadsheet containing a summary of the consultation feedback was circulated by email to the below listed potential members of the Area 9 Working Group. They were invited to attend a meeting on Tuesday 18th March 2008 in order to consider the feedback and make final recommendations to the Head of Transportation. Any member being unable to attend was requested to advise of any comment or observation that they wished the group to take into account.

Those invited were: Buckinghamshire County Councillors: Michael Appleyard,Peter Cartwright, Margaret Dewar,Trevor Egleton,Peter Hardy, Lin Hazell, Bill Lidgate, Peter Smith, David Watson District Councillors : Simon Bazley(Wycombe),Lesley Clark (Wycombe),Maureen Royston (South Bucks),Alan Walters (South Bucks) Darren Humphries Traffic Management Officer Buckinghamshire County Council Officers; EricApologies Meek,Christopher were received Schweir, from: DistrictMartin Bolton, Councillor Patricia Lesley Francis, Clarke, Alan Eric Baverstock.Meek(BCC) , Chris Marchant (SBDC)

Comments in advance were received from: None

Those present at the meeting on 18th March 2008 were: Voting Members - County Councillors : Peter Cartwright; Margaret Dewar ( up to proposal ref 21) , Lin Hazell; Thames Valley Police: Mr .D. Humphries Other members - District Councillors: Maureen Royston (South Bucks),Alan Walters (South Bucks) & Simon Bazley(Wycombe) - Bucks County Council officers: A.Baverstock, M.Bolton, P.Francis, C,Schwier, S.Thomas

This document lists the proposals and summary feedback discussed by the Area 9 speed limit review Working Group on 18th March 2008.

Below each proposal is the Working Group's recommendation, and that of the Head of Transportation where applicable.

Following the numbered proposals are 'new' requests arising from the public consultation. As these are new requests that have not been subject to formal consultation they will not be acted upon at this time but will be carried over and investigated as part of a post implementation review in the future.

Following on from 'new' requests are general comments received in response to the public consultation. REF No 1: A40 London Road Loud Current limit: 40mph Proposed: 30mph ( from its junction with Gomm Rd to a point 105 metres southeast of its junction with Thanestead Copse)

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN All changes proposed in the Loudwater Residents' Group area supported by this community group. 47 Y 30 Cllr P. Cartwright The A40 from Loudwater through Old Beaconsfield and beyond towards the M40 link should be 91 Y 30 restricted and enforced to 30mph in obviously built up areas and 40mph elsewhere including White Hill,

Y 30 Good idea. Existing change from 40 to 30 is easily missed. 25 30 All traffic seems to treat this 40mph length as a 60/70mph dual carriageway road . Sincerely hope this 81 part of the A40 will have its speed decreased to 30mph as it is now a highly populated area.

Unnecessary speed changes lead to confusion, which causes further congestion. 30 (These roads ) not common for pedestrians and there are few residences that are affected by the current speed limit and would neither benefit or be inconvenienced by these proposed changes, so are a waste of public money & purely another tactic to 'nannify' British roads. If limit is reduced, it will ( cause) more congestion and also encourage people to overtake drivers N? travelling at lower speeds, which is more of a hazard than at present. More money should be spent on researching causes of M40 accidents, not dabbling with roads that currently are safe & controlled. Area becoming far too controlled through speed cameras, limits, road bumps and central road divides, which has witnessed cause more accidents than prevent. Stop punishing majority of drivers who are safe & responsible- reckless drivers are a risk whether speed limit is 30,40 or 50. Believes that the current limits are quite adequate on these stretches, as the volume of traffic, at busy 93 N 40 times, has its own limiting effect, and at quieter times, a lower limit is unnecessary. Although mainly a 'built up' area, I would argue that it is 'urban fringe' as it is not part of a town area. 100 N 40 According to BCC's own guidance provided, urban fringe should have a 40mph limit. It is also a wide & straight road with good visibility;2 thinks 30mph is unneccessarily restrictive. Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN Disagrees that 30 limit complies with DfT Circular 01/2006. 108 Existing limit, which has been in place for many years, is the appropriate limit. both under Circ. 01/2006 and as a matter of common sense. Ref Appendix C in Circ 01/2006: 30 limit is the 'standard limit' in built up areas with development on both sides of the road, whereas 40mph is appropriate for " higher quality suburban roads or those on the outskirts of urban areas where there is little development" Arguable which category this length of the A40 falls into. There is certainly not development on both sides of the road for anythinglike its full length. eg from junction with Winchester Court to the junction with Rayners Ave there are no frontages on either side. There is some residential development to the north of the road, but this is accessed from a parallel " service road" which is already subject to a 30mph limit. BCC draws a comparison with the section of A40 closer to High Wycombe centre. THe character of the 108 A40 becomes progressively more urban as one travels towards the town centre. There are noticeably contd. fewer pedestrians and vulnerable road users on the stretch subject to this proposal, which allows the retention of a 40mph limit. It is also logical for the speed limit to become progressively lower as one gets N 40 nearer to the town centre ( as at present).ed limit would start approx. 3 miles from the centre of Wycombe, and it really is uneccessary and undesirable for the standard urban limit to be extended so far. appendix C specifically states that 40 mph limits are suitable on the "outskirts of urban areas"

One also needs to consider the actual speed of the traffic and any new limit should be "aligned" so that " 108 the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit" ( para 37 of circ contd. 01/2006) This is of fundamental importance, because speed limits are meant to be " evidence -led" and "self- explaining" and should "encourage self compliance" ( para 2) Notes the absence of any information as to the current speeds of traffic on this part of the A40. From my own experience of the road I would expect the mean speed to exceed 30mph. The proposed limit is therefore too low and does not comply with Circular 01/2006, even if the road appears to qualify for a 30mph limit under Appendix C ( which is debatable) Should be remembered that until Circular 01/2006 , speed limits were set according to the 85th %ile speed of traffic, not the mean speed. Mean speeds are generally lower than 85th %ile speeds. If the council is proposing a limit which is below even the mean speed, then that is a cause of concern and I object strenuously.

3 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN Unrealistically low limits cause delays & frustration to drivers and have various other ill effects. ( see para 108 22 of circ 01/2006): " if a speed limit….is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to contd. disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant and avoidable enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries" N 40 Summary of objections: * does not comply with Circular 01/2006 ,esp. Para 37 * Proposed limit is unrealistically low * Proposed limit is unnecessary as character & environment of the road allow a 40mph

40 I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 1 67 This may have "Similar character" to other 30 limits but it's wider and straighter than most and has a bus lane separating drivers from pedestrians. 40 is a safe limit with no accidents claimed but reducing to 30 N may cause crashes. There are a range of hazards which require drivers full attention and if they are constantly having to check their speed, attention may be diverted. Pedestrians may also be lulled into a false sense of security and fail to look properly. There is no safety problem at present so we are risking creating one. The bus lane itself is confusing and probably quite a high safety hazard maybe made worse if reduced to 67 a 30mph limit. Many drivers are already not using the bus lane when they should be and if drivers contd. continue to do this but at even lower speeds then many other drivers may be tempted to pass on the left. It may create a safety nightmare and the safest solution would be to start, not by reducing to 30mph, but to remove that bus lane to allow drivers a safer road that is much less confusing whilst also improving traffic flow and aleviating driver frusration. Frustrated drivers are not safer drivers. In summary, there is no safety requirement for this speed limit reduction.

4 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN ? Reduction inappropriate:- 78 * relatively few people who walk along the pavements on either side of this part of the A40, so only a small risk of pedestrian accidents. * the 3 sets of lights down this stretch automatically slow down speeds to below 40 through a large proportion of the day. * may lead to an increase in traffic along some alternative routes, as no longer be a difference in speed N limits between them and the main route ( eg Abbey Barn & robinson Road ( his own road) *May increase congestion at Jtn 4 of the M40 as many people currently use Jtn 3 as an alternative to get into Central and East Wycombe. Also refers to Rayners Ave traffic signals issues & cars racing at the lights ,people going straight on being upset when a right turner cannot make the turn due to traffic in the opposite direction– do not think a reduction in speed will help this situation

Comment: 111 A40 London Road Loudwater – The road sign names the junction as being with Thanstead Copse, not Thames Thanestead as listed. Valley N/A Police BCC comments:

In support: 3 individuals plus Loudwater Residents group. 6 objectors who prefer no change. The proposed limit is primarily to benefit local residents in a predominately built up area. Between Knaves Beech roundabout and Gomm Road (there are approximately 50 dwellings direct accessing the A40, plus business premises, together with 4 significant junctions with other roads and several service road junctions. Although the southern side has a length which is not built up, it would not be appropriate to introduce a shorter length of 40mph limit for this specific section only. Likewise, it could be considered inappropriate to retain the residential lengths either side at 40mph. Approx. 25,000 vehicles per day use this route . A lower limit will not create congestion- at busy times traffic speeds will be well below 30mph due to weight of traffic and will be constrained by the flow through junctions along the route. A wide /straight road does not assist residents greatly in crossing the road on foot, or entering /leaving the road by vehicle. Average speeds near Thanstead Copse in July 2001 were 36-37mph, with only 15% of drivers travelling faster than 40mph. Between Hammersley Lane and Gomm Road average speed was 30mph, with 25% of drivers exceeding 35.5mph. Thanstead has been confirmed as correct spelling ( although shown with an 'e' on mapping!) .

5 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal ? SL YN Approx. 25,000 vehicles per day use this route . A lower limit will not create congestion- at busy times traffic speeds will be well below 30mph due to weight of traffic and will be constrained by the flow through junctions along the route. A wide /straight road does not assist residents greatly in crossing the road on foot, or entering /leaving the road by vehicle. Average speeds near Thanstead Copse in July 2001 were 36-37mph, with only 15% of drivers travelling faster than 40mph.Between Hammersley Lane and Gomm Road average speed was 30mph, with 25% of drivers exceeding 35.5mph. within the previous DfT guidance, a 30mph speed limit was appropriate where the 85th %ile speed ( that exceeded by only 15% of vehicles) was 37mph or less.

THe most recent crash data for the 3 years to 31/12/07 shows that 24 crashes took place, mostly slight in severity. Unlikely that drivers will use 'parallel routes' are 'rat runs' if a 30 limit was provided for A40- more tortuous, some are traffic calmed .

Thanstead has been confirmed as correct spelling ( although shown with an 'e' on mapping!) .

Working Group discussion & recommendation: 15 minutes discussion. Concern about potential rat run on parallel routes if 30 implemented. However, the most likely alternative routes already subject to 30 limit, some with traffic calming, so not likely to attract many drivers. Section between Kingsmead business Park and Hammersley Road is not so developed as other sections - so this section more suited to a 40 limit. However, if this section of the road to have a different limit to those sections on either side of it this would lead to too many changes in limit along the length. The decision had to be either the whole length under consideration to be 40mph, or the whole length to be 30mph. A suggestion was made to extend 30 a shorter distance east, but counter argument that this would leave the section nearest Knaves Beech roundabout, which was the most built up with residential housing, in the higher 40 limit, which would not be appropriate. The average speeds were thought by one member to indicate that speed was self governing, but others argued that speeds outside of peak times would be much higher . The presence of the bus lane was a factor affecting driver behaviour.

No consensus- vote taken :- 2 agree with 30mph, 1 support retention of 40mph, 1 abstain. RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30MPH LIMIT.

6 REF No 2 : A40 London Road / Knaves Beech / White Hill Loudwater. ( from a point 105 metres southeast of its junction with Thanestead Copse to a point 167 metres east of j/w Whitehouse Lane)) Current limit 50mph Proposed 40mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL Y N Example of road with good visibility and excellent surface- existing limit should remain. The constant changing of speed limits means that drivers have to apply N 50 their brakes and accelerate more frequently, so reducing the efficiency of their vehicles. Strong opposition, having examined the documentation . Uses road virtually every day and at no time has the present speed limit caused problems. As one approaches Beaconsfield Old Town from the west the 'entrance' to the town is well marked and effectively promotes speed reduction, and, as one leave the town there is absolutely no case for reducing the speed limit. Strongly suspect that the various changes are being proposed to facilitate further infill development for which South Bucks has the exceedingly dubious honour of being the national leader. N 50 The council is doubtless obliged to be seen to be 'doing something' about road safety so in the style typical of Buckinghamshire a cop-out option is adopted. It is unimaginative and will have no significant impact. Remember that the statistics will be completely skewed by a single incident. There appears to be no case from Thames Valley Police- if there were one may be better disposed towards the proposed changes. The cost of implementing the proposed changes must be made avaialble. In view of the extraordinary cost of moving a single pedestrian crossingthe raft of changes must represent a considerable expenditure for the county and as a school governor I am certain that the money would be better spent on Buckinghamshire schools and educational facilities. Resident of Whitehouse Lane for more than 12 years & use road several times a day. Sees no evidence of more traffic or an increase in accidents that warrants speed limit changing. Turning onto the A40 is easier when traffic is able to move faster. A constant stream of traffic at slower speed makes it more difficult to turn out onto the A40. When a car travels at 30mph on this stretch the tailback can be significant. N? If the speed limit is changed then, for safety reasons, I would ask that you consider a mini rbt at the Whitehouse Lane junction. If you don't then you are more likely to cause more accidents by reducing the speed limit. People are more likely to take chances to pull onto the road and thus more accidents are likely to happen. More reason for concern re the 2 car showrooms at this junction. They constantly park cars that obscure the view for drivers turning out on either side of the road. It's not a speed issue but is more likely to cause an accident than keeping the speed limit at 50mph. Believes that the current limits are quite adequate on these stretches, as the volume of traffic, at busy times, has its own limiting effect, and at quieter times, a N lower limit is unnecessary. Can only assume that many of my local 50mph roads, A40 Loudwater/Beaconsfield, A4155 Bourne End/Marlow are going to be reduced to 40mph. In my opinion this will have little effect. Speed,though a factor in collisions is rarely the primary cause as proven by numerous studies over the years. N 50 I understand this project has been undertaken with good intentions .I worry that you're trying to enforce the belief of a few who have taken the time to complain about people's speed as they themselves are less confident behind the wheel.

Average speed on this road is at or just below the speed that is being proposed. As stated elsewhere, there is a dislike of frequent changes in speed limits. The N 50 50 limit currently in place is in keeping with the road continuing into Beaconsfield. I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 2 This road is safe to drive at 50mph at none busy times, at busy times it can be very busy and the speed limit becomes irrelevant due to traffic. The 85th %ile is closer to 50 than 40 and is probably only as low as 45.5 due to traffic. The real free flowing 85th %ile is probably very close to 50. N 50 The Police have refused to give ANY information about why the crashes on this stretch happened so it is impossible to know if lowering the limit would help. In summary, no improvement to safety has been demonstrated for this speed limit reduction and enforcement may lead to erratic driver behaviour and greater number of crashes (as appears to have happened elsewhere).

7 Unnecessary speed changes lead to confusion, which causes further congestion. (These roads ) not common for pedestrians and there are few residences that are affected by the current speed limit and would neither benefit or be inconvenienced by these proposed changes, so are a waste of public money & purely another tactic to 'nannify' British roads. If limit is reduced, it will ( cause) more congestion and also encourage people to overtake drivers travelling at lower speeds, which is more of a hazard than at N? present. More money should be spent on researching causes of M40 accidents, not dabbling with roads that currently are safe & controlled. Area becoming far too controlled through speed cameras, limits, road bumps and central road divides, which has witnessed cause more accidents than prevent. Stop punishing majority of drivers who are safe & responsible- reckless drivers are a risk whether speed limit is 30,40 or 50. Whole length of road between Beaconsfield & Holtspur should be max. 40 limit as is fairly narrow & there are a lot of turnings into residential and other roads. Y 40 40 but Very supportive- but feel should extend east to Holtspur rbt, rather than at Watery Lane junction. extend Proximity of bus stops serving school transport. Students cross road on a regular basis& are forced to wait close to carriageway for their buses. HGVs passing Y east at 50mph is concern. Feel happier if vehicles were already travelling at 40mph rather than slowing down to comply with a newly established speed restriction. wards All changes proposed in the Loudwater Residents' Group area supported by this community group. Y 40

The A40 from Loudwater through Old Beaconsfield and beyond towards the M40 link should be restricted and ennforced to 30mph in obviously built up areas 30/40? and 40mph elsewhere including White Hill, Comment: A40 London Road/ Knaves Beech/White Hill, Loudwater, Chepping Wycombe, Woodburn– The road sign names the junction as being with Thanstead Copse, not Thanestead as listed. N/a

BCC comments: 9 objectors preferring current 50 limit is retained. 3 in support ( including Loudwater Residents' Group & requests for eastwards extensions of proposed 40 Accident data: most recent 3 years ( to Dec 2007) shows no crashes between Knaves Beech rbt & j/w Watery Lane. Any reduction in speed limit would be on the basis of a scattered community. There are approx 25 dwellings between KB rbt & j/w Whitehouse Ln , plus junctions with Knaves Hollow & Hedley View residential roads, Background info: Houses along one side of road,junctions with Watery Ln & Whitehouse Lane,several business premises attracting turning movements. Includes busy roundabout junction with access to Mway & supermarket. 6 accidents in 3 yrs on A40,13 on rbt. Speed south east of Knaves Beech rbt : Ave 40.1 SE & 36.8 NW. 85th %ile : 45.5 SE & 41.1 NW Meets 40mph criteria in terms of being on outskirts of Urban area/ some devpt only

Working Group discussion & recommendation: ( 8 mins) A concern was raised re implications on planning decisions for further development if 40 applied ,as would change status to that of an urban road with differing planning constraints to a rural road. General consesus was that potential planning issues were not the grounds on which decisions about sped limits should be based and that other factors prevailed when decisions were made by District Council on the suitability of a site for development Discussion re requirements of residents along the road and actual/potential hazards associated with road junctions /accesses along this length., with reference to the terminal points for this limit.

RECOMMENDATION: TO IMPLEMENT 40 LIMIT AS PROPOSED

8 ID refs

58

89

89 contd 72

93

106

56

67

9 30

25

15

47 ( Cllr P. Cartwright) 91

111 Thames Valley Police

: most recent 3 years ( to Dec 2007) shows no crashes between Knaves Beech rbt & j/w Watery Lane. Any reduction in speed limit would be on the basis of a scattered community.

Houses along one side of road,junctions with Watery Ln & Whitehouse Lane,several business premises attracting turning movements. Includes busy roundabout junction with access to Mway &

A concern was raised re implications on planning decisions for further development if 40 applied ,as would change status to that of an urban road with differing planning constraints to a rural road. General consesus was that potential planning issues were not the grounds on which decisions about sped limits should be based and that other factors prevailed when decisions were made by District Council

Discussion re requirements of residents along the road and actual/potential hazards associated with road junctions /accesses along this length., with reference to the terminal points for this limit.

10 REF No 2a : A40 known as White Hill / Oxford Rd, Loudwater and Oxford Rd/ Wycombe End, Beaconsfield ( from east of its junction with Whitehouse Lane to 108 metres west of j/w Butlers Court Rd) Current limit 50mph Proposed : no change Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL Y N Due to the large amount of traffic that enter/exit from the various petrol stations and side turnings I feel that the current 50mph limit should 56 Y 50 remain. Y 50 Agrees with retention of 50 limit 93 Can only assume that many of my local 50mph roads, A40 Loudwater/Beaconsfield, A4155 Bourne End/Marlow are going to be reduced to 106 40mph. In my opinion this will have little effect. speed,though a factor in collisions is rarely the primary cause as proven by numerous studies 50 over the years. I understand this project has been undertaken with good intentions .I worry that you're trying to enforce the belief of a few who have taken the time to complain about people's speed as they themselves are less confident behind the wheel. Y 50 See comments under SLR Ref 2 89 * no objection to retaining extg. 50mph limit east of the Rd rbt. 108 * Objects to failure to upgrade to NSL section west of B4440 rbt to near junction with Whitehouse Lane:- -part of an upper tier road with few bends, junctions & accesses and its accident rate is well below the threshold for a 50mph limit. Certainly suitable for the NSL and the council should take this opportunity to remove the anomolous 50mph limit. Reason given for retaining the 50mph limit is that " public responses elsehwere to date indicates a preference for continuous lengths of one limit rather than more frequent changes. " However, low limits on open A roads are also unpopular, as the Council acknowledges. So are changes of speed limit for no apparent reason, which does not apply here because the character of White Hill is different from the A40 NSL immediately before and after. In any case, the stretch of road in question is 800 metres long, comfortably more than the 600 metres minimum part W of recommended in para 30 of circular 01/2006, for the avoidance of too -frequent changes. ( Under Circ Rds 01/93, the predecessor Circular, B4440 the minimum recommended rbt length was half a mile, roughly the same as 800 metres.) As a member of the driving public, I can assure the council that applying the NSL to this road will not be unpopular. The reason given for retaining the 50mph limit does not stand up to scrutiny. Summary: * W of B444) qualifies for NSL under circular 01/2006. *Extg. 50 mph limit should not be retained. Whole length of road between Beaconsfield & Holtspur should be max 40 limit as is fairly narrow & there are a lot of turnings into residential 25 part E part 40 and other roads. White Hill probably needs to have higher limit of 50mph

W part 40 limit should extend east from ref 2 to Holtspur rbt, rather than at Watery Lane junction.(See their comments re ref 2) 15 part 40 N 40 Prefer 40 as it is so difficult to join the A40 from all the side roads at the moment. 34 Strong view that A40 from Beaconsfield Old Town to Holtspur roundabout should be reduced to 40mph .Vehicles often travel in excess of 44 Cllr M 40 B'fld 70mph and there have been many accidents on this stretch of road particularly near to the Jet garage as there is a 'hidden dip' at this point. Dewar to N When M40 is closed, traffic greatly increases, making the road impossible to cross with such fast moving traffic. Holtspur rbt

11 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL Y N Previously proposed 40 limit should apply between Burkes Rd & j/w B4440. 77 Many accesses & junctions, substantial development & considerable numbers of vulnerable road users. Whilst the A40 and its verges are all within the green belt, a reduction in the speed limit would only require the replacement of signs on posts which already exist- so no further damage to visual or physical amenity. Junctions/accesses 2 rbts, main junction & 6 other junctions all within this stretch, as is the Esso petrol station. The main jtn ( Broad Lane) is also the access to the large-scale Springfield Farm complex. Substantial devpt. Additional 35 dwellings proposed for North Drive, 4 more at 'Cromerton' on A40 and an application for 14 at the 40 A40/burgess Wood Rd South jtn. The scale /scope of the Springfield Farm complex has increased greatly. ( Burkes N Rd to Vulnerable road users Many elderly people living in the vicinity of North Drive Green, including Kiln Court Shelered accommodation. A B4440) pedestrian refuge in the vicinity of Broad Lane has been requested- footpath continues from A40 to the cemetery. New dwellings are family homes ( with parking spaces for 1.5 cars each) so likely to be a significant increase in number of people cycling on the A40 or crossing it to reach bus stops Refers to proposal 3 at Beacosnfield End, and whether which end of the A40 between B4440 and Beaconsfield has the poorest safety record, more significant junctions ,more residential devpt. And more vulnerable road users. Environmental/landscape Fringe of urban area but in green belt. Reducing the speed limit would improve safety without incurring significant cost in environmental or financial terms.

The A40 from Loudwater through Old Beaconsfield and beyond towards the M40 link should be restricted and enforced to 30mph in obviously 91 N 40/30 built up areas and 40mph elsewhere including White Hill,

Would wholeheartedly support reduction in 50mph limit between Beaconsfield and Holtspur roundabout. 40 Prefer 30 limit . Amount of traffic and speed and related noise & wind creation as vehicles pass by is appalling. Concerned by large vehicles using road , N 30 many exceeding 50mph limit. Kiln Court has elderly/disabled residents, many of who cross the A40 to visit the cemetery on Broad Lane/ access bus stops. Suggests pedestrian refuges to aid safer crossing nr bus stops- fast traffic leaves little time to cross road safely- elderly cannot run across the road. BCC comments/summary : 4 responses in favour of retaining 50 limit Objections: 1: NSL preferred west of B4440 rbt.- on grounds that does not meet DfT criteria for 50mph limit.(upper tier road with few bends, junctions & accesses and its accident rate is well below the threshold for a 50mph limit) 6: 40 preferred for all/part of length ( mostly requesting 40 between Holtspur rbt & Beaconsfield) - on grounds that there are many side turnings, difficult to access A40 from side roads, difficult to cross the road, nos of accidents, vulnerable road users ( mainly elderly) 1: 30 preferred - amount of traffic/speed/noise - provision for elderly/disabled residents.

12 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL Y N Other info: 2 distinct lengths :- (1) Length from nr. Whitehouse Lane to B4440 Wooburn Green Rd rbt: Upper Tier rd- 12,000vpd,2 crashes in 3 yrs over 0.8km- ( crash rate 19.0 per 100 mvkm.) Current mean speed NK-no data.Only 2 accesses . This length had been considered for NSL, but decided to retain as 50 to avoid too many changes of limit along the road length, which has been identified in feedback surveys as an issue with the general public. (2) B4440 Wooburn Green Rd rbt to west of Butlers Court Rd, Beaconsfield : 10 junctions (7 'std' jtns into housing estates, 1 main jtn ( Broad Lane > 4000vpd) & 2 rbts( >8000 vpd at j/w B4440)).Further devpt of 14 dwellings underway ( Waldenbury Place) nr Wbn Green Ln rbt. Mean speed over length 42.5 mph,85%ile 48mph. Flow: Ave 13800 vpd in 2004 18 crashes in 3 yrs over 2.1km = crash rate of 60 per 100 mvkm. 40mph recommended initially by a majority decision of Working group,( some opposition to this within the group) Further to some negative driver feedback on reduced limits elsewhere on 'open' stretches of A road, it has been decided to advertise retention of current 50mph limit & then reconsider this decision in light of public consultation feedback. As an Upper Tier rd : 50mph : where lower quality A rd with a relatively high no. of bends,junctions,accesses or > 35 pias in 100 mvkms, or where mean speeds below 50mph, so limit does not interfere with traffic flow. 40mph : can be considered where there is a high no of bends, junctions or accesses / substantial devpt / considerable nos. vulnerable road users, or as a community limit where there is a suburban area or a community with less density than a village..

Options for consideration : * Retain 50 limit over length from Whitehouse/Watery Lane to Old Beaconsfield( or to Butlers Court Rd) * Retain 50 limit as above, but with NSL from Watery Lane to Holtspur roundabout * Retain 50 limit between Whitehouse/Watery Lane & Holtspur roundabout, with 40 limit between Holtspur rbt & Old Beaconsfield * Provide NSL between Whitehouse/Watery Lane & Holtspur roundabout, with 40 limit between Holtspur rbt & Old Beaconsfield

13 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL Y N Working Group discussion & recommendation: over 20 mins discussion No further comments re re retaining 50 length up White Hill.

Considerable discussion on section between Holtspur & Beaconsfield. Query as to whether a rural or urban road and so which criteria applied. Officers advised that it should be considered as a rural length. Local councillors stressed local concerns re road and long term demands for a 40mph limit on the stretch from Holtspur rbt to Beaconsfield. Councillors concerned that previous Working Group had recommended 40 limit, but proposed length had been advertised as retaining the existing 50 limit. Officers explained that since 2005, when this was initially recommended by the Working group, many speed limits had been introduced elsewhere.Some negative feedback had been received ,from the business community in particular, where A road speed limits had been reduced outside of communities. Several participants strongly felt that ,despite this, that a 40 limit should be implemented. Officers advised that this would require re-advertising this length as a proposed 40 mph limit because the current consultation had only been on introducing a reduced length of the current 50mph limit. Several responses already indicated opposition to a limit below 50mph. Similar responses would be received,and potentially more of them,if a 40 limit was advertised. Officers advised that despite apparently low average speeds, it was felt that majority of drivers would have difficulty complying with a 40mph limit as the road character was wide and relatively straight . Crashes over 6 yrs had been analysed .These were not dispersed along the length but formed 3 main clusters (at the junctions with Broad Lane and Burkes's Rd and a smaller cluster, with more diverse accident types, in vicinity of the Jet garage). Other crashes were shunts or miscellaneous ones of an individual nature at the Holtspur roundabouts , 1 or 2 involving drivers emerging from Butlers Court Rd/ Walkwood Rise,plus one further crash of an individual nature. It may be appropriate to fully examine whether other measures could be identified to tackle these crashes and concerns about crossing the road to access bus stops, rather than to pursue a reduction of the speed limit..

In the light of the previous working group recommendation and concerns of local residents, reflected in the public consultation feedback, a vote was proposed on whether this should be re-advertised for public consultation as a 40mph speed limit ( between Holtspur rbt & Beacons field) No consensus- :- 2 agreed , 2 opposed.

RECOMMENDATION: * DISCUSS WITH HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION THE POSSIBILITY OF READVERTISEMENT OF LENGTH FROM HOLTSPUR TO BEACONSFIELD AS A PROPOSED 40 MPH LIMIT. * RETAIN EXISTING 50 LIMIT ON WHITE HILL( between proposed 40 limit terminal near Whitehouse Lane & Holtspur roundabout)

Head of Transportation : READVERTISE LENGTH OF ROAD BETWEEN TOP OF WHITE HILL AND BEACONSFIELD FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION AS A PROPOSED 40MPH LIMIT. Representations were made to the Head of Transportation by local councilors, expressing the considerable local concern about this length of road. This further consultation will provide further opportunity for all parties ( residents and road users) to put forward their views on a potential reduction of the current 50mph speed limit. Public consultation to take place in summer 2008.

.

14 REF No 3 : A40 London Road ,Beaconsfield ( from near its junction with Butlers Court Rd to 300m west of j/w Windsor End, Old Beaconsfield) Current limit 50mph Proposed 40mph Agree with Pref. ID Summary of feedback proposal SL refs Y N Example of road with good visibility and excellent surface- existing limit should remain. The constant changing of speed limits means that 58 N 50 drviers have to apply their brakes and accelerate more frequently, so reducing the efficiency of their vehicles. Can only assume that many of my local 50mph roads, A40 Loudwater/Beaconsfield, A4155 Bourne End/marlow are going to be reduced to 106 40mph. In my opinion this will have little effect. speed,though a factor in collisions is rarely the primary casue as proven by numerous studies over the years. N 50 I understand this project has been undertaken with good intentions .I worry that you're trying to enforce the belief of a few who have taken the time to complain about people's speed as they themselves are less confident behind the wheel.

Strong opposition, having examined the documentation . Se road virtually every day and at no time has the present speed limit caused 89 problems. As one approaches Beaconsfield Old Town from the west the 'entrance' to the town is well marked and effectively promotes speed reduction, and, as one leave the town there is absolutely no case for reducing the speed limit. Strongly suspect that the various changes are being proposed to facilitate further infill development for which South Bucks has the exceedingly dubious honour of being the national leader. The council is doubtless obliged to be seen to be 'doing something' about road safety so in the style typical of Buckinghamshire a cop-out option is adopted. It is unimaginative and will have no significant impact. Remember that the statistics will be completely skewed by a single 50 incident. There appears to be no case from Thames Valley Police- if there were one may be better disposed towards the proposed changes. The cost of implementing the proposed changes must be made available In view of the extraordinary cost of moving a single pedestrian crossing the raft of changes must represent a considerable expenditure for the county and as a school governor I am certain that the money would be better spent on Buckinghamshire schools and educational facilities. There is a dislike of frequent changes in the speed limit,in this case 50 to 40 to 30 in a few hundred metres. The traffic island on entering 56 N 50 Beaconsfield is enough encouragement to observe the 30mph limit when entering the town.

50 wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 3 67 This is easily wide enough and straight enough to be safe at 50. In fact this would be an absolute classic entrapment spot to prosecute drivers for technical infringements of speeding. Enforcement here at 40 could trap thousands upon thousands of motorists and they won't all be hardened criminals or joyriders. There is no claimed safety benefit so it's a completely wasted excersize (unless making lots of cash from everyday safe drivers is the intention?). Also 40mph here will bring speed limits generally into disrepute. In summary, there is no safety requirement for this speed limit reduction.

N Agree with Pref. ID Summary of feedback proposal SL refs Y N Unnecessary speed changes lead to confusion, which causes further congestion. 30 (These roads ) not common for pedestrians and there are few residences that are affected by the current speed limit and would neither benefit or be inconvenienced by these proposed changes, so are a waste of public money & purely another tactic to 'nannify' British roads. Extg N If limit is reduced, it will ( cause) more congestion and also encourage people to overtake drivers travelling at lower speeds, which is more of a (50) hazard than at present. More money should be spent on researching causes of M40 accidents, not dabbling with roads that currently are safe & controlled. Area becoming far too controlled through speed cameras, limits, road bumps and central road divides, which has witnessed cause more accidents Thethan A40prevent. from StopLoudwater punishing through majority Old ofBeaconsfield drivers who and are beyondsafe & responsible-towards the M40reckless link driversshould arebe restricted a risk whether and ennforced speed limit to is 30mph 30,40 inor obviously50. 91 Y built up areas and 40mph elsewhere including White Hill,

40 Whole length of road between Beaconsfield & Holtspur should be max 40 limit 25 Y extend disagree with buffer zone on the basis of frequent changes in limits over a short distance. Counter-propose extending the 30 limit to the brow of 93 Extend N the hill outside the BP Petrol Station, to cover this blind spot and the parking area ahead of the current start point of the 30 limit. Bfld 30

BCC comments/summary: 6 objectors- wish to retain 50 limit 1 objector- prefers 30 2 supportive - but feel 40 should be more extensive.

Background info: Proposed as buffer limit for vehicles entering Beaconsfield. May encourage drivers to slow down earlier on entering the town and provide protection for parked cars & drivers/passengers emerging from them. Includes petrol station & junction with Butlers Court Rd ( includes garden centre accesses ) . Bus stops by Butlers Court Rd included within proposed 40 limit. Outskirts of town- pedestrian access into estate.Road on outskirts of urban area

Working Group discussion & recommendation: At the Beaconsfield end, an argument was put forward for extending the 30 limit, rather than providing a 40 buffer- otherwise no strong views from Working group in opposition to this 'buffer' limit.

RECOMMENDATION : IMPLEMENT 40 MPH LIMIT AS PROPOSED ( NB. Officer note: This implementation should perhaps be delayed until a decision is reached on the length to the west of this , to avoid unnecessary expense re changes of signing which may result ) REF No 5 : B4440 Wooburn Green Lane/Holtspur Lane ( from a point 100 metres northeast of its junction with Holtspur Avenue to its junction with A40) Current limit NSL mph Proposed 50mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Does not make sense to reduce the speed limit if, ( as stated in the Area 9 documentation), it is likely to increase the accident rate. 56 N NSL Upper tier rural single carriageway road of reasonably high quality. Wide, has streetlighting and a footway. Has a relatively good 108 accident history. None of reasons for imposing a 50mph limit is convincing. BCC state that limit should be the same as on the adjacent A40, because public feedback indicates a dislike of frequent changes in limits. This argument cuts both ways and could equally justify increasing the A40 limit. N NSL Frequently changing limits are unpopular when they are not aligned with changes in the surroundings and when they occur along a single route, forcing drivers to make frequent adjustments to their speed. This is not a consideration here because the A40 and B4440 are entirely different roads and anyone passing from one to another must slow down anyway to negotiate the junction. Low limits on open roads, such as the B4440, are unpopular. * Although current speeds are below 50mph, should be noted that the road is a steep hill for much of its length. Hardly surprising 100 that the mean average is only 39mph if taken as the average for both flows of traffic- smaller engined cars or lorries would find it difficult to maintain a higher speed on the uphill stretch. Therefore, it is not really appropriate to use the 'mean speed' clause within the guidance, to justify a 50mph limit when the crash rate makes the road below the threshold fo a 50mph limit. * Crash rate indicates that this road is not an accident blackspot and rate is below threshold for a 50mph. * There are few access points ,and mainly clustered at one end of the stretch. * TRL spreadsheet indicates that 'a 50mph limit may slightly increase accident rate' - surely this is reason enough in itself to retain theSaid existing that many limit. would query why this road was left at NSL if the A40 retained/gained a lower limit. One reason could be the 100 N NSL B4440's superior accident record (24 per 100mvkms ,as against 60) contd. BCC's final justification is the existing low mean speed of the traffic ,said to be 39mph. however, appendix D of circ -1/2006 clearly states that the NSL is recommended for most high quality upper tier roads ( of which B4440 is one) The statement that 50mph can be considered where mean speeds are below 50mph arguably refers only to lower quality A & B roads which do not have an accident rate of above 35 injury accidents per 100mvkms. anoither way of looking at the 39mph figure ( & 45mph %ile speed), is that traffic speeds are already low and that imposing a 50mph limit will serve no purpose. speeds could even increase if the new 50mph limit becomes a 'target speed' Summary: * Proposed limit unecessary & ought not to be imposed on principle. * Proposed speed limit probably does not comply with Circ 01/2006

17 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 5 67 Are you seriously suggesting a speed limit change that "may slightly increase acc rate"? Surely the primary goal should be to REDUCE crashes? Who will take the blame if someone dies as a result? It would seem 50mph is suggested here because if left at 50mph it would make the A40 limit look daft and speed limits that N NSL change often are disliked. So a driver being prosecuted for speeding here after the new limit is imposed would be being punished in order to stop the council looking silly! This should NEVER be how road safety policy should be decided! Also the NSL tells drivers to think for themselves and drivers are doing that with the majory below 45mph. There is a danger that 50mph will encourage drivers to speed up a little and take less care. In summary, there is a safety requirement NOT to change this speed limit.

Comment: B440 Wooburn Green Lane/Holtspur Lane – Open country road with little frontage, if any. The 50mph is clearly inappropriate for this 111 road, but it links in with the limit on the A40. Thames N/a Valley Police

Agree 93 Y 50 BCC summary /comments : 4 objectors- prefer to retain NSL on basis of good safety record & because of potential increase in accidents indicated by TRL spreadsheet TVP: comment only 1 Supportive response. Background info: 900m length 2004 data: flow 8500, 85%ile 45mph, mean ave 39mph. 6 dwellings at N end, access to Glory Hill farm and to car park/picnic site. It was been decided after FC to propose same limit as on adjacent length of A40 -public feedback on previous SLR areas indicates a dislike frequent changes in speed limits .Many would also query why this was left at NSL if adjoining A40 retained/gained a lower limit Upper tier road. ?( 9000vpd) 2 crashes in 3 yrs over 0.9km- = crash rate of 24 per 100mvkm- below threshhold for 50 limit as an accident remedial measure, but current mean speeds below 50mph so can consider a 50 limit within guidance. (TRL spreadsheet indicates that a 50mph limit may slightly increase acc rate , but reduce other costs & a 40mph limit may potentially slightly reduce accidents , but with small increases in time/fuel costs- not very conclusive .)

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION : in principle, should be same as 2a, to avoid a further speed limit change . This limit will therefore need to be reconsidered when a final decision is reached on proposal 2a ( Holtspur to Beaconsfield), but to remain at National speed limit in the interim.

18 REF No 5a : B4440 Holtspur Lane, Wooburn Common ( From The Green to a point 100 metres northeast of its junction with Holtspur Avenue) Current limit 40/30 mph Proposed 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 5a 67 N 40 There is no information given as to current speeds and no accident history. In summary, there is no safety requirement to lower this speed limit N? disagree.( no reasons given) 93 Y 30 Welcomes proposal 1 BCC summary /comments : This proposal will just extend the current 30mph limit to include all of the village area It is a community lim it, rather than one proposed for crash reduction. Short extension of extg 30 limit into current 40 stretch to include j/w Holtspur Ave & first group of 5 houses on Holtspur Lane within the village speed limit. 30 limit would commence at existing village name plate At start of village -30 limit include all residential properties.

Working Group discussion & recommendation: Objectors not take into account reasons for proposing extension of this community speed limit. One concern re difficulty of braking on downhill approach to meet 30 limit- but excellent forward visibility on approach allows time to adjust speed in a controlled manner.

RECOMMENDATION: PROCEEED WITH PROPOSED SHORT EXTENSION OF EXISTING 30MPH SPEED LIMIT. REF No 6 : Broad Lane ( from its junction with A40 to a point 38 metres northeast of its junction with Hedsor Lane) Current limit NSL Proposed 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Large lorries visiting gravel pits. 40 Y 30 Elderly people from Kiln Court visiting cemetery on foot, also joggers. Many vehicles travel along Broad Lane & Wooburn Cmn Lane at excessive speed, making it dangerous for walkers,cyclist, horse riders & 12 Y 40 other motorists Y 40 Strongly in favour. Visibility around the bends is very poor,winding road, easy to misjudge the bends at speed. 25 Fast & dangerous road. Particularly concerned with the quality of the road surface, as it varies considerably along its length. The central 90 white lines are fading in places and the cats eyes are old & ineffective. Numerous potholes. Has contacted highways numerous times but Y 40 they keep saying that there isn't enough funding for the repairs. Road confirmed as being overdue for re-surfacing.

Agrees with introducing a limit, but considers that 50mph would be sufficient. Uses the road almost every day, at different times, and seldom 93 N 50 sees evidence of excessive speed. Considers that most drivers already allow for the bends. I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 6 67 Current speeds of "Ave: 43mph85th %ile: 50.45" would mean that MOST drivers could be threatened with prosecution if it was changed to 40 and they didn't lower their speed. eg I have heard of drivers threatened with prosecution for 32 in a 30 and I am in the process of obtaining proof of this. Are we trying to make out most British drivers are naturally dangerous drivers? N NSL There were "12 crashes in 3 yrs over 3 km" but we aren't told severity or why, would they have been prevented by a 50mph limit? There is no information of this on the proposal and the Police refuse to give any information that would establish whether 40 could improve road safety. In summary, there is no demonstrated safety improvement to justify lowering this speed limit.

Average speed is generally below 40mph so the proposed restriction appears a waste of money. 84 N NSL BCC suggests it is suitable for a 40mph limit because it is l;ower tier and has an accident rate above 60 per 100mvkm.This does not follow 108 from appendix D, which also requires consideration of the road's function. Only if the road has a 'predominately local,access or recreational function, of if it forms part of a recommended route for vulnerable road users" should a 40mph limit be considered. If the road has a mixed function a 50 or 60mph ;limit should be considered. Broad Lane clearly does have a mixed function, , with some through traffic. That is clear N NSL from the traffic flow figures if nothing else: 4300 vehicles per day at one point. Therefore, if a local speed limit is to be considered at all, it should be 50mph, rather than 40mph. It is notable that appendix D does not recommend 50 or 40mph limits for any type of lower tier road , simply that such limits should be 'considered'. It is therefore proper to ask whether the proposed 40 limit is reasonable and what it will achieve.

20 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN N NSL Para 31 of circ 01/2006 says a key factor when setting a speed limit is what the road looks like to users. This road looks like a typical 108 country lane and the maximum 'safe' speed varies constantly as its geometry changes and hazards present themselves.It cannot fairly be contd. said that it is never safe to exceed 40mph here, and it is not right to criminalise anyone who drives at 41mph when it is safe to do so. A certain degree of driver skill is required to negotiate roads like this safely, and the blunt instrument of a speed limit can never be a substitute for that. Existing mean traffic speeds are said to be 36.7, 38, 43mph. this rules out a 40mph limit along the whole length because existing mean speeds exceed the proposed limit in at least one place ( para 96 Circ 01/2006, final sentence). It also means, by definition, that approximately half of all drivers are going faster than those mean speeds, and will suffer needless delays if the proposal is given effect.

The vulnerable road users cross Broad Lane 'at many points' is no reason to impose a speed limit because such persons are present only at certain times- when of course, drivers ought to slow down for them. A speed limit is by definition a maximum, not a target speed. But the 40mph speed limit will be in force 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, delaying motorists when there is no need. This soprt of heavy handed regulation brings speed limits generally into disrepute. The Council should have carried out a study of the accidents along this road ; ( para 26 Circ 01/2006) There is no evidence this has been done and therefore no evidence that any of the accidents was speed related. Para 26 goes on to say" alternative options should always be considered before proceding with a new speed limit" . These options could include extra warning signs, perhaps vehicle activated ones, and repairing the badly surfaced road. In one respect, the introduction of a speed limit will certainly have a deleterious effect on road safety: it will need repeater signs which will present a collision hazard at the roadside, especially to motorcyclists. Summary of objection: *40mph is unreasonably low as an absolute maximum will not be an effective means of reducing casualties *Repeater signs will be a collision hazard. * No evidence that para 26, Circ 01/2006 has been complied with * Circular 01/2006 does not allow a 40mph limit where mean speed is 43mph. Fine as it is,does not need to be changed. Fairly quiet, has few if any houses along it and it seems crazy to think that drivers are going to 49 N NSL lose control at 45mph! Pointless to change. Leave at National speed limit which is reasonable. Suggests that majority of accidents along this stretch result from 'joy riders' . Frequent incidents of stolen vehicles being dumped/torched. 58 ?? No joy rider will observe a speed limit so these accidents will continue to occur. Comment (not an objection: )Broad Lane – this has the appearance of a country road with nothing to suggest why it should have a speed limit. BCC figures 111 th put the current average speed at 38mph and the 85 percentile at 44mph in the southern sections. It is unlikely that speeds will be reduced as a result of this Thames th Valley limit in this section. The speeds in the northern section are listed as 43mph (ave) and 50 (85 percentile) which is far too high for the imposition of this Police limit. Enforcement would be, at best, difficult. The limit does, however, meet DfT guidelines.

21 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN BCC summary /comments : 4 support proposed 40 ( 1 preferring a 30 limit) 5 oppose ( 1 prefers 50, 4 prefer NSL) 2 other comments Some signing improvements underway this Spring ( local safety scheme ) Crash record: 17 crashes in 5 yrs to 31 Dec 2007. 3 serious, rest slight.1 involved stolen vehicle. 2 alcohol.Contributory factors for others : 6 listed excessive speed or too fast for conditions, & a further 1 careless/reckless/in a hurry. .12 crashes involve loss of control in various circumstances.1 ped injured Background info at public consultation: Road has many bends, 3 side road junctions, cemetery, sand quarry & reservoir accesses, farm traffic& vulnerable road users ( pedestrians/cyclists/horseriders) on Rights Of Way network which crosses road at many points. Flow: 4300 vpd June 2004 N j/w Windsor hill & 1300 vpd N of j/w Wash hill Speed: N j/w C103 ( Windsor Hill) :Ave 38 mph.85th %ile 44mph Betw Springfield & Lillyfee:-Ave: 43mph85th %ile: 50.45 NE j/w Wash Hill:Ave: 36.7 mph 85th %ile: 43.4 mph Overall, length has accident rate of > 60 per 100mvkm,inferring its suitability , as a lower tier road, for a 40mph speed limit. It had 12 crashes in 3 yrs over 3 km (= crash rate of 85 per 100mvkm) The TRL spreadsheet indicates small accident reduction is possible with a 40 limit, but with 3% potential journey time increases.

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

PF reported that under a local safety scheme sign and road marking renewal is taking place and surfacing being investigated at some sites along lane. One expression of concern that a 40 limit would confer urban status on the lane, with potential implications on future building development

General consensus that crash rate along Broad Lane justified a lower limit and that the potential benefits outweighed any potential disadvantages.

RECOMMENDATION: PROCEED WITH PROPOSED 40MPH SPEED LIMIT

22 REF No 6a : private road

Current limit NSL ( advisory sign for 15mph) Proposed 40mph ( to prevent need for NSL signs at entry if Broad Lane becomes 40mph)

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Has to endorse as a resident, the proposed reduction in the speed limit that legally applies to our road. 58 Y agrees in principle to lowering Berghers Hill limit to 40mph, to comply with new proposed Broad Lane speed limit, on the basis that the 90 advy. 15 15mph advisory speed limit sign remain in place. 15mph is a more suitable speed limit for our road

supports in association with a similar limit for Broad Lane 12 Y

BCC summary /comments : This limit need only be introduced if 40mph goes ahead for Broad Lane. A letter was sent to all residents of this road explaining why the 40mph was proposed i.e.:-If no limit applied, NSL sign would need to be provided at start of this private road, which has its own privately signed advisory 15mph speed limit. However, If the same limit applies here as on adjacent Broad Lane, then due to the road being shorter than 350 metres, no speed limit signs will be needed anywhere along this residential length.

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: PROCEED WITH PROPOSED 40MPH SPEED LIMIT. (NB OFFICER NOTE: The existing advisory 15 mph signs can remain in place,at the entrance to Berghers Hill, as are erected on private land, but will have no legal status ref enforcement) REF No7,7a,7b,7c,7d : Burnham Beeches perimeter roads Current limit: NSL Proposed :40mph ( Egypt Lane/Stewarts Drive/ Bedford Drive, Hawthorn Lane/Punpkin Hill/Curriers Lane,Grove Rd) Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN Y 40 In support of a speed limit being imposed. Concerned at high speed of cars travelling down Egypt Lane. It would protect ( her) 62 family who regularly travel along this road which is narrow with blind corners. It is in the rural setting of Burnham Beeches and feel unsafe on bicycles /walking the dog, due to the high speed of many of the vehicles driving along our road.

N NSL I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 7 67 This is a perfect example of why NSL at 60mph is correct. This is a tricky road with a very wide range of hazards including wildlife. Safe speeds will range from 10mph to perhaps 55mph, even the best drivers will be doing 10mph in places. Drivers MUST have their FULL attention on the road ahead and ANY distraction could cause an accident. The last thing we want is drivers dawdling along, not paying attention and constantly looking down at their speedos. Furthermore an actual speed limit (40mph) may lead less advanced drivers to assume that this is a recommended speed only to find corners that cannot be taken at even half that speed. The NSL limit tells all drivers that they must think for themselves and that encourages caution. This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. In summary, there is every reason to believe that any change in speed limit can only damage safety.

I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 7a 67 Apparently there have been a "cluster of crashes on bend" and I suspect I know the bend (the Police refuse to say which bend). contd. That bend cannot be taken at 40mph anyway so a new 40mph limit will completely fail to address this problem, in fact 40mph may well cause MORE crashes! With NSL no driver would ever try 60mph into that corner, but a 40mph signpost might fool less competant drivers to assume 40mph was safe - and then they WILL crash! This is another perfect example of why NSL at 60mph is correct. This is a tricky road with a very wide range of hazards including wildlife. Safe speeds, even in ideal conditions, may range from about 10mph to perhaps 55mph, even the best drivers may be doing 10mph in places. Drivers MUST have their FULL attention on the road ahead and ANY distraction could cause an accident. The last thing we want is drivers dawdling along, not paying attention and constantly looking down at their speedos. The NSL limit tells all drivers that they must think for themselves and that encourages caution. In summary, there is every reason to believe that any change in speed limit can only INCREASE crashes.

I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 7b 67 This is a perfect example of why NSL at 60mph is correct. contd. This is a tricky road with a very wide range of hazards including wildlife. Drivers MUST have their FULL attention on the road ahead and ANY distraction could cause an accident. The last thing we want is drivers dawdling along, not paying attention and constantly looking down at their speedos. Furthermore an actual speed limit (40mph) may lead less advanced drivers to assume that this is a recommended speed only to find hazards that should not be approached at anything like that speed. The NSL limit tells all drivers that they must think for themselves and that encourages caution. This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. In summary, there is every reason to believe that any change in speed limit can only damage safety. ( Same comments for ref s 7c & 7d)

Page 24 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN N NSL Objects primarily on environm,ental grounds. Terminal & repeater signs will be an ugly intrusion into the attractive scenery of the 108 Burnham Beeches Nature Reserve. The council prays in aid paragraph 92 of circular 01/2006, but if this recommendation is applied rigidly, the very areas which are most attractive will be the ones disfigured with speed limit signs. Para 92 has to be read in conjunction with para 97, which states " widespread implementation of speed management over the whole minor rural road network could require a costly and envoronmentally sensitive increase in the level of signing. Traffic authorities should seek to ensure that a sensible balance is achieved. " Likewise, appendix D ( speed limits for signelcarriageway roads in rurla areas) has a rider that the recommended limits are " subject to their meeting local needs & considerations". There is no need to impose 40mph limits on these roads because the mean speeds are already extremely low. The environment will be cluttered with signs for no purpose. Is well aware that 40mph limits have already been put in place on comparable roads elsewhere, eg Black Park. Objected to those 108 as well & the council cannot use its own actions on previous occasions, in the face of objections, to justify the present proposal. contd. Summary : * limit will require unsightly signs that will spoil the visual environment. *limit is unecessary.

N NSL? Objection to 7a-7d Egypt Lane, Stewarts Drive, Bedford Drive, Hawthorn Lane, Pumpkin Hill, Grove Road – Existing speed counts 111 are in line with speed limit being requested. The limit merely adds road signs. There is barely any point along these roads where Thames speed enforcement could be carried out. There is barely any collision history along these roads. Drivers seem to be controlled by Valley the road. Understand that the limit is for the benefit of the leisure users. Police

N 30 narrow road, barely 2 way 3 flows probably higher now due to A355 congestion & will increase when new flats built & new Sainsbury's opens- road used as alternative route. Accidents increasingy- mainly wing mirror damage but likely to get more serious opposing trucks cannot pass route is series of accidents waiting to happen Also requests additional traffic calming measures introduced in near future N 30 Uses the road to visit friends in the area & drop child off most mornings at a friends house& take other child to Dair House school. 105 Frequently walks the road as part of family's use of Burnham Beeches. Has noted with great alarm the speed at which cars & vehicles use this road. sometimes is truly frightened by the many narrow escapes has had to being side-swiped ( lives off Templewood Lane, which is also narrow & winding, but doesn't have as many kerbs, so pulling off to the side is easier than on Egypt Lane) On walks, have noted many ( > 10-15) car side mirrors, indicating that others have been less fortunate than him.

Top speed on the lane should be a maximum of 30mph. Because it will never be partolled also thinks speed bumps should be 105 placed there to force drivers to slow down. Really dangerous- only a matter of time before a cyclist. pedestrian or worse is killed. contd.

Page 25 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN 30 Feel v. strongly should be 30 limit for the entire length of section 7. ( preference would be for road to be closed to through traffic 79 with barrier at the cottages at Egypt near the triangle) * current speeds/level of traffic is inappropriate to the size of the roads and the local users. Cars ( particularly commuters cutting through from the A355 toward Slough trading estate ) overtake on blind bends- regular occurrence * Much of length is too narrow for 2 vars to pass comfortably, and it is dangerous meeting anything larger becaise of the speeds most people drive at along this road. Egypt Lane & Hawthorn Lane have houses along their length. Similarly built up ropads in the Stoke Poges area have been designated 30mph ( also Littleworth Common proposals) * People regularly walk, cycle and ride horses along these roads and because of the speed and volume of traffi there are regularly 79 near misses. Used to cycle to work from Egypt Lane, round these roads to the Grove Rd junction, to /from work, but had to stop contd. because too dangerous. One morning nearly knocked off 4 times ,this is not acceptable. * Refers to comments re Littleworth common proposed 30s re 'strong local feeling regarding safety & quality of life'- this also applies to Egypt Lane. There may not be a school, but the presence of Burnham Beeches encourages families to visit the area and walk the roads. Currently feel that their way of life is compromised by the traffic that uses these roads. N 30 Roads around Burnham Beeches should be 30 ( Note:mistakenly thought proposal was for 30mph) Very narrow, scenic routes, 25 visitors in particular may be travelling slowly & maybe not giving full attention to the road. N 30 *roads ( refs 7,7a,7b,7c & 11 ) used extensively by visitors to Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation and should be 14 shared space between cars, walkers, cyclists and horseriders. 30mph limits have been proposed at refs 10,10b,10c and 13 & does not see why 30 should not be applied here. *Links between these roads and 10,13,12 show a 60mph limit- feels these should be reduced to 30mph-40mph. 30 or Over 15 yrs have seen significant increase in volume of traffic using lane & an even more dramatic increase in the speed at which 63 close this traffic flows.( especially bad inlast 12 months since installation of One Pin Lane traffic lights) road Lane used as a 'rat run' to the Slough Industrial estate, and is no longer safe to walk,even on the verges, in the morning or evening. Verges are being destroyed by vehicles trying to avoid each other- tragic for Burnham Beeches woodland. Ideal solution( except for essential access ) is to close the Lane. Failing that, imposition & enforcement of a 30mph speed limit would help.

Page 26 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN 30 ( or * Lane is used as a 'by pass' to Farnham Common village- noted an increase in traffic since new signals on A355 at One Pin Lane. 88 close *No need for lane to be used by through traffic as the A355 is the major road and heads to identical location. To access the main road) Burnham Beeches car park ( & Hawthorn Lane) Beeches Rd is more capable of taking traffic ( also a 30mph road) .As a 'rat run' to Farnham Lane, this also encourages drivers to drive at speed past the Caldicott School on the corner of Crown Lane & Hawthorn Lane. * no footway between the top end of the lane and entrance to Burnham Beeches forest at Gypsy cottage ( Dukes Drive)- when walking with children to the forest, down the lane, or to the shops, we must walk in the road. This is on a blind corner and is very dangerous. ( Refers to car leaving road at that point in Dec 2007) * Major recreational route for cyclists, runners and wal;kers. Lack of a speed limit makes this inherently dangerous,particularly at the bend but throughout, particularly at the speeds people travel at.

* Many young families live in the area. They and their visitors, which include many young people, are horrified by the speed at 88 which people travel down the lane contd * Entering and leaving our drive is dangerous and difficult. Vehicles travel at a speed which is excessive and are unable to stop to let us into the road. visitors & tradesmen have often commented on how those using the lane are 'maniacs' and the speed they travel at is excessive & dangerous. * road is dangerous & is made more so by the speed at which vehicles are permitted to travel at ( ref to turning off 50mph A355 onto NSL Lane) Regulalry collct wing mirrors and other vehicle debris from outside their house. Egypt Lane sign and give Way sign at junction both been knocked down. Regularly note dead animal carcasses along lane which have been struck by speeding vehicles. Notes 40mph proposed. With due respect this recognises the issue but takes insufficient steps to address it given the nature of the road & the users ( residential,leisure, school,and a bypass for a major A road. * suggests road be closed- failing that ,should be a 30mph zone in defference to the requirements of the users, the residential nature of the lane, the number of children and the proximity to both the recreational area and the Caldicott School. This would bring it in line with any number of similar roads in the area which have limits on the speed at which they may be used. * Issue is well overdue for attention & action

N 20 lived in Egypt Lane for past 20 years. Noticed increased volume of traffic and excessive speed. Has lost 3 wing mirrors, 2 cats and 86 been hit once.( Refers to accident previous week in which a car rolled & entered a garden) Generally, not local trafficbut traffic cutting through to Slough Trading Estate, mainly early mormning & evening.Is woken up with the noise 5 mornings a week. Feels 30mph ( thought proposal was 30) is still too fast& should be reduced to 20mph, but this would have to be monitored. how about speed bumps- sure they would be the most effective.

Page 27 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN BCC summary/comments: Comments received for lengths 7a-d generally referred to all the perimeter roads, not just a specific length. 1 in support of 40 limit 3 object: prefer NSL 5 object/not support 40 : prefer 30mph ( including 2 who prefer road to be closed) 1 object: prefer 20mph Crashes: 15 in 5 yrs to 31 12 07 on Burnham Beeches perimeter roads ( excluding Park Lane- no crashes): 3 serious, others slight. most common collision type was loss of control , 1 accident involving cyclists , 1 involving a pedestrian.Slippery road surface/bends common contributory factors Dft were asked for feedback on departing from Circ 1/2006 re 30mph speed limits ( for this & other Burnham Beeches road lengths- refs 7- 7d) .The response received was : "It is of course for local authorities to set what they deem to be an appropriate limit based on all the local evidence. Looking at the average speeds, then on the basis of the guidance, 40mph would seem appropriate. I am not aware of any general precedent for 30mph limits in AONBs etc - our guidance had assumed 40mph - but this does not mean that 30mph limits may not have been set in some areas. Local speed limits are of course set without the consent of the Secretary of State. We only normally become involved when special authorisation is requested to use alternative signing regimes to minimise environmental intrusion"

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

PF read comments from the County Council's AONB Transport Officer re the special environmental status of Burnham Beeches & the Burnham Beeches Transport Strategy, indicating support for reduced speed limit and also the (above) statement from the Department for Transport re the potential for providing a 30mph speed limit around Burnham Beeches.

Police emphasised that enforcement of any speed limit would be difficult with very few suitable locations to do this and limited resources at present to carry this out. Side roads, not included within the proposed limit ( as a 40 limit would be inappropriately high), would require NSL signing, which elsewhere had become a contentious issue as some people equated these signs with an invitation to drive at 60mph.( generally an unsubstantiated perception, but arousing much vociferous concern) th View expressed that 40mph signs will just get people to do the speed which they are doing already- average speeds currently mid to low 30s- with 85 %ile speeds around 38-43mph.- the Beeches' perimeter roads are self enforcing due to their width & layout. Also concern that a 40mph limit may encourage some drivers to travel faster than they do at present when they exercise their own judgement under NSL - average speeds currently mid to low 30s- with 85 Concern re the required signing of a speed limit lower than National speed limit - environmentally intrusive- even if obtained authorisation for surface repeater roundel markings instead of upright repeater signs. Concern re long term visibility of such markings ( mud/leaves etc) & their environmental impact. ( One Wkg Gp member expressed views as a member of the Chilterns Conservation Board)

RECOMMENDATION: RETAIN EXISTING NSL . (DO NOT PROCEED WITH PROPOSED 40MPH LIMIT. )

Page 28 Agree with Pref. ID refs proposal SL Summary of feedback YN Head of Transportation : RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT 40 MPH LIMIT He reached this recommendation after making a site visit , considering the public feedback , the Working Group's comments and also feedback from the City of London's Consultation Group meeting of 24rd April 2008 . The latter referred to • visitor pressures and recreational use of Burnham Beeches, which has in excess of 500,000 visitors a year • That the Beeches has the highest level of environmental protection at a European level. • The Transport Strategy is looking to promote more sustainable options to local visitors and reduce reliance on the car , without a lower limit its unlikely that any more cycling, walking horse riding to the site could be encouraged • there are a number of minor collisions/vehicles leaving the carriageway on bends that go unreported • the lanes do not meet the current DfT Guidance of 1000vpd and 85%ile of 35mph for Quiet Lanes so this is not a viable alternative.

Special authorization would be sought from the Department for Transport to enable upright repeater signs not to be used, and for 30mph roundel road surface markings to be provided instead, in order to reduce the environmental impact of such signs.

Page 29 REF No 8 : Littleworth Common MC7 Littleworth Road / Dropmore Road (From a point 120 metres north east of its junction with the centre of the access to the car park of the Jolly Woodman Public House to a point 160 metres south- west of its junction with Wooburn Common Road.) Current limit NSL Proposed 30mph

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Reductions to the main routes through Littleworth common seem particularly ill judged. The small lanes where most of the houses are based need 65 no restrictions as their size makes them self limiting- a point made in BCC's proposal documents. At least these reductions would not impose on other road users, as most of these lanes are to all intents 'Access only'. The main routes through, however are so sparsely populated -perhaps 2 N? houses accessing the road directly- that the proposed reduction from National speed limit to 30mph seems overly cautious. These changes will have the biggest impact on other road users as these routes are the most heavily trafficked.

I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 8 67 I drove by today coming from the south and near the School there is a natural speed reducing feature (a corner) which slows vehicles to around 30mph or less. The road is wide, visibility is good and the School is well signed. The road has had no crashes with the current speed limit and with the school, the junction and other hazards, drivers speeds are clearly acceptable at present but halving the speed limit will lead to driver attention being diverted from the above-mentioned hazards. Crashes may result. N? In summary, there is every reason to believe that any change in speed limit can only damage safety. If the school has concerns over road safety surely a School sign with lights that flash at school opening times when children are arriving, leaving or playing would do FAR more to aid safety? A traffic officer in a marked Police car visible a couple of times a week may do FAR more to allay community concerns. I do realise that both these measure cost money whereas lowering the limit costs little and may even make a profit via use of speed cameras, but surely the safest choice should be made?

Y Applaud the 30 limit for area around Littleworth Common ( except 10a) 79 As a mother of children at Burnham Montessori & Dropmore Infant schools has during the last 9 years crossed this road with children. Quite 22 Y 30 terrifying at times due to the speed of cars that use this road. Only a matter of time before a serious accident involving pedestrians. Urges a reduction in speed limit for the safety of children & parents . Dropmore Infant School's Finance & Buildings Committee ( sub committee of Governing Body) met on 4 December & made decision to support 33 limit, but 2 observations:- Dropmore Infant School Y 20 - welcome first step to establishing a 20mph limit, in line with government aspiration for all schools to be protected by such a limit. governing - in view of ongoing danger to the children at the school posed by the continued absence of any speed limit, that the proposal is implemented body forthwith. sub ctte. Y 30 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 As someone who has waited near the school to collect children have been alarmed by speed at which some people pass by. Despite the fact that 28 there are clear signs and indications of a school, there appears to be a general reluctance to ease off accelerator. A short section of clearly Y 30 marked '30' would assist. ( reluctant to support 20mph limits outside every school unless time limits are imposed, as this would frustrate motorists who wish to drive at a safe 30 mph outside of school times.)

30 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Concerned when trying to cross road to the school with grandchild at the speed of vehicles .Most drivers seem to think they are supposed to 31 drive at 60. Y 30 Although 30mph limit may still be in many people's opinion too fast for the outside of a school, it will be much safer than at present. Will help pedestrians trying to get to the nursery school & elderly parishioners attending St Anne's Church.

Children at infant school are aged 4-7 & have no concept of the speed at which vehicles travel along the road, nor do many of them fully 21 comprehend the consequences of running out along the road. Trying to cross the road safely at school times is quite a hazardous task, given the speed at which vehicles travel along the road. Even the Y 30 presence of parked cats doesn't often register with some drivers to slow down. It would seem that they feel they are supposed to do 60 because that i s the speed limit. There is no proper footway along which to walk with the children to the nursery school also makes the speed issue very important. supports reduction of speed limits as advertised. 2 daughters attend Dropmore Infant School. Almost every day feel uncomfortable and in real danger as we have to slow down to park & cross 51 the road to drop off/pick up our children. Although a lot of people show courtesy, there are also a lot of other people who seem to think nothing at Y 30 going at 60+mph as we are trying to cross the road with or 4 & 6 yr old. Witnessed several accidents, including cars mounting the pavement & crushing the reflective bollards at the exit of the school. ( refers to situation if pedestrians had been on pavement at the time)

Supports. Current speed limit is an 'acident waiting to happen”. The area of road is dangerous,with a sharp S bend and other road joining with 110 poor views. Each time we park and exit/enter our cars you literally take your life in your hands trying to dodge cars that really do not slow down. Y 30 It's so obvious that I'm surprised & disappointed that the speed limit wasn't reduced some time ago. Please put that right now, before we experience a serious accident/injury or even worse a fatality.

1 Parish Hall houses Burnham Montessori school, a pre school nursety with capacity for 48 children between 2 /2 years & 5 years. 61 As no parking outside Parish Hall, twice a day chidren aged under 5 & their parents are obliged to cross a road which is currently subject to NSL. 30 supported, but noted that government aspitres to 20mph limit outside schools. Implementation of this scheme is regarded as a step along the Y 20mph route to achieving this. should be implemented as soon as possible to provide protection to children at the 2 local schools & not be delayed as a result of any ploitical recosideration of this or other schemes that may arise from this consultation.

Agree that limit should be reduced , but feel that 20mph would be more appropriate & in line with the Govt. proposals to have a 20mph limit 53 outside all schools. Live between the 2 schools on littleworth Rd. The locations of these are particualrly dangerous. Have seen many accidents on stretch of road over 20mph the yrs ( incl car demolishing TP Dec 2007)- are surprised that there has yet to be a fatality. Would also like to see installation of warning lights ( speed limit 30mph) as vehicles speedily approach the restricted area. These are installed in other exceptionally dangerous stretches of road.

31 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN BCC summary /comments : 2 objections- prefer retain NSL? 10 in support-(including Dropmore Infant School governing body & Dropmore Parish Hall Committee of Management) 3 prefer 20mph limit ( includes 2 of the above 30mph supporters), Public consultation supporting info: village speed limit. Limit to start at village nameplate/ gateways at each end of length . School,PH, church, nursery( children)/Parish Hall. Less than 20 houses, but character of this community is of a village and very strong local feeling about traffic volume /speed splitting the community and pressure over many years for a 30mph limit. A 250 signature petition asking for a limit( 20mph?) in the vicinity of the Infant & montessori schools was received in 2005. Vehicle flows 5000vpd. Not a crash problem. Additional info: WorkingCrashes: Group In the 3discussion yrs to 31 12 & 2007, recommendation: there have been only 2 reported crashes resulting in injury on Littleworth Rd, both slight. Discussion re requirements for providing 20mph limits – not within scope of review, require additional speed reduction measures.

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30MPH SPEED LIMIT.

REF No 8a : Boveney Wood Lane ,Littleworth Common (From its junction with Littleworth Road for a distance of 101metres.) Current limit NSL Proposed 30mph

Supported, but the continuation of NSL along Boveney Wood Lane beyond its junction with Common Lane to the point of the village nameplate is 61 not within the spirit of the consultation of January 2006. Also contrary to the decision made in August 2006 to place the nameplate in this Dropmore Parish Hall position,which it was agreed at the time would mark the commencement of the 30mph limit. Request 30 limit extended to the VNP. Extend Committee of Management

BCC summary /comments : Short length of 30mph limit along this side road to include the village church and car park area for woods/church within the proposed 30mph village speed limit. There was formal consultation with Parish councils and other representative bodies , which ended on 7th January 2005. Gateways were provided to highlight the entrances to Littleworth Common & where appropriate these correspond to the proposed speed limit terminal points.The start & finish of the speed limits could not have been determined in August 2006, as this cannot be decided prior to public consultation& the approved Key Decision Report. A traffic count over one week in 2004 showed that less than 200 vehicles per day use Boveney Wood Lane ( compared to over 4000vpd on Littleworth Road.)

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30MPH SPEED LIMIT.

32 REF No 9 : MC7 Dropmore Road ,Littleworth Common (From a point 160 metres southwest of its junction with Wooburn Common Road to a point 194 metres south west of its junction with Horseshoe Hill . ) Current limit NSL Proposed 40mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Agrees ( no further info given) 93 Y 40 N 30 Prefer whole proposed 40 to be 30limit. 61 Proposal does not cater for planning applications already agreed by SBDC which mean that new vehicular accesses along this length of road will be in place over the next 2 years:- * Renovation of Oak Lodge- access onto Dropmore Rd , * from property 'Woodend' *renovation of Dropmore house, including vehicle access to 64 dwellings on the bend of Dropmore Road to the south of the existing 5 bar gate.

N 30 Prefer whole proposed 40 to be 30limit. 43 Planning applications already agreed for vehicular access along this length of road at Oak Lodge, at the entrance to Dropmore Estate and at the rear of the property 'Woodend'. The last two egress points are almost directly opposite each other and at the point where the road bends.

N NSL I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 9 67 I drove this from the south and it is clearly suitable as NSL (60mph). If "15% of traffic travelling above 60mph" then this also states that NSL (60mph) is perfect so why not have marked Police cars do speed checks there and prosecute those drivers? Perhaps such a Police presence would also solve the "collision record on length on bend"? Since the Police refuse to tell us why these crashes occured we have no idea whether reducing the speed limit has any hope of curing this problem. Clearly most drivers currently exceed 40mph by a large margin and don't crash or cause danger. Trying to reduce their speeds by up to 20 mph will produce no benefit and bring speed limits in general into disrepute.

BCC summary /comments : Oak Lodge is within the adjacent proposed 30mph limit. Info at public consultation: Village outskirts- less density of habitation than qualifies as a village, but a hamlet of about 7 dwellings after several hundred metres of non residential road. collision record on length on bend. Vulnerable road users need to use road to access village centre.Quality of life issues for residents. 5000 vpd use road. Approach from S very straight, with 15% of traffic travelling above 60mph at point 500m south of gateway for Littleworth Common.( NB : this is not within the proposed 40 limit, but on the approach to this length from the south- 500m away from its southern end) ? access to new Dropmore House development on this length Community outskirts/ limit above 30mph for community not meeting village criteria further info: No reported crashes on length in 3 yrs to 31 12 07. Average speeds , were 39mph northbound & 41mph southbound.(midway between Wooburn Common Rd & Horsehoe Hill in 2001) 85TH %ile speeds 45mph N bound & 42mph Sbnd.( locn as for ave speeds)

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40MPH SPEED LIMIT.

33 REF No 10 : Dorney Wood Road Littleworth Common (From a point 146 metres south-east of its junction with Common Lane to a point 126 metres northwest of its junction with Common Lane ) Current limit NSL Proposed 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 supported 61 Y 30

wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 10 67 This doesn't meet even the new criteria for 30 (a halving of the speed limit). Having driven down here are drivers really going at dangerous speeds? The Police refuse to say so perhaps they have not been listening to local concerns. Therefore people may desperately want something done and the only solution on offer is a dramatic slashing of the speed limit. At 30mph this may lead to action N ?NSL because a speed camera will be able to prosecute most drivers, even though it almost certainly won't improve safety. 30Mph proposed even where there are "no dwellings at all along this length" and even when there is no history of injury collisions. How is this supposed to improve respect for speed limits?

BCC summary /comments : Public consultation info: About 900vpd.( NB sch hols)

Few houses along proposed length itself , ( at southern entry to village from the south on approach to crossroads with housing on side roads), but strong local feeling re excessive speed- road used by pedestrians /dog walkers etc- no footways. 30mph limit also proposed on Common Lane & Horseshoe Hill, so limit could be viewed as the start of the village ( & will commence at the village name plate at its southern end) History of damage only collisions at southern end by staggered junction/bend on narrow stretch.- no appropriate location identified for providing chevron sign. Lack of visibility of approaching vehicles for traffic emerging from Common Lane- especially to the left. no other simple remedial measures possible. Northern end of limit is just north of bridleway crossing point ,adjacent to crossroads warning sign. Length of proposed 30 limit is shorter than recommended minimum of 300 m-.Considered whole road length to village centre as a 30 limit ( instead of proposed 40 limit in SLR Ref 10a)although no dwellings at all along this length. Had originally been intended to make this length a Quiet Lane ( prior to DfT ruling out advisory 20mph limits for such roads & subsequent change in County Council policy towards Quiet Lanes, following public feedback) Not meet DfT criteria for a 30 limit, but 40 limit likely to seem incongruous at southern end, where judicious drivers are currently travelling much slower than this.

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30MPH SPEED LIMIT.

Head of Transportation :

34 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN REF No 10a : Dorney Wood Road Littleworth Common (From a point 126 metres north west of its junction with Common Lane a point 38 metres south east of its junction with Littleworth Road) Current limit NSL Proposed 40mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 40 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 N 30 should be 30mph limit 61 Prefer this also to be 30, for similar reasons as given to Ref 7 ( Burnham Beeches perimeter) 79 N 30 Rural area & fast speeds along this stretch are inappropriate. Making the whole area the same speed would also reduce the amount of signage needed.

Ridiculous to put a speed limit on this wholly -undeveloped road -refer to para 97 of circular 01/2006.Repeater signs will be unsightly, as with 108 th proposals 7-7d. There is said to be strong local feeling about “excessive speed” on this road, but as the 85 %ile speed is only 41.5 mph it is clear that speeds are not excessive at all. Pointless gesture that will achieve nothing. N ?NSL Summary: * unsightly signs will spoil visual environment * uneccessary in view of existing low speeds. BCC summary /comments : Public consultation info: About 900vpd.( NB sch hols) Ave speeds 36mph, 85th %ile 41.5 mph.No houses along length, but strong local feeling re excessive speed- road used by pedestrians /dog walkers /horse riders etc etc. Northern terminal point is more than 20metres away from junction, to provide better forward visibility of Littleworth Rd 30mph signs for northbound vehicles. ( See also comments re SLR ref 10) Lower Tier road with local/access/recreational function- lots of use by walkers/horse riders using rights of way network Working Group discussion & recommendation: 2 members felt whole length of 10/10a should be 30mph- pointless having short 40 section ( even although no housing along this length- regarded as part of village) debate whether possibility of roundel markings instead of upright repeater signs. PF stated would need liaison with Parish Council and submission for special authorisation from DfT- usually granted only for designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40MPH SPEED LIMIT ( with intention of RE-advertising this length as proposed 30mph limit, to include whole length of road as 30 & eliminate short section of 30 limit, at some point in the future. )

35 REF No 10b : Common Lane,Littleworth Common ( From its junction with Dorney Wood Road to a point 41 metres north east of house named Mallards) Current limit NSL Proposed 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 supported as far as it extends, but to remain within spirit of consultations in Jan/august 2006, it needs to extend beyond the property 61 30 & 'Mallards' and join up with the 30mph limit that should be implemented along Boveney Wood Lane ( ref 8a) Extend

I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 10b. This doesn't meet even the new criteria for 30mph (a halving of 67 the speed limit). Having driven down here are drivers really going at dangerous speeds? 85% of drivers are already below 24mph when the limit is 60mph. Clearly drivers are sensible if you don't try to "manage" their speed but a new speed limit of 30mph may lead some less experienced drivers ?NSL to actually obey the new limit, and drive faster! Locals may want something to be done and if the only solution on offer is a dramatic slashing of the speed limit then perhaps a false sense of security is all that's on offer. It seems the real reason to halve this speed limit is so as to "avoid the need for repeater signs".( BCC Note: repeater signs will be needed with a 30mph limit, but not with NSL- perhaps this was unclear in the supporting info ) A prosecution for speeding would then have nothing to do with road safety but simply be because signs are too expensive! There is every reason to expect road safety to be WORSE with a 30mph speed limit. BCC summary /comments : Info for Public consultation: 14 dwellings along length, in 2 stretches, with about 100m of woodland between the 2 residential areas . Public House, car park leading to paths through wood to village centre. Could be considered as part of village road network, thus 30mph limit. However: Less than 100vpd, ave speeds 19mph, 85th%ile 24mph. Self enforcing- mostly single track/narrow 2 way. Originally proposed as Quiet Lane- but implementation of these now discontinued, so main options are to provide a 30 limit ,or National speed limit could be retained, (but would need to be signed as such where adjacent lower limits end- but this would avoid need for repeater signs on attractive rural lane -needed if a 30mph limit applied.) Re-assess after public feedback Less than 20 houses to constitute a village, but 40mph limit would definitely be inappropriate - re existing speeds.

Working Group discussion & recommendation: - narrow single track, self enforcing . - why put in limit.? -v little traffic using road

IMPLEMENT 30MPH LIMIT

36 Head of Transportation :

REF No 10c : Horseshoe Hill ,Littleworth Common ( Entire length ) Current limit NSL Proposed 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 supported. 61 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 Y 30 Supportive, but feels roundel markings on road surface would be ineffective & unnecessary. Would appreciate involvement in placement of 43 Y 30 repeater signs on Horseshoe Hill as traffic has a tendency to mount the kerb.

I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 10c 67 This doesn't even meet the new 30mph criteria, "speeds constrained by sharp bend" anyway, And it is already a safe road with no crash history. N ?NSL Why meddle? In summary, there is no reason to believe that any change in speed limit can improve safety.

BCC summary /comments : Info at Public consultation: 19 dwellings along this length, with short break of about 100m nr middle of length, where speeds constrained by sharp bend. Character generally is of a residential road- mainly single track/narrow 2 way. Originally proposed as Quiet Lane- but implementation of this now discontinued-hence 30 being proposed. Almost meets village speed limit criteria. Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30MPH SPEED LIMIT

37 REF No 11 : Crown Lane, East Burnham ( Entire length: From its junction with Hawthorn Lane to its junction with Farnham Lane. ) Current limit NSL Proposed 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Delighted to support proposed 40. Dangerous junction with Hawthorn Lane 32 Possibility of 20 mph limit outside Caldicot school? Y 40 How will 40 limit be enforced? Raises concern re traffic being diverted from Crown Lane along Thompkins Lane ( because of ice on Crown Lane?) & 'Road Closed' signs not being removed Y 40 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 Like consideration given to a 30 limit. 79 Consider the houses to be denser than 'scattered' and feel that, particularly at the southern end, the delivery vehicles to garden centres et have the potential 30 to cause a major accident;lorries are frequently too large to pass other vehicles easily and cars travelling too fast have to brake suddenly. Potential accident spot near Crown PH- cars park in front of the building, actually on a road junction. Vehicles pulling out of this parking space do so straight into the path of those coming at a fast speed along Crown Lane. *roads ( refs 7,7a,7b,7c & 11 ) used extensively by visitors to Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation and should be shared space between cars, 14 walkers, cyclists and horse riders 30mph limits have been proposed at refs 10,10b,10c and 13 & does not see why 30 should not be applied here. N 30 *Links between these roads and 10,13,12 show a 60mph limit- feels these should be reduced to 30mph-40mph.

I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 11 67 This is another perfect example of why NSL at 60mph is correct. This is a tricky road with a very wide range of hazards including wildlife. Drivers MUST have their FULL attention on the road ahead and ANY distraction could cause an accident. The last thing we want is drivers dawdling along, not paying attention and constantly looking down at their speedos. Furthermore an actual speed limit (40mph) N NSL may lead less advanced drivers to assume that this is a recommended speed only to find hazards that could not be approached at half that speed. The NSL limit tells all drivers that they must think for themselves and that encourages caution as seen by their current speeds. This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. In summary, there is every reason to believe that any change in speed limit can only damage safety.

BCC summary /comments : Info at public consultation:- Dwellings scattered along length& in a couple of small groups of about 8 houses. 2 garden centres & Crown PH. Flow: 3500 vpd along southern end, 2700 at northern end. Ave speeds ( mean for 3 locns) = 35mph 85th %ile ( mean for 3 locns) = 42 mph Meets Dft guidance for community less built up than a village or for a lower tier road with local, access, or recreational function. Additioanl info: Only 2 reported injury accidents ( one on ice) in 3 yrs ending 31 12 2007.

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40MPH SPEED LIMIT

38 REF No 12 : MC9 Britwell Road,Burnham (From its junction with Lower Britwell Road / Farnham Lane to a point 56 metres south west of its junction with Court Lane. ) Current limit NSL Proposed 40mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 40 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 12 67 This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. It is a short road where speeds are already regulated by the corners either end and high volumes of traffic. Rather than lower this to match Farnham Lane & Lower Britwell Rd, it would be far better to raise Farnham Lane & Lower Britwell Rd back to NSL, as it always used to be NSL before it was reduced to 40mph in a previous round of speed limit reductions! This has already brought speed limits into disrepute and extending the lowered limit further will reduce respect even more. Are us N NSL drivers really so stupid that we need to be told every few yards what speed to do? It seems the justification for lowering this speed limit is to match a previous bad decision to lower an adjacent limit. Why not give drivers the respect they deserve and have both sections back at NSL? Perhaps then drivers will show respect for other sensible limits?

In summary, there is no reason to believe that any change in speed limit can improve safety.

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation:Matches existing 40mph limit on adjacent Farnham Lane & Lower Britwell Rd (within Slough Borough) as has similar character . Outskirts of Burnham residential area. 4400vpd Speeds: ave 35mph, 85th %ile 42mph. 3 side roads & several residential accesses along length. Road about 5.0 metres wide but takes comparatively large amount of traffic . Meets criteria for partially developed area. Additional info:

Working Group discussion & recommendation: One felt this should be a 30 limit. Brief discussion as to why limit proposed .

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40MPH SPEED LIMIT

39 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN REF No 13 : Green Lane,Burnham ( From its junction with Britwell Road to a point 154 metres south of its junction with Longmead Lane . ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30mph

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 13 67 This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. It is a narrow road with some tricky corners that cannot be safely taken even at the proposed 30mph and largely self limiting with regards to speed. Placing 30mph signs may fool less experienced drivers into going N NSL too fast in places and may also distract attention from the road ahead. There are already no crashes so we are risking creating a problem In summary, there is every reason to believe that changing the speed limit can only damage safety.

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Extension of existing 30mph village limit to include row of 8 properties north of the point where the current limit terminates ( nr Golf Club) Village/residential road speed limit

Additional info: Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30MPH SPEED LIMIT

40 REF No 14 : Poyle Lane,Burnham ( Entire length between Dropmore Rd & Brickfield Lane ) Current limit : 30/NSL Proposed: 30 mph( Extend current 30 limit to take into account additional length of housing) Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 Fully support proposals. 68 Apart from our young daughter being knocked off her bicycle by a motor vehicle driving at speed along this presently un-restricted road,we and many ,many residents have been waiting for a speed review to take place, as a mater of urgency. Cars have gone straight through the gates of elizabeth Way, at the end of Poyle Lane approaching a bend, as they were unable to take the bend at the speed at which they were travelling. We are one of many dog walkers in the area who often complain about the excessive speed od vehicles ,who ,after all, are presently entitled to travel at up to 60mph along a short stretch of these roads! The newly erected Cricket Ground pedestrian entrance situated towards the end of Wymers Wood Rd is very frequently used. There are no pavements in this area and the Y 30 extended 30mph proposed speed limit would be most welcome, and act in the best interest and safety of pedestrians. With the 30mph limit in place we can at least hope that motorists will take notice of this speed restriction, which should at least take into account the dengerous conditions along part of these roads, which horse riders also frequent. Sincerely hope these restrictions will be put in place as soon as possible.

good news- hoped for by residents for some time. The roads have been more busy with both vehicles & with pedestrians walking to the new cricket ground since the old Cricket club at the top of Wymers Wood Rd has been developed with 40+ dwellings, & the cricket ground relocated.

Y 30 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 14 67 This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit and a self limiting "sharp bend". It seems the main reason for change is that not to do so would make other N NSL changes look silly and "result in complaints". It seems council reputation is considered more important than road safety. In summary, there is no reason to believe that changing the speed limit will improve safety.

BCC summary /comments : ( See also Ref 14 Brickfield Lane below - continuation of road length) Info given at public consultation: Extension of 30 limit for village to include additional 6 dwellings (constructed since extg SL put in in 1957) ,plus Poyle Farm. The end of the proposed 30 limit to cover main area of dwellings would be just prior to sharp bend with junction. NSL sign there would seem incongruous to public & result in complaints. Proposal therefore includes remainder of Poyle Lane ( & western continuation into Brickfield Lane ) Village /residential road speed limit - meets DfT criteria except for more sparse dwellings at N end,N of Poyle Farm ( see above)

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT

41 REF No : 14 Brickfield Lane ,Burnham ( From its junction with Poyle Lane to its junction with Wymers Wood Lane ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Agrees ( no further info given) 93 Y 30 BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: The end of a proposed 30 SL to cover extent of main area of dwellings in Poyle Lane would be just prior to sharp bend at junction with Poyle Lane . To put NSL sign there would seem incongruous to public & result in many complaints. Proposal therefore includes this length of road ,extending westwards from junction of Brickfield Lane with Poyle Ln for about 150 metres to the junction with Wymers Wood Rd. . ( See Poyle Lane above) Additional info: Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT

42 REF No 15 : Wymers Wood Rd ,Burnham ( Entire length ) Current limit : 30/NSL Proposed: Extend 30mph over whole road length Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN fully agrees. This road & Polyes Lane heavily used by residents and other vehicle usrs asa cut-through road. Dangerous for many dog 60 Y 30 walkers & is often used by horse riders .Pines hotel has in recent years largely increased its business and with this success comes even more traffic from guests & large delivery vehicles. Sooner the 30 is in place, the better.

93 Y 30 Agrees ( no further info given) I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 15. 67 This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit and a self limiting "sharp bend". It seems the main reason for change is that not to do so would make other changes look silly and "result in complaints". These are not good enough reasons. This is the 1st proposal that has merit but why change the limit now when we know the road is about to have "widening/ resurfacing/ N ?NSL kerbing of the road"? Surely the limit is best decided AFTER the extensive road works so that we are assessing the real dangers and not just speculating? ( BCC note : the widening /kerbing referred to have been in place for some years) In summary, it is daft to set a new speed limit immediately before the character of the road is dramatically changed.

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: 29 letters from residents of Poyle Lane, Wymers Wood Rd/Brickfield Lane in 1996 for lower limits(preferably 30mph for all of Poyle Lane & Wymers Wood Rd), following widening/ resurfacing/ kerbing of the road. New houses since then on Wymers Wood Rd & Poyle Lane/Pink Lane. Pedestrian access to cricket ground/club facilities off Wymers Wd Rd is v heavily used . Cut through from Dropmore Rd to Taplow Common Rd/Lent Rise Rd. No footways , used by horseriders & cyclists, pedestrians with young children/ dogs. Pines Hotel on W.W.Rd generates addl veh mmts. Proposed 30 over residential length would terminate just N of j/w Redwood, but more logical to include the 250 m length to the N.of this, (with 3 residences & hotel), to indicate that from j/w Taplow Common Rd ( N) is effectively the start of the village. This will also reduce the number of terminal signs needed at junctions in vicinity . Village/residential road speed limit Additional info: Meets DfT criteria except for northern end where sparse housing ( see above) widening/kerbing took place some years previously.

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT

43 REF No 15a : Redwood ,off Wymers Wood Rd, Burnham ( Entire length ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph ( Private road)

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 Agrees ( no further info given) 93 *Query re 30mph limit on private road to which the public does not have access.( cul de sac- after first 50metres becomes a wholly private estate with 6 ? no public access. Signs indicate that the grounds of the estate are for the sole use of residents and not the general public. * queries rationale for speed limit and whether creates unnecessary cost - speed limit signs on 'country lane' BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Additional info: Speed limit proposed to avoid potentially contentious issue of providing a NSL sign on entry to Redwood (and 30mph signs at exit) if adjacent Wymers Wood Rd becomes a 30mph limit PF has sought legal advice on this issue from BCC Legal Services and the Dft ( email sent 12 Dec 2007) Response: "Thank you for your email of 13 December concerning speed limit signing on public and private roads.This Department interprets “public access” as whether the road in question has some form of physical barrier which would prevent ordinary traffic from using the road. If a physical barrier is in operation, then it could be argued that road traffic law does not apply on that road. Cul-de-sacs are covered by Direction 9(1)(a). The regulations are the same as Directions 9(2) & 9(3) above, but 9(1)(a) ensures speed limit signs are not required at the beginning of the cul-de- sac (from the end not attached to the public road)." Working Group discussion & recommendation:

Officer explained that proposed 30 limit was to prevent the need to otherwise erect NSL signs at entry to estate, which would be likely to be unpopular with residents of this private estate. RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT

44 REF No 16 : MC9 Hitcham Lane,Taplow/ Burnham ( From its junction with Lent Rise Road/ Taplow Common Road eastwards to a point 148 metres west of its junction with Hitcham Rd. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN Rat run- cars have no consideration for pedestrians( no footways),horses, stray cows .Over half of lane is single track, has very busy Church, very Y 30 steep hill & Z bend . Incidents described involving crashes/near misses. ( Also, requests large vehicles be deterred from using lane by signs at end of road)

Fully supports proposal Y 30

Supports proposed 30, but believes that remainder of Hitcham Lane should be a Quiet Lane due to the conflict between equestrians, walkers & rat running vehicles. Also believes this narrow section of lane should be part of the Taplow village 20mph zone, as the character of the road is not a successful 30 but deterrent to speed. Y 20/QL on A no. of accidents on this stretch recently & delim signs as proposed would give the wrong message to motorists. w section The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. The 20mph zone proposed for Taplow village is also the subject of a delegated budget bid.

Should be a Quiet Lane to allow the safe passage by equestrians, cyclists and walkers.

QL

wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 16

This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. A lot of it is very open and the rest is of a self limiting nature. I doubt it complies with new guidelines for a 30mph and, due to it being lit, many drivers may be unaware of changes. Every chance of enforcement unfairly 'trapping' N ?NSL safe motorists unaware of such an unusual new limit.

In summary, very unlikely to improve safety and may lead to loss of respect for speed limits generally, if enforcement here is as intolerent as elsewhere. Mostly woods & farmland. 30mph is an odd decision. Does not look like a 30mph area & not enough street lights for motorist to guess that it N ?NSL should be.

45 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: About 15 properties within the village, on narrow road, limited forward visibility, no footway, with a popular Church. Initially considered whether whole length of lane should have 30 limit, but village proper extends from The Gore to just west of Hitcham Rd. West of this point, there is about 250 metres of open road. The western( Taplow) end of the road length is mostly single track ,with a small group of dwellings, is currently proposed to be left as National speed limit as should be self enforcing due to character of road ( mostly single track with no verges & with hedges directly alongside road)- it also carries less traffic ( see below) than the section to east of j/w Hitcham Rd. The proposed 30 length thus extends from The Gore to just west of the 'ridden horse' warning sign to the west of Hitcham Rd. E of j/w Hitcham Rd,: 1700vpd ;Ave speeds: 29mph ;85th %ile speed :35mph West of j/w Hitcham Rd.: 800 vpd; Ave speeds: 34mph ;85th %ile speed :39mph The length proposed as a 30limit is streetlit, so will have no repeater signs installed- just removal of NSL repeater signs. Although less than the 20 properties required to meet the DfT village definition for an 'automatic' 30limit, the nature of the road & character of the length proposed for a 30 limit is of a village. Additional info: 4 pias in 3 yrs ending 31 12 07 . ( 2 in 2005, 1 in 2006, 1 in 2007 All slight ) 3 were loss of control with specific individual circumstances, plus 1 involving speed and a ridden horse Quiet Lanes no longer being introduced in Bucks ( see Key Decision Report )

Working Group discussion & recommendation: Debated whether 30 limit should apply to whole lane, but character of western ( Taplow) end of lane effectively reduces speed of most drivers . Those ignoring the road character here will not be influenced by speed limit signs .. Speed limit is to cover the heart of Hitcham village .

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT

46 ID refs

2

11

55 Taplow PC

104 Taplow & Dorney NAG

67

10

47 ID refs

About 15 properties within the village, on narrow road, limited forward visibility, no footway, with a popular Church. Initially considered whether whole length of lane should have 30

The western( Taplow) end of the road length is mostly single track ,with a small group of dwellings, is currently proposed to be left as National speed limit as should be self enforcing due to character of road ( mostly single track with no verges & with hedges directly alongside road)- it also carries less traffic ( see below) than the section to east of j/w

Although less than the 20 properties required to meet the DfT village definition for an 'automatic' 30limit, the nature of the road & character of the length proposed for a 30 limit is of a village.

4 pias in 3 yrs ending 31 12 07 . ( 2 in 2005, 1 in 2006, 1 in 2007 All slight ) 3 were loss of control with specific individual circumstances, plus 1 involving speed and a ridden horse

Debated whether 30 limit should apply to whole lane, but character of western ( Taplow) end of lane effectively reduces speed of most drivers . Those ignoring the road character

48 REF No 17 : Huntercombe Lane South, Burnham ( From its junction with the A4 Bath Road for a distance of 226 metres. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN NO FEEDBACK RECEIVED BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Short extension of existing 30mph limit to include entrances to 'Wyeth' business car park & Huntercombe Hospital, & sharp bend . [current 30 terminates at boundary between No 17 & No 15). Length of 30 limit corresponds to street lit length. Drivers entering residential length from S would enter 30 limit prior to bend & accesses. Residential road Additional info:

Working Group discussion & recommendation: Explanation of reasoning behind proposal- short extension only to existing Slough 30mph speed limit to provide a more appropriate terminal point within Bucks..

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT

49 REF No 18 : Dorney Reach: Dorney Reach Road ,Harcourt Close, Harcourt Road, Meadow Way,Oak Stubbs Lane ( Entire lengths except for Dorney Reach Road, which extends from its junction with Harcourt Road to its junction with the private road which commences at the northern boundary of 'Touchdown' No 18, Dorney Reach Road. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 Seems reasonable. This area is solely residential & the roads are not through roads. 49 Generally OK 36 Y 30 (Dorney PC)

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Residential roads Additional info: NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT

50 REF No 18A /B : 18a Marsh Lane/Court Lane ,Dorney/ Dorney Reach ( From a point 28 metres north of its junction with Glebe Close to its junction with Village Rd, Dorney ) 18b Glebe Close ,Dorney Reach ( entire length) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN Suggests 30 limit to be extended south to include whole length to Village Rd, Dorney and include Old Marsh Lane, Glebe Close, Boveney Rd. rd 3 busy & unprotected 'right turn' junctions in stretch of road, 2 hazardous as concealed from S bound motorists by brow of Mway bridge; 3 is junction with Dorney Lake- sometimes very busy with long vehicles & used by those unfamiliar with area attending the many events on the lake. Southern 300 yards of Marsh Lane is narrow, tree lined, often part flooded. Dangerous for pedestrians as there is no footpath. Sharp right angled bend into Court Lane cannot be safely negotiated at even 30mph. Parts of Marsh Lane used & crossed by many children as part of 'Walk to School' campaign. N 30 Shuttle buses use Marsh Lane/Court Lane for major events at Dorney Lake ( incl 2012 Olympics) Length of Marsh Lane/Court Lane not dissimilar to/probably more hazardous than Lake End Rd which has a 30mph limit. Logical & less confusing to have ONE 30mph speed limit for whole of (relatively) contigous Dorney Parish . Proposals of DPC supported by parishioners & Neighbourhood Action Group.

40 limit between Jubilee River and j/w Lake End Rd. (No further details given-see general comments for Taplow/Dorney area-wide concepts:- Introduction Following consultation with the community the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group has identified speeding as the major issue that requires addressing. As the area is currently part of the Speed Review the NAG Committee is submitting its speed limits proposals to the County Council as a first step to deal with the problem. 40 Conceptual Base These proposals are based not only on suggestions from the community but also on a detailed analysis by residents of the characteristics of the traffic and the road environment. Parish Plans have also been used as sources of information and recommendations. The analysis has not been limited to the simple relationship between the existing speeds limits and the formally proposed speed limits but includes the interrelationship between verges, footways, accesses, land use, road widths, non motorised traffic and motor traffic. Residents’ views in particular have been constructed from detailed local knowledge of present conditions and future possibilities.

51 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN

Outcomes The outcome of the Speed Review for the Taplow and Dorney should be the strengthening and enhancing of the residents’ sense of place. Residents and visitors should feel free to walk, ride, cycle and exercise their dogs without feeling under threat from traffic. Safety of movement for non-motorised traffic should be a paramount outcome. Rat-run traffic in particular should adjust to the Village environments and its pattern of non-motorised movement and not expect residents to adjust to their daily passing. Rat-run traffic should not be encouraged by highway improvements that worsen the situation for residents and emphasise roads as merely a route for traffic cutting through rather than a visual resource with multi purpose usage. Appropriate speed limits are a vital element in the equation to achieve this outcome

Walking to school programmes should be encouraged by providing a safe environment for those sections of the routes particularly from the south of Taplow Parish which use roads which have no footways and involve hazardous uncontrolled crossings such as at Berry Hill both by the A4 and near the Rectory Road junction.

Residents should also be confident that speed limits are compatible with safety and that they can enjoy their environment without a general apprehension that traffic accidents are likely to occur.

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Main road length 30mph request from Dorney PC on length from Mway bridge to SE. Harcourt Rd ( school,bus stop,turning traffic etc) Above average cylist/pedestrian activity in vicinity- network on paths incl Sustrans route. No speed/flow data at D Reach, but 2200 vpd N of Jubilee River & 2300 vpd in Court Rd Dorney. 3 crashes in 3 yrs on NSL length from M way bridge to Dorney village. At Dorney Reach 9 properties ( nos 5-19) beside straight stretch of Marsh Lane south of Harcourt Rd. Bus stops. 2 side rds serving estate. Access on opp side of rd to houses to public FP/Sustrans route 61. Access to Eton rowing lake, 2 further dwellings on Marsh Lane On Court Lane there is the Church, Graveyard, Dorney Court (house/garden/garden centre & cafe) Proposed limit starts at VNP at its northern end. Not meet village criteria for a 30 mph SL but 40/50 can be applied for more sparse community. OR for rural road with predominantly local,access or recreational function/part of recommended route for vulnerable road users. Glebe Close V short length of about 100m - a 40mph speed limit will prevent need for National Speed Limit signs at entry to Glebe Close ( which will be required if Glebe close does not have a speed limit applied, but Marsh Lane receives a limit below National speed limit) No repeater signs will be needed due to short length. Additional info:

52 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT

53 ID refs

36 (Dorney PC)

104 Taplow & Dorney NAG

54 ID refs

At Dorney Reach 9 properties ( nos 5-19) beside straight stretch of Marsh Lane south of Harcourt Rd. Bus stops. 2 side rds serving estate. Access on opp side of rd to houses to

Not meet village criteria for a 30 mph SL but 40/50 can be applied for more sparse community. OR for rural road with predominantly local,access or recreational function/part of

55 ID refs

56 REF No 19 : Marsh Lane,Taplow (From a point 104 metres south of its junction with A4 Bath Road to a point 8 metres south of the centre of the access road to the Marsh Lane Weir public car park of the Jubilee River.) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Resident of Marsh Lane. Welcome any enforcement of speed restrictions on this road, used as a rat run from the A4 onto Eton/Windsor- it is 75 a ridiculously fast road at times. This has impacted on the volume of traffic which uses this road as people know that they can put their foot down to make up for lost time sat on the A4. Endorses recommended length of limit to include access to Jubilee River- a lot of accidents have happened on this stretch in particular. Review needs to cover whole residential stretch other wise speed restrictions will be ineffective. Following the first bend drivers increase their Y 30 speed to an unacceptable level until they have to navigate the bends further down at Dorney Lake. Sufficient signs should be in place , particulalry coming from the Dorney end towards the A4, well before the restricted area at Jubilee river, to reduce the speed from this drection. Anticipates that drivers will only actually decrease their speed at the main bend in he road, which is well past a compacted residential strip. Is in favour of anything that reduces the speed and hopefully subsequently the volume of traffic as a way of bypassing the A4.

Strongly supports proposal. 55 Taplow The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent PC questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. The 20mph zone proposed for Taplow village is also the subject of a delegated budget bid.

Y 30 ( From A4 to Jubilee river) No further details given-see general comments for Taplow/Dorney area-wide concepts 104 Taplow & 30 Dorney NAG Y Y 30 Fully support proposal to reduce limit. 20 SugestsWith current 30 limit NSL to often be extended have people south driving to include too fast whole in a length residential to Village area.- Rd, several Dorney cars and in theinclude ditch Old and Marsh pets killed.Lane, Glebe Close, Boveney Rd. 36 rd 3 busy & unprotected 'right turn' junctions in stretch of road, 2 hazardous as concealed from S bound motorists by brow of Mway bridge; 3 is (Dorney junction with Dorney Lake- sometimes very busy with long vehicles & used by those unfamiliar with area attending the many events on the PC) lake. Southern 300yards of Marsh Lane is narrow, tree lined, often part flooded. Dangerous for pedestrians as there is no footpath. Sharp right 30 but angled bend into court Lane cannot be safely negotiated at even 30mph. Extend Parts of Marsh Lane used & crossed by many children as part of 'Walk to School' campaign. South Shuttle buses use Marsh Lane/Court Lane for major events at Dorney Lake ( incl 2012 Olympics) Length of Marsh Lane/Court Lane not dissimilar to/probably more hazardous than Lake End Rd which has a 30mph limit. Logical & less confusing to have ONE 30mph speed limit for whole of (relatively) contiguous Dorney Parish . Proposals of DPC supported by parishioners & Neighbourhood Action Group.

57 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN 40? I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 19 67 This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. Average speeds of 37 + 32 show that the majority of motorists believe 30mph is way too slow. Forcing drivers to crawl along at speeds that they can see are clearly below that which is safe will do nothing to help either compliance or respect for speed limits. A large number of these drivers will be the residents themselves so are we to see a wealth of speeding tickets to be issued to the people who live in the same road? A 40mph limit is far more sensible and could actually aid road safety and respect for the law In summary, very unlikely to improve safety and may lead to loss of respect for speed limits generally, especially if enforcement N here is as intolerant as elsewhere. This is less densely populated ( than Harcourt Rd, Dorney Reach), a through road & only has houses on one side. 40 past the houses would 49 N 40 be reasonable. road wide & fairly open- looks like a 40 zone so should probably be one. 10 N 40 BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Length has more than 40 dwellings over 600 metres. Qualifies as a village, for a 30mph speed limit, under Circ 01/2006. Includes Jubilee River car park and riverside path crossing point Extg average speeds in June 2004 37( N bnd) & 32(S bnd) - 2190 vpd. Meets village criteria Additional info: 85th %ile speeds: 43 mph N'bnd & 39mph S' bnd. Only one reported pia in 3 yrs to 31 12 07.

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

One person expressed concern re objectors' comments. However, average speeds within current NSL are not atypical from those obtained in many 30 limits, which are built up on both sides. Drivers will have entry signs & roundel markings to alert them to the limit. 85Th %ile speeds northbound are higher, but drivers should be able to adapt. Generally supported.

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT

58 REF No 19a : Marsh Lane,Taplow ( From its junction with the A4 Bath Rd for a distance southwards of 104 metres)

Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Should be 30 as for stretch of Marsh Lane to the south. However, also recognises this short stretch may be necessary from the TRO 55 standpoint as explained in the notes. Taplow 30 The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent PC questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group.

I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 19a 67 This is a safe road with no crash history even with a 60mph limit. This is only proposed in order to fit in with other changes, which themselves at the northern end would be better left unchanged at 50mph. Enforcement here would bring speed limits into disrepute N? and serve no safety purpose. In summary, very unlikely to improve safety and may lead to loss of respect for speed limits generally, especially if enforcement here is as intolerant as elsewhere.

( PF note: respondent listed this under 'A4'- so comments may not in fact refer to this length ) A4 is a main artery of Britain and should be 49 N NSL? kept moving as fast as possible to avoid congestion which is a cause of accidents and frustration speed limits along this road, are, if anything, already too low. BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: 'Continuation' of proposed 40 limit for A4 onto Marsh Lane, to enable proposed 30 limit for residential length to cover just the residential section. Additional info:

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT . However, PF notes that this decision was made prior to discussing the potential changes to speed limits for the A4. ( Head of Transportation to make recommendation) If the proposed 40mph limit for the A4 is not approved, therefore, this should be readvertised as a 50 length, or the proposed 30mph length for Ref 19b extended to the junction with A4 Bath Road ( will also need readvertisement)

59 60 REF No 19b : Ye Meads ,off Marsh Lane ,Taplow ( entire length ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30mph

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Supports. 55 Y 30 The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent Taplow questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. PC BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Residential road Additional info:

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT .

61 REF No 20 : A4 Bath Road,Burnham / Taplow ( between a point 89 metres west of its junction with Huntercombe Lane South and a point 136 metres east of its junction with Approach Road. ) Current limit : 50mph Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Wide road, in rush hour is so busy you can't reach 50mph.Out of rush hour can't see problem with limit being 50- no need for change. 35 N 50 Objects strongly. Disappointed that Bucks CC even considering this. Family & friends have similar views. 23 N 50 Many other issues that require council attention,time & money. Just a waste of our money .

No need to change. Limit is brought down by amount of traffic in peak times and also the traffic lights. When there is no traffic 50mph is perfectly 41 N 50 safe& acceptable. I wish to lodge my VERY strong objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 20 67 I travel this road frequently and it is a safe road with no crash history even with a 50mph limit. There is a central crosshatched area that separates the 2 directions with bollards that help guard against head-on collisions and main right turnings have separate central lanes or traffic lights. This road is often very busy so speed limit is irrelevant then anyway but when clear visability is good and there are few hazards. The road is particular suitable for higher speeds for motorcycles because of the extra width and to penalise them for exceeding 40mph would definitely bring speed limits generally into disrepute. 50mph limit allows drivers to keep concentration on the road ahead so that they are much more likely to slow to below 40mph N 50 westward where it is required after the bridge because there is a dodgy junction there to the right. If this proposal is carried out (lowered to 40mph) then it will appear to drivers that the next unsighted section has the same low number of hazards which is quite DANGEROUS.

It is appalling that the road I know best in this whole speed limit reduction programme may very well INCREASE accidents if lowered to 40mph. If I knew the other roads as well as this one would I see even bigger flaws in the proposals? It is very clear to me that this has NOT been thought through properly and I am VERY concerned. Your entire review may be far more dangerous than I 1st thought! In summary, there is a strong chance this reduction will lead to crashes and MUST NOT go ahead.

A4 is a main artery of Britain and should be kept moving as fast as possible to avoid congestion which is a cause of accidents and frustration 49 N NSL? speed limits along this road, are, if anything, already too low.

Supports. 55 The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent Taplow Y 40 questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. PC

fully support. 98 It is in the interests of local primary schoolchildren as well as elderly residents that they can enjoy walking facilities in this area safely as we do 40 have HGVs from Berry Hill gravel extraction site and also in Mill Lane every day merging (? ) onto the A4 Bath Rd.18 youngsters from 5-11 travelling to school ( from Ellington Gardens area???PF note) who live south of the A4 Bath Rd

62 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN A4 Bath Rd from railway bridge westwards to Ellington Rd should be reduced to 30mph ( built up area, dwellings near the highway, Nursery 13 school) Was reduction to 30 considered& why no reduction proposed? *From Berry Hill to Ellington Rd is primarily residential- no of houses close to the road 40 with Jubillee river tow path walk crosses the A4 here- cyclists & walkers Y 30 on W Outside rush hour speeding on what appears to be wide empty road( including extg. 30 stretch)- request for measures to deal with this- part SID/road markings/improved traffic islands/extension to westbound cycle route which currently stops at railway bridge(see also Taplow Parish Plan)

Proposed reduction to 40mph between Slough & Maidenhead is a move in the right direction. 52 Y 30 Believes 30mph would be more sensible along this road surrounded by residential property.

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Majority of road built up either on one side or, for short stretches , on both sides , except for a short length ( between Approach Rd & Station Rd) where little development . Character of road at eastern end equates in character to A4 at Slough end , which already has 40mph speed limit. Broadly meets criteria of Appendix C : suburban road, buildings generally set back from road. Additional info: 23 reported pias in 3 yrs to 31 Dec 2007 along existing 50mph length. 2 serious, others slight. Most were shunts or turning collisions.5 involved factors relating to speed choice. almost a quarter of crashes happened outside of peak hours/in evening , I pia involved a pedestrian, 5 involved motorcyclists (do not assume MCs at fault! ),most involved cars only.) Crash rate is approximately 64 per million veh km., based on flow of 16.300 vehicles per day.( varies along length). Speeds: Between Approach Rd & Station Rd: Ave 39 E, 37W 85th%ile: 45E, 44W Between Station Rd & Slough boundary: Ave 33E, 30W 85th%ile: 38E, 38W Existing 40 length - betw Ellington Rd & Approach rd : 12 pias in 3 yrs to 31 Dec 2007- majority either shunts or associated with turning vehicles ( roads junctions & private accesses) Southern side : filling station, school & residential Northern side : pub & garage.

63 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Working Group discussion & recommendation: One person questioned need for reduction-why necessary? One said will provide a consistent limit along the A4 ( from slough almost to Maidenhead) which is sensible. One said is the same type of road as Ref 2a ( A40 between Beaconsfield & Loudwater ( : Officer pointed out that A4 is significantly different in having continouous lengths of housing directly accessing the A4, together with junctions with other roads and to areas such as Bishops Centre. Crash record in recent 3 yrs higher than A40) comment that it is a major arterial road and traffic should not be slowed down with a reduced limit ( counter argument : M4 is the major through route; volume of traffic at peak times creates congestion, not the speed limit ) comment: you can easily do 50mph along the road ( counter argument: - quality of life for residents, crash record for road ) 2 voting members happy with 40 proposal; 2 prefer 50 limit

RECOMMENDATION: - DEFER DECISION TO HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION

Head of Transportation : RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT 40MPH SPEED LIMIT Following the split vote at the working group meeting, the Head of Transportation supported the 40 mph limit for this length , based on the number & density of dwellings; junctions/ accesses; business premises ; for the majority of this road length and its consistency with the Slough Borough Council limit already in place at the eastern end.

64 REF No 21 : MC62 Boundary Road, Taplow ( From its junction with Hitcham Road Burnham , to a point 155 metres south-east of its junction with Rectory Rd,Taplow. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN Should be 30:- * to avoid a short stretch of differing speed between the 2 areas of 30mph *protect dog walkers & pedestrians ( road leads to/adjoins Taplow recreation ground) *protect & encourage its use by St Nicholas schoolchildren, whose parents avoid adding to the village car parking problem by parking along Boundary Road & at the Maypole PH. Lower 30 speeds are necessary to lessen the intimidating affect of traffic. The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group.

No further details given-see general comments for Taplow/Dorney area-wide concepts N 30

??? Although can see some logic in limit, concerned that associated signage could detract from the rural character. This along with ref 22, ref 23 + ref 24 is a good example of why the NSL was such a good idea all those years ago. Many sections are perfectly safe over 40mph as most drivers, even timid drivers exceed that speed, yet other sections are often dangerous above 20mph. The NSL tells drivers there is no 'best' speed and that forces drivers to 'take responsibility' for their actions which they do by not having ANY recorded crashes here. But you can't set different limits all over the place so you are stuck setting a limit dangerously high for some areas yet stupidly low for others. Speed limits used to be a useful safety warning but they are becoming completely N NSL useless because we can't trust them. A low speed limit used to mean a genuine danger, now it often means no safety implications at all and, worst of all, thats where the enforcement is because the drivers ignore those daft limits. In summary, these reductions probably can't improve safety but will damage respect for limits.

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: 40 repeater signs could be provided at gateway S of j/w Station Rd ( on post & on road) to add emphasis to speed limit. Meets criteria for village outskirts/community with <20 dwellings ( 16 dwellings in row along Boundary Rd) Northernmost dwelling in row is about 300m S of Rectory Rd Taplow village - too far S to include this row of dwellings in the Taplow village 30 which local residents would prefer? ( To do this would also leave a stretch of about 400m between gateway& jtn of Boundary Rd with Hitcham Rd- which would need to be either NSL or 40- this could lead to criticisms of too many changes to limit ) Additional info: Crashes Only 1 reported pia on Boundary Rd ( between Taplow village & Hitcham Rd) in 3 yrs to 31 Dec 2007. Speeds: S of j/w Station Rd - Ave 36N, 39S 85th%ile 43N, 47S Between Rectory Rd, Taplow & Station Rd - Ave 39N/S 85th %ile 46N/S

65 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN Working Group discussion & recommendation:

Some discussion whether 30 would be appropriate. Busy at peak times

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT

66 ID refs

55 Taplow PC

104 Taplow & 10

67

Northernmost dwelling in row is about 300m S of Rectory Rd Taplow village - too far S to include this row of dwellings in the Taplow village 30 which local residents would prefer? ( To do this would also leave

67 ID refs

68 REF No 22 : Station Road ,Taplow ( From its junction with A4 Bath Road to its junction with Boundary Road. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN Supports lowering of limit but believes should be 30mph in view of the parking levels and the use of the road by pedestrians. There are also 24 dwellings at the northern end & 3 dwellings in the central section of Station Rd that are not referred to in the supporting information. 30 The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. fully supports. It is in the interests of local primary schoolchildren as we’ll as elderly residents that they can enjoy walking facilities in this area safely as we do have HGVs from Berry Hill gravel extraction Y 40 site and also in Mill Lane every day merging (?) onto the A4 Bath Rd.youngsters ters from 5-11 travelling (?) to school ( from Ellington Garden sarea???PF note) who live south of the A4 Bath Rd No further details given-see general comments for Taplow/Dorney area-wide concepts

Y 40

??? Although can see some logic in limit, concerned that associated signage could detract from the rural character. I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 22 This along with ref 21, ref 23 + ref 24 is a good example of why the NSL was such a good idea all those years ago. Many sections are perfectly safe over 40mph as most drivers, even timid drivers exceed that speed, yet other sections are often dangerous above 20mph. The NSL tells drivers there is no 'best' speed and that forces drivers to 'take responsibility' for their actions which they do by not having ANY recorded crashes here. But you can't set different limits all over the place so you are stuck setting a limit dangerously high for some areas yet stupidly low for others. Speed limits used to be a useful safety warning but they are becoming completely useless because we can't trust them. A low speed limit used to mean a genuine danger, now it often means no safety implications at all and, worst of all, thats where the enforcement is N? because the drivers ignore those daft limits. In summary, these reductions probably can't improve safety but will damage respect for limits.

(See also his list of general objections to all the speed limit reductions):

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Southern end of road partially built up, narrow section under railway bridge, access to sports fields( on both sides)& to sports pavilion. Parked vehicles on west side ( for station) 800vpd Ave speed at N end 33mph, 85th%ile 45mph. Urban road Appendix C: outskirts of urban area/little development Hillmead Court( reference to 24 dwelling s?) is a cul de sac off the N end of Station Rd, nr j/w Boundary Rd. Additional info:

69 Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT

70 ID refs

55 Taplow PC

98

104 Taplow & Dorney NAG

10

67

71 ID refs

72 REF No 23 : Approach Road,Taplow ( From its junction with A4 Bath Road to its junction with Station Road. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Supports lowering of limit but believes should be 30mph to inhibit rat running traffic and to attempt to ensure traffic approaches the difficult 55 junctions at an appropriate speed.. Taplow 30 The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent PC questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. No further details given-see general comments for Taplow/Dorney area-wide concepts 104 Taplow & N 30 Dorney NAG Fully supports. 98 It is in the interests of local primary schoolchildren as we’ll as elderly residents that they can enjoy walking facilities in this area safely as we do Y 40 have HGVs from Berry Hill gravel extraction site and also in Mill Lane every day merging (?) onto the A4 Bath Rd. Youngsters from 5-11 travelling to school who live south of the A4 Bath Rd Fine as it is,does not need to be changed. Fairly quiet, has few if any houses along it and it seems crazy to think that drivers are going to lose 49 N NSL control at 45mph! Pointless to change. Leave at National speed limit which is reasonable. I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 23 67 This along with ref 21, ref 22 + ref 24 is a good example of why the NSL was such a good idea all those years ago. Many sections are perfectly safe over 40mph as most drivers, even timid drivers exceed that speed, yet other sections are often dangerous above 20mph. The NSL tells drivers there is no 'best' speed and that forces drivers to 'take responsibility' for their actions which they do by not having ANY recorded crashes here. But you can't set different limits all over the place so you are N NSL stuck setting a limit dangerously high for some areas yet stupidly low for others. Speed limits used to be a useful safety warning but they are becoming completely useless because we can't trust them. A low speed limit used to mean a genuine danger, now it often means no safety implications at all and, worst of all, thats where the enforcement is because the drivers ignore those daft limits. In summary, these reductions probably can't improve safety but will damage respect for limits. BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Flow: 3700vpd Ave speeds 40mph, 85th%ile 47mph.Link between A4 & Station Rd. 4 dwellings, railway station. Urban road Appendix C: outskirts of urban area/little development Additional info: Only 1 pia in 3 yrs to 31 Dec 2007. Working Group discussion & recommendation: th One conern that majority of drivers will be driving over the limit. However, average speeds do not indicate this & 85 %ile speeds are not atypical for a 40mph limit. Would be inconsistent with neighbouring roads if not 40mph.

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT

73 REF No 24 : Institute Road,Taplow ( Entire length: From its junction with Station Road to its junction with Hitcham Road. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Supports lowering ,but believes it should be 30mph in view of the busy accesses and to discourage traffic cutting through to avoid congestion of the A4. 55 Proposed limit should also reflect the planning permission for 42 dwellings that has been granted for the SGT site. With current average speed of only Taplow 32.5mph, a 40mph speed limit could encourage some drivers to increase their speed. PC 30 The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. The 20mph zone proposed for Taplow village is also the subject of a delegated budget bid. No further details given-see general comments for Taplow/Dorney area-wide concepts 104 Taplow & N 30 Dorney NAG Fine as it is,does not need to be changed. Fairly quiet, has few if any houses along it and it seems crazy to think that drivers are going to lose control at 49 N NSL 45mph! Pointless to change. Leave at National speed limit which is reasonable. I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 24 67 This along with ref 21, ref 22 + ref 23 is a good example of why the NSL was such a good idea all those years ago. Many sections are perfectly safe over 40mph as most drivers, even timid drivers exceed that speed, yet other sections are often dangerous above 20mph. The NSL tells drivers there is no 'best' speed and that forces drivers to 'take responsibility' for their actions which they do by not having ANY recorded crashes here. But you can't set different N NSL limits all over the place so you are stuck setting a limit dangerously high for some areas yet stupidly low for others. Speed limits used to be a useful safety warning but they are becoming completely useless because we can't trust them. A low speed limit used to mean a genuine danger, now it often means no safety implications at all and, worst of all, thats where the enforcement is because the drivers ignore those daft limits. In summary, these reductions probably can't improve safety but will damage respect for limits.

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation:Garage, hall, sports pavilion . Flow: 4500vpd Speed: Ave speed 32.5mph,85th%ile speed 44mph. Urban road Appendix C: outskirts of urban area/little development Additional info: No reported pias in 3 yrs to 31 Dec 2007 Working Group discussion & recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT

74 REF No 25 : Mill Lane,Taplow ( Entire length: From its junction with Berry Hill to its junction with A4 Bath Road. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN Strongly supports proposal. The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent questionnaires and consultations Y 30 undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group.

No further details given-see general comments for Taplow/Dorney area-wide concepts Y 30

vital if Mill Lane is to be safe to travel, whether by foot, horse, or car :- * narrowness of lane ( 18ft by Driftwood cottage) * sharp bends- 90degree bend intersects the Thames Path on a blind corner, another at the bottom of a steep incline * Gradient- lane rises sharply at the approach to Berry Hill *Overhang- abuts a brick wall for much of its length whilst the NE end is overhung with deep foliage, limiting visibility and the possibility of getting out of the way of traffic. Lack of pavements and pedestrian escape areas. - lane is exceedingly dangerous to walk Y 30 a) parents & children walk to school along this route b)Thames Path, promoted as a destination for walking holidays, runs along a particularly dangerous section of Mill Lane c) Residents, boat owners and business people walk the lane. * volume of traffic- estimated that 300HGVs per day run along the lane & it is a popular rat run for commuters. * conditions of the lane- has been stated by Highways to be substandard. Its pavements are broken and gas mains frequently in repair because of the weight and speed of traffic. history- file of correspondence going back many years suggesting that speed restrictions are necessary on mill Lane. fully support. Y 30 It is in the interests of local primary schoolchildren as we’ll as elderly residents that they can enjoy walking facilities in this area safely as we do have HGVs from Berry hill gravel extraction site and also in Mill Lane every day merging onto the A4 Bath Rd Width of road outside house is 20ft with a dangerous bend some 80yds away. The whole length of road is unsuitable for speeds above 30mph, in places 20mph would be more suitable. 20mph Large no.of goods vehicles use road to/from Paper Mill, & have difficulty passing on certain points. Y part In the absence of a speed restriction, cars use the road with gay abandon, often travelling at 60mph regardless to themselves or others of the dangers being created. WE have been asking for years for a speed limt- all power to your sensible proposals. Requests a 20mph limit in vicinity of Pages Wharf in the interests of safety.

supports proposal,suggests that 20mph more appropriate to the lane, which has no pavement,footpath links to the Jubilee river and a dangerous 'S'bend. It also suffers Y 20 excessive HGV traffic. If it were possible to reduce the proposed limit to 20mph this would be more suitable in this very small road taking very large lorries. Otherwise, support the 30mph limit. Y 20mph

75 REF No 25 : Mill Lane,Taplow ( Entire length: From its junction with Berry Hill to its junction with A4 Bath Road. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN current NSL is completely unsuitable& dangerous: layout of narrow lane,proximity of residents' houses to the road, volume of traffic using it Urge consideration of 20mph limit: * narrow winding lane, not a substantial road .junction with Bath Rd. inadequate provision for pedestrians, particularly when cars parked outside residential buildings *Maidenhead Sea Cadets hold club meetings twice per week- many children spill out of the club building into the lane , walking along/crossing it. Y 30/20 * 20mph would highlight more clearly the necessity for drivers to take extra care. * live opposite a bend & witnesses vehicles treating lane like a racing track.2 accidents outside house- one involving car overturning at high speed , another a motorbike skidding into parked car- no injuries . * also like a speed camera near the bend.

Below 30 Lives in Mill Lane & observes daily high speed driving around the blind S bend. A safe limit for the bend would be below 30 & I suggest that any limit will be ignored unless a ? speed camera is fitted ( before bend on A4 side) Is 30mph limit a new thing? The road connects to other 30mph limits at each end and has no indication that the speed limit is different. Drivers must therefore assume that it has a 30mph limit. At the Taplow end it has a rural character & would not want to see any more signage. ? suggests closing Mill Lane to motorised traffic at the Jubilee river bridge- removing through traffic from Mill Lane & reduce incentive to use Taplow village as a rat run. Close rd

I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 25

Surely I don't have to explain why this should remain NSL? Even the author of the report says "Does not fit readily into the standard DfT criteria" but it is clearly correct at NSL. There appears to be the idea that all roads must be reduced as low as possible if only the appropriate excuse could be found. This N NSL ought to be about road safety and the display of the correct messages to help drivers prepare for the hazards ahead.

In summary, these reductions probably can't improve safety but will damage respect for limits.

76 REF No 25 : Mill Lane,Taplow ( Entire length: From its junction with Berry Hill to its junction with A4 Bath Road. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Narrow lane- almost single track along part of length - limited forward visibility. ,extensively used by large goods vehicles accessing paper mill and various vehicles accessing other premises along road - warehouses/boat houses/gas holder. Used also by pedestrians/cyclists accessing Jubilee River/ other paths. Some residential properties at either end. Originally a rural lane with much of character of town outskirts road in terms of type of development 1469 vpd in June 2004.Ave speed at southern arm is 29mph N, 31mphS.85th %ile 36mph.

Type of devpt equates to outskirts of urban area, but also has characteristics of a lower tier rural road with local, access & recreational function. However, 40 mph would be too high a speed limit for much of this road- hence recommended 30 limit. Alternative would be to leave as NSL . Does not fit readily into the standard DfT criteria! Additional info: 1 reported pia in 3 yrs to 31 Dec 2007. Obviously very strong local feeling about use of lane/vehicle speeds along it as evidenced by Parish council & NAG comments,plus local residents. Understands viewpoint of ID 67, & that drivers should respond to the road environment & adjust speed accordingly. For many rural lanes this applies, due to narrowness of lanes & frequency of bends and their use primarily by local residents /for access. Local responses above indicate that damage only 'crashes are taking place on Mill Lane Amount of traffic is relatively high for the nature of the road .

Working Group discussion & recommendation: RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT

77 ID refs

55 Taplow PC

104 Taplow & Dorney NAG 103

98

70

85

69

78 ID refs

29

74

10

67

79 ID refs

Type of devpt equates to outskirts of urban area, but also has characteristics of a lower tier rural road with local, access & recreational function. However, 40 mph would be too high a speed limit for much of this

Obviously very strong local feeling about use of lane/vehicle speeds along it as evidenced by Parish council & NAG comments,plus local residents. Understands viewpoint of ID 67, & that drivers should respond to the road environment & adjust speed accordingly. For many rural lanes this applies, due to narrowness of lanes & frequency of bends and their use primarily by local residents /for access. Local responses above indicate that damage only 'crashes are taking place on Mill Lane Amount of traffic is relatively high for the nature of the road .

80 REF No 26 : Hill Farm Road / Boundary Road,Taplow ( Between a point 108 metres north of the junction with Buffins and a point 155 metres south-east of its junction with Rectory Rd,Taplow. ) Current limit : NSL/30 Proposed: 30 mph ( short northwards extension of existing 30 limit) Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback proposal SL YN wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 26

N? This is another safe road with no crash history and a self limiting S bend.

Supports extension of village 30 limit, but for same reasons as listed under ref 26a Buffins, this should be part of a 20mph zone. The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent questionnaires and consultations 20 undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. The 20mph zone proposed for Taplow village is also the subject of a delegated budget bid. REF No 26a : Buffins,Taplow ( Entire length ) Current limit :30 ( by streetlighting) Proposed: 30 mph ( order to clarify records) Supports extension of village 30 limit, but shares views of Taplow & Dorney NAG that whole of Taplow Village Conservation Area should be a 20 zone due to the volume of rat running traffic , the lack of a continuous footway system & the traffic generated by the school. These features, combined with the narrowness of the roads and the poor visibility at junctions and through the centre of the village, make walking and driving hazardous. The village green is also a very important play area that needs buffering from speeding 20 traffic for safety reasons. The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. The 20mph zone proposed for Taplow village is also the subject of a delegated budget bid. BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation:

Hill Farm Rd/Boundary Rd ( Ref 26) Extension of existing village 30mph speed limit by about 70 metres, at northern end to reduce entry speed of S bnd vehicles entering village prior to Hitcham Lane/Buffins crossroads.(Side access to allotments at northern end of this stretch . ) ( not poss to locate northern terminal signs at village gateway as insufficient space for signs on eastern verge) village speed limit Buffins ( Ref 26a) Village street/ residential road. Streetlit, so technically already a restricted 30mph road, but make Order to clarify on records.

Additional info: Hill Farm Rd/Boundary Rd ( Ref 26) No reported pias in 3 yrs to 31 Dec 2008. WorkingExisting 30Group limit discussionand proposed & shortrecommendation: extension are not intended as crash reduction measures but 'quality of life' speed limits for the benefit of the local community. For info: 20mph zones are beyond remit of speed limit review. If delegated budget bid is successful, this could be implemented at a later stage. Minimal additional costs would result from implementation of 30 extension at this stage as cost of Area 9 TRO advert not significantly affected by the single line required to provide the TRO for this road length.

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT PROPOSED 30 MPH SPEED LIMITs

81 ID refs

67

55 Taplow PC

55 Taplow PC

Extension of existing village 30mph speed limit by about 70 metres, at northern end to reduce entry speed of S bnd vehicles entering village prior to Hitcham Lane/Buffins crossroads.(Side access to allotments at northern

82 REF No 27 : MC61 Cliveden Road/Heathfield Rd ,Taplow / Hedsor ( From a point 213 metres north west of its junction with Rectory Road to a point 36 metres north-east of its junction with Sheepcote Lane )

Current limit : NSL Proposed: 50 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN * fast road- some serious accidents 10 *important N-S route used by pedestrians,cyclists & horses as well as motor vehicles. Unpleasant to walk along. ? N *Object v strongly to a 40 limit- road not look like a 40mph road,enforcing this could cause resentment. NSL *proposed 50 might be acceptable but notes suggest ( pf: TRL spreadsheet) this could increase accidents- so why making the change? *approach landowners re creating a parallel north-south cycleway/bridleway. Fine as it is,does not need to be changed. Fairly quiet, has few if any houses along it and it seems crazy to think that drivers are going to lose control at 45mph! 49 N NSL Pointless to change. Leave at National speed limit which is reasonable. ( compares this as similar to ref 6, where average speed is generally below 40mph so the proposed restriction there to 40mph a[pears a waste of money) 84 BCC lack of logic- suggests that fewer crashes would occur if the limit was reduced to 40mph. Surely fewer crashes would occur if the traffic was restricted to N NSL? 10mph but it's not logical!

I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 27 67 This is a lovely country road that would look bad with 50mph signs all the way down it. The traffic moves at very acceptable speeds already and a lower limit is very unlikely to change much in reality. There is some crash data released by the Council but it's hard to come to any reasonable conclusion as the Police will not answer any questions at all on their opinion on the effectiveness or otherwise of lowering the limit. Any safety N NSL gain from marginally lower speeds by some drivers may be completely wiped out by lack of attention from other drivers as they concentrate more on their speedos than they used to. If wildlife suddenly runs out we don't want that at exactly the instant a driver checks his speed, or the driver behind does so as the 1st driver suddenly brakes or swerves. It's very difficult to know if all the effort changing the speed limit will have any nett benefit at all, may even make things worse. Are we going ahead with this gamble on peoples lives? Blanket proposal for 50limit along most of the route from Taplow to near Hedsor. 108 BCC seeks to justify proposal on basis of the assessment framework,but using the framework( which is new and relatively untried), is strictly optional. REF Paras 98 & 106 of circ 01/2006, former says “ in most instances the road function, characteristics and environment and actual speeds driven should enable traffic authorities to determine the appropriate limit” ( ie without the assessment framework) N NSL The road's function is a mixed one- 8600vpd use the section from Bourne End Rd to Taplow Common Road. This points to a higher limit than if the road were purely for local access. It's characterisitcs and environment are predominantly those of a country lane and in the past such roads have not generally been considered suitable for local speed limits. The latest central government guidance is not supposed to represent a break with the past but to build on the previous guidance set out in Circular Roads 1/93, this is expressly stated in para 5 of 01/2006.

83 REF No 27 : MC61 Cliveden Road/Heathfield Rd ,Taplow / Hedsor ( From a point 213 metres north west of its junction with Rectory Road to a point 36 metres north-east of its junction with Sheepcote Lane )

Current limit : NSL Proposed: 50 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN th Current speeds being driven are well within the NSL ( 50mph is the highest 85 %ile speed) and that is how things should be. A speed limit is 108 supposed to be a maximum, not a target speed. contd.

A 50limit would have disadvantages eg unsightly terminal & repeater signs, which would spoil the countryside and pose a collision hazard, especially to motorcyclists. NSL should be retained- this would not be contrary to Circular 01/2006,properly understood. Re BCC's reasons for the proposal:- * The accident rates for the individual sections of road are suspect because they are based on very short lengths of road ( 500 m in one case).with such short lengths, each accident will have a disproportionate affect on the rate. This may be why the rates vary so widely. [BCC note: The guidelines recommend consideration of speed limits in lengths of 600 metres; see ID 108's own statement at end re para 39] *Overall accident rate ( 85per mvkm) must also be treated with caution because it relates only to 4.2km of a longer route. There is no change in character of the road between the point where the proposed limit ends and the junction with Wooburn Common Rd, yet that section has been excluded. Including it would obviously affect the accident rate. [

N NSL *The proposed end point of 36m NE of j/w Lane appears to have ben chosen arbitrarily. [BCC note: see above] Changes in the limit 108 are supposed to reflect changes in the road's layout & characteristics ( see para 32 of Circ 01/2006) contd. * Accident distribution suggests that injury accidents are clustered in certain places with none at all in section C and only one in section F. This suggests that the Council may be attempting to use a speed limit to cure the problems created by isolated hazards, which could be a misuse of the power to set limits ( see Circ 01/2006 para 41) * No evidence that alternative measures have been considered, as required by para 26 of Circ 01/2006.[ A local safety scheme is revising signing along routes in this area] * Circ 01/2006 contains a presumption against “blanket limits”( such as this): paragraph 39 says it is 'important' that within routes, separate assessments should be made for each length of 600m or more for which a different limit might be appropriate. Summary: 108 * NSL appropriate given function, characteristics & environment & actual speeds contd *disbenefits of a speed limit not taken into account * no evidence alternative have ben considered * BCC's application of Circ 01/2006 & assessment framework are questionable. Objection to Cliveden Road/Heathfield road - Long open country road with little in the way of frontage. Average speeds are currently in the 111 th Thames N NSL region of 43mph with 85 percentile in the region of 50mph. The limit of 50mph is likely to raise the average whilst having little effect upon the th Valley 85 percentile. Thus the likelihood of collisions increases. Police

84 REF No 27 : MC61 Cliveden Road/Heathfield Rd ,Taplow / Hedsor ( From a point 213 metres north west of its junction with Rectory Road to a point 36 metres north-east of its junction with Sheepcote Lane )

Current limit : NSL Proposed: 50 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Opposes proposal as it is above the existing average speed and could therefore encourage traffic to increase its speed. Proposed limit is not low 55 enough to justify the attendant disadvantages which include :- Taplow * need for repeater signs & delimit signs which will downgrade & suburbanise a very fragile stretch of countryside. PC * need for delimit signs will give both a false impression to motorists at the start of the more dangerous stretches of both Heathfield Rd & Sheepcote Lane. The visual signals given by the appearance of the roads belie the reality of the safe speeds. N NSL/30 * placing of speed limits at regular intervals also wrongly emphasises the status of these roads as cut throughs, rather than as visual elements in the local rural landscape much used by cyclists, equestrians & walkers. * open road policies should be applied to this section of road, particularly the elements relating to mix of road users and general character. * NSL should remain on this stretch of road, except for length between Hill Farm boundary & Taplow court, which should have a maximum speed of 30mph. Heathfield Rd/Cliveden Rd north of Hill Farm junction: NSL 104 Cliveden Rd from Taplow to Hill Farm jtn.:30mph Taplow & The Taplow and Dorney NAG propose there should be no change to the speed limits on Cliveden and Heathfield Roads. Whilst this would Dorney appear perverse the logic behind the decision is sound. The data offered in support of the limits proposed by Bucks CC suggests that the NAG majority of vehicles are travelling at speeds less than that of the 50mph proposed. The new limits would therefore encourage vehicles to go N NSL/30 faster than at present. Even if the proposed speed limits were dropped to 40mph there would still be the environmental problem of suburban intrusion that is created when repeater signs are introduced to slow the traffic in rural areas. The mere presence of the signs stresses the roads as through routes for cars and lorries rather than as local amenity roads, both visual and functional, used by non-motorised traffic.

The need to place to delimit signs at the close of the proposed 50mph strips would also encourage motorists to increase their speeds at the point where the roads become increasingly hazardous. The Bucks CC proposed speed limits do not incorporate an assessment of the local economy and land use that is dependant on equestrian activities using local lanes and roads for both riding and moving horses between various fields.

Believes limit from before the junction with Huntswood Lane to beyond the junction with Taplow Common Road should be 30mph:- 27 *increased traffic from Cliveden Gages development will markedly increase the likelihood of accidents with probably 175-200 extra cars, plus trade vehicles going in & out with difficult right turns along this twisty and narrow road part part 30 *cars already go too fast and too close together * at present getting in/out of Orkney Court, esp at rush hours can be difficult. cyclists & horse riders frequently use the road, especially in summer.

Y fully supports 98

85 REF No 27 : MC61 Cliveden Road/Heathfield Rd ,Taplow / Hedsor ( From a point 213 metres north west of its junction with Rectory Road to a point 36 metres north-east of its junction with Sheepcote Lane )

Current limit : NSL Proposed: 50 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN BCC summary /comments :Info given at public consultation:

Overall data: 4200 metres long, 19 accidents in 3 yrs Accident rate 85 per 100mvkm

A j/w Sheepcote to just S j/w Bourne End Rd: 7 accs over 700 m 4400vpd Ave speed 43mph 85th %ile 50mph. Acc rate 208 per 100mvkm

B just S j/w Bourne End Rd to j/w Taplow Common rd : 8600vpd Ave 43mph 85th %ile 49.5 3 accs over 500m Acc rate 64 per 100mvkm

Cj/w Taplow Common Rd to j/w Huntswood Lane: 3600vpd 41 mph ave 49mph 85th %ile (Cliveden Stud/'Cliveden village'/Orkney Rd estate /scattered individual residences ). 900m length 0 personal injury accidents.

Dj/w Huntswood Lane to j/w Hill Farm Rd : 3800vpd No speed mmts. 7 pias over 980m Acc rate 172 per 100mvkm

Ej/w Hill Farm Rd to 30/NSLT at Taplow Court: 2900vpd Speed: Ave 41mph 85th %ile 47mph [Accesses to cricket field/pavilion & Taplow court.& a few dwellings] 1 pia only over 930m

86 REF No 27 : MC61 Cliveden Road/Heathfield Rd ,Taplow / Hedsor ( From a point 213 metres north west of its junction with Rectory Road to a point 36 metres north-east of its junction with Sheepcote Lane )

Current limit : NSL Proposed: 50 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN

Accident rate per 100mvkm for whole length is above 60, but some lengths have no/few pias. . Appendix D suggests that for a lower tier road with crashes > 60 per mvkm, a 40mph limit would be appropriate. TRL spreadsheet infers that crashes could increase with a 50 limit, but decrease with a 40 limit ( This is based on current ave speeds) However, 85th%ile speeds indicate that 40mph may be deemed too low by a significant number of drivers.

TRL projections suggest:- Length A: without extra measures a 50 limit may increase pias, 40 limit may decrease Length B: without extra measures a 50 limit may increase pias, 40 limit may decrease Length C: no current crash prob Length D: without extra measures a 50 limit may increase pias, 40 limit may decrease Length E: no current pia prob.

Additional info: 3yrs accident data to 31 Dec 2007: No crashes between Taplow village & j/w Hill Farm Rd. No crashes between j/w Sheepcote Lane & j/w Bourne End Rd 2 crashes at Heathfield Rd j/w Sheepcote Rd 1 crash at Cliveden Rd j/w Bourne End Rd.

2 main lengths for crashes: A)Between j/w Huntswood Lane &j/w Hill Farm Rd :6 in 3 yrs ( all slight injuries), contributory factors :2 exceeding speed limit, 4 too fast for conditions,( 4 of the 6 were loss of control (2 on dry road) Crashes mainly occur at peak times or late night/early am.

B) J/w Taplow common Rd ( by Triangle Cotts/Feathers PH) to Queens Lodge 4 in 3 yrs, 1 fatal, 2 serious, 1 slight 3 involve loss of control on bends hit other vehicles head on.(2 in light, 1 in dark; 1 dry ,2 wet surface)

Summary of feedback : * No support for/ much opposition to 50 limit.( re ineffectiveness/possibility of increased speeds/ intrusive signing) Preference retain NSL * Request for 30 limit from N.A.G. Between Taplow and j/w Hill Farm Lane: difficult to justify- no dwellings beyond Taplow Court & no crash histor *Request for 30 limit for Cliveden Gages & Orkney Court residential developments( between Taplow Common Rd & Huntswood Lane), level of development & road character not appropriate to 30limit. ( Aware of one reported pia involving a turning vehicle)

However: - Consistent crash pattern of loss of control, at or in vicinity of bends , inappropriate speed choice for conditions /vehicle/driver ability. In view of opposition to reduced speed limit, If decision is not to progress a lower speed limit then further investigation required

87 REF No 27 : MC61 Cliveden Road/Heathfield Rd ,Taplow / Hedsor ( From a point 213 metres north west of its junction with Rectory Road to a point 36 metres north-east of its junction with Sheepcote Lane )

Current limit : NSL Proposed: 50 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN

Summary of feedback : * No support for/ much opposition to 50 limit.( re ineffectiveness/possibility of increased speeds/ intrusive signing) Preference retain NSL * Request for 30 limit from N.A.G. Between Taplow and j/w Hill Farm Lane: difficult to justify- no dwellings beyond Taplow Court & no crash histor *Request for 30 limit for Cliveden Gages & Orkney Court residential developments( between Taplow Common Rd & Huntswood Lane), level of development & road character not appropriate to 30limit. ( Aware of one reported pia involving a turning vehicle)

However: - Consistent crash pattern of loss of control, at or in vicinity of bends ,suggesting inappropriate speed choice for conditions /vehicle/driver ability. In view of opposition to a reduced speed limit, if decision is taken not to progress a lower speed limit then further investigation required to see if other measures possible to deal with potential for further similar crash types at these 2 key lengths . This length can then be reviewed again in the post-implementation phase ( after Area 14 has been completed).

Working Group discussion & recommendation:

In view of very few supportive comments & overwhelming negative response, officer recommendation was as last paragraph above. Local safety scheme currently in progress to improve signing and lining along this stretch ( including length of hidden dip near junction with Sheepcote Lane, which was raised at meeting as a concern) and to assess road surfacing.

RECOMMENDATION: RETAIN NATIONAL SPEED LIMIT .

REVIEW THIS LENGTH AGAIN IN FUTURE AS PART OF POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW PROCESS TO ASSESS WHETHER LOCAL SAFETY SCHEME MEASURES HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL/WHETHER OTHER MEASURES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OR WHETHER A CHANGE TO THE SPEED LIMIT SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED OVER ALL OR PART OF THE LENGTH .

88 REF No 27a : MC62 Hill Farm Road,Taplow ( From its junction with Cliveden Road to a point 108 metres north of its junction with Buffins. at Taplow village ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 50 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 50 fully supports 98 I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 27a 67

Not being requested for any real reason so enforcement here would be unwarranted, but that's not how the law works. Unfair laws tend to get broken so we shouldn't be deliberately creating bad law.

As Ref 27: This is a lovely country road that would look bad with 50mph signs all the way down it. The traffic moves at very acceptable speeds already and a lower limit is very unlikely to change much in reality. There is some crash data released by the Council but it's hard to come to any N NSL reasonable conclusion as the Police will not answer any questions at all on their opinion on the effectiveness or otherwise of lowering the limit. Any safety gain from marginally lower speeds by some drivers may be completely wiped out by lack of attention from other drivers as they concentrate more on their speedos than they used to. If wildlife suddenly runs out we don't want that at exactly the instant a driver checks his speed, or the driver behind does so as the 1st driver suddenly brakes or swerves.

It's very difficult to know if all the effort changing the speed limit will have any nett benefit at all, may even make things worse. Are we going ahead with this gamble on peoples lives?

N? See comments for Ref 27 10 As per ref 27, to which it is related. Notes that BCC states there is 'little reason' to impose a limit here on its own merits. 108 N NSL Between the Hitcham Lane & Hunts Lane junctions : should be Quiet Lane to allow the safe passage by equestrians, cyclists and walkers. Should be 104 20/30 outside the village Taplow & QL/20/30 Dorney NAG

Supports lowering of limit, but believes this section of Hill Farm Rd should be 20mph as it is well used by walkers and equestrians 55 The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent Taplow 20 questionnaires and consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. PC The 20mph zone proposed for Taplow village is also the subject of a delegated budget bid.

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation:local requests for speed limit on this route & although little reason for limit on its own basis, probably will seem more logical to continue the proposed 50mph speed limit on Cliveden Rd along this length than to retain it as a short length of NSL.

Summary: This limit has little justification on its own merit,any change proposed would be simply to align it with the speed limit on the Cliveden Rd. With flows of over 1000vpd could not be considered for Quiet Lane status, even if these were still being pursued. The 30mph limit from Taplow is proposed ( ref 26) to be extended just over100m north of Buffins. th Average speed just north of this point 38mph N bound & 37mph Sbnd. 85 %ile speed 45N bnd & 43mph S bnd. No dwellings along lane.

1 Working Group discussion & recommendation: Agreement that this speed limit cannot be considered in isolation from that on Cliveden Rd. Therefore- NSL TO BE RETAINED.

2 REF No 31 : C104 ,Wooburn ( Entire length ( from its junction with Harvest Hill / Kiln Lane to its junction with Broad Lane) . ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Agree s with the proposal but, due to the semi-rural nature of the area, would not wish this to lead to further urbanisation due to installation of repeater signs or additional 102 sign th concerns streetlighting. [BCC Note: NB : Parish Council Highway ctte meets 18 March 2008- concerns re sign intrusion- has been sent plans of proposed Wooburn signing/road markings & will confirm whether or not it supports proposed limit after that meeting. ] & Bourne Agrees with all proposals in Widmoor & surrounding area. 93 30 & Also, junction of Widmoor and Branch Lane is badly aligned and badly lined. The road centre line is worn, indistinct and is not in the centre of the road and many vehicles Y Extend turn this bend astride the white line, in both directions. Travelling towards Beaconsfield, it is very difficult to take this bend correctly without hitting the nearside kerb or swinging wide on the entrance to the bend. This is the scene of frequent accidents, fortunately usually without personal injury. BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: C104 Widmoor,Part of village together with other adjacent roads. Village speed limit: over 20 houses in community.

Working Group discussion & recommendation: The various sections of 31 were considered as an entity. The following points were raised:- * The Parish Council wants a reduction in the speed of traffic, not a reduction in the limit. *Parish Council Highways Committee are meeting tonight- their formal response, in the light of information they have been sent detailing the number of repeater signs required , will be considered when making final decision. *It is a village community ( especially Widmoor from j/w Wash Hill/Hedsor Lane to j/w Harvest Hill/ Kiln Lane & which meets the Dft guidelines for a 30mph limit as a village- so should be 30mph for consistency area/county wide. *There have been no strong objections from elsewhere *roads are similar to Burnham Beeches in that they are self enforcing *Residents consider it rural -not a village * As average speed is 26-27mph there is no need for a limit. *The road itself is traffic calming.

There was no strong feeling from the voting members for the speed limit to be put in place. Officer advice was that the further response from the Parish Council should be reported to the Head of Transportation who would recommend a course of action taking into account the Parish council's wishes together with the need for consistency.

Head of Transportation : RECOMMEND RETAIN NSL ON THESE ROADS REF No 31 : Branch Lane ,Widmoor, Wooburn ( Entire length ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: No change to NSL proposed at present Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN

3 totally disagree with this proposal. Road already has a sign which states that it is unsuitable for vehicular access. Beyond the dwelling entrance, which is some 30 metres 102 20mph from the junction with Widmoor, the path is not really suitable for any vehicular access, as it is extremely narrow & twisting, with a drop in level in the centre of the run, Wooburn N Quiet which floods even with minimal rainfall. The path is used by walkers & horseriders and it would be dangerous to continue with a classification that endangers the public. & Bourne Lane Preferably, it should be reclassified as a no-through road, or, at the very least, as a 20mph Quiet Rd. End PC

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Unclassified public road. Lane 445 metres long. Surface poor/rd v narrow beyond Hedsor Farmhouse. Signed as 'unsuitable for motors'. If no limit applied, but 30 limit in place on Widmoor, then National Speed Limit signs will have to be put up at entry to Branch Lane as it is still a public road . (I f NSL is unpopular and there is pressure to make road a 30 limit, a 30mph repeater sign could be placed 214m from j/w Widmoor on a FP sign. Alternatively the 30 limit could be extended down lane at each end a short distance so that NSL signs are not visible from 'main' road at each end. However, 30mph could seem incongruous in view of the nature of the road? Road was previously considered as a potential Quiet Lane.)

Working Group discussion & recommendation: This would need to be reconsidered if a 30mph limit was applied to adjacent roads. If the local roads remain at NSL, there is no action required ( See comments for Ref 31 on C104 Widmoor,Wooburn)

4 REF No 31 : C104 Broad Lane,Wooburn/Hedsor , ( From a point 38 metres north-east of its junction with Hedsor Lane / Wash Hill to its junction with Widmoor ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 Agrees with all proposals in Widmoor & surrounding area. 93 BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation: Part of village together with other adjacent roads. Village speed limit: over 20 houses in community.

Working Group discussion & recommendation: This length will take the same speed limit as that for the rest of proposal 31 ( See comments for Ref 31 on C104 Widmoor,Wooburn)

Parish Council wrote on 19th March : 'At the Highways Committee meeting last night the following responses were approved for submission in connection with the letter received from Mr Shane Thomas regarding Area 9.Members do NOT agree with recommendations for a 30mph speed limit on Harvest Hill, Widmoor and Kiln Lane. I & on 20th March : 'I can confirm that Cllr Simon Bazley did inform the Highways Committee of the probability of national speed limit signs in the event that we made an objection to the proposed 30mph. The Chairman of our Highways Committee had also informed the Committee that another Councillor who is a resident at Widmoor was aware of local residents views with regards to this matter and in his view due to the short distance between commencement of the national speed limit and the bend at Branch Lane (approx 150 metres) it was felt that this would not give rise to an increase of speed in the semi residential area. Therefore, please accept this statement as confirmation that the Committee was aware of all the facts before they reached their decision.'

Head of Transportation: Retain NSL

5 REF No 31a : Wash Hill,Widmoor,Wooburn/Hedsor ( From its junction with Broad Lane/Hedsor Lane to a point 188 metres north west of that junction ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 Agrees with all proposals in Widmoor & surrounding area. 93 Given narrow nature of the road, which permits only single vehicle passing in some places, and the high level of use by walkers & horse 102 riders, we believe that this road would also be reclassified as a20mph quiet road. Wooburn N 20 & Bourne End PC

BCC summary /comments : Info given at public consultation:

Part of village community together with other adjacent roads. speed limit to cover all residential properties with frontages on the road. Road forming part of Village speed limit: over 20 houses in community. Additional info: 20mph limits are beyond the remit of the speed limit review. Quiet Lanes are no longer being pursued in Bucks following a Key Decision Report after new Quiet Lanes guidance was issued in 2006. Quiet Lanes permitted signing does not include an advisory 20mph speed limit. A formal 20mph limit would require terminal & repeater signs . Lanes such as this are generally self enforcing in terms of speed .159 vehicles used this road per day in July 2004, with average speeds (taken approximately at the start/end of the proposed 30limit, by the end of the row of houses, were26-27mph, with Working Group discussion & recommendation: This 30 limit will only be implemented as a 30 limit if 31 is- this is subject to Head of Transportation recommendation.. ( See comments for Ref 31 on C104 Widmoor,Wooburn)

Head of Transportation :RET AIN NSL

6 REF No 32 : C104 Harvest Hill,Wooburn / Hedsor ( Entire length (from its junction with Widmoor / Kiln Lane to its junction with Hawks Hill/ Hedsor Rd) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Area is specifically covered by the WDC Local Plan Policy C16, ad it is of a semi-rural nature of special interest & control. 102 Anything which would detract from this, by any form of urbanisation, is not permitted under this Planning Regulation. We Woobur sign/ligh would, therefore, only agree with this proposal on the proviso that it does not lead to additional features such as repeater n & t signs and additional street lighting being added, either now or in the future. Bourne th concern [BCC Note: NB : Parish Council Highway ctte meets 18 March 2008- concerns re sign intrusion- has been sent plans of End PC s proposed signing/road markings & will confirm whether or not it supports proposed limit after that meeting. ]

Agrees with all proposals in Widmoor & surrounding area. 93 Y 30 BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation:Road forming part of Village speed limit: over 20 houses in community. Part of village together with other adjacent roads.

Working Group discussion & recommendation: This 30 limit will only be implemented as a 30 limit if 31 is- this is subject to Head of Transportation recommendation.. ( See comments for Ref 31 on C104 Widmoor,Wooburn) Head of Transportation : RETAIN NSL REF No 32 a : Kiln Fields ,off Harvest Hill ,Widmoor/ Wooburn ( Entire length )

Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree Pref. with Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL Y N Area is specifically covered by the WDC Local Plan Policy C16, ad it is of a semi-rural nature of special interest & control. Anything which 102 would detract from this, by any form of urbanisation, is not permitted under this Planning Regulation. We would, therefore, only agree with Wooburn ? this proposal on the proviso that it does not lead to additional features such as repeater signs and additional street lighting & Bourne being added, either now or in the future. End PC ?93 Y 30 Supports on the basis that it would not have an impact other than saving need to provide unneeded 2 signs. BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Private road- National speed limit signs would need erecting at entry to road unless it has the same speed limit as the adjacent Harvest Hill . Road is less than 250 metres long so will not need any repeater signs along it. Letters were delivered to all householders explaining the situation.

7 WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: This limit will only apply if length of Harvest Hill which adjoins it becomes a 30mph limit

HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION : RETAIN NSL

8 REF No 33 : Kiln Lane,Widmoor/ Wooburn ( From its junction with Widmoor / Harvest Hill to a point 199 metres west of that junction. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN 30 Agrees with all proposals in Wdmoor & surrounding area. Additional proposes extending the 30 limit down Kiln Lane ,which has 93 Y extend numerous blind bends and is, in general, single track. Area is specifically covered by the WDC Local Plan Policy C16, ad it is of a semi-rural nature of special interest & control. Anything 102 Wooburn 30 if not which would detract from this, by any form of urbanisation, is not permitted under this Planning Regulation. We would, therefore, only & Bourne adds agree with this proposal on the proviso that it does not lead to additional features such as repeater signs and additional street lighting being th End PC signs added, either now or in the future. [BCC Note: NB : Parish Council Highway ctte meets 18 March 2008- concerns re sign intrusion- has been sent plans of proposed signing/road markings & will confirm whether or not it supports proposed limit after that meeting. ] BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Part of village together with other adjacent roads.Road forming part of Village speed limit: over 20 houses in community. Additional info:Single track nature of Kiln Lane makes it self-enforcing- there would be opposition to extending a speed limit down this rural lane .No reported pias in 3 yrs to 31 Dec 2007. WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: DEFER RECOMMENDATION TO HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION ( as per rest of Widmoor area)

HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION :RETAIN NSL

REF No 34 : C103 Windsor Lane / Windsor Hill ( From its junction with The Green to a point 188 metres from its junction with Manor Gardens. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 30 Agrees with all proposals in Widmoor & surrounding area. 93 Comment: C103 Windsor Lane/Windsor Hill, Wooburn Green – The order lists a ‘point 188 metres from its junction with Manor 111 Thames - Gardens’, but does not state the direction. If this is a South-easterly direction then there are no concerns ( BCC comment: confirmed SE from...) Valley Police BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Extension to cover almost all properties within this road which is part of Wooburn Green village. Approx 2000 vpd.Village road WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: 30MPH EXTENSION AGREED : Redraft TRO description to include the wording 'SE'- see TVP comments above.

9 REF No 34a : C103 Windsor Lane / Windsor Hill ,Wooburn Green ( From a point 188 metres from its junction with Manor Gardens to its junction with Broad Lane, ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: NSL ( derestriction order) Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN NO FEEDBACK RECEIVED BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Working Group considered 30 limit to extend whole length of this road- but no dwellings along here. Existing speeds near top of hill on straighter stretch 27mph average speed & 31mph 85th %ile speed- therefore, already 'self enforcing' re speed Road is currently subject to National Speed Limit, but has a system of streetlights along it. A derestriction order is required to remove this legal anomaly. Additional info: 1 pia in 3 yrs to 31 12 07 on NSL stretch.

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: PROCEED WITH DERESTRICTION ORDER

10 REF No 35 : Whitepit Lane, Wooburn Green (From its junction with The Green to a point 193 metres north-west of its junction with Old Station Way.)

Current limit : NSL /30 Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Can only agree it is a sensible decision to move back the30mph signs further back down Whitepit Lane, to try to reduce the speed 101 of traffic coming up the lane and into the village. Flackwell Y 30 Hth Res. Assn.

Comment: Whitepit Lane, Wooburn Green – The limit appears to start at the beginning of a bend that also descends a sharp 111 incline. Were the limit to start further out from the bend (perhaps at the existing SLOW road marking) then lower speeds might Thames Extend lessen the need for or strength of braking on an inclined curve, especially of concern in wet or icy conditions. Valley NW Old Station Way is currently outside the 30mph limit and is not in the order, but is restricted by streetlights. It might be tidier to Police include this in the order.

BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Extension to existing village 30mph limit , to encourage reduction of speed prior to entry to village Additional info: WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: * concerned as this is a steep & dangerous hill. Some discussion re location of terminal point at western end. IMPLEMENT 30MPH LIMIT .Include Old Station Way in TRO - this has no affect on actual limit- just clarifies order).

11 REF No 36 A4094 Boundary Road,Wooburn (From & including its roundabout junction with Knaves Beech Way to a point 77metres north-west of its junction with Watery Lane.) A4094 Knaves Beech Way Wooburn / Chepping Wycombe ,(From its roundabout junction with Boundary Road to a point 33 metres northwest of that junction)

CurrentAgree limit : 40mph Proposed: 30 mph with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN I consider this change to be unnecessary , in my experience of these roads 93 N 40 I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 36 67 No real reason given for why this should be lowered from what is a safe road. There is no crash history and no measurement of N 40 what speed drivers are currently going at that is producing such a good safety with the current 40mph limit. If it ain't broke, why try to fix it? BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Extension of existing 30 limit on this urban residential road- continuous housing along south side, 6 accesses to estate roads on northern side, plus about 11 properties with direct frontage on N side.. Vulnerable road users- pedestrians/cyclists, children/elderly. Meets urban road criteria: standard limit in built up areas with development on both sides of the road. Knaves Beech Way limit is to provide appropriate terminal point for the 30 mph speed limit for Boundary Rd.

Additional info: This speed limit is a community based limit, not a crash reduction limit. ( 2 pias over length in 3 yrs to 31 12 2007) Speeds averaged from 3 locations over length ( 2002)were Ave 37mph, 85th %ile 41mph. WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: * This was raised from 30 to 40mph some years ago * consensus by voting members that should be RETAINED AS 40MPH ( NB on 19th March ,email comment received from Parish Council :'For future reference, please can you also note the following observations for other areas in the Parish:Boundary Road – a speed review of 30mph is requested'

RETAIN 40MPH LIMIT

12 REF No 37 : Elm Lane, Little Marlow (From its junction with A4155 Marlow Road to its junction with Chapman Lane.) Chapman Lane ,Little Marlow (From its junction with Elm Lane to a point 8 metres south of its junction with Vineyard Drive.) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 37 67 No real reason given for why this should be lowered from what is a safe road. There is no crash history and no measurement of what speed drivers N NSL are currently going at that is producing such a good safety with the current NSL limit. If there are "> 20 dwellings" does that automatically have to be a 30mph, no matter what speed is safe? If it ain't broke, why try to fix it? 30 or Adjacent wider roads have 30mph limit. 39 Lower Proposed 30 welcome,but too high to be safe BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Village > 20 dwellings: residential road

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: AGREED : IMPLEMENT 30MPH LIMIT

HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION :

REF No 38 : Lane,Little Marlow ( For its entire length.) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph

Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Y 20mph Welcomes 30, but wishes it could be 20 39 surprised to see 30mph speed limits introduced for roads in which it would be extremely difficult to reach 30mph & suspects impossible to set up speed traps ( 87 Refs 38,39,43) ? Cannot see that the cost and visual impact of the necessary signage is good use of council money.

Welcomes speed limit- will need repeater sign by Spade Oak PH. 37 Y 30 Lt Marlow P.C.

BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Extension to existing 30 limit to include busy PH & length of road used by walkers to access river from nearest public car park. Popular route on road for walkers/families.Village /residential road > 20 dwellings incl PH.

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: AGREED : IMPLEMENT 30MPH LIMIT

13 REF No 39 : School Lane,Little Marlow (From a point 11 metres from the western side of its junction with the A4155 ,to its junction with Church Road.) Church Road,Little Marlow (From its junction with the A4155 to its junction with the private road,(The Moor) at its southern end.) Pound Lane,Little Marlow (entire length)

Current limit : 30/NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN surprised to see 30mph speed limits introduced for roads in which it would be extremely difficult to reach 30mph & suspects impossible to set up 87 ? speed traps ( Refs 38,39,43) Cannot see that the cost and visual impact of the necessary signage is good use of council money.

20mph ( Re School Lane) No comments given 42 ( Re School Lane) All lane 30mph as there is a school here & no pavements ( wording of proposal unclear- should it read 'west of' or 'eastern 37 side'?) BCC note: 'western side' is correct- as junction is skewed measurement for terminal signs has been taken from the western side of the Lt Y 30 or<30 junction with A4155, along School Lane for 11 metres: virtually all of lane is proposed as 30limit, other than short section nr A4155 as not Marlow possible to provide terminal signs any closer to junction on both sides of School Lane) P.C.

BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Church Rd : Extension to existing 30 limit to include section from PH car park to the A4155.Village residential road > 20 dwellings School Lane/Pound Lane:Part of Village > 20 dwellings Additional info:N/A

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: AGREED : IMPLEMENT 30MPH LIMIT

1 REF No 40b : A4155 Marlow Road, Little Marlow (Between a point 112 metres west of its junction with Church Rd,Little Marlow and a point 88 metres east of its junction with School Lane.) School Lane Little Marlow ( From its junction with the A4155 to a point 11 metres from the western side of that junction ) Short length of 30mph limit along this side road to provide appropriate location for the terminal point of 30mph limit. As junction mouth is wide/skewed, may otherwise be dispute over whether 40 limit extends down to start of 30 limit. Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree Pref. with SL proposal Summary of feedback ID refs YN NSL Does not comply with Circ 01/2006 paras 38 & 114, which recommend that speed limits should have a minimum length of 600metres. 108 Proposed limit is approximately 500 metres long. Whilst para 115 allows down to 400metres in some circumstances, that applies only when the development density meets the “20 or more houses” criterion, which is not met here. The 600m requirement is not just a technicality. As para 114 explains, drivers are unlikely to reduce their speed to a limit affecting only a very short length of road. In addition, the character of this 500metre length of the A4155 is not significantly different from the sections before & after. For both reasons the proposed limit would not be “ self-enforcing” and could actually be unsafe, by causing 'tailgating' and 'bunching' of trafic. In view of the short length of road involved, it is unhelpful to quote an “accident rate” because just one accident would make a large difference in the statistic. The truth is there is a cluster of hazards along this short stretch of road, and the Council needs to consider other measures to alleviate the situation. Warning signs ( perhaps vehicle activated ones) might well have a role to play. Note that while the Council tries to justify proposals 2a & 5 on the basis that frequent changes in speed limits are unpopular, that argument is conveniently forgotten in relation to this proposal. If this limit is imposed there will be 3 changes in limit within half a kilometre, all on the same road. This is precisely the kind of thing which I suspect the negative public feedback was aimed at. Summary: does not comply with Circ 01/2006 paras 38 & 114. Will be ineffective & could create extra danger.

N NSL Ave speed on road is below the proposed 40mph limit. When the road is less busy ,the change from NSL down to 40mph and then back up to 56 NSL would be quite irritating. With regard to other road users, it is infuriating how many cyclists refuse to use the cycle path that has been put in for their safety. N ? (Also see gen comments re speed limit changes ) 38 Guesses that significant number of accidents on A4155 are a result of junction based accidents. Junctions well signposted, cause of substantial number of these accidents is people misjudging,not seeing, not being seen or not anticipating . Doesn't matter what speed of the traffic is- if a driver does ( lists above actions), don't anticipate and pull out of a junction or approach a junction too quickly when someone else pulls out, its' going to result in an accident. Doesn't matter whether its 60,50 or 40- if pull out too late on an inattentive motorcyclist or pedestrian, it's going to mean death or serious injury. Believes driver training better solution than speed limit changes .

N ? Wasting money when flooding problem has still not been resolved,( refers to previous correspondence with BCC) ,shouldn't change the speed 17 N limit, just keep the road clear from flooding.

1 REF No 40b : A4155 Marlow Road, Little Marlow (Between a point 112 metres west of its junction with Church Rd,Little Marlow and a point 88 metres east of its junction with School Lane.) School Lane Little Marlow ( From its junction with the A4155 to a point 11 metres from the western side of that junction ) Short length of 30mph limit along this side road to provide appropriate location for the terminal point of 30mph limit. As junction mouth is wide/skewed, may otherwise be dispute over whether 40 limit extends down to start of 30 limit. Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree Pref. with SL proposal Summary of feedback ID refs YN Extg Unnecessary speed changes lead to confusion, which causes further congestion. 30 NSL (These roads ) not common for pedestrians and there are few residences that are affected by the current speed limit and would neither benefit or be inconvenienced by these proposed changes, so are a waste of public money & purely another tactic to 'nannify' British roads. If limit is reduced, it will ( cause) more congestion and also encourage people to overtake drivers travelling at lower speeds, which is more of a hazard than at present. N More money should be spent on researching causes of M40 accidents, not dabbling with roads that currently are safe & controlled. Area becoming far too controlled through speed cameras, limits, road bumps and central road divides, which has witnessed cause more accidents than prevent. Stop punishing majority of drivers who are safe & responsible- reckless drivers are a risk whether speed limit is 30,40 or 50.

50 As a resident for 44 years I would endorse 50mph, not less. For my money we have enough signs .Refers to council tax 19 N Extend 40 Resident of Bourne End for more than 40 years. Former Lt Marlow Parish Cllr. 76 to W & E Repeatedly motored along this stretch of road for business and private reasons under all sorts of weather & traffic conditions. Rather a dangerous road, with a random mixture of motor, motorcycle, light & heavy vehicular traffic and cyclists. Several tricky junctions intersect it, especially near/in the Little Marlow area and at night time, particularly in foggy weather, the bend approaching Lt Marlow from the east is very dangerous, as witnessed by the fatal accidents that have take place there in recent years. Suggests a 40mph limit applies from Globe Park to Sheepridge Lane ,since:- * little scope for travelling faster during most of the day * above this speed is not sensible driving * chopping and changing speed limits from 60 to 50 then 40mph along this relatively short and unlit main road stretch will merely irritate & confusing drivers, risking non-compliance.

Extend W Uses pavement alongside road every day. It is an unpleasant noisy road to walk along and the large trucks that pass at high speed 99 to Pump within a few feet are intimidating. Looks forward to an improvement for pedestrians in the village. Lane Would like 40mph extended to include length from Lt Marlow village to Pump Lane if the new football ground at Westhorpe Park goes ahead , as I think that the increased number of cars exiting from Westhorpe Park Lane onto a 60mph section of the A4155 could lead to a significant increase in accidents. Y

2 REF No 40b : A4155 Marlow Road, Little Marlow (Between a point 112 metres west of its junction with Church Rd,Little Marlow and a point 88 metres east of its junction with School Lane.) School Lane Little Marlow ( From its junction with the A4155 to a point 11 metres from the western side of that junction ) Short length of 30mph limit along this side road to provide appropriate location for the terminal point of 30mph limit. As junction mouth is wide/skewed, may otherwise be dispute over whether 40 limit extends down to start of 30 limit. Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree Pref. with SL proposal Summary of feedback ID refs YN Extend Recommend 40 begins 10m west of Lane as this is a dangerous junction 37 40 to W Lt Marlow P.C. 40 & Fully supports ,but would prefer reduced limit from A404 to Sheepridge Lane rbt. Road is quite twisty & fast- has witnessed and been part of 42 Extend having to radidly slow down to avoid oncoming overtaking car. limit Wwew a road has several speed limits people tend to ignore them if the section is quite small as proposed, unless they are backed up with speed cameras. Would also like warning lights /signs on A4155 during school time

BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Village,but partial development only ,less than 20 dwellings along road- but partial severance of community by A4155. 2 main access roads to village/ accesses to farm shop/PH/ works depot. Cycle route crossing point/ access to bus stops . Pedestrian refuges provided.

Ave speed 39mph, 85th %ile 45, flow 16400vpd. 6 pias in 3 yrs over approx 500m length Crash rate 67 accs per 100mvkm. Meets requirements for a 40 limit for community with <20 dwellings alongside rd. Also, as an Upper Tier road, with 5 accesses /jtns within 500m, vulnerable road users( peds /cyclists/young/elderly)could meet requirements for a 40 limit. Crash rate is greater than the 35 appropriate for a NSL. Additional info: speed limit primarily considered as a community limit, not for crash reduction . 6 reported pias on length in 3 yrs to end Dec 2007. Mixed types. No pattern.1 involved elderly pedestrian & 1 a cyclist

3 REF No 40b : A4155 Marlow Road, Little Marlow (Between a point 112 metres west of its junction with Church Rd,Little Marlow and a point 88 metres east of its junction with School Lane.) School Lane Little Marlow ( From its junction with the A4155 to a point 11 metres from the western side of that junction ) Short length of 30mph limit along this side road to provide appropriate location for the terminal point of 30mph limit. As junction mouth is wide/skewed, may otherwise be dispute over whether 40 limit extends down to start of 30 limit. Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree Pref. with SL proposal Summary of feedback ID refs YN WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: * In planning terms, Emmetts Farm will be developed if this goes through *As a road user should not be less than 50. AGREED TO IMPLEMENT 40MPH LIMIT

4 REF No 41 : C101 Sheepridge Lane Flackwell Heath / Little Marlow ( From a point 31 metres south west of its junction with Heath End Road Flackwell Heath to its junction with A4155 Marlow Road ) Current limit : Proposed: mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN N NSL I wish to lodge my objection to the change in speed limit Area 9 Ref 41 67 This is a classic NSL and if predictions also indicate a higher crash rate if speed limit changed then no brainer on this one. Was this put with the intention of not reducing it anyway just so after all the other limits go down, a PR excercise can claim consultation did result in some limits not being reduced - therefore public consulted, changes made, compromise reached?

N NSL Objects to proposal for Sheepridge Lane – Collision history does not warrant any change in the speed limit. This is an open country road with virtually 111 no frontage. Average speed is already 43mph so the limit is likely to increase that and increase the rate of collisions. The nature of the road restricts Thames speeds and enforcement would be extremely difficult at best. Valley Police Any proposed change in the speed limit that has the potential to increase the accident rate or the speed at which road users already travel should not 56 N NSL be implemented. A better road surface and kept verges/paths would greatly improve this road for all users.

* very few access points or junctions 100 N NSL *TRL spreadsheet indicates 'potential for increased speeds/crash rate' if a 50 or 40 limit is imposed. Therefore, it defeats the purpose to propose a 50mph limit. Why would you want traffic travelling faster; or more accidents?

A predominantly through route for traffic( clearly the 5000vpd that use it are not all visiting the public house or the very small number of houses near it) 108 The road's characteristics are typical of a country lane but there is a noticeable absence of junctions. The environment is rural, with no roadside development for the vast majority of its length. The speed of the traffic ( 43mph mean, 50mph 85th%ile) is well within the existing NSL and, this is how things should be: a speed limit is an absolute maximum ,not a 'target speed'. A 50mph limit would have disadvantages:- * would encourage an over-reliance on speed limits as a guide to safe driving, when in fact roads like this require drivers to exercise judgement as to NSL what is a safe speed. * constant repeater signs mean the posted limit would become a 'target' speed, when in fact lower speeds might well be appropriate in certain circumstances. Repeater signs themselves would present a collision hazard ,especially to motorcyclists . Signs would be unsightly and spoil the rural ambience of this road.

Said to be concern about safety & 'excessive speeds', but it is clear from the data that speeds are not excessive and the accident rate ( 17.4 per 108contd N 100mvkm) is relatively low. . No need for a 50mph limit. NSL is perfectly appropriate and should be retained. This conclusion is reached if one applies the assessment framework. Despite being 'C' class the road is arguably Upper Tier due to its 'through traffic' function and the accident rate is well under the threshold of 35 injury accidents per 100million vehicle kms. Notes the TRL's spreadsheet projects an increase in the accident rate if a 50mph or lower limit is imposed. This confirms point made above about the adverse effects on safety of a local speed limit. It also begs the question of why a local limit is being proposed at all. The first reasons for the proposal in the Council's statement of reasons is “ avoiding danger” ,yet here the Council is advocating a measure which will make the road more dangerous.

1 Summary of objections: 108 * retention of national speed limit is appropriate given the function,characteristics & environment of the road, actual speed of traffic & the accident contd record. *Road qualifies for the NSL under the assessment framework. *Local limit could increase the accident rate according to the TRL's spreadsheet, so implementation would be contrary to the council's statement of reasons. Should be 40mph for area specified in the proposals 37 Lt Marlow N 40 P.C.

Seriously concerned that the proposal to reduce the speed limit on the C101 (Sheepridge Lane) between Flackwell Heath and Well End to 50mph, 48 whilst a welcome move in the right direction, will not adequately protect pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and motorists from the potential dangers of Chiltern speeding traffic along this country lane through the Chilterns AONB. The opportunity should be taken to introduce maximum limits below 50mph. Society

A number of our local members have raised concerns about the dangers of Sheepridge Lane over recent years. Aware that there is wide concern in the communities of Flackwell Heath and Little Marlow about both the poor condition and dangers of Sheepridge Lane. Many Flackwell Heath residents refuse to walk down the top of the Lane where it is very narrow and there is no verge or path. Many local cyclists avoid using the Lane because of speeding traffic and the very poor condition of the road surface. Horse riders no longer use the Lane, which they used to do regularly not so many years ago. Walkers using Chiltern Way path (which runs along the lane from Crooked Billet PH to just north of entrance to New house Farm) frequently comment on the high speeds of vehicles.

<50 3 particularly dangerous sections of the Lane where a 50mph limit would be too high:- 48 N part Chiltern 30/40 1) The narrow N section in Flackwell Heath, where there is one or more non-injury accident most years, particularly by speeding motorists who Society accelerate rapidly around the sweeping corner from the village centre and through the end of the present 30mph restricted area. HGVs can not pass contd. along this section without one of them stopping or reversing. About £2,000 worth of damage to a private fence by an out of control car along this section.

2) The sweeping corner opposite the Crooked Billet pub, where the camber varies and where there are frequently 15-25 cars parked, on both sides of the road, for people visiting the pub or on organised walks along the Chiltern Way. A 39 tonne waste lorry overturned in 2002

3) corner by the entrance to the access track to Pigeon House Farm and the bridleway to Fern/Little Marlow:the camber is bad and several times each year vehicles hit the bank on the SE corner or mount the NW verge. Several cars have overturned on this corner in recent years.

2 Given the high propensity for accidents on these three sections of the Lane, a 50 mph limit is not low enough. We therefore 48 suggest the following revised proposals: Chiltern Society • Section (1) should be subject to a 30 mph limit. The 30mph restricted area for Flackwell Heath should be extended further contd. down Sheepridge Lane, to below the bend south of the narrowest section.

• The remainder of Sheepridge Lane should be subject to a 40mph limit. This would minimise the risk of further accidents along Sections 2) and 3) above, whilst retaining a single speed restriction between the 30mph limits of Flackwell Heath and Well N End/Bourne End.

In support of these proposals we make the following additional points:

• BCC will be aware that since the initial consultation on the Countywide Speed Limit review, there have been at least two more injury accidents in Sheepridge Lane. Two that we are aware of occurred on 10 January 2007 and 18 January 2007 (source- Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service). In the first case firefighters released one injured woman and in the second one injured woman was released before the fire appliance arrived. In both cases, Sheepridge Lane was closed by the police for about two hours or more.

• Attached are photos of two non-injury accidents that occurred in 2006. Two show a car that ended up nose down in the drainage 48 ditch on the verge opposite the track to Pigeon House Farm (Section 3)) being extracted by a rescue vehicle. Another shows a car Chiltern that lost control whilst obviously travelling at high speed southbound and hit the banks/verge on both sides of the road below the Society narrow part of the Lane (Section 1)) before ending up in the position shown on the wrong side of the road, by the Flackwell Heath contd. village sign north of New House Farm. The final view is of one of that car’s contacts with the off-side bank, well north of its final N resting point. This indicates the excessive speed of the vehicle and the distance covered out of control. The narrow Section 1) begins just round the bend at the top of the picture. As far as we are aware, there was no police attendance or action on either incident. • I gather another respondent has submitted photographs of two more recent accidents (late 2007) one of which was on the bend opposite the Crooked Billet pub (Section 2)). • We note (from data supplied by the BCC Casualty Reduction Team) that the speed surveys conducted in 2002 and 2004, which 48 preceded the initial public consultation, were sited on relatively straight parts of the Lane just north and south of Section 3). The Chiltern fact that the 85 percentile and mean/average speeds were in the ranges 49 -52 and 42- 45 mph suggests to us that the proposed Society 50mph speed limit for the whole of Sheepridge Lane seriously underestimates the potential danger of the three sections identified contd. above. We submit that these figures also indicate that the average careful driver would not be inconvenienced significantly by a 40 mph limit over the southern three quarters of the Lane.

• BCC will also be aware that following periods of heavy rain, surface water gushes down the Lane. The road surface floods 48 significantly and is often covered in several places by flint stones and gravel washed off the adjacent fields. This is aggravated by Chiltern the loosening of flints on the edge of the road by the HGV traffic mentioned above. The frequency of such occurrences is clearly Society considerably higher than for the typical Class C road experiencing similar average speeds and should be factored into the contd. recommended speed limit.

3 ? Residents of Magpie Close, Flackwell Heath, who back onto Sheepridge Lane, will welcome any changes to the speed limit on 109 (Sheepridge Ln), but the50mph speed limit will not stop the speeding. At the moment local people, including pedestrians & cyclists are at risk because of the speed of not only the cars, but also the heavy commercial vehicles who use Sheepridge Lane as a cut through route for the M4, M40 & M25 motorways.( Ref to letter of 2005ref 114910 to MAKnight) Until extreme speed restrictions and speed checks are vigorously endorsed the potential accident and eventual loss of life will be inevitable on this stretch of country lane.

Flackwell Heath resident, property overlooks C101 between Flackwell Heath & Well End. Frequently uses road. Welcomes proposed reduction to 95 50mph, however, with the safety of all road users including pedestrians and cyclists in mind a maximum speed limit of 40mph, reducing to 30mph at the junction with Flackwell Heath might be more appropriate. 40/30 also worthy of consideration re speed limit choice is increaselevel of surface water that follows heavy rains and frequently results in a covering of loose stones and gravel on the road surface, increasing the danger to all road users which would be lessended by a lower speed limit.

* The top part of this road leading into Flackwell Heath is narrow & dangerous. 101 * Many HGVs now use this road, both ways, as a shortcut through to F.Heath. It would seem folly to onlyreduce the speed of vehicles to 50mph as proposed. The road is clearly unsuitable for any traffic at 50mph, let alone the HGVs that are a menace to residents and other road users alike. Suggests a 30mph limit all along Sheepridge Lane would make it a safer road for all traffic and may deter the HGVs from taking the shortcut in the first 30 place. ( also refers to Residents' Assocn's Village Traffic Plan - proposed 20mph limit- mods to Sheepridge Lane jtn & pinch points down the lane past the real narrow openings at the top of the lane, in an effort to slow the vehicles down & to further deter HGVs from using this route.

BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Length approx 2.1 km. Ave 5000vpd Ave speed 43 mph/ 85th %ile 50mph 2 pias in 3 yrs Crash rate 17.4 per 100mvkm Feedback from public consultation will be especially important on this proposal. Working Group members had recommended lower limit in response to concerns expressed re safety of road users /excessive speeds. TRL spreadsheet projection indicate potential for increased speeds/crash rate if put in a 50 ( 22.55 crash rate) or 40 limit (18.37 crash rate, if this encourages drivers to travel faster than they currently do. Additional info: 5 crashes in 3 yrs to end Dec 2007. 3 probably involve inappropriate speed, 2 had other factors.

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: * This is AONB *Why put signs up for a speed limit they are already doing ( or less) *Leave it as it is now AGREED TO RETAIN NSL

4 REF No 42 : Winchbottom Lane,Little Marlow ( From its junction with A4155 Marlow Road to a point 36 metres north of the access road to Elmtrees Mobile Home Park. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN 3 reasons for objection:- 108 * limit will be less than 300 metres long which is shorter than the absolute minimum recommended in paras 38 & 114 of Circular 01/2006. Even a 300 metre limit would need “exceptional circumstances”. * Proposed terminal point, 36m N of entranceto mobile home park is not aligned with the change in the road's character, contrary to para 32 of Circular 01/2006. The limit extends too far up Winchbottom Lane. N NSL * Speed of traffic is already low past this row of houses, which are after all adjacent to a T junction. The imposition of a 30limit would therefore be a pointless gesture which would achieve nothing. Summary: * does not comply with Circ 01/2006 * proposed limit serves no purpose.

BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Approx 12 dwellings,( plus about 15 more in caravan park )but narow road and has the ambience of a village .A 40 mph limit may seem more incongruous, although technically more in line with national guidelines. Lower end of W.Lane has about 520 vpd.. Proposed 30mph speed limit < 300m long . Alternatives would be to retain National speed limit, as at present, or provide a 40mph limit, but the latter may be unpopular with local residents. Meets 40mph criterion for a settlement with < 20 houses. WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: * discussed at previous working group- included on basis that residents wanted it, but no positive response to consultation. * Short length of limit- little justification RETAIN NSL HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION :

REF No 43 : Fern Lane,Little Marlow ( Entire length ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN surprised to see 30mph speed limits introduced for roads in which it would be extremely difficult to reach 30mph & suspects impossible to set up speed 87 traps ( Refs 38,39,43) ? Whilst the introduction of a 30mph limit in Fern Lane ( for example) would have no impact on me or my fellow residents, I cannot see that the cost and visual impact of the necessary signage is good use of council money. BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Village > 20 dwellings/residential road. Additional info:

1 WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: RETAIN NSL

2 REF No 44 : A4094 Ferry Lane,Bourne End ( From a point 36 metres south of its junction with Hedsor Road to the Buckinghamshire / Berkshire County Boundary. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN The traffic control signals at the bridge help to reduce people's speed into Cookham as does the sharp bend just after the 30mph 56 N ?NSL limit when entering Bourne End.

consider unnecessary, as the only times when speed would be inappropriate the level of traffic makes the speed self regulating. 93 N NSL

Supports lower limit to produce traffic calming/reduced speed of vehicles at Ferry Lane/Hedsor Rd junction- reducing both noise & frenetic/aggressive 9 vehicle movement. Accidents occur quite frequently at junction,(without major injury),mostly outside peak times- traffic speeds are higher, involve misjudgements of vehicles entering/leaving Hedsor Rd. Costly on emergency services & result in road being blocked & traffic delays costly to public at large/businesses. N 30 Vehicles from south approaching at NSL. From north, they accelerate out of 30mph limit. A 30mph limit would ensure better speed on approach to /exit from the junction , where 20mph is a more appropriate speed, and remove all existing speed limit signing ,rather than needing to install/maintain new signs.

Proposed 40 limit would be an 'island' amongst 30mph limits . Although based on the DfT guidance, as this is not prescriptive, 9 N 30 could a 30mph limit be applied in the interests of consistency, , as well as for environmental & accident reduction benefits. Requests traffic islands at the 2 accesses for Riversdale to safeguard turning traffic. would prefer that the entire road was made a 30mph limit. Understands that this may not be possible due to DfT requirements. 102 Believe that ,due to the dangerous bend where the road joins Hedsor Rd, that the existing 36 metre stretch of road covered by the Wooburn 30( esp & Bourne Y 30mph limit should be extended to some 250 metres( just beofre the houses approaching the bend), to encourage speed reduction at N end) and thereby easier & safer navigation of the bend. End PC

BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Flow 11300vpd over 0.9 km .Ave speed 39mph, 85th %ile 45mph.Acc rate 27 per 100mvkm. Village outskirts- about 12 dwellings fronting road, plus 2 accesses to >20 houses on separate road(s)Relatively few reported pias, but local reports of far more damage only crashes .Rural community with less than 20 dwellings on roadside so not 'qualify' for village 30mph limit ,but does qualify for a 40 limit for a smaller/more dispersed community, . ( Also possibly meets urban road criterion: road on outskirts of urban area.) Additional info:4 pias in 3 yrs to end 2007. All slight, at j/w Hedsor Rd. 3 fail to give way to southbound traffic. WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: * the houses are off the road -this is a rural area & should not be urbanised .

IMPLEMENT 40MPH SPEED LIMIT

1 REF No 45 : B3026 Lake End Road,Burnham ( From its junction with A4 Bath Road to a point 84 metres south of the common boundary of Nos 25/27 Lake End Rd. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN A4 is a main artery of Britain and should be kept moving as fast as possible to avoid congestion which is a cause of accidents and frustration speed limits along this road, are, if anything, already too low.(BCC Note: comment relates to this as 'arm' off proposed 49 40mph limit for A4) BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Short length ( approx 200metres) to include row of houses/supermarket access and tie in with proposed 40mph speed limit on adjacent length of A4. Terminal point is at Burnham village name plate, to south of supermarket access . Block of 15 flats,( only one access) then 6 houses.

S terminal Changed from original locn to match with 'Welcome to Burnham village 'sign, which is located 57m south of the access to elec sub stn) Possibility of 30 limit considered, but only 6 dwelings directly onto road. Also the A4 is proposed to have 40 limit, Lent Rise Road has existing 30 limit. If 30 applied to Lake End Rd, then under Dft guidance 30 limit would be required to apply across rbt,which would appear v odd to A4 drivers as short length of 30 would apply across rbt . Rbt can be within 40limit if Lake End Rd becomes 40, Meets 40mph criteria for a community smaller than a village/ also for urban road on outskirts of urban area , buildings set back criteria.

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: SHOULD TAKE SAME SPEED LIMIT AS ADJOINING LENGTH OF A4.( SEE REF 20)

1 REF No 48 : Taplow Common Rd ,Burnham ( From its southern junction with Wymers Wood Rd to a point 97 metres north of its junction with the access road to Huntswood Golf Club) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN consider making whole length 40mph to the Feathers PH jtn on Cliveden Rd . In last 40 yrs road has been straightened and increase in traffic is considerable- no longer possible to walk safely along it.Layout of 40 & lanes between A4 & A40 does not provide a direct fast route for lorries or cars. Y Extend Taplow Cmn. Rd is entered from several narrow lanes after Wymers Wood Rd &Huntswood Golf course access- Rose Hill, Hunts Lane, Parliament Lane,Nashdom Lane & collection of houses that front the top end. Several serious accidents over the years, especially at the junction with Rose Hill Opportunity to provide a safer road for pedestrians & cyclists by controlling speed of considerably increased motor traffic. BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Row of 7 houses,Hotel, Cricket ground & pavilion,golf course /club house plus road junction within about 800m. Low no. of (2) pias but crash rate 41.5 per 100mvkm. . volume: 5428 vpd at N end of row of houses. Ave speed 41.2 N bnd/ 38.7 Sbnd 85th%ile speed 48.1 N 45.4S lower limit requested by local residents, concerned for safety- pedestrians from houses walking into village& residents entering/leaving premises by car. TRL projection calculations indicate speeds& crashes could increase with a 50 limit,. Crashes /speeds could be reduced by a 40 limit with additional measures ( eg on -road roundels?) Speed limit proposed for a rural community not meeting village density criteria. Additional info: 3 slight pias in 3 yrs to end 2007., between Wymers Wood Rd ( N end) and Hotel, all involved loss of control on bends. A further crash occurred to the south- location unclear. Only 2 further crashes in last 3 yrs ( at/near j/w Nashdom Lane) between northern end of the proposed 40 and j/w Cliveden Rd

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: *Is 40 logical? ( Response: Meets criteria for a 40 limit based on community criteria, average& 85th %ile speeds indicate high level of potential compliance ) *Should be 50, it is the only bit of this road you can overtake on.

RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT 40MPH LIMIT

1 REF No 49 : MC7 Dropmore Road Burnham ( From a point 54 metres north of its junction with Poyle Lane to a point 60 metres north of the junction with the access to Knights Farm. ) Current limit : NSL Proposed: 40 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN considers 40 to be an excessive restriction and 50 would be more appropriate. 93 N 50 N NSL Plainly does not comply with Circular 01/2006, because the mean speed of the traffic is well above the proposed 40mph speed limit. Para 96 of Circ 01/2006 is clear- “The aim 108 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”. th Limits used to be set according to 85 %ile speeds.Under Circular Rds 1/93, a limit could be imposed if an 85TH %ile speed was within 7mph or 20% of the proposed new limit, but no such margin exists with mean speeds( which are generally lower) under Circular 01/2006. If the existing mean speed is over the proposed limit, the limit cannot be introduced. This is to avoid unrealistic speed limits which have all the problems mentioned in para 22 of Circ 01/2006( ineffectiveness, disrespect for the limit, enforcement costs,unacceptable speeds.)

Council's suggestion that on-road roundel markings might “achieve” lower speeds is laughable. The reason drivers break unrealistic speeds is not because they are unaware of what 108 the limit is but because the limit 'feels' too low for the road, and to avoid being ' tailgated ' by following traffic. contd Council could carry out engineering or other measures to lower the actual speed of the traffic, with a view to introducing a lower limit in future. However, the reduction in actual speeds has to take place first. This is plain from Circular 01/2006's reference to the “original “ mean speed ie the mean speed before the implementation of the traffic order. It is a matter of concern that the council is claiming the sanction of Circular 01/2006 for a proposed limit which is significantly lower than the current mean speed of the traffic. Strenuously objects to the proposal on that basis and for the reasons which follow.

Believes the Council may be exaggerating the history of accidents on this short length of road, since although the accident rate may be above 60per 100million veh. km threshold, 108 the number and severity of the accidents is low.;just 3 injury accidents in 3 years with only slight injuries suffered. There is no evidence that any of the accidents was speed related. contd Finally, this is in effect a proposal for a 'buffer' or 'transitional' speed limit on the approach to Burnham and circular 01/2006 discourages the use of such limits. Para 40 says “ Occasionally it may be appropriate to use a short length of 40mph or 50mph speed limit as an intermediate transition between a length of road subject to a national limit and another length on which a lower limit is in force, for example on the outskirts of villages....However, the use of such transitional limits should be restricted to sections of road where immediate speed reduction causes real difficulty”. No such difficulty exists or is alleged to exist here. Summary: * not comply with paras 37 & 96 of circ01/2006 * unrealistic in view of current speeds * Circular 01/2006 ( para 40) discourages “transitional” speed limits

BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Plant nursery,( not open in summer 2007?) farm access,about 10 dwellings 3 slight pias in 3 yrs to end 2005 4800vpd in 2005,Ave speeds 46.8N/44.3S,85th %ile speeds: 54.7N/ 50.9S ,Crash rate 67.3 per mvh km

Lower tier road with mxd function where high no of (bends/jtns/)accesses- would be 50 limit. Accident rate should be below 60 per mvkms. lower tier rd with predominantly local, access or recreational function or accident rate above 60pmvkm, then 40 appropriate. WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION:

RETAIN AS NSL

1 HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION :

2 REF No 50 : B3026 Lake End Rd / Village Road/ Common Rd ,Dorney ( From a point 87 metres north of its junction with Ashford Lane to a point 51 metres south east of its junction with Southfield Close. ) Current limit : 30 Proposed: 30 mph Agree with Pref. Summary of feedback ID refs proposal SL YN Generally OK 36 Y 30 (Dorney PC) BCC SUMMARY /COMMENTS : Info given at public consultation: Existing 30 mph speed limit. New TRO to simplify records as the current speed limit is by various separate TROs created over the last 50 + years & on 2 stretches by virute of the system of street lighting . Within existing 30mph limit there is a gap of about 200-300m which is not built up as per village defn, which could therefore be appropriate for a 40 limit, but this would create too many changes of limit within a short distance, so the full current 30mph limit has been retained .Also , the open section includes car parks/crossing points for the popular Jubilee River footpath/Sustrans route/bridleway. Village speed limit .

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION: Implement 30mph TRO

1 AREA 9 SPEED LIMIT REVIEW: PUBLIC CONSULTATION 29th Nov 2007 -7th Jan 2008 GENERAL RESPONSES . Agree with BCC comments ID proposals? Summary of feedback refs YN noted

13 Broadly supports proposals in the Taplow area

noted Lowering speed limits is not a panacea. Proliferation of new limits in rural areas creates stress & frustration for those who try to abive by the rules, while having little 10 effect on those who drive too fast as a matter of course. Used to be able to tell the most likely speed limit from the appearance of a road.

explained that membership of the organisation consulted may have changed- resulting in changed opinions. Also, proposals have been revised since previous contact was made. 8 Queried why being consulted again on areas had been consulted on 18th months ago

Police resourcing priorities are determined by the police. They are not related to the number of speed limits Roads have never been in worse condition- wasting valuable resources on this. Police resources will be diverted away from fighting real crime & channelled into further road maintenance is still a council priority 16 criminalising the motorist. Comment re no action on robberies because too busy enforcing 'speed limits' to be bothered with policing the community. Lack of joined up thinking to understand further consequences of proposed actions.

4,5 * modern vehicles are safer to pedestrians& road users in the event of accidents Vehicle safety has improved, for occupants & pedestrians . However, human reaction time is unchanged at about *modern vehicles can stop much quicker with technologies such as ABS & ESP than those in production when speed limits were originally placed 0.7sec., roughly equating to 1ffot per mph in temrs of distance travelled before brakes are applied. Traffic *concern re speeding fines etc will divert drivers' attention away from the roads to speedo's- so more likely to have an accident volumes have also increased considerably in recent years Speed is still a relevant factor in whether a crash is *will traffic calming be used? not appropriate to drive over at speed limit designated to road without causing damage to vehicles- unfair to motorist avoidable & in severity of impact. * will speed cameras be used? cause heave, unnecessary braking- surely add to risk of accidents Drivers need only a very short time to glance at their speedometers and all competent drivers should have a *Other ways to improve road safety- adequate lighting, clear markings, roads free of pot holes- all of these contribute to accidents general awareness of their speed . *what is the actual no. of accidents that occur as a direct result of speed. It is not intended to follow up new speed limits with traffic calming ( this is used where there is a signifiant crash rate) nor with fixed speed cameras. The police will carry out enforcement as appropriate . speeding is a high priority concen raised by Neighbourhood Action Groups. Sign & line maintenance and dealing with potholes is a key activity of our Area offices speed

* more efforts needed on educating drivers and pedestrians & training them to react to situations ( should pedestrian attempt tio cross a road at a particualr point/ *The Road Safety team is involved in many initiatives to promote better driving, including training programmes for should a horse be on a national speed limitroad? young & older drivers & motorcyclists, together with activities to raise awareness of seat belts, mobile phone * reducing speed limits leads to increased journey times & decreased fuel economy. Affect on environment? misuse and speeding. * should be clearer info available about the proposed changes eg a mail out to the public *The speed limit on a road does not in itself relate to the relative safety of horseriders- the majority of single track * time for responses in inadequate especially over the festive period. quiet lanes countrywide have the National speed limit. * more productive ways that have not been considered to reduce road accidents without reducing speed limits- these should be considered first. * direct mail to inform all members of the public would be very expensive. Information is advertised in local newspapers ( for this area ,notices were placed in 3 local papers , with overall circulations of:- Bucks Free Press 26,000, the Buckinghamshire Examiner. 16,000, Slough & Langley Observer 14,000, with an estimated collective circulation in the area of 25,000 within Area 9 .Each newspaper is read on average by 2.8 people, giving a huge potential readership of the Notices. In addition, media releases resulted in radio interviews & articles in local papers, large posters ( see photos) were put up beside major roads in the area, Parish councils and libraries/council offices held detailed information and the proposals and background information were available on the county's website. * 21days are legally required for publ;ic advertisement- almost 40 days were actually given for feedback. * the crash details are examined, together with the road environment, to see if alternative cost -effective measures are possible, instead of speed limits.

*Madness,will increase contempt with which many speed limits are already viewed. Independent surveys show that new speed limits are generally supported . *No justification for widespread reduction in speed limits. * Majoity of proposals comply with national guidance and/or are strongly supported by local people. *Failed to provide detailed information on the reasons for any of the reductions * Background informnation on the proposals was available on the internet ,at local council offices and at all *Not explain clearly on website how people are supposed to respond to so-called consultation. libraries within the area. *you have no understanding of road safety& are anti-car zealots( not fit to do your job) * proposals are not 'anti-car' but are intended to manage the increasing conflict between inappropriate speed, N *not support a single one of these reductions safety & quality of life. All those involved in setting speed limits drive cars, *stop wasting public money on anti-car nonsense

18 Cannot see any reason to have any unrestricted roads in the area, apart from arguments of cost & road sign clutter. Would like all narrow roads like Broad Lane to noted. Unecessary signage would be costly & environmentally intrusive 25 have a 40mph limit, but realises that signing would be expensive . horrified at the number of unnecessary changes proposed. Only agrees with ref 8. The rest is a complete waste of our council tax and serves as just another unwanted Noted: wide range of opinions on the appropriateness of speed limits. 23 N interference to our lives. I would be keen to know how much Bucks CC has poured down the toilet on this one. Hope you see sense, but I fear common sense has gone out of the window! Slough Noted Borough Y No comments to make regarding the draft Notices & Orders Council. 26 38 Long response- summarised:- 2007 data not yet released. DfT 2006 data: Compared with the 1994-98 average baseline, in 2006 : *Fed up with general policy of lowering speed limits -• The number of people killed or seriously injured was under 32 thousand, 33 per cent below the baseline. *Speed does not kill, only inappropriate speed • The slight casualty rate was 28 per cent below the baseline. *Inappropriate speed is down to driver education ( refers to own IAM membership & zero accident record) • The number of people killed was 11 per cent below the 1994-98 baseline. *BCC approach is blinkered & ineffective • In this period the traffic has risen by an estimated 15 per cent. *Exceedingly poor record in reducing accident rates across UK in last few years proves current strategies are ineffective *'dumbing down'/ trying to prevent the error of the idiot at the expense of the law abiding citizens BucksCC's road Safety team has a number of driver training programmes underway, designed to help young N * young/accident prone drivers should be better educated to drive/made more aware of the risks of driving. drivers, older drivers, motorcyclists, those caught speeding, plus many other awareness raining activities. *(Reducing a speed limit) will not stop those who flaunt limits, nor improve hazard perception of the inattentive, but will increase journey time. Education and changing attitudes is a long term process. * suggests compulsory advanced training instead of speeding fines- refers to benefits of advanced driving. * Refers to lack of impact on accident statistics of speed cameras, speed humps & reduced speed limits – 2007 DfT stats show little change to car accident rate since 1995- at around 3000per billion kms. * Speed reduction policies of last decade have statidtically made no impact overall- although may have done very locally to speed cameras.

39 Proposed modifications are generally welcomed, but first priority should be enforcement. Suggests use of modified road layouts ( as in France) Police enforcement is targeted at sites where there is a crash history or locations where high levels of speeding. Concerned re lack of enforcement by police- changing limits without enforcement is waste of taxpayers money. Communities can request speed enforcement through a number of initiatives

* Surprised that public are being consulted and that speed limits are an issue. speed affects not just safety, but also quality of life of local people within communities . It is one of the key issues *Insult to his intelligence that there is a need to bring speed limits down. People are judged by the driving test as to whether they can drive. raised at Police Neighbourhood Action Groups. *should spend time watching what's happening on the road instead of constantly looking at the speed limit and speedo. Reducing speed limits can produce reductions in the number or severity of crashes .Some drivers overestimate *Most of suggested changes totally unnecessary- country becoming run & controlled by morons. their own driving ability or choose an inappropriate speed on certain lengths of road, especailly where hazards * ridiculous rules & speed limits- don't treat people like kids. are less obvious. Only areas that need looking at are:- glancing at a speedometer takes minimal time- no longer than using mirrors- drivers should always have a fairly *around schools speeds should be reduced to 30 or 20 accurate perception of their driving speed at all times. * only accident hotspots should be reviewed ( & not a one-off crash where a dopey driver wasn't paying attention) There is a perception that the vicinity of schools is insafe. However, very few injury accidents occur near schools - More cameras neededon trafic lights- real danger when people jump lights. children are vulnerable throughout their journey to school ( whether by car, on foot, by cycle) not just outside the Objects to every Area 9 speed limit as unnecessary except those around schools. school itself. The congestion commonly occurring oputside most schools is in itself an effective form of traffic calming. 41 speed limits are generally considered either where there is a community ( urban residential area, village, or hamlet) Keep to a minimum the variations in speed limits on any road. Far too many changes to the speed limits on roads throughout the county ( particulalry around Stoke Drivers should be aware of the whole road environment. poges,Iver, Black Park & Geroge Green) It is becoming a necessity to concentrate on looking for speed signs and the speedo inthe car to the detriment of keeping It is difficult to reduce the number of changes in limits without being accused of making the longer limits too low or 46 ones eyes on the road looking for hazards. too high for particular sub sections of any road length. T0808AppC0.xls 2 48 noted Chiltern The Chiltern Society has received very few comments from its members on the majority of the BCC proposals. Most of the proposals are positively welcomed, Society particularly where they reduce speed limits along rural roads and through settlements.( separate comments re Sheepridge Lane proposal) Objects to ( many) of the proposals.At a time when speed limits have never before been so zealously enforced, it's more important than ever that road rules should be New national guidance has been applied. Wide ranging views are held on speed limits by the general population- 49 fair to those that use them. speed limits will not be agreed upon by all. *Objects on assumption that BCC want to reduce speed limits rather than increase them. Council is utterly obsessed with speed & speeding to the detriment of road * no evidence that BCC 's speed policies have a negative affect on casualty reduction safety in general. * Many of the casualty reduction team have passed advanced driving tests. *Any advanced driver will tell you that there is far more to good driving than speed. * BCC policies include driver training and a wide range of educational activities, not just dealing with speed related *council's one track mind on speed ,speed ,speed is damaging to road safety. issues. 3 Qs, based on DfT figs :- *3Qs: Why are our fastest roads also our safest? 1) Motorways have single direction of flow; vehicles only, limited nos junctions ( crash rate much lower than on Why do 70% of all accidents happen in 30mph areas German unlimited autobahns!) Why are only 5% of accidents caused by speeding? 2)Junctions,accesses, whole range of road users – more scope for conflict * Reducing speed limits will not improve safety but cause frustration, bunching,tailgating & inappropriate overtakes born of sheer frustration. 3) This figure is where this contributory factor has been assigned to a crash-Police arereluctant to attribute this *Every inappropriate speed limit will breed further disrespect for the law – eg inappropriate speed limits & driver behaviour on Oxfordshire's roads sen on a daily basis. unless have solid evidence , but in many more crashes excessive/inappropriate speed is likely to have been a * DfT figs show that inattention in No 1 cause of accidents on UK's roads- council utterly failing to address this, but are obsessed with speed. factor although not specifically listed. * if council were as obsessed with good driving instead of 'speeding', then we kight see a real reduction in causalties- instead of them just re-arranging deckchairs on human error is the most significant factor in road accidents- this takes many forms such as lack of concentration, the Titanic. over-confidence in one's ability or those of one's vehicles, misjudgement, poor observation, impairment( nd * 2 email suggests that RS could be improved by painting clear white lines at edge of each carriageway as well as in the centre- especially when nights are long ithe abilitydrugs/alcohol/fatigue/stress).choosing to see the edges clearly is a great safety an inappropriate aid. A recent speed study for showed thew prevazilingthis saved farconditions more lives will alsothan beany included speed related measures. ( also comment s re alleged lack of knowledge of BCC Highway Dept re 85 within driver error. (See elsewhere for info re Road Safety activities re better driving)

Edge markings can be beneficial aids in certain circumstances, but are not necessary on all roads- especially those that are kerbed. 50 The existing sped limits more effectively/rigorously enforced than go to the extremes of lowering the current limits which would involve great expense and would not Reductions in speed on average of about 3mph have resulted rom speed reductions elsewhere in Bucks. 54 necessarily mean that drivers would drive any more slowly. The Taplow Parish Council comments & counter proposals are based on the Taplow Parish Plan and the results of a number of recent questionnaires and Noted. 20mph speed limits are outside the remit of the speed limit review. 55 Taplow consultations undertaken by residents. These are supported by the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group. Parish The 20mph zone proposed for Taplow village is also the subject of a delegated budget bid. council 56 Apart from proposals 2,2a,3,5,40b,41 and 44( which opposes), neither supports or opposes the othr proposed changes to speed limits in Area 9. noted 58 Undue speed is the cause of minority of accidents. noted. See responses to similar comments elsewhere. Majority are caused by bad driving, lack of awareness to conditions & other vehicles & vanity ( not wearing spectacles when needed) Has impression that BCC want to reduce limit on all roads that are not dual carriageways to 40mph- this seems unsustainable. Many roads have good visibility and an excellent surface, where existing limits should remain. constant changing of speed limits means that drivers have to apply their brakes and accelerate more frequently so reducing the efficiency of their vehicles. Residents are aware of nature of roads in the area and drive accordingly& knows that ( BCC) have to account for those who are ignorant of the conditions, but why do the good drivers have to pay the penalty for the bad ones?

Changing /providing new speed limits is expensive. However, if improvements in safety and /or quality of life are As council tax payer concerned at the expense that changes to the enormous number of speed limits under consideration will cause. More street furniture ( repeater the result, this expense can be justified. signs on all unlit roads) - refers to existing poor standard of maintenance of signs, road surfaces & verges.More sensible use of council income would be ensuring that road conditions are the best they possibly could be. speeding fines are not used to finance new speed limits. 30s 58 Maybe the constant changing of speed limits is aimed at causing confusion to drivers in order to raise income from speeding convictions to cover this expense. 59 (Late Response to Area 8 limits, triggered by seeing driver information signs for Area 9 on A4155 E of j/w A404, making comments about when & how proposals Similar signs were placed on major roads within Area 8 during its PC period. advertised & ways to reach more of public in the future.) Passed to AB for Area 8 file

Vast majority of crashes that occur are not caused by exceeding the speed limit, they are caused by loss of concentration, poor driving or bad road layouts. See responses to similar comments elsewhere. Criminalising responsible citizens by lowering limits instead of improving specific problems is unacceptable & causes drivers to disrespect the law. New speed limits will be carefully monioterd over a period of at least 3 years, to assess what affect they have on In 29 years of dr9ving I have not yet had an accident that was my fault, but i have had some near misses. these have been caused by my concentration being totally the number and types of crashes. diverted from the road ahead onto my speed, where irrationally low limits have been set. Please don't increase accident rates by lowering speed limits. ( Refers to info re proposal ref 5, where SMAF spreadsheet indicates a possible slight increase in accidents with a 50mph limit)

64 local resident & road user- formally objects to proposed changes to speed limits in her area. Believes changes will result in a complex and confusing set of speed limits- The new speed limits proposed take into account the average speeds of drivers travelling on those routes at all within very short distances of each other. These frequent changes will result in confusion and believes that most drivers will not be able/bothered to change their present. The changes in limit reflect changes in the road environment , the crash record, and the degree of speeds frequently. As a result, people will either 'speed' through the new reduction, or alternatively, dawdle along at 30mph in what was previously a de-restricted area. residential/business development alongside the road. good drivers will already be adjusting their speed Neither is desirable as one leads to un-necessary criminalisation of motorists, whilst the other leads to frustration & increased journey times on the part of those stuck inaccordance with these factors, rather than driving at a constant speed irrespective of the prevailing conditions. N behind the dawdling drivers. Currently drives perfectly safely from Beaconsfield to Burnham with speeds largely determined by common sense and the natural limitations of the roads. Under the new proposals, I will encounter 7No. different speed limits over the same journey. 65 Summary of objections : See responses to similar comments elsewhere * added complexity will confuse drivers, lead to frustration ,criminalisation of motorists and a reduction in road safety. * no real safety improvement in many situations as described in your own supporting information. some reduction in the number of posts will occur in some areas eg where 40mph limits reduced to 30mph in loss of visual amenity with additional signs and warnings cluttering the natural beauty of many of the proposed routes street lit areas. Posts are located carefullly, taking into account wherever possible the potential risk to road users. N * additional road signs cause unnecessary hazards at the road side. works reresent a waste of public money which could be spent more widely on more important & higher impact projects In many instances, the lowered speed limits will only assist a very small number of local residents. 65 *Large no. of motorists ignore speed limits. National data shows increasing compliance with speed limits. * 3 types of 'following ' motorists:- Driver behaviour is a complex issue- there is currently no apparent emerging evidence in Bucks of an increase - those who approach & wait patiently behind with a 2 second gap in overtaking accidents as a result of speed limit reductions. -those who approach quickly & tailgate -those who try to overtake asap. There are restriants on where central islands can be located- they also can potentially be hazards- eg forming * motorbikes do not obey speed limits- & use crosshatching as an additional lane. 'pinch points' to the detriment of cyclists ?? * Is speed the key issue, or when/where it is applied? Is it the roads at fault or driver error? Is it a case of driver training, application & discipline. ? ( Drivers overtake on straight sections within ( speed) restrictions) In complement to a speed restriction, a restrint such as islands needs to be applied to prevent overtaking. Why restrictions applied? In high incident areas, danger areas, towns & villages, school areas. -Are they all required- locals often request them, but then ignore them when overtake & pull into their drives . Are they needed all of the time ( eg M25 variable limits) 66 66 Is excessive no. of restirctions on today's roads taking away thinking of most motorists, who then do not register that there are any speed limits as they ttot/flash from See response to similar comments elsewhere behind ,obviously not aware of why you are going so slow. Applauds sensible use of speed limits, but must be backed up with an equal amount of deterrent to stop drivers breaching them .most drivers drive in excess of the imposed limits. ?? People led into false sense of security, within a restriction it could be assumed that an approaching vehicle is keeping to the maximum speed , but more of a danger to all when vehicle is moving at a speed above that assumed. number of times speed is changed concurrently within a given section & where this changes ( eg at rbt/jtn) , drivers watching ( for other things) & speed limit sign is the last to be seen. Are all proposals really necessary, or just another expense for the tax payer & a 'tick in the box' with respect to government policies.?

67 Overall objection to "speed kills" and "speed management" policy: Please see attached graphs,

N The 1st graph (UK_Fatalities_Graph) shows the road deaths throughout GB.[graph shown below] We can see that deaths have been falling right from the start back in the 1960s. The main reasons for the improvements will be seat belts, drink-drive campaigns, better medical knowledge + hospital equipment but mainly better car design. We can see that, despite hugely improved continous vehicle safety improvement, the deaths stop falling in 1993/4, exactly when the national speed camera programme started.

T0808AppC0.xls 3 67

N

Zoom in to the local picture (see DeathsOnRoadsInThamesValley_JPG)[graph shown below] and we can see deaths stopped falling after 1993 here as well. Look at the rise in speed cameras. The end of the fall in deaths is exactly when the speed cameras went in. Just coincidence or a major problem with the way speed cameras affect drivers behaviour? For your info DeathsOnRoadsInThamesValley_JPG was made from offical TVSRP (Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership) site, deaths here: http://www.saferroads.org/camera- stats/collision-statistics.html) and the number of static speed cameras here: http://www.saferroads.org/information/camera-sites.html, download "latest PDF document"

67 . See responses to similar comments elsewhere In 2005+2006 we found out that only 5% of injury accidents had "exceeding the speed limit" as a contributory factor and this is a maximum as it includes all "possible" speeding. This means that the vast majority of crashes (over 95%) had nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit at all. It seems as though the official answer to this is to lower all speed limits all around the country in order to try to raise the number of crashes that can be claimed to involve speeding, rather than fix the actual problem. N In summary: The above is a very brief description of a complex road safety issue so I object to all the speed limit reductions because the vigorous enforcement of current speed limits has clearly not improved road safety. I see no reason to believe further vigorous enforcement of even lower limits should do any better. Here are a list of my general objections to all your speed limit reductions:

1) Constant changes in speed limits and the need to "keep up" with the current new artificially low speed on every section of road may cause drivers attention to be taken away from where it is needed most and road safety may suffer. 2) The speed limits that were in force before the previous reductions were probably considered by most drivers to be "reasonable" but those new limits are already bringing speed limits into disrepute, these additional new lowered limits will damage respect for speed limits still further. 3) As a result of the above most drivers now routinely ignore these new limits and I worry the proposed new limits will be abused equally (note TVSRP state "Around 75 per cent of cars are speeding" here: http://www.saferroads.org/faqs/general-road-safety.html). And that was BEFORE all the previous speed limit reductions and these new proposed ones. 4) If some drivers do comply with these new lowered speed limits, we are likely to see 'bunching' of cars into convoys and this may produce more crashes as drivers are more likely to be driving too close, may now be paying less attention or may even be tempted into risky overtaking manoeuvres. Frustrated drivers are not safe drivers. 5) The majority of the new reductions in speed limits have nothing to do with road safety, they aren't even being claimed to be for safety reasons

6) If enforcement is to follow on roads on which speed limits were reduced for reasons other than road safety, then drivers will be being prosecuted for driving safely. 12) speed limit increase was provided in Area 8 ( MarlowHill limit increased from 30mph to 40mph) This is unnacceptable. 7) Police community relations have been severely damaged already by the prosecution of more and more drivers, nearly 2 million drivers last year and rising. Even further speed limit reductions with the ensuing prosecutions following enforcement of essentially safe driving will alienate the Police even more. 13) The review proved more time consuming than originally anticipated. A new timetable has been drwn up-all 8) On roads where speed limit reductions may improve road safety, the Police have refused point blank to give ANY road safety information at all, so it is impossible to speed limit changes are now due by end of 2009. find out the relevant facts to see if reducing speed limits has any chance of improving safety. 9) Because this is part of a nation-wide reduction in speed limits (primarily rural), this is, in effect, a change in the national speed limit by the back door. 10) The new speed limits on NSL roads will require signing all along their route damaging the beauty of the areas. N 11) These repeater signs will require maintenance. This may be costly, workmen may be exposed to danger, delays due to obstruction during maintenance may be long and all this will probably provide no nett benefit what-so-ever. 12) This is not truely a "speed limit review", it is only more reductions of speed limits (there are no speed limit increases). 13) The BCC website says "Undertake a countywide review of speed limits ... to be completed by March 2006" here: http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/get/assets/docs/Speed_Management_Strategy.pdf. Has that speed limit reduction programme not been done? There have been many speed limit reductions already, are we to believe this is nearly 2 years behind schedule or are we now on a completely new speed limit reduction programme? Will we be having yet another round of speed limit reductions after this one is complete?

14) Having looked through your website and "Speed_Management_Strategy.pdf" and spoken to several people in road safety at BCC, it would appear that the council 14) The review is to a great extent data led. Increased volume of traffic also has led to incresing demands for and Police are hell bent on reducing speed limits along with rigorous enforcing, no matter how flimsy the evidence in favour is or whatever the evidence against, and speed reduction through communities. therefore this entire "Speed limit review" is nothing more than a formality. 15) Data from Oxfordshire indicates that crash reduction can occur as a result of speed reduction. We will be 15) People are dying on our roads and this is likely to worsen the situation. We need to scientifically test measures that we believe may improve road safety, and then monitoring the effect of speed limit reduction in Bucks to assess the impact of the new speed limits. implement those that actually work, not go further into a system that clearly has major flaws. Overall objection to "speed kills" and "speed management" policy: In summary: The above is a very brief description of a complex road safety issue so I object to all the speed limit reductions because the vigorous enforcement of current speed limits has clearly not improved road safety. I see no reason to believe further vigorous enforcement of even lower limits should do any better. In conclusion I strongly oppose ALL these latest round of speed limit reductions, until we get honest answers to why the speed camera programme has completely failed to improve road safety and until we can sort out the mess that the vigorous enforcement of existing speed limits has created.

Y Noted ( in /around Taplow 70 area) Support proposed changes in and around Taplow. 71 Y Proposals for roads in Area 9 are all basically sound. Noted Improved quality of life for residents and casualty reduction are the prime motivators of the speed limit reductions being introduced. BCC does not need to make any reviews or alterations to any speed limits on any roads under their jurisdiction. The traffic flow is slow enough as it is. N This move is yet another example of theft by stealth by BCC against the motorist , who will no doubt fall foul of mobile speed cameras put in place after any speed limit reductions, simply to fill the coffers of your already sizeable financial account. So why not try saving money, an anathema to any Council, by not continuing with this charade and by ceasing to put up signs advising road users how may accidents 73 there have been and to 'have their say' in proposed speed reductions' on their roads? noted 79 Comment re speed limit signs in Area 6- ( copied to Area 6 file). Hope that consideration given in Area 9 to avoid unnecessary street furniture & repetitive signs.)

T0808AppC0.xls 4 80 complaint re 'virtually no advertising' that review is being carried out and members of general public can contribute not intended that drivers should take down detailed information from the posters.,merely that they shouldd become The 2 roads signs in this area ,Beaconsfield and Wooburn/Bourne End are sited in most inappropriate place for a motorist to read let alone take down any details ie tel aware of the review, that bucksCC was carrying it out and then seek further info from the website/ by telephone no etc, without casuing a traffic flow problem. enquiry if they were interested. Queries why not a bigger advertising campaign in the local papers/village news letters. Please see other responses re extent of coverage in local newspaers.etc. Exercise is a 'waste of money', even when you quote data on the number of accidents within each area unless you have 100% details on time of, state of road etc. Who is going to enforce the speed limits? not see any police around area unless operating a documentation check on A40- 100s more cameras then?? Vehicle activated signs bring more attention to a driver of the speed they are travelling at. Strongly recommend that money spent on review & purchase of inappropriate road signs , which no police force have the manpower to enforce, would be better spent on the employment of more local policemen who can patrol on foot and get to know the problems of their customers and be seen acting on their behalf.

82 local resident & regular user,domestically & commercially of roads proposed for changes. Se responses elsewhere to similar comments Objects to waste of money that the whole exercise represents. By council's own admission, the scheme will have little or no impact on road safety, which would surely be a key driver for any exercise of this nature? Gross wastage of public money & considerable loss of visual amenity. Refers to resultant sign clutter on very attractive country lanes, which will detract from their 'country' feel and make these feel like an urban extension of burnham or Farnham common.Even as regular cyclist does not feel that speed limits need to be changed- roads are, in the majority, self limiting by their very nature. Key objections:- * loss of visual amenity with additional signs/warning s cluttering the natural beauty of many of the proposed routes. This increase in roadside clutter results in an N urbanisation of the countryside and is unacceptable to me. ( See www.cpre.uk/campaigns/transport/roadside-clutter * additional signs cause unnecessary hazards at the road side. *no real safety improvement in many situations as described in BCC supporting information In many instances,m the lowered speed reductions will only assist a very small number of local residents *cost considerable -money could be spent more wisely on more important, higher impact projects.

83 Local resident & regular user, both domestically & commercially of the roads targetted for a reclassification of speed limits, objects as follows:- Se responses elsewhere to similar comments Increase in congestion of the roads during peak hours, due to the slowed rate of traffic which will increase journey times considerably. * Additional road signs cause unnecessary hazards at the road side *No real safety improvement in many situations as described in BCC 's supporting information. *loss of visual amenity with additional signs & warnings cluttering the natural beuty of many of the proposed routes- as a supporter for the CPRE, finds this N unacceptable. *In many instances, the lowered speed limits will only assist a very small number of local residents. *Works undertaken would cost a considerable amount of money which could be spent much more woisely on more important & higher impact projects. Hopes comments are acknowledged and that (BCC) take a 'real world' approach to the proposed limits in this area.

84 local resident of the proposed roads - objections as follows:- Se responses elsewhere to similar comments Local resident & regular user, both domestically & commercially of the roads targetted for a reclassification of speed limits, objects as follows:- Increase in congestion of the roads during peak hours, due to the slowed rate of traffic which will increase journey times considerably. * Additional road signs cause unnecessary hazards at the road side *No real safety improvement in many situations as described in BCC 's supporting information. *loss of visual amenity with additional signs & warnings cluttering the natural beuty of many of the proposed routes- as a supporter for the CPRE, finds this N unacceptable. *In many instances, the lowered speed limits may only assist a very small number of local residents, who have voiced their concern due to it 'being in their back yard' *Works undertaken would cost a considerable amount of money which could be spent much more wisely on more important & higher impact projects....contd.

Since September 2007, the County Council has carried out 17 'Stop & Advise/Prosecute' activities in conjunction with the police, targeting at speeding, seat belt & mobile phone offences. Offenders will receive advice from Road contd...Whilst supports reduced speed on roads where this is appropriate eg in towns and other similar densely built up area, the blanket increase in the number of Safety O fficers or fixed penalty notices, or have the option of attending a training session, depending on the speed limited roads appears more central government driven rather than local government and the money should be better employed elsewhere. I believe a greater severity of the offence. N threat to road safety is the use of non-hands free mobile phone whilst driving which ,whilst illegal, appears to be not being enforced at all on our roads. The money wasted on such a project would surelybe better invested in such a programme.Hopes comments are acknowledged and that (BCC) take a 'real world' approach to the proposed limits in this area and use our taxes more wisely. 84 Refers to lack of logic re refs 6 & 27 Noted Y- nr Lt Marlow Has looked at proposals close to ( Lt Marlow) and in general they are sensible. However surprised to see 30mph speed limits introduced for roads in which it would be 87 extremely difficult to reach 30mph & suspects impossible to set up speed traps ( Refs 38,39,43) Relevant comments passed to Area 4 file for post implementation review 91 Info re SID results for Beaconsfield and issues re excessive speed on residential roads in Beaconsfield & extent of concern of local residents re this issue. Se responses elsewhere to similar comments

Husband & self both walk & drive in the area around Taplow- object to lowering the speed limits at all. N: The only people who will suffer if you lower them will be those who drive within the speed limit whatever it is. Those who don't, never take much notice of speed limits Taplo anyway. w I t is bad and careless driving that causes accidents and not just speed. There needs to be much better driving tuition and instruction on national TV about current bad driving habits. Australia has signs on major highways about this- reminds folk what they should be doing as regards their 'national bad driving habits'. Drivers should be making decisions for themselves about road conditions. If they are not capable of doing this they should not have driving licences. We already suffer dreadfully from the speed bumps in Eastfield Rd & Stomp Rd as we jar over them with variously broken bones and bad backs and are overtaken by 92 other drivers as we slow down to negotiate them . noted some roads will be able to have police enforcement. Communities can also encourage drivers to keep to limits by with exception of (a few objections- listed uder ref nos)considers proposals to be sensible and in keeping with the use of the roads. means of vehicle activated signs, 'Make the commitment' campaigns, community speedwatch ' etc. Questions how to be enforced. Little point in limits without enforcement. Drivers who currently drive at an inappropriate speed will continue to do so. A refreshing lateral approach would be better driver education, a stricter driving test including psychological testing and an active advertising campaign. 93 Refers to NEw Zealand roadside hoardings 'This is a LIMIT, NOT a target.' as a useful campaign. 94 furious about speed limit changes over past year. Buck inghamshire has some of the nicest roads in bucks for driving alonf. Not in terms of qualirty of road surface as noted. majority of these are appalling however the quality of the road itself. The scenery along the road, the enjoyment of being able to drive along the road. I am an incredibly keen driver and I find roads in Bucks some of the best that I have travelled. In some places the speed limits have been changed to a ridiculous limit purely because paper pushing pushing bureaucrats deem these 'unsafe' when the majority of these paper pushing title wanting arrogant, mostly old think that younger N drivers are at risk for every single accident in the world .

94 Understands that more mature drivers may have more experience and therefore they believe that they either own the road or their opinion is the end as they have more noted. experience, but if a mature driver is driving at below the speed limit on a road that is more than feasible to be doing so these mature drivers are the ones who cause accidents because people behind them who may be in a rush ,who may be confident with driving at speed along these roads are being held up by other drivers and so forth become frustrated and may take risks. N Also believe that councils want more money from ( pole) poll tax but in the process are taking away the enjoyment of driving and also doing nothing with the money!. Why do paper pushing people seem determined to sqeeze every last single ounce of enjoyment of the roads in bucks. All for environment, targets and to make the drivers life more of a BLOODY MISERY!

If reducing speed limits is a way to kerb congestion its not going to work as it will reduce traffic flow. If its to help the environment- I say sod it because my aim is to have noted the MOST polluting car I can possibly afford for the pure enjoyment of annoying green earth worshippers and sinics( cycnics?) who deem these '4x4s' and other such likes polluting which is on a side note entirely and completely stupid because its not true..! Oil is going to run out and why not enjoy it whilst we can! Perhaps this is a selfish view but you don't get anywhere in life without being selfish, caniving (conniving)and sly N at some point or another. Regarding the area speed limit change specifically its another point of plainly annoying the motorist and once again slowing traffic flow. apologises for harshness- feels it needs to be said. quite frankly, it's another exercise to annoy the motorist and reduce the enjoyment. Requests attendance at any public meetings. T0808AppC0.xls 5 94 Believes respondent is referring to Area 8 throughout.

Seen articles in Bucks Free Press about proposed new limits. Lives off B482. in Lane End. Noticed road signs in Marlow ( for area 8 :PF note) but couldn't read phone no. whilst driving and there was no where to stop- not surprised BCC only received 300 replies.Has looked at website but cannot see anywhere what the proposed speed limits are to be in Area 8. 96 National speed limit for country roads of 60mph is far too fast for the twisty roads we have in this area- 45-50mph should be the maximum. New limits are interesting reading but questions the point of them when no money avaialble to maintain existing signs & infrastructure?( Ref to gren mould over signs on There has been much public femand for the review and in particuoar for lower speed limits within communities. A40 twds Beaconsfield, A4155 Little Marlow poor road markings & only one cat's -eye- has reported these but no action) money found for large projects ( eg Lt Marlow cycle lane) but no one considers the ongoing maintenance. money found to install signs about streetlight switch off & speed limits but existing road signs are a disgrace. list of villages with inactive streetlights, roadsign lights, road bollards & speed limit signs. These need to come first. Maybe some roads require speed limit changes & some of these will reduce the signage required ,but unfortunately only in a few cases. Please reconsider this whole review and spend this money of improving the existing signage & lobby the police force to enforce it.

101 97 notices were placed in 3 local papers , with overall circulations of:- Flackwell Bucks Free Press 26,000 , the Buckinghamshire Examiner. 16,000, Slough & Langley Observer 14,000, with an Heath estimated collective circulation in the area of 25,000 within Area 9 .Each newspaper is read on average by 2.8 Resident Apart from seeing a large notice along the little Marlow rd advertising the review ,I find it a little disturbing that greater awareness of the review has not been made. people, giving a huge potential readership of the Notices. See also comments elsewhere re roadside posters. s' Certainly, the Police and Traffic Group of the Flackwell Heath Residents' Association has not been invited formally to comment? However, has managed to get a copy Assocn. of a notice in the Bucks Free Press, of the roads affecting our village under the review. 102 Wbn PC Has not commented on proposals with which it agrees- PF awaiting a list of these!( sent them email 25 Jan) 104 Introduction noted Taplow & Following consultation with the community the Taplow and Dorney Neighbourhood Action Group has identified speeding as the Dorney major issue that requires addressing. As the area is currently part of the Speed Review the NAG Committee is submitting its speed Neighbo urhood limits proposals to the County Council as a first step to deal with the problem. Action Conceptual Base Group These proposals are based not only on suggestions from the community but also on a detailed analysis by residents of the characteristics of the traffic and the road environment. Parish Plans have also been used as sources of information and recommendations. The analysis has not been limited to the simple relationship between the existing speeds limits and the formally proposed speed limits but includes the interrelationship between verges, footways, accesses, land use, road widths, non motorised traffic and motor traffic. Residents’ views in particular have been constructed from detailed local knowledge of present conditions and future possibilities.

Outcomes noted

The outcome of the Speed Review for the Taplow and Dorney should be the strengthening and enhancing of the residents’ sense of place. Residents and visitors should feel free to walk, ride, cycle and exercise their dogs without feeling under threat from traffic. Safety of movement for non-motorised traffic should be a paramount outcome.

Rat-run traffic in particular should adjust to the Village environments and its pattern of non-motorised movement and not expect residents to adjust to their daily passing. Rat-run traffic should not be encouraged by highway improvements that worsen the situation for residents and emphasise roads as merely a route for traffic cutting through rather than a visual resource with multi purpose usage. Appropriate speed limits are a vital element in the equation to achieve this outcome

Walking to school programmes should be encouraged by providing a safe environment for those sections of the routes particularly from the south of Taplow Parish which use roads which have no footways and involve hazardous uncontrolled crossings such as at Berry Hill both by the A4 and near the Rectory Road junction.

Residents should also be confident that speed limits are compatible with safety and that they can enjoy their environment without a general apprehension that traffic accidents are likely to occur. 104 contd. 104contd 20 mph Zones noted

Although the present Speed Review does not include 20mph limits the Taplow and Dorney NAG consider 20mph to be the appropriate speed limit to achieve the desired outcomes for Taplow Village. Current trends at central and local government levels are increasingly in favour of 20mph zones and it is felt that Buckinghamshire County Council should accept the need for them and allow them to be put in place particularly in view of the safety issues connected with the traffic generated by St Nicolas School in the centre of the village. The speed problems associated with Dorney Village are less to do with reducing the 30mph limit than with enforcement and the construction of sensitive traffic calming measures.

Rural Roads and Lanes

The Taplow and Dorney NAG propose there should be no change to the speed limits on Cliveden and Heathfield Roads. Whilst this would appear perverse the logic behind the decision is sound. The data offered in support of the limits proposed by Bucks CC suggests that the majority of vehicles are travelling at speeds less than that of the 50mph proposed. The new limits would therefore encourage vehicles to go faster than at present. Even if the proposed speed limits were dropped to 40mph there would still be the environmental problem of suburban intrusion that is created when repeater signs are introduced to slow the traffic in rural areas. The mere presence of the signs stresses the roads as through routes for cars and lorries rather than as local amenity roads, both visual and functional, used by non-motorised traffic.

The need to place to delimit signs at the close of the proposed 50mph strips would also encourage motorists to increase their speeds at the point where the roads become increasingly hazardous. The Bucks CC proposed speed limits do not incorporate an assessment of the local economy and land use that is dependant on equestrian activities using local lanes and roads for both riding and moving horses between various fields. 104contd Quiet Lanes noted: quiet Lanes no longer being progressed in Bucks.

The following Lanes should become quiet lanes in order to allow the safe passage by equestrians, cyclists and walkers:

Hill Farm Road between the Hitcham Lane and Hunts Lane junctions Hitcham Lane Hedsor Lane

106 Been unable to locate a clear and concise breakdown of the speed limit changes you're proposing on the council site of pdf. Why is there not an easily locatable table email sent 16 Jan providing fulll info on how to view detailes of proposed changes on the internet detailing the roads with their current and proposed speed limits? The map provided is hard to use with no pattern to the numeration and no embedded links to detail on the roads in each area. This leaves me struggling to express my opinion as I'm not 100% clear on your proposed changes. Can only assume that many of my local 50mph roads, A40 Loudwater/beaconsdfield, A4155 Bourne End/marlow are going to be reduced to 40mph. In my opinion this will have little effect. speed,though a factor in collisions is rarely the primary casue as proven by numerous studies over the years. I understand this project has been undertaken with good intentions .I worry that you're trying to enforce the belief of a few who have taken the time to complain about people's speed as they themselves are less confident behind the wheel. Asks that no changes are made to the current limits on A roads and country road in the high Wycombe area as those I have knowledge of all seem to have suitable limits especially after the lowering of limits over thepast few years, A404 /Amersham etc. The sings promoting these changes though generally clear have the phone number in a relatively small font compared to the rest of the sign. Again, disappointing work from whoever was responsible.

107 Burnham is being over regulated, closely followed by Taplow. Who will do the monitoring? no comment S.Bucks N D Cllr (A) Taplow: Taplow Parish council is unanimously in favour of the speed limits within the present 30mph signs on all roads approaching Taplow village being reduced to noted 107 20mph. By doing so, 3 dangerous junctions ( 2 are blind) would enjoy a minimum 30% reduction of risk , and all users of the narrow pavements, especailly children S.Bucks attending St nicholas School, would be better protected. D Cllr (B) Some of the limits are inappropriate and difficult to enforce and should be objected to.( PF note: refs 7-7d, 27,41) noted There are comments regarding other limits. 111 Thames Valley Police

T0808AppC0.xls 6 AREA 9 PUBLIC CONSULTATION: NEW REQUESTS RECEIVED These requests will be kept on file and taken into consideration when a further 'follow- up' review of the speed limits in Area 9 is undertaken . This will be after Area 14 is implemented, and is anticipated to take place in 2010. It will incorporate the feedback from surveys of public satisfaction about the speed limits introduced as part of the current review. Extg Pref. ID Location Summary of feedback BCC comments limit SL refs *Links between these roads(refs 7,7a,7b,7c & 11) Consider in follow-up review CURRIERS Lane /Dorney and 10,13,12 show a 60mph limit- feels these should However, If these roads were changed to Wood Rd nsl 30/40 be reduced to 30mph-40mph. 14 a 30mph or 40mph speed limit, this would *Links between these roads(refs 7,7a,7b,7c & 11) give rise to requests for such speed limits and 10,13,12 show a 60mph limit- feels these should on similar roads countywide. This would Green Lane ( northern end) nsl 30/40 be reduced to 30mph-40mph. 14 have implications in terms of the *Links between these roads(refs 7,7a,7b,7c & 11) environmental impact of signing ( & cost of and 10,13,12 show a 60mph limit- feels these should signs & their maintenance) and would be Grove Road nsl 30/40 be reduced to 30mph-40mph. 14 likely to result in negstive public feedback. ?? CrowPiece Lane/Walton *Links between these roads(refs 7,7a,7b,7c & 11) Exisitng traffic flows, speeds and crash Ln/Allerds Rd/Thompkins and 10,13,12 show a 60mph limit- feels these should record on such roads mean that such limits Ln/East Burnham Ln/Stoney be reduced to 30mph-40mph. would be unlikely to have a positive safety Ln ?? nsl 30/40 14 aspect. 40 30 Built up area, dwellings near the highway, Nursery 13There consider is alsoin follow-up no justification review for such limits A4 Bath Rd from railway school. Was reduction to 30 considered& why no bridge westwards to reduction proposed? Ellington Rd Bourne End: Rd 30 20 Safety risks regularly occur. Reduce limit from rbt at 45 20mph limits are not being considered as Wooburn End to 20mph- allow cars exiting from the part of the speed limit review. Such side roads to safely cross without risking collision requests need to be pursued through other with cars speeding around the corners. channels by Parish Councils. Also requests raised studs in the centre of Cores The request for studs has been passed to End Rd to encourage drivers to stay in their lane & the Area office for consideration not cross over to cut the corner. Dangerous oncoming incidents happen weekly.The extent of this can be seen by the wearing out of roadmarkings.

Wooburn Green triangle 30 20 Reduce limit to reflect incidence of parked cars and 20mph limits are not being considered as shoppers. part of the speed limit review. Such requests need to be pursued through other 45 channels by Parish Councils. Extg Pref. ID Location Summary of feedback BCC comments limit SL refs Wooburn Common Rd Astonsished to find this was omitted from discussion 58 Some sign improvement works to be document. carried out on this road/junction as part of Between Odd's Farm & jtn with Broad Lane there a local safety scheme Spring 2008. are several dwellings incl. Royal Standard public house. Many walk to PH to avoid drinking & driving. 2 reported injury crashes at the junction in No pavements & bend obscuring sight of oncoming most recent 3 yrs period.( others may not traffic if approaching PH from the west. Take lives have been reported to the police- damage into hands & not unusual to have to leap towards the only?) ditch. speed limit changes to be considered in Junction of Wooburn Common Rd & Broad Lane is follow-up review pending outcome of local scene of large number of accidents every year. safety scheme & review of crash data. Approximately 40 drivers in Berghers Hill and every one of us has had at least one accident or near miss atShould this site- be Quiet due to Lane other to drivers allow the from safe Wooburn passage by 104 Taplow nsl QL equestrians, cyclists and walkers. & Dorney Quiet Lanes are no longer being Hedsor Lane NAG considered for implementation in Bucks. Should be Quiet Lane to allow the safe passage by 104 Taplow equestrians, cyclists and walkers. & Dorney Quiet Lanes are no longer being Hitcham Lane nsl QL NAG considered for implementation in Bucks. No further details given-see general comments for 104 Taplow Marsh Lane ( Jubilee River Taplow/ Dorney area-wide concepts & Dorney to M4 bridge) nsl 40 NAG Taplow: Rectory Rd /Hill 20 20 mph Zones 104 Taplow 20mph limits are not being considered as Farm Rd ( within village)/ Although the present Speed Review does not & Dorney part of the speed limit review. Such include 20mph limits the Taplow and Dorney NAG NAG requests need to be pursued through other consider 20mph to be the appropriate speed limit to channels by Parish Councils. achieve the desired outcomes for Taplow Village. Current trends at central and local government levels are increasingly in favour of 20mph zones and it is felt that Buckinghamshire County Council should accept the need for them and allow them to be put in place particularly in view of the safety issues connected with the traffic generated by St Nicolas School in the centre of the village. The speed problems associated with Dorney Village are less to do with reducing the 30mph limit than with enforcement and the construction of sensitive traffic calming measures. (No further details given-see general comments for 20mph limits are not being considered as Taplow/Dorney area-wide concepts) 104 Taplow part of the speed limit review. Such & Dorney requests need to be pursued through other Berry Hill 30/40 20/30 NAG channels by Parish Councils.