Agenda
Meeting: Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Venue: Remote live broadcast meeting using Microsoft Teams
Date: Thursday 22 October 2020 at 10am
Pursuant to The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, this meeting will be held using video conferencing with a live broadcast to the Council’s YouTube site. Further information on this is available on the committee pages on the Council website - https://democracy.northyorks.gov.uk/
The meeting will be available to view once the meeting commences, via the following link - www.northyorks.gov.uk/livemeetings Recordings of previous live broadcast meetings are also available there.
1. Minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2020 (Pages 3 to 11)
2. Any Declarations of Interest
3. Public Questions or Statements
Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have delivered notice (to include the text of the question/statement) to Jonathan Spencer of Legal and Democratic Services (contact details below) no later than midday
Enquiries relating to this agenda please contact Jonathan Spencer Tel: 01609 780780 or email [email protected] Website: www.northyorks.gov.uk
on Monday 19 October 2020. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:-
at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);
when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.
If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct those taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Suggested timings if no public questions
4. Apprenticeships – Report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Business 10:00-10:30 Support) - Central Services (Pages 12 to 17)
5. Refresh of the North Yorkshire County Council Plan for Economic 10:30-11:00 Growth – Report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services (Pages 18 to 51)
6. Ringway Performance 2019/20 - Report of the Corporate Director – 11:00-11:30 Business and Environmental Services
(Pages 52 to 72)
7. Review of North Yorkshire County Council’s 20mph Speed Limit 11.30-11.45 Policy - Report of the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee Task Group
(Pages 73 to 123)
8. Work Programme – Report of the Principal Scrutiny Officer 11.45-12.00
(Pages 124 to 131)
9. Other business which the Chairman agrees should be considered as 12:05 a matter of urgency because of special circumstances.
Barry Khan Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) County Hall Northallerton
12 October 2020
22 October 2020 – Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee /2 ITEM 1
North Yorkshire County Council
Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Minutes of the Meeting held at County Hall, Northallerton on 23 January 2020 at 10.00 am.
Present:
County Councillor Stanley Lumley in the Chair.
County Councillors Karl Arthur, David Goode, Paul Haslam, Robert Heseltine, David Jeffels, Don Mackay, Andy Paraskos, Caroline Patmore, Roberta Swiers and Richard Welch.
NYCC Officers attending: David Bowe, Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services (BES), Andrew Leeming, Enterprise Partnership Manager - York, North Yorkshire and East Riding LEP and Jonathan Spencer, Principal Scrutiny Officer (CSD).
One representative of the press was present.
County Councillors John McCartney and Clive Pearson were not in attendance.
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
93. Minutes
Resolved -
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2019 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
94. Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest to note.
95. Public Questions or Statements
There were no general public questions or statements from members of the public concerning issues not on the agenda.
96. Corporate Director’s update
Considered -
The verbal update of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services.
David Bowe provided the following update.
o A decision from the Department for Transport (DfT) was still awaited regarding whether the government would fund the bulk of the costs of the A59 diversion
NYCC Transport Economy & Environment O&S – Minutes of 23 January 2020/1
3 ITEM 1
at Kex Gill. Julian Smith MP had sent in a request to Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport but had received a non-committal reply back explaining that the DfT was in the process of reviewing the submission. It was hoped that funding could be assured through the DfT’s Resilience Budget, which following the election might be unconstrained by time.
o Funding had been committed by the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Local Enterprise Partnership and from North Yorkshire County Council to double the number of trains on the Harrogate to York railway line. It was a complex logistical initiative and required the support of Network Rail and the Northern Rail franchise. Access rights had theoretically been granted but at present the initiative was still in a period of consultation and so there was the risk that other operators could challenge the proposals. An announcement about whether the go-ahead had been granted or not, was expected to be received by late February 2020. However, if there was an objection or challenge made this would not necessarily result in a negative outcome. This was because the main parties Network Rail and Northern were supportive of the project.
Members made the following key comments:
County Councilllor David Goode asked if the increase in trains on the Harrogate to York line to two each hour would result in the longer term solution of laying a second line being abandoned. David Bowe confirmed this would not be the case and instead could be a reason for the local community to continue to press for a significant upgrade of the Harrogate line. However, at this stage, it was an aspiration to significantly upgrade the track to electrified double lines and ultimately there could even be the possibility of providing access to Leeds Bradford Airport. It was wishful thinking though to assume that such an investment would go ahead without the bulk, if not all, of the costs being funded by the private sector.
County Councillor Caroline Patmore said that she very concerned about the delay in the funding announcement for the A59 at Kex Gill and asked what the timeframe was before the existing road collapsed. She said that whilst it was important to lobby government there needed to be a cut-off point due to the road’s strategic importance to the county. David Bowe replied that the County Council had done all it could to stabilize the hill. If government funding did not transpire there could be no guarantees that further work to stabilize the hill would have any lasting effect. The cost of the route diversion was £50 million. North Yorkshire County Council had offered £5 million to cover its percentage of the costs of the work. The County Council was using every means to highlight the seriousness of the situation including through Transport for the North. Transport for the North recognised that the road had an impact upon the regional connectivity of the road network in particular in West Yorkshire because when Kex Gill was closed it caused major traffic congestion in Ilkley and Otley. The two local MPs Andrew Jones and Julian Smith continued to lobby hard and the Prime Minister had promised more money for the North of England in various statements that he had given.
County Councillor Paul Haslam said that it was disappointing that the upgrading of the Leeds, Harrogate to York railway line was not on the government’s wish list. If the economic benefits that the Harrogate Conference Centre brought to the area were taken into account with regards to the GVA score that the government used, it would swing the maths as well as the extra access that there would be for York rather than passengers travelling straight
NYCC Transport Economy & Environment O&S – Minutes of 23 January 2020/2
4 ITEM 1
into Leeds. An analysis should therefore be undertaken to examine how much York would benefit if Harrogate had improved access through the upgrading of the railway line. County Councillor Paul Haslam went on to state that the potential for a rail halt or station in the Claro area on the Harrogate to York railway line would help increase passenger numbers and take a lot of traffic off the roads. In responding to the first point raised by County Councillor Paul Haslam, David Bowe said that the issue with the GVA calculation is it depended upon whether it was calculated on the basis of a person in Harrogate spending more money in York or whether the same pound would have been spent in Harrogate. In relation to the second point, David Bowe said that the introduction of an additional station on the line would come down to whether the private sector saw the benefit in doing so. Also there were limits to what additional capacity the Skelton junction on the East Coast mainline to York could accommodate.
County Councillor Robert Heseltine said that an advantage of the outcome of the General Election in 2019 was that the nation had woken up to stable government for five years. This should in itself be a building block for the security of investment nationally. The problem was that there was now a window of less than five years and the clock was ticking. North Yorkshire County Council’s current policy was to support HS2 but it appeared that some in government were now rowing back from committing to the HS2 rollout. £100 billion was being seen as dreadful to invest in the North of England and yet in the South of England the amount of funding spent on transport infrastructure was many times over, with £18 billion being spent on the Cross Rail project. Meanwhile commuter lines in the North of England had been neglected for decades, for example the York to Scarborough railway line still remained a single track line. With regards to GVA scoring of transport projects, Ministers only needed a miniscule of an argument to stop improvements in transport infrastructure in the North of England. It was important that North Yorkshire County Council reconfirmed its policy to support HS2 and to even more strongly support, in the shorter term, upgrades to commuter lines to bring them up to modern standards.
County Councillor Don McKay said that he did not support the HS2 project as he did not believe it represented value for money simply to save 20 minutes off a journey. Investment instead needed to focus on improving the commuter lines in the North of England.
County Councillor David Jeffels said that the Scarborough to York line remained beset with problems due to trains being cancelled. The new station car park promised for Seamer was desperately needed. He went on to note that the road traffic problems on County Bridge, Malton to Norton, remained still unresolved. The situation would be aggravated further when the new half hourly train service started in May 2020. David Bowe replied that in respect of Seamer Station, the County Council had looked at enhanced car parking but it could not be delivered. There were other locations where a car park could be built in the local area but there was the problem of additional costs due to bridging the railway line. The problem that North Yorkshire faced for this and other similar projects was the GVA comparative assessment, which was much easier to demonstrate in the South of England than it was in the North of England. What was required was to allocate the elements of funding in a different way such as the inclusion of a rural and urban element, to drive the outcomes and objectives that were required locally. In respect of the traffic congestion issues in Malton and Norton, traffic modelling and the impact that additional trains would have was included in the Malton and Norton
NYCC Transport Economy & Environment O&S – Minutes of 23 January 2020/3
5 ITEM 1
Infrastructure and Connectivity Improvements Study. At the present time the best solution was to have traffic signal arrangements. The issue with that though was at times this would have an adverse effect, whereas at peak times there would be a benefit. A bypass to the north of Malton on to the A64 would help alleviate the traffic congestion.
County Councillor Karl Arthur said that the funding earmarked for the HS2 project could be much better spent in the North of England instead. Electrifying the railway line between Manchester to Hull, introducing new rolling stock on trains and investing in the A64 trunk road were better uses of the funding.
County Councillor Paul Haslam said that the thinking behind the HS2 project was not just about reduction in journey times but more importantly about introducing additional freight and passenger capacity on the railway. He noted that EU funding had historically included a social benefit element for projects whereas the GVA assessment was calculated on a purely commercial basis and so going forward the latter might be the case for infrastructure related projects.
County Councillor Robert Heseltine noted that North Yorkshire’s and Northern England’s destiny in infrastructure as a whole was likely to be linked closely with the devolution agenda. The government needed to do the right thing and allow devolution for One Yorkshire or even for a wider Greater Yorkshire. Sheffield City Region had got its devolution and HS2 would be going to Manchester and probably to Sheffield. Leeds City Region now had its devolution deal waiting to be signed, sealed and delivered. Hull and East Riding were also getting their act together. There did appear to be a strategy on the government’s part to divide and rule by dividing Yorkshire up as it was terrified of having a One Yorkshire governance model. As things stood, North Yorkshire would pick up the crumbs unless it fought harder and soon.
Resolved -
That the update be noted.
97. York, North Yorkshire & East Riding Local Enterprise Partnership
Considered -
The written report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental providing an update on the performance of the York, North Yorkshire & East Riding Local Enterprise Partnership.
Andrew Leeming introduced the report. Referring to section 2 of the report, he provided an overview of the projects delivered through the Local Growth Fund, as detailed in the report. £80.9 million had been spent on schemes between 2015 to Q2 2019/20. In order to ensure full investment of the £123.9 million available, further projects were in the pipeline, as listed in paragraph 2.7. He went on to refer to section 3 of the report relating to skills development. In general, the various programmes had successfully supported people in the workforce. The targets in relation to apprenticeships however had been more difficult to achieve, with changes brought in by the government. Careers Advice was mainly funded through the EU’s Social Project of £14 million. This was coming to an end and the LEP was keen to ensure that the UK Government replaced this with a similar initiative. Andrew Leeming referred to section 4 of the report relating to the LEP’s Local Energy Strategy and
NYCC Transport Economy & Environment O&S – Minutes of 23 January 2020/4
6 ITEM 1
Circular Economy Strategy, linking into the Local Industrial Strategy. The rationale was to move from a linear economy where items were thrown out to a circular economy where items could be re-used, ensuring better value of what was extracted from the planet. The Local Industrial Strategy had been in the making for the past two years. Its key focus was to improve productivity in the economy. Currently North Yorkshire was a low productivity area and had slipped behind some of the other LEP areas. The Local Industrial Strategy would feed into the government’s wider national industrial strategy. Referring to section 5 of the report he noted that the LEP’s Local Industrial Strategy was currently out to consultation. He went on to provide an overview of the three priorities in the strategy, as listed at paragraph 5.4 of the report.
Andrew Leeming then referred to Section 6 of the report relating to the national review of LEPs and the outcome locally for the LEP resulting in it now no longer having overlapping geographical boundaries with other LEP areas in the Yorkshire and Humber region.
Members made the following key comments:
County Councillor Stanley Lumley asked if the LEP would fund the cost of diverting the A59 at Kex Gill if North Yorkshire County Council did not receive the funding required from the government. Andrew Leeming replied that whilst this would not be ruled in or out it would be very unlikely that the full costs of the project would be able to be funded by the LEP due to funding commitments for other projects. David Bowe said that if the amount of funding that the government provided was well below what North Yorkshire County Council required, it would seek funding from the LEP but not for the whole amount.
County Councillor David Goode noted the high level challenges faced in the local jobs market especially around low paid work and the lack of high technical jobs into the area. He went to ask if the LEP had done on impact assessment of Brexit regarding the potential loss of jobs in the area over a five to ten year period and what measures could be put in place to mitigate job losses. Andrew Leeming replied that the LEP had done some analysis in this regard in particular on the effect of Brexit around farm payments. A member of staff had been employed at the LEP to advise businesses on changes of requirements post-Brexit. Some work had been done on the effect on the local labour market but what impact there would be depended upon who you asked and in which sectors of employment. There were some potential skills shortages in the economy and related actions had been incorporated into the Local Industrial Strategy.
County Councillor Paul Haslam asked if the LEP could produce an area-by- area list of projects with inclusion of performance and/or social benefit information. He went on to mention that he was concerned there might be a rush to spend the remaining balance detailed in section 2 of the report without further consideration of how the funding could best be spent. He said that whilst he very much welcomed the LEP’s approach about supporting a circular economy to tackle climate change, this was not clearly reflected in the draft Local Industrial Strategy document. Andrew Leeming replied that the LEP was able to provide more background on the projects and was currently starting to do impact assessments on those projects. This was part of an overall review. He went on to reassure Cllr Haslam that the LEP did not rush to spend unallocated funding money; the quality of projects was always of uppermost importance. The LEP would, however, welcome the government extending the timeframe in which the funding had to be spent. He went on to explain that the call for projects initially went to local authorities and key stakeholders in the
NYCC Transport Economy & Environment O&S – Minutes of 23 January 2020/5
7 ITEM 1
area, namely the Environment Agency, Highways England, Network Rail and Transport for the North. The LEP had recently opened the call for longer term projects, which had gone to local authorities, universities and FE colleges. He went on to note that with regards to the Local Industrial Strategy if the aspiration to move to a low carbon economy was not fully reflected in the document, he would look into that and he also invited people to respond to the consultation. He said that one of the climate change aspects that the Local Industrial Strategy wanted to major on was carbon capture, using land for that purpose. The intention was that once the strategy had been agreed investment plans would be produced providing more detail.
County Councillor Richard Welch said that one of the most frustrating aspects of how funding was being allocated by the LEP was that smaller but still significant projects were being neglected especially in rural areas with a lower population. He explained that in his division there was the only bridge on the busy A65 road that was not wide enough to take two goods vehicles. Accidents continued to occur and yet the widening of the bridge did not meet the LEP’s criteria for funding. Andrew Leeming replied that the support for projects relied on local authorities coming forward with the proposals. If a business case could be made for a project, the LEP would support it if the funding was available.
County Councillor David Goode said that he welcomed the LEP’s approach to creating a low carbon economy. He went on to note that North Yorkshire County Council was doing a similar exercise and asked what level of engagement there was between both. With regards to business growth, local plans had identified areas for manufacturing industrial development but it was not clear where the businesses would come on. He asked where the LEP’s strategic zone would be. Andrew Leeming replied that there was a lot of collaboration between the LEP and local authorities regarding the climate change agenda. In strategic terms it was high on the LEP’s agenda but also relied upon what other organisations could do. If large organisations made changes in the direction of creating a circular economy and low carbon economy that would make a big difference overall. With regards to business growth, York and North Yorkshire and East Riding had identified areas where there was the potential for significant growth and over the course of the first half of this year would be looking at the type of business to attract. To this end there was currently a lot of discussions going on with local planning departments and local economic development departments.
County Councillor David Jeffels referred to the 28% decline in apprenticeship starts cited on page 25 of the Local Industrial Strategy document. He asked how this reduction could be addressed and asked if the continuing trend of the younger generation moving away from North Yorkshire was related to this because there were not sufficient opportunities locally. He noted that if younger people were skilled up by local employers this would not only bring benefits economically but would also help to try to reverse the trend of North Yorkshire having an increasingly ageing population in the county. Andrew Leeming mentioned that background evidence, which was on the YNYER LEP website, had been produced by the Skills Advisory Panel. The Panel’s report set out the key issues, including problems with the way in which the national apprenticeship scheme operated, making it difficult for young people to get into apprenticeships. There was a mismatch in the LEP area between having a low wage economy alongside a well-qualified and highly skilled population. There was no FE provision in the north of county. The lack of affordable housing was
NYCC Transport Economy & Environment O&S – Minutes of 23 January 2020/6
8 ITEM 1
also a big driver in young people moving away. The Skills Report and needs assessment were useful starting points to start to identify some of the solutions.
County Councillor Robert Heseltine said it would be remiss if there was not mention in the Local Industrial Strategy of making best use of the land. Famers had been told that post-Brexit the agricultural subsidy from government would be based on the ‘public good’ such as carbon sequestration, soil improvement etc. Food production would not be helped much. However, production of food remained the ultimate public good from managing land. If we were not careful there would be a sharp decline in upland farming leading to the depopulation of upland areas. This would unfortunately lead to those areas reverting to wilderness and yet the rural landscape created by farmers was what people came to see. Upland farmers were deeply worried whether they would have a future. Whilst climate change was happening and needed to be addressed worldwide, nature had a balance to get things right. National polices needed to recognise land management. Farmers that farm had been custodians of the landscape for generations and should in the future, by being able to produce food.
County Councillor Paul Haslam said that he supported the priorities in the Local Industrial Strategy with some caveats but he would like the LEP to provide more frequent updates to the Committee so that the Committee could have a greater impact. He had not been aware for example of the recent workshops that had been held. He went on to note that the aim of creating a circular economy was laudable but we might want progress to be faster.
Resolved –
That the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee supports the progress on the Local Growth Fund, Skills & Low Carbon and supports the outcome of the ‘Strengthening Local Enterprise Partnerships’ national review with the LEP reverting to York and North Yorkshire.
98. Winter Highways Maintenance Programme
Considered –
The verbal report of the NYCC Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services to provide an overview of the Winter Maintenance Policy. The Winter Maintenance Policy was included in the agenda pack.
David Bowe said that the Winter Maintenance Policy allowed flexibility in the way in which the Winter Maintenance programme was delivered. At present the route prioritisation was done on the basis of geographical areas. An alternative was to take into account the weather forecast relative to the topography of an area. However, the dilemma with that was it ran the risk of ‘dead-running’ where gritters were not being used for long periods. Where marginal weather conditions arose it was difficult to predict where the severe weather would be. Other options included looking at the spread density of the salt. Currently the gritters sprayed 10 million grams of salt per square meter. New higher quality equipment could reduce this amount to nine million grams per square metre, resulting in a financial saving. Other ways to reduce costs included reducing the number of gritter wagons on the fleet. Currently there were 86 vehicles used on the road network but there was never any more than 76 vehicles being used at the same time. This was due firstly to the operational ability of the
NYCC Transport Economy & Environment O&S – Minutes of 23 January 2020/7
9 ITEM 1 vehicle and manpower levels. In the policy there was nothing to say that the County Council had to retain its current fleet other than for priority routes, which involved using 66 vehicles. David Bowe concluded that the County Council did not need to change the policy to change processes but priority one and priority two routes could not be changed without re-visiting the policy.
Members made the following key comments:
County Councillor David Jeffels asked if the potential reduction in salt coverage use per square metre and the overall trend for milder winters resulting in less gritting being required, could allow the savings made to be allocated to pothole improvement and general work. David Bowe replied that the budget was seven million pounds. Any surplus achieved each year went into reserves until a ceiling was reached. Eleven million pounds was the most spent. The challenge was if it was concluded that the existing budget was too large because of the reserves that had accumulated, then there might not be sufficient funding to tackle severe winters. With climate change it was more rather than less likely that there would be extremes of weather. More wet winters and autumns were likely to bring more problems to the network. The nightmare scenario was a wet autumn and a severe winter. Another way to achieve savings could be about the level of salt reserves kept in the county. An assessment was being undertaken to consider whether it would be worth investing in salt storage for emergencies for those once in a ten year events. When extreme winters occur the price of salt increased and so there could be a business case to have greater salt reserves.
County Councillor Andy Paraskos said that a number of villages within his division had roads running through them which were not gritted. He asked if the County Council would be able to grit those roads if the local parish was willing to finance the cost. David Bowe said that the cost of additional treatment was very high as it would require extending the fleet. Any proposal would have to be examined in detail to see if it complied with the Winter Maintenance Policy. Invariably parishes wanted their roads gritted when there was an extreme situation. This perversely increased the risk of the fleet not being able to meet this demand as it would occur at a time when the vehicles were committed more than ever to keeping the priority routes open.
County Councillor Richard Welch noted that different parts of the county had different requirements with regards to gritting. The topography, especially the height of settlements needed to be taken into account. An example included Settle which was on average two degrees colder than Scarborough due to its relative height; in turn the air temperature on roads running over to Malham were on average four degrees colder than in Settle. People struggled the most in bad winters with regards to travel and the policy needed to be more flexible in this regard. David Bowe replied that resources did go into treating roads in and around Settle and Malham but the route prioritisation meant that the A65, the highest priority road within that geography, was treated first.
County Councillor Paul Haslam said that with regards to climate change the beast from the East type events were expected to become more prevalent and asked how this would impact upon the County Council’s response. He went on to ask how the gritting vehicles were being utilised in the non-winter months and asked if they could be adapted to combatting any climate change issue. David Bowe explained that the County Council had in the past used vehicles with demountable winter gritting equipment but what had been found was that there were associated costs with demounting the equipment from the vehicle,
NYCC Transport Economy & Environment O&S – Minutes of 23 January 2020/8
10 ITEM 1
which had proved to be very expensive. With regards to more extreme weather events in the future, the issue was ensuring that communities were better prepared in order to be more resilient, especially in respect of flooding.
Resolved –
That the report be noted.
99. Work Programme
Considered -
The report of the Principal Scrutiny Officer asking the Committee to confirm, amend or add to the areas of the work listed in the Work Programme schedule (Appendix 1 to the report).
Jonathan Spencer introduced the report.
The Chairman noted that the Climate Change Task Group had decided the way forward was to direct areas to investigate to the overview and scrutiny committees. This was due to the broad-ranging nature of climate change and the actions required. In due course the Transport, Economy and Environment’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee would need to incorporate relevant areas of work relating to its terms of reference into its work programme. Further direction was awaited from the Task Group.
Resolved -
a) That the work programme be noted.
b) That an update on the performance of the Allerton Waste Recovery Park be added to the work programme.
c) That regular updates from the YNYER LEP be sent to Members on the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
The meeting concluded at 12.05pm
JS
NYCC Transport Economy & Environment O&S – Minutes of 23 January 2020/9
11 ITEM 4
Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
22 October 2020
Report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Business Support) – Central Services
Apprenticeships
1. Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the County Council’s activities on apprenticeships in the context of the Government’s national reforms to apprenticeships and in order to inform the Transport, Economy and Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s ‘Economic’ theme, thereby updating the previous paper of 10 April 2018.
2. Executive Summary
2.1 Since the previous paper to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) have continued to deliver apprenticeships within the NYCC workforce and maintained schools this has continued throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. The Department for Education (DfE) have provided guidance to support employers with the apprenticeship programme’s response to Covid-19, detailing measures to ensure that apprentices can continue. Levy contributions from employers have continued to be paid and unspent funds returned to the treasury upon expiry. The Local Government Association (LGA) are working with Local Authority Apprenticeship Teams to understand and report the impact. The LGA are lobbying the DfE to request temporary freezes on Levy contributions and the return of expired Levy funds.
2.2 In July 2020, the Government announced a £30bn package a ‘Plan for Jobs’ to outline how the government will boost job creation in the UK in response to the impact of Covid-19. This included several additional initiatives to encourage employers to create more work opportunities for young people, an additional financial incentive for new Apprentices, the Kickstart Scheme and Traineeships. NYCC are currently exploring these opportunities. NYCC are also applying to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to act as an intermediary for the Kickstart Scheme, enabling North Yorkshire SME’s and voluntary/charity organisations to apply to host a Kickstart Placement via NYCC. The scheme will run from November 2020 up to Dec 2021. NYCC’s Resourcing Solutions team will work with the YNYLEP and DWP regarding this initiative and progress with other partner organisations.
2.3 Apprenticeship Regulations were updated in April 2019 to allow for Levy paying organisations to transfer up to 25% of their unspent levy to other 1
12 ITEM 4 employers for apprenticeship training. NYCC developed and commenced the delivery of a levy transfer strategy in April 2019. In August 2020, NYCC reviewed the levy transfer strategy to expand the criteria to include all North Yorkshire Based employers to support the economic recovery of businesses within North Yorkshire. Work continues with the York and North Yorkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (YNYLEP) and other partners to deliver the strategy.
3. Key Background Information
3.1 NYCC has delivered apprenticeships within the NYCC workforce and maintained schools through the workforce planning approach outlined in the April 2018 report.
3.2 To date there have been 385 apprenticeship starts, 132 completions and spend of c£1.36m on apprentice training and learning. The split between NYCC workforce and maintained schools roles are identified below;
NYCC Schools Total Starts since April 2017 319 66 385 Completions since April 2017 110 21 131 Levy spend since 2017 £1.2m £158k £1.36m
3.3 NYCC’s progress with apprenticeships within the NYCC workforce and maintained schools roles including levy contributions, levy spend, apprenticeship achievements and public sector target are reported to; 1. The Executive - Quarterly Performance Monitoring Report, last report 28th July 2020 2. The Members Workforce Planning Group – Quarterly Workforce Planning Report, last report 2nd September 2020 3. The Corporate Partnership Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Annual Workforce Update, last report 2nd March 2020
3.4 NYCC has focused resource to develop and deliver the transfer strategy to ensure the unspent funds from the council’s levy continue to support the North Yorkshire economy and businesses. In addition to the key areas that support the delivery of the NYCC Council Plan 2020-2024 the transfer opportunity has been expanded to include all North Yorkshire employers to support the economic recovery.
3.5 The strategy supports both NYCC and maintained schools outcomes and has been communicated to the maintained schools.
3.6 The expansion of the transfer levy opportunity for North Yorkshire employers has been communicated through District Authority’s Business and Economy teams and through the YNYLEP.
2
13 ITEM 4 4. NYCC Transfer Levy Strategy and Opportunities
4.1 The strategy to transfer funds is based on the NYCC vision, approach and values outlined in the NYCC Council Plan 2020-2024. The focus is to support North Yorkshire based employers delivering services within North Yorkshire and employers supporting the delivery of NYCC and North Yorkshire’s community services. This will help meet the challenges and the delivery of services by our partners, communities and local businesses through the development of their workforce. As reported above this has been expanded to all North Yorkshire employers to support the economic recovery following the impact of Covid-19.
4.2 Engagement continues with District Authorities to understand their levy status and their strategy in relation to the transfer of their unspent funds. Opportunities for joint working to support the local economy through levy transfer and engagement has been investigated. In September last year 6 of the 7 councils did not have a strategy in place and were not in a position to transfer funds so it was agreed that the NYCC levy strategy could be used primarily to support businesses in their areas. NYCC are working with these councils to review the position annually to inform our strategy.
4.3 To promote apprenticeships and the transfer levy with other North Yorkshire projects and identified Small and Medium Employers (SMEs) a robust marketing and engagement plan is in place. Information has been circulated to District Authorities’ business engagement teams to disseminate to local businesses. 5 of the 7 councils are actively marketing the County Council’s offer through discussions with their local SME’s.
4.4 NYCC have engaged with contracted apprenticeship training providers to market the levy transfer opportunity to businesses who approach them in relation to apprenticeship training and through career events.
4.5 The apprenticeship offer for schools has been expanded and NYCC will be targeting engagement with non-maintained schools in North Yorkshire in 2020/21. This will provide more opportunities for schools’ workforce.
4.6 Working with the YNYLEP and District Authorities on the opportunity to support any business taking on a North Yorkshire school leaver through the transfer of levy funds will be investigated in 2020/21
4.7 NYCC have engaged with the Brierley Group companies to introduce apprenticeships, provide a workforce-mapping tool and market the levy transfer opportunity available.
4.8 NYCC are working in partnership with Scarborough Borough Council to fund apprenticeship training to support the Scarborough Construction Skills Village (CSV), Coastal Communities Government Grant Funded Project. The project is to support local residents into apprenticeships and jobs in the construction industry. NYCC are currently funding 15 of the 18 apprentices on programme. 3
14 ITEM 4
4.9 NYCC are working in partnership with Health Education England (HEE) to identify and support local nursing care/community care providers on introducing the Level 5 Nursing Associate apprenticeship into their businesses. Whilst initially this focused on the Scarborough area, the scope is now being extended across North Yorkshire. As part of this work, businesses are provided with the information and support to understand apprenticeships, providers and the national apprentice digital system. NYCC fund the apprenticeship training.
4.10 To date there have been 98 applications for apprenticeships from 28 employers. Funding has been agreed for 39 apprenticeships to a value of c£299k in the below areas;
Care Sector Scarborough Other NY Total CSV Employer Apprenticeship 22 16 1 39 Numbers Dedicated levy £129,000 £152,000 £18,000 £299,000 funds
4.11 The further 58 apprenticeship applications in progress are for a value of c£259.5k in the below areas;
Brierley Care Sector Voluntary Total Group Sector Apprenticeship 1 56 1 58 Numbers Dedicated levy 19,000 £222,500 £18,00 £259,500 funds
5. Wider working with the YNYLEP and other Partners
5.1 Work on apprenticeships with National Health Service (NHS) partners continues through the Local Workforce Action Board’s (LWAB) and their Excellence Centre Delivery groups. In addition system-wide development opportunities are being explored for the Harrogate and Rural District Alliance (HARA) following a workforce and skills audit of partner organisations to inform future workforce and service re-design.
5.2 The YNYLEP, in consultation with the DfE, have produced a Labour Market Analysis report, including apprenticeships, to inform the deliberations of the YNYLEP’s Skills Advisory Panel. Skills Advisory Panels comprise employers, skills providers and local government, working together to understand and address local skills challenges.
5.3 The YNYLEP support the Scarborough CSV and presented apprenticeship data at their awards event. In addition to the Scarborough CSV, the YNYLEP and NYCC are part of the Hambleton CSV working group, with the potential of a new CSV being located in Northallerton. The Hambleton CSV is following 4
15 ITEM 4 the same model as the Scarborough CSV. NYCC is looking to support Hambleton District Council (HDC) and the Hambleton CSV with the same partnership working.
5.4 NYCC continues its role as a strategic partner with the YNYLEP supporting implementation of the YNYLEP area apprenticeship strategy.
5.5 NYCC and the YNYLEP attend the regional Apprenticeship Careers and Skills Group. This forum is for Local Authorities and Colleges where best practice is shared and issues raised in relation to apprenticeships. The Education & Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) attend and this provides a direct route for feedback on apprenticeship programmes and escalation of concerns/issues to the national team.
5.6 The YNYLEP feedback to NYCC from the York Training Provider Network, along with sharing essential information for Local Authorities to pass onto their business networks. This includes business support from partners such as National Skills Academy for Rail (NSAR) to promote business support in order to increase apprenticeship start rates.
5.7 The YNYLEP are refreshing their ‘How’s Business’ website to offer improved support and guidance for businesses considering growth through apprenticeships. Businesses are informed through an apprenticeship toolkit guide, and if they require 1-1 support, the YNYLEP Business Growth team can offer wide support, including apprenticeship guidance. The YNYLEP promote business case studies to encourage growth, and NYCC provided two in house case studies for care leavers who are now employed by NYCC.
5.8 NYCC and the YNYLEP are working together on delivering the vision outlined in the North Yorkshire Coast Opportunity Area delivery plan though investment in Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance (CEIAG). The Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC) corner stone employers (Sirius Minerals, Dale Power Solutions, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and Askew Brooks and Burberry) are delivering positive messages about post 16 apprenticeship opportunities.
5.9 The YNYLEP are working in partnership with NYCC and District Authorities on a COVID-19 Recovery Plan to support the region in its response to coronavirus. The Plan features a collaborative approach to the promotion of apprenticeships with targeted campaigns for apprenticeships and other job creation schemes to both businesses and young people. The aspiration is for; support to navigate the schemes and identify the most appropriate provision allowing business to rebuild their workforce with confidence; young people who are able to make informed choices about their next steps in training, learning or work.
6. Recommendation
The Committee is asked to note and discuss the information in this report.
5
16 ITEM 4 Justine Brooksbank Assistant Chief Executive North Yorkshire County Council
Authors of Report: Contact details: Ruth Chester Tel: 01609 535532 Workforce Development Adviser - Email: [email protected] Apprenticeships Beverley Trees Tel: 07971 951601 Enterprise Partnership Officer - [email protected] YNYLEP
Date: 07/09/2020
Background Documents: YNYER LEP Labour Market Analysis, December 2019
7. Key Implications
Local Member: None
Financial: None
Human Resources: None
Legal: None
Equalities: None
Environmental Impacts/Benefits including Climate Change Impact Assessment: No Impact
6
17 ITEM 5
Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
22 October 2020
Report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services
Refresh of the North Yorkshire County Council Plan for Economic Growth
1.0 Purpose of Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to brief Members on the updated North Yorkshire County Council’s Plan for Economic Growth in the context of the ongoing impact of Covid-19
1.2 Members of the committee are to consider the revised Plan for Economic Growth.
2.0 Key Background Information –
2.1 Prior to February this year, work had begun to review the Council’s Plan for Economic Growth, which had been approved by the Council’s Executive on 28 March 2017. Following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic this work has been paused and is now beginning again alongside further work to outline a coronavirus recovery plan for North Yorkshire County Council.
2.2 At the time of writing the coronavirus pandemic and consequent government measures to reduce its impacts have had a significant effect on the economy of the UK and North Yorkshire. To the end of July 2020 the Office for National Statistics estimated that GDP in the UK was 11.7% below pre-pandemic levels having fallen by 20% in April and then consequently partially recovered through June and July. Should the annual reduction in output remain at or below 10% it would effectively be the greatest contraction in economic output in the UK since 1709. In addition, the measures to counteract the negative effects of the pandemic have resulted in gross Government debt rising to more than 100% of GDP (£2tn) for the first time since the mid 1960’s.
2.3 The economic impacts of the pandemic have had a disproportionate effect on the retail, leisure, tourism, hospitality industry and on the manufacturing sector. With higher than average levels of employment in tourism and manufacturing at its peak (insert date) North Yorkshire has seen some 88,000 jobs furloughed under the Government’s coronavirus job retention scheme or 32% of all employment. Scarborough Borough at 37% of all jobs furloughed is the fifth highest local authority in the country after South Lakeland, Eden, Pendle and Crew with Harrogate, Ryedale and Craven all relatively close behind.
2.4 Development and ownership of the North Yorkshire Plan for Economic Growth 2017- 2020 (The Growth Plan) is held by the Growth Plan Steering Group (GPSG). The Group is chaired by Matt O’Neill, Assistant Director, Growth Planning and Trading Standards.
18 ITEM 5
2.5 The GPSG is made up from Assistant Directors from across all directorates of the County Council. Each AD is responsible for championing an ‘enabler’ or specific theme, of The Growth Plan and is the GPSG’s representative to one of the District Councils.
2.6 District Liaison Meetings with each of the District Council’s have been successful in identifying shared aspirations for economic growth and opportunities to support development and investment across the County.
2.7 Key projects undertaken over the past three years include the completion of highways improvements at Dalton Business Park in Thirsk and improvements to Ings Lane in Kirkbymoorside as well as emergency resilience work in the Dales following unexpected flood events. Ongoing work to deliver improved digital communications in rural areas leading to the Mobile Access North Yorkshire (MANY) programme, completion of a new Spatial Framework for York, North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull, and work to improve support for businesses through statutory services as part of the countywide, ‘Better Business for All’ partnership.
2.8 The North Yorkshire County Council Plan for Economic Growth 2017 -2020 is at Appendix A
2.9 Through initial work prior to February of this year all of the Growth Plan’s seven enablers were reviewed however, the key shifts in focus were in the following three enablers: i. Enabler 3 Increase skills levels and ensure that the workforce meets the needs of the County. The focus of the enabler shifted to align more closely with the YNYR LEP’s strong evidence base which could be shared. It was thought that whilst the work should not be duplicated it would be beneficial to co-ordinate efforts. ii. Enabler 4 – Keeping the Workforce Healthy and happy. This enabler was refreshed and amended to ‘Live Well’. This change brings the enabler in line with the North Yorkshire Wellbeing Board and provides opportunities to cross reference with other agendas including low carbon and active travel. iii. Enabler 6 Enhancing the environment, developing tourism and the green economy. The emphasis in this enabler has shifted to achieving the net zero carbon target set by NYCC and most of the County’s District Councils.
2.10 Delay Due to Covid-19 and refreshed Timetable The review of the Plan for Economic Growth was due to be complete in Spring of 2020 but the work was paused as a result of the coronavirus lockdown. Now that the overall impacts of the pandemic are beginning to be understood and work has been initiated to develop recovery plans work has also resumed to complete the review of the Council’s Plan for Economic Growth..
2.11 A revised timetable for completion is attached at Appendix B
2.12 Covid-19 Recovery Plans The York and North Yorkshire, Local Enterprise Partnership is leading on plans for economic recovery post Covid-19. NYCC has contributed to this work and also developed plan’s of it’s own which have been used to inform the development of a new draft of the Plan for Economic Growth is at Appendix C
19 ITEM 5
2.13 The key elements of the Covid-19 response are in the updated enablers. Notable aspects include but are not limited to: Use of the High Street Enabler 1 Changing High Street Layout Enabler 2 Electric Vehicle Charging Skills for the future Enabler 3 Strong Communities Enabler 4 Resilience and new ways of working Enabler 5 Protecting the Counties environmental assets Enabler 6 Supporting rural and remote businesses Enabler 7
2.14 Integrated into the refreshed Growth Plan is the emerging North Yorkshire Strategic Framework for Economic Growth. The overarching goal of which is: To revitalise the North Yorkshire economy so that it can meet the short term needs of business and the community during the recovery phase(s) whist laying the foundations to establish a more resilient and inclusive Greener, Fairer & Stronger economy in line with the strategic direction of the York & North Yorkshire LEP’s Economic Recovery Plan and Local Industrial Strategy, the County Council’s Plan for Economic Growth and the York, North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull Spatial Framework.
2.15 The Growth Plan includes details of how the goal and objectives of the Strategic Recovery Framework integrate into the enablers of the Growth Plan.
2.16 Executive Approval The timetable for completion detailing the executive sign off is at appendix B
3.0 Option Appraisal
3.1 No option appraisal has been carried out. There are no alternatives to carrying out the refresh of the Growth Plan.
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 The Growth Plan refresh takes account of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, changing policies of Local and Central Government and integrates within it the local response to the Covid-19 crises. Members are asked to consider the attached revised Plan for Economic Growth and to consider the following points; o Timeframe – what should the timescale for the revised plan be? Officers are suggesting three years with annual review. o Aims – should the revised plan retain the existing aims of better quality jobs, increased average wages and equality of opportunity or are there other aims? o Enablers – Members are invite to comment on the revisions to the seven enablers or would they recommend any further changes?
5.0 Key Implications
Local Member (mandatory) If any particular Ward(s) are affected, state these. If none, say none. It could be that it is an issue that affects all Wards. In which case tick box
All x
20 ITEM 5
Financial None
Human Resources None
Legal None
Equalities None. An Equalities Impact Assessment has been completed, see Appendix D
Environmental Impacts/Benefits including Climate Change Impact Assessment: No Impact ‘A Climate Change Impact Assessment has been completed, see Appendix E. It is anticipated that there will not be a negative or positive impact upon any key environmental indicators, such green-house gas emissions and carbon dioxide emissions.
6.0 Recommendation
6.1 Members to note the content of the Draft Growth Plan and make any recommendations.
DAVID BOWE Corporate Director – Business & Environmental Services
Author: Matt O’Neill, Assistant Director – Growth, Planning & Trading Standards
Name and job title of person presenting the report: Matt O’Neill, Assistant Director – Growth, Planning & Trading Standards, North Yorkshire County Council
For further information, contact the author of the report
21 ITEM 5
A plan to deliver economic growth 2 017
Business and Environmental Services 22 ITEM 5
Vision: A place with a strong economy and a commitment to sustainable growth that enables everyone to fulfil their ambitions and aspirations
23
North Yorkshire County Council A plan to deliver economicITEM growth 5 - 2017
by Executive Member; Foreword Councillor Andrew Lee Introduction Welcome to North Yorkshire County Council’s new Plan for Economic Growth, This document outlines the County a document which outlines the role of the County Council in supporting Council’s vision for economic growth the economy of North Yorkshire over the next five years and beyond. and identifies its role in supporting this aspiration. Economic growth can lead to North Yorkshire is a vibrant and technology and maintaining a high better quality of life for all of the County’s economically successful County which is quality environment. On top of this citizens by increasing average wages, home to a wide range of businesses and the County Council has a role helping improving long term health outcomes, industrial sectors that would not be out of the people of North Yorkshire to be addressing economic inequality and place in a major city let alone in England’s healthy, happy and safe with high quality creating greater levels of choice and largest rural county. That is not to say that housing and attractive places to live. fulfilment for those people wishing to the rural and coastal nature of our county live and work in North Yorkshire. does not present challenges, however At North Yorkshire County Council we In developing a plan for economic many businesses in North Yorkshire understand that all of these elements growth North Yorkshire County have been successful in developing and combine to create a high value Council is seeking to emphasise its growing world class manufacturing and economy and a high quality of life for role in supporting the aspirations service industries and in doing so have our residents. We also appreciate that of the County’s District Councils, created international trading enterprises this is not something that is achieved in YNYER Local Enterprise Partnership that engage in the global as well as the isolation and this plan recognises that and City of York, to deliver shared local economy. Successful businesses, the County Council plays an essential aspirations and outcomes which both large and small, are the result of supporting role for a wide range of benefit the citizens of North Yorkshire. the innovation and commitment of those partners including the Local Enterprise people who own and run them and also Partnership and District Councils as well reflect the dedication and skills of the as local businesses, education providers local workforces upon which they rely. and neighbouring local authorities.
The aim of this plan is to support Over the coming years we will innovation and growth through a endeavour to deliver this plan and to number of key enablers including support the ambitions of our partners the provision of an efficient transport in creating a vibrant, sustainable local system, improvements in skills and economy with equal opportunities education, enhanced communications for all of the Counties residents.
4 5 24
25
7
as well as ensuring a healthy and happy workforce. happy and healthy a ensuring as well as
will be important in attracting and retaining skills and knowledge knowledge and skills retaining and attracting in important be will
affordable housing provision and access to cultural experiences experiences cultural to access and provision housing affordable
Alongside this an attractive and active quality of life, high quality quality high life, of quality active and attractive an this Alongside
good quality employment and affordable housing opportunities. housing affordable and employment quality good
entrepreneurialism and opportunities for younger people to access access to people younger for opportunities and entrepreneurialism
quality, efficient transport and communications, higher levels of of levels higher communications, and transport efficient quality,
North Yorkshire will be a modern economy characterised by high high by characterised economy modern a be will Yorkshire North
opportunity. jobs. quality
average wage. average
access to economic economic to access good of numbers
overall median median overall
County have equal equal have County increased and base
Vision and aims and Vision Increase the the Increase
People across the the across People business larger A
3 2 1
aspire to achieve) to aspire
Aims (what we we (what Aims
growth that enables everyone to fulfil their ambitions and aspirations. and ambitions their fulfil to everyone enables that growth
A place with a strong economy and a commitment to sustainable sustainable to commitment a and economy strong a with place A
Vision
ITEM ITEM 5 A plan to deliver economic growth - 2017 2017 - growth economic deliver to plan A North Yorkshire County Council A plan to deliver economicITEM growth 5 - 2017
Enablers (what we will do to achieve our aims): 1 3 5 7 Create high quality places and increased Increase skills levels and ensure that the Creating the right conditions for business Deliver a modern communications network. housing provision and green infrastructure. workforce meets the needs of the County. growth and investment. Through the Council’s ownership of NYNET we In partnership with District Councils, National Ensure a clear pathway for young people from By promoting the County as a vibrant, high value will continue working to support the roll out of Parks, Local Enterprise Partnership and Local education to training and employment. Undertake location with high quality provision of education latest broadband and mobile communications Nature Partnership, NYCC will support the measures to support the development of the and skills and distinctive local places with an technology to 100% of the County’s residents. development and delivery of strategic housing and workforce that meet the social and economic excellent quality of life offer and a high quality NYCC will also seek to engage with mobile employment sites, and the regeneration of town needs of the County. NYCC will develop a skills transport and communications network. NYCC phone providers to deliver latest generation centres in order to provide high quality housing and training Plan for North Yorkshire which seeks will seek to support investment projects by connectivity across the whole of North Yorkshire. provision, education and health care for everyone. to ensure that further education meets the needs working closely with partners to facilitate business of North Yorkshire businesses and supports the growth, inward investment and development. aspirations of all the people of North Yorkshire. Through its Trading Standards and licensing 2 functions NYCC will continue to support legitimate businesses to trade successfully and to expand. Deliver a modern integrated transport network. 4 Delivering the Council’s Strategic Transport Keeping the workforce healthy and happy. Prospectus, improving strategic road and Through supporting initiatives, including 6 rail links between the east and west sides adult health, social care and road safety, Enhancing the environment and developing of North Yorkshire to improve access to that promote and maintain good mental tourism and the green economy. markets, skills and supply chains within and physical health in people of all ages. By promoting and improving the County’s the County and the rest of the UK. environment, ecology and heritage to deliver a high quality natural and built environment, and by supporting low carbon energy generation and the development of economically, socially and environmentally sustainable local communities. NYCC will build on the work of developing Allerton Energy from Waste Park and will seek to develop opportunities to generate economic growth using the County’s natural, ecological and heritage assets.
8 9 26
27
11
District Council and National Parks economic growth aspirations growth economic Parks National and Council District
connected well economy • A
mean average wage average mean
Learning Plan Learning distinctive places distinctive overall the • Increase
NYCC Skills and and Skills NYCC
and • Successful
economic opportunity economic
People • Inspired have equal access to to access equal have
County the across • People
biorenewables
agri-food and and agri-food of good quality jobs quality good of
• A leader global in and increase numbers numbers increase and
in North Yorkshire North in
base business larger • A
successful businesses successful
Prospectus
and • Profitable Economic Growth Economic
Strategic Transport Transport Strategic
Strategic Context Context Strategic
NYCC – A Plan for for Plan A – NYCC
Strategic Economic Plan Economic Strategic
District Councils and National Park Authorities. Park National and Councils District
Economic Plan and the aspirations of the County’s County’s the of aspirations the and Plan Economic
the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding, Strategic Strategic Riding, East and Yorkshire North York, the
The Plan for Economic Growth supports the aims of of aims the supports Growth Economic for Plan The
ITEM ITEM 5 A plan to deliver economic growth - 2017 2017 - growth economic deliver to plan A
28
13
17,688 Yorkshire South
19,243 Humber the and Yorkshire East
19,319 Merseyside
20,173 Wear and Tyne Northumberland
21,457 Yorkshire West
21,626 Manchester Greater
23,023 Yorkshire North and York
Powerhouse core City sub-regions City core Powerhouse
2015 – compared with Northern Northern with compared – 2015
£
of York and North Yorkshire Yorkshire North and York of
Annual GVA per head of population population of head per GVA Annual
Other ■
North Yorkshire North
Public admin, education and health and education admin, Public ■
Financial and business services business and Financial ■
Information and Communications and Information ■ The economy of of economy The
Accommodation and Food Services Food and Accommodation ■
Transport and Storage and Transport ■
Wholesale, retail Wholesale, ■
Construction ■
Manufacturing ■
Energy and water and Energy ■
Primary services (mining and agriculture) and (mining services Primary ■
Employment Sectors North Yorkshire North Sectors Employment
Manchester and West Yorkshire sub-regions. Yorkshire West and Manchester
population which is higher than the Greater Greater the than higher is which population
region generates £23,023 GVA per head of of head per GVA £23,023 generates region
annum. The York and North Yorkshire sub- Yorkshire North and York The annum.
County, generating over £13.5bn of GVA per per GVA of £13.5bn over generating County,
North Yorkshire is a highly productive productive highly a is Yorkshire North
ITEM ITEM 5 A plan to deliver economic growth - 2017 2017 - growth economic deliver to plan A North Yorkshire County Council A plan to deliver economicITEM growth 5 - 2017
• The Population of North Yorkshire is 604,900. What is most notable about the North Yorkshire Key Sectors in the North Yorkshire economy: economy is not so much the differences but the • 310,800 people are economically active. similarities with the economy of Great Britain Service industries with Core sectors with high Future growth sectors as a whole. Economic activity in the County is higher than average • 9,100 or 2.9% of all economically levels of productivity in emerging industries generally in good health with local economies numbers of jobs active are unemployed. not divided between rural and urban but with economic activity more evenly spread across • high value manufacturing • 301,700 are in employment of which • business services • creative, digital and different populations and geographies. • food manufacturing 57,400 are self employed. • financial services media industries • distribution and logistics North Yorkshire has lower levels of medium and • food and accommodation • financial technology • Average earnings are £489 per week • energy which is 92% of the GB average. large enterprises than the national average and • visitor economy • agritech and biorenewables a slightly higher proportion of micro enterprises. • visitor economy
Prime and enabling capabilities of the North – NPH Independent Economic Review
• Advanced manufacturing • Transport and logistics • Digital • Energy • Education • Quality of Life / • Health Innovation • Financial Services visitor economy GVA by industrial sectors Proportion of GVA by industrial sectors 2012 in North Yorkshire and GB
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 Production Construction Real estate activities of which Manufacturing Business service activities Agriculture, forestry and fishing forestry Agriculture, Information and communication Financial and insurance activities Other services and household activities Public administration; education; health Distribution; transport; accommodation and food
GVA by industry 2012 – source: Office for National Statistics
14 15 29
30
17
* Local Super Output Areas Output Super Local *
generation mobile generation connectivity. phone
7 Superfast North Yorkshire North Superfast latest /or and speed 95% mobile 4g and broadband
100% coverage of high high of coverage 100% superfast 100%
employment-or-training employment-or-training
olds-not-in-education-
North Yorkshire North 2012-16-to-18-year-
5 610 0 3.4% /
Number of NEETs in in NEETs of Number neet-data-by-local-authority-
government/publications/
https://www.gov.uk/
4 Nomis £24,000 pa £21,801 population of head per GVA
Deprivation nationally* deprived
3 – Indecies of Multiple Multiple of Indecies – 13 17 most 20% the within
Measuring Success Measuring Data North Yorkshire Yorkshire North Data LSOAs of number The
RPI rate of inflation. of rate RPI residence on based wage
2 NOMIS £487.70
Increase at or above above or at Increase weekly average median The
in North Yorkshire North in
1 NOMIS – business survey. business – NOMIS 275,000 253,900 jobs equivalent time
The total number of full full of number total The
Source 2020 - Target baseline 2016 Indicator
Economy and will be monitored over time. time. over monitored be will and Economy
reflect an overall picture of the North Yorkshire Yorkshire North the of picture overall an reflect
the following primary indicators. The indicators indicators The indicators. primary following the
The success of this plan will be measured by by measured be will plan this of success The
ITEM ITEM 5 A plan to deliver economic growth - 2017 2017 - growth economic deliver to plan A ITEM 5
31
ITEM 5
Contact us North Yorkshire County Council, County Hall, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL7 8AD Our Customer Service Centre is open Monday to Friday 8.00am - 5.30pm (closed weekends and bank holidays). Tel: 01609 780 780 email: [email protected] web: www.northyorks.gov.uk If you would like this information in another language or format please ask us. Tel: 01609 780 780 email: [email protected]
32 69463 06/17 ITEM 5
GPSG – Covid 19 Updates to Growth Plan Timetable
1 July GPSG Consider Covid 19 recovery options The impact of Covid 19 on the growth plan How will the growth plan impact on the covid 19 recovery process?
15 July – 16 Workshops Covid recovery / Growth Plan Workshops – September Officers 2020 Public Health theme Highways / Public realm? Local Economy Carbon?
September BES MT Check in – time for input
30 Sept GPSG GPSG Sign off
5 October BES MT Sign off / Input
23 October BES Exec Members Sign off
27 October Management Board Sign Off
November Final Amendments ahead of Council Executive
8 December Council Executive 2020
33 ITEM 5
North Yorkshire
A Plan for Economic Growth
2020 - 2024
34 ITEM 5
Vision
A place with a strong economy and a commitment to sustainable growth that enables everyone to fulfil their ambitions and aspirations
35 ITEM 5
Foreword By Executive Member Cllr Andrew Lee
To be completed
36 ITEM 5
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This Plan for Economic Growth serves as an update to the North Yorkshires Plan For Economic Growth 2017. It seeks to build on the success of the 2017 plan and define the Councils role within the existing framework of stakeholders.
1.2 As a consequence of the outbreak and impacts of the coronavirus pandemic the Council’s Plan for Economic Growth has been revised to incorporate the Council’s plans for the economic recovery.
2.0 Covid 19 Recovery
2.1 The Plan for economic Growth must support and provide a vehicle for North Yorkshire Strategic Framework for Economic Recovery.
2.2 The global Coronavirus pandemic is having profound socio-economic impacts on the UK, including North Yorkshire. The effects are far reaching, and the economic shock is likely to be more significant than the global financial crisis of 2008.
2.3 The Government has issued a range of economic packages to assist businesses and employees, aimed at stimulating the economy at the national level. This is being complemented at the sub-regional and local levels where North Yorkshire County Council is collaborating with the York and North Yorkshire LEP on a sub-regional Economic Recovery Plan, and assisting the District and Borough Councils and our National Park Authorities with their local initiatives.
Economic Recovery Vision The economy of North Yorkshire is re-established and fully functioning. It is diverse, resilient, innovative and agile. The County Council’s services and infrastructure are focused on supporting the socio-economic well-being of our residents, businesses and visitors. Businesses and public sector agencies are positioned to take advantage of new and emerging opportunities.
3.0 Vision and Aims
3.1 Vision A place with a strong economy and a commitment to sustainable growth that enables everyone to fulfil their ambitions and aspirations.
3.2 Aims (what we aspire to achieve) 1 2 3 A larger business base People across the county Increase the overall and increased number of have equal access to median average wage good quality jobs economic opportunity
3.2.1 North Yorkshire will be a modern economy characterised by high quality, efficient transport and communications, higher levels of entrepreneurialism and opportunities for younger people to access good quality employment and affordable housing opportunities.
3.2.2 Alongside this an attractive and active quality of life, high quality affordable housing provision and access to cultural experiences will be important in attracting and retaining skills and knowledge as well as ensuring a healthy and happy workforce.
37 ITEM 5
4.0 Enablers
4.1 All the enablers have been refreshed to take account of Covid-19 recovery.
4.2 What we will do to achieve our aims
4.2.1 Create high quality places, increased housing provision and delivering infrastructure. Working with partners, NYCC will support the development and delivery of strategic housing and employment sites supporting modern methods of construction alongside the required infrastructure to create high quality employment opportunities, housing provision, education and health care for everyone. Working with partners and stakeholders, NYCC will support the regeneration of town centres rethinking the allocation of road space to create public realm that is accessible, safe, healthy and business friendly. NYCC will take a leadership role ensuring agility to take advantage of evolving government policy and funding opportunities.
4.2.2 Deliver a modern integrated transport network. Delivering the Council’s Local Transport Plan, improving transport to, between and within all of our towns to improve access to markets, skills and supply chains within the County and the rest of the UK. A strong focus on the use of the public realm and highway to allow access to business in a safe way. Active and sustainable travel including electric vehicle charging to enable the County Council to reach its carbon reduction goals.
4.2.3 Increase skills levels and ensure that the workforce meets the needs of the County. Ensure a clear pathway for young people from education to training and employment. Undertake measures to support the development of the workforce that meet the social and economic needs of the County. NYCC will work with partners, including the Local Enterprise Partnership, to support skills and training provision in North Yorkshire and seek to ensure that it meets the needs of North Yorkshire businesses and supports the aspirations of all the people of North Yorkshire.
4.2.4 Live Well. Through working in partnership, to create fair employment and good work for all we encourage a healthy standard of living and enable all working age people to live well. The focus will be on creating Strong Communities that are complete and compact. In doing this we will seek to address inequality of opportunity and recognise the challenges presented by health inequalities across North Yorkshire. Ensuring public safety through North Yorkshire County Councils Outbreak management plan we will focus on workplace settings, as they evolve, Leisure and Tourism and Housing, specifically houses of multiple occupancy.
4.2.5 Creating the right conditions for business growth and investment. By promoting good growth across the County that is clean and inclusive, NYCC will seek to support investment projects by working closely with partners to facilitate business growth, inward investment and development of low carbon technologies and seek to raise the median and lowest wage levels across the County. Finding ways to build in resilience and new ways of working into the market place is a key objective. Through its Trading Standards and licensing functions NYCC will continue to support legitimate businesses to trade successfully and promote good growth.
38 ITEM 5
4.2.6 Enhancing the environment, developing tourism and the green economy. By taking measures to reduce the Council’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030, NYCC move towards the UK’s net zero carbon emissions goal by 2050 (UK Government target). We will grow the green economy and support economic resilience by protecting the County’s environment, ecology and heritage assets and by supporting environmental initiatives which increase the value of agriculture, enhance biodiversity and reduce the impact of climate change, particularly in relation to severe flood events. Continue to support regional tourism by delivering world class events and develop the County’s cultural offer for the benefit of local communities and the visitor economy.
4.2.7 Deliver a modern communications network. NYCC will continue to work alongside partners towards delivering mobile phone and data connectivity in currently unserved rural areas promoting 4G infill in areas of poor coverage and moving towards the roll out of new 5G technology to support rural businesses. Alongside this we will maintain our support for enhanced fibre broadband provision across North Yorkshire and the integration of mobile and broadband services to provide seamless access to the internet and telecommunications networks for all users.
5.0 Covid 19 Impact and Recovery
5.1 Local Economy Work stream – A significant impact in North Yorkshire North Yorkshire has a higher than average employment base in Manufacturing and Accommodation and food service Activities.
39 ITEM 5
5.2 An economic estimate / assessment of the immediate economic impact of the Covid- 19 crisis. This took the form of an initial model which segmented the economy into 38 separate sectors and estimated the impact on each one over the course of a financial year. The model took a lower and upper level overall impact and estimated a reduction in overall productivity of between 10 and 21%. Subsequent models / scenario’s, most notably by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR), were broadly in line with this estimate and followed a very similar methodology. As sectorial approach has enabled to model to better reflect local variation and to be adjusted as the crisis moved forward.
5.3 The NYCC officer model estimated that the Covid-19 crisis would result in the loss of between £1.4bn and £2.9bn of GVA in North Yorkshire and would impact between 60,200 and 72,200 jobs.
5.4 As of July 2020 ONS figures show that 85,000 jobs have been furloughed in North Yorkshire while an increase of 6-700 claims to universal credit were recorded between March and the end of April.
5.5 By applying the percentage of jobs furloughed nationally with the different levels of employment by sector in North Yorkshire we estimate that an additional 3,500 jobs have been furloughed in North Yorkshire above the national average. This is due to the higher than average levels of employment in the tourism economy and manufacturing sector.
6.0 North Yorkshire Strategic Framework for Economic Growth
6.1 Goal and Objectives Drawing on the Vision, Goals and Objectives, seven core areas of strategic importance to North Yorkshire have been identified.
6.2 Goals Overarching Goal - To revitalise the North Yorkshire economy so that it can meet the short term needs of business and the community during the recovery phase(s) whist laying the foundations to establish a more resilient and inclusive Greener, Fairer & Stronger economy in line with the strategic direction of the York & North Yorkshire LEP’s Economic Recovery Plan and Local Industrial Strategy, the County Council’s Plan for Economic Growth and the York, North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull Spatial Framework.
6.2.1 Specific Goals: Establish business support mechanisms and business friendly regulatory frameworks Restore business confidence and regional brand/identity Align people, skills and labour markets Enable investment and funding – public & private Identify growth opportunities, including infrastructure Regenerate town centres to function well at the heart of local communities Retaining viable existing business Diversification and expansion of priority sectors Invest recovery funding strategically
40 ITEM 5
6.3 Objectives:
Criteria Measure Timeframe Jobs Number of (quality) jobs created/retained Quarterly GVA (gross value a) return GVA to pre Covid levels Annual added) b) % growth Productivity levelling up by narrowing the pre Covid gap Annual Diversification & growth Number of jobs/new businesses created in Annual of new sectors sustainable industries Inward investment Amount attracted Annual Skills & Training Number of people assisted into Quarterly training/apprenticeships Town Centres Footfall levels Annual
7.0 The Strategic Fit with the North Yorkshire Plan for Economic Growth
Theme Priority Key Actions Growth Plan Enable Strategic Fit Strategic Identify Key Businesses Enabler 5 Businesses at Develop Key account Creating the right conditions Risk Management Programme for business growth and Gather Intelligence investment
Test Growth and Recovery Scenarios Identify Ways in which NYCC can support Government Support Eat Out to Help Out VAT reduction for hospitality businesses Destination Resilience Fund Access to Identify specific financial Enabler 5 Finance / programmes based on sector needs Creating the right conditions National Fiscal Lobby Government and LEP for business growth and Measures Support Bids for funding investment
Government Support Tax Deferral programmes Gov’t backed finance programme Training & Jobs Specific Plan for each cohort Enabler 3 Visitor Economy Training and Skills Increase skills levels to ensure Plan the workforce meets the needs Green Skills Plan of the county New Growth Programme to support LEP Skills programme
Government Support Kick Start Gateway organisation Employment Support Schemes including Job retention Scheme and Bonus Self Employment Support Scheme
41 ITEM 5
Strategic Highway Investment Programme Enabler 1 Infrastructure Digital Infrastructure Programme Create high quality places, Infrastructure Planning increased housing provision Low Carbon Transport and delivering infrastructure. Blue/Green Infrastructure Enabler 2 Deliver a modern integrated transport network. Enabler 7 Deliver a modern communications network. Place / High Remodelling Town Centres Enabler 1 Street NYCC Development Programme Create high quality places, Commercial Repurposing increased housing provision Opportunities and delivering infrastructure. Lobby Government – funding and Enabler 4 freedoms to enable development Live Well
Government Support High Streets Fund Private Growth Planning Enabler 5 Investment / Inward Investment Focus Creating the right conditions Innovation Collate network of Green Private for business growth and investors investment
Government Support • Green Innovation Fund • Coronavirus Future Fund Agriculture and Review of Inshore Fishing Industry Enabler 6 Fisheries and links to FLAG programme Enhancing the environment, Specific sector and sub sector developing tourism and the analysis green economy. Natural Capital Opportunities Rural Commission Outcomes Implementation
Government Support • Fishing and agriculture support schemes
8.0 Measuring Success
8.1 Key strategic outcomes from the 2017 Plan for Economic Growth:
8.1.1 Create high quality places, increased housing provision and green infrastructure Completion of a Spatial Framework for York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Creation of Brierley Homes, NYCC owned commercial housing developer
42 ITEM 5
8.1.2 Deliver a modern integrated transport network Delivery of key development schemes including Dalton Business Park access, Bedale Bypass, North Northallerton infrastructure. Completion of key resilience projects including replacement of Tadcaster Bridge, repair of flood affected roads in the Yorkshire Dales. Improvements to A59 at Kex Gill. Work with rail operators to improve services between Scarborough and York.
8.1.3 Increase skills levels and ensure that the workforce meets the needs of the County Support for LEP skills and employment programmes including capital investment in further education facilities Work to improve NYCC’s Adult Learning and Skills Service NYCC apprenticeships
8.1.4 Keeping the Workforce healthy and happy Delivery of the Healthy Workplace Programme Engagement with planning for healthier places
8.1.5 Creating the right conditions for business growth and investment Engagement in Better Business for All programme Proactive approach to supporting legitimate business through trading standards Supporting infrastructure development at key sites
8.1.6 Enhancing the environment, developing tourism and the green economy Support for Local Nature Partnerships across North Yorkshire Development of Natural Capital Asset mapping and remote sensing programmes Work to identify opportunities for electric vehicle charging and low carbon transport Delivery of Tour de Yorkshire cycle stages and support for Welcome to Yorkshire
8.1.7 Deliver a modern communications network Ongoing to work to deliver improved digital mobile communications in rural areas including the development of Mobile Access North Yorkshire (MANY) programme. Engagement with Government and mobile operators in respect of 5G development Ongoing rollout of fibre broadband through NYCC’s NYNET subsidiary.
43 ITEM 5
8.2 Key indicators
8.3 Latest available data:
Performance indicator outcome assessment 1 Total number of full time equivalent Total employee jobs Increased by 4.3% jobs in North Yorkshire 2019 2019 – 265,000 2 Median average weekly wage – £567 16% increase residence based 2019 compared with inflation at 5% over the same period 3 No of LSOAs within the 20% most 23 Change in deprived nationally 2019 methodology 4 GVA per head of population 2018 £22,596 3.6% increase from 2016 5 Number of young people who are 1,010 – 8.8% 65% increase although NEET or not known - 2019 Known NEET 1% almost all unknown 6 100% superfast broadband and 4g 95% Work is ongoing and mobile phone connectivity progress being made to secure increased mobile connectivity
44 ITEM 5
Initial equality impact assessment screening form
This form records an equality screening process to determine the relevance of equality to a proposal, and a decision whether or not a full EIA would be appropriate or proportionate.
Directorate Business and Environmental Services Service area Growth, Planning and Trading Standards Proposal being screened Refresh of the County Councils Plan for Economic Growth
Officer(s) carrying out screening Michael Reynolds What are you proposing to do? The previous NYCC Plan for Growth span 2017 – 2020. The Growth Plan Steering Group has undertaken to refresh the plan for the next 4 years.
The Growth Plan had been expected to be complete by the Spring of 2020 but this timetable was delayed to take account of Covid-19 recovery work. Why are you proposing this? What The desired outcome will be a refreshed growth are the desired outcomes? plan. This will include amongst other things a refreshed approach to climate change and focus on economic recovery from Covid-19 impacts.
The Growth plan will form part of the Council Plan.
Does the proposal involve a The proposal is a desk based exercise drawing on significant commitment or removal existing resources through the Growth Plan of resources? Please give details. Steering Group
Impact on people with any of the following protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, or NYCC’s additional agreed characteristics As part of this assessment, please consider the following questions: To what extent is this service used by particular groups of people with protected characteristics? Does the proposal relate to functions that previous consultation has identified as important? Do different groups have different needs or experiences in the area the proposal relates to?
If for any characteristic it is considered that there is likely to be an adverse impact or you have ticked ‘Don’t know/no info available’, then a full EIA should be carried out where this is proportionate. You are advised to speak to your Equality rep for advice if you are in any doubt.
Protected characteristic Potential for adverse Don’t know/No impact info available Yes No Age X Disability X Sex X Race X
45 ITEM 5
Sexual orientation X Gender reassignment X Religion or belief X Pregnancy or maternity X Marriage or civil partnership X NYCC additional characteristics People in rural areas X People on a low income X Carer (unpaid family or friend) X Does the proposal relate to an area No where there are known inequalities/probable impacts (e.g. disabled people’s access to public transport)? Please give details. Will the proposal have a significant effect on how other organisations No operate? (e.g. partners, funding criteria, etc.). Do any of these organisations support people with protected characteristics? Please explain why you have reached this conclusion. Decision (Please tick one option) EIA not x Continue to relevant or full EIA: proportionate: Reason for decision The proposal is a desk based refresh of council objectives relating to Growth. Some aims and objectives included in the plan are likely to require projects that will go through their own equalities impact assessment screening process but this proposal does not warrant its own assessment.
Signed (Assistant Director or Matt O’Neill equivalent) Assistant Director, Growth Planning and Trading Standards
Date 02/10/2020
46 ITEM 5 Climate change impact assessment
The purpose of this assessment is to help us understand the likely impacts of our decisions on the environment of North Yorkshire and on our aspiration to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030, or as close to that date as possible. The intention is to mitigate negative effects and identify projects which will have positive effects.
This document should be completed in consultation with the supporting guidance. The final document will be published as part of the decision making process and should be written in Plain English.
If you have any additional queries which are not covered by the guidance please email [email protected]
Please note: You may not need to undertake this assessment if your proposal will be subject to any of the following: Planning Permission
Environmental Impact Assessment
Strategic Environmental Assessment However, you will still need to summarise your findings in in the summary section of the form below.
Title of proposal North Yorkshire Plan for Growth Refresh Please contact [email protected] for advice. Brief description of proposal The previous NYCC Plan for Growth span 2017 – 2020. The Growth Plan Steering Group has undertaken to refresh the plan for the next 4 years.
The Growth Plan had been expected to be complete by the Spring of 2020 but this timetable was delayed to take account of Covid-19 recovery work. Directorate Cross Directorate. The Lead Officer is based in BES. Service area Growth Planning and Trading Standards Lead officer Matt O’Neill, Assistant Director, Growth Planning and Trading Standards Names and roles of other people Liz Small, Growth and Heritage Manager involved in carrying out the impact Mark Kibblewhite, Senior Policy Officer (Growth) assessment Michael Reynolds, Senior Policy Officer (Infrastructure) Date impact assessment started 09-09-2020
47 ITEM 5
Options appraisal Were any other options considered in trying to achieve the aim of this project? If so, please give brief details and explain why alternative options were not progressed.
No. No alternatives to refreshing the Growth Plan were considered.
What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?
Please explain briefly why this will be the result, detailing estimated savings or costs where this is possible.
There are no costs associated with the refresh other than officer resource.
As part of the Growth Plan, an action plan will be developed over the coming months. Actions or projects identified as part of the plan may have further cost or resource implications. These will undergo individual assessments.
48 ITEM 5
How will this proposal impact on Explain why will it have this effect and over Explain how you plan to Explain how you plan to the environment? what timescale? mitigate any negative improve any positive impacts. outcomes as far as N.B. There may be short term Where possible/relevant please include: possible. negative impact and longer term Changes over and above business as positive impact. Please include all usual potential impacts over the lifetime Evidence or measurement of effect of a project and provide an Figures for CO2e explanation. Links to relevant documents
the box below where where below box the
Positive impact Positive in a X (Place relevant) impact No where below box the in a X (Place relevant) impact Negative where below box the in a X (Place relevant) Minimise greenhouse Emissions x gas emissions e.g. from travel reducing emissions from Emissions x travel, increasing energy from efficiencies etc. constructio n Emissions x from running of buildings Other x
Minimise waste: Reduce, reuse, x recycle and compost e.g. reducing use of single use plastic Reduce water consumption x Minimise pollution (including air, x land, water, light and noise)
49 ITEM 5
How will this proposal impact on Explain why will it have this effect and over Explain how you plan to Explain how you plan to the environment? what timescale? mitigate any negative improve any positive impacts. outcomes as far as N.B. There may be short term Where possible/relevant please include: possible. negative impact and longer term Changes over and above business as positive impact. Please include all usual potential impacts over the lifetime Evidence or measurement of effect of a project and provide an Figures for CO2e explanation. Links to relevant documents
the box below where where below box the
Positive impact Positive in a X (Place relevant) impact No where below box the in a X (Place relevant) impact Negative where below box the in a X (Place relevant) Ensure resilience to the effects of x climate change e.g. reducing flood risk, mitigating effects of drier, hotter summers
Enhance conservation and wildlife x
Safeguard the distinctive x characteristics, features and special qualities of North Yorkshire’s landscape
Other (please state below) x
50 ITEM 5
Are there any recognised good practice environmental standards in relation to this proposal? If so, please detail how this proposal meets those standards. No
Summary Summarise the findings of your impact assessment, including impacts, the recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.
The refresh of the Growth Plan is an office based reassessment of the aims and objectives of the County Council relating to growth activity. It reassesses the Enablers which are the delivery mechanism for those objectives.
A positive global and local environmental impact is a thread that runs through most if not all Enablers of the Growth Plan.
As above, some of the aims and objectives are likely to include projects, work streams or initiatives that are likely to have an environmental impact. Examples of these would be Electric Vehicle Charging schemes, realignment of the highway and public realm, increased focus on the provision of green skills or modern methods of construction. Potential projects referred to directly in the growth plan or supporting action plan will be subject to their individual Environmental Impact assessments.
Sign off section
This climate change impact assessment was completed by:
Name Michael Reynolds Job title Senior Policy Officer (Infrastructure) Service area Growth Planning and Trading Standards Directorate BES Signature Michael Reynolds Completion date 29-09-2020
Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Matt O’Neill, Assistant Director, Growth, Planning and Trading Standards
Date: 02/10/2020
51 ITEM 6
Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
22 October 2020
Report of the Corporate Director Business and Environmental Services
Ringway Performance – 2019/20
1.0 Purpose of Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise Members of Ringway’s (RIS’s) performance under the Highways Maintenance Contract (HMC2012) during the period 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020. The outcome of the Evaluation Panel held on 20 May 2020, which was to keep the term of the Contract at 9 years but extend the whole Contract completion date to 31 May 2021 and the surface-dressing element to September 2021.
2.0 Key Background Information
2.1 Following a restricted EU procurement process, the HMC2012 was awarded to RIS which commenced on 1 April 2012 for a term of 6 to 10 years dependant on performance.
2.2 An Evaluation Panel is held annually to review Contract Performance Indicators (CPI’s) and determine the term of contract. The CPI’s comprise Primary Performance indicators (PPIs) and Secondary Performance Indicators (SPIs). The PPIs directly affect the term of the contract, although the SPIs can also be taken into consideration. The Evaluation Panel is also asked to support the implementation of the rolling CPI targets, together with any interim amendments.
2.3 The Contract starts with a default 10-year term, which can then be reduced following poor performance. Once reduced, the term can be increased again following good performance.
2.4 The Contract term was reduced by one year at the Evaluation Panel meeting held on 22 May 2014.
2.5 The Evaluation Panel meeting held on 20 May 2020, considered the performance of RIS for the period 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020. The performance for this period was that the required targets for 13 out of 14 PPIs and 7 out of 10 SPIs were met.
2.6 Based on what was considered to be an acceptable level of performance, the Panel took the decision to keep the term of the Contract at 9 years with a Contract completion date of 31 March 2021.
2.7 Through the HMC 2012 Governance arrangements, RIS’s performance is scrutinised throughout the year at the monthly Operational Management Group (OMG), quarterly Strategic Management Group (SMG) and 6 – monthly Partnering Steering Group (PSG) meetings.
52 ITEM 6
2.8 Since the first HMC 2012 Evaluation Panel, RIS’s performance has been further scrutinised by Members at: Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee (TEE OSC) – 17 July 2013 BES Executive Members (with County Councillor David Jeffels in attendance as Chairman of TEE OSC) – 27 November 2013 TEE OSC – 22 January 2014 TEE OSC – 16 July 2014 TEE OSC – 21 January 2015 TEE OSC – 14 October 2015 TEE OSC – 27 July 2016 TEE OSC – 20 July 2017 TEE OSC – 12 July 2018 TEE OSC – 15 July 2019
2.9 RIS has demonstrated an acceptable level of performance since the last report. Appendix A details the overall performance for the financial year 2019/20 compared to the previous year.
2.10 Appendix B details the ‘Rectification Action Plans’ presented to the Evaluation Panel relating to those indicators where the required Target was not met.
2.11 In addition to consideration of the Contract Term against performance, the Council decided to award two extensions to the Contract as part of transitioning the Service from RIS to NY Highways: The whole service was extended from 31 March 2021 to 31 May 2021 The surface dressing element only was extended up to September 2021.
3.0 Key Implications
Local Member 3.1 None
Financial 3.2 Over the eight seven years of HMC 2012, approximately £393 million of work has been delivered to date. Spend over the remaining years will be from the indicative Department for Transport budgets along with successful grant applications.
Human Resources 3.3 None
Legal 3.4 The requirement for an Annual Review of HMC 2012 is stipulated in the contract documents and shall be completed before 1 June in each Contract Year.
3.4.1 The Key Decisions associated with the Evaluation Panel held in this and in previous years have been published on the County Council’s Statutory Forward Plan in accordance with its Constitution.
Equalities 3.5 None.
3.6 Environmental Impacts/Benefits including Climate Change Impact Assessment A Climate Change Impact Assessment has been completed. It is anticipated that there will not be a negative or positive impact upon any key environmental indicators, such green-house gas emissions and carbon dioxide emissions. See Appendix C. 53 ITEM 6
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 Based on what was considered an acceptable level of performance, the Panel took the decision to keep the term of the Contract at 9 years
5.0 Recommendation
5.1 It is recommended that Members note the contents of this report and the attached appendices.
6.0 Reasons for Recommendations
6.1 The decision by the Evaluation Panel was made following the procedures set out in the contract and as part of transitioning the Service from RIS to NY Highways.
Author of Report: Nick Burgess – Commercial Services Contracts Officer Presenter of Report: Barrie Mason – Assistant Director, Highways and Transportation (BES) 27/06/2019
Background papers relied upon in the preparation of this report:- HMC 2012 Annual Evaluation Panel Report – Contract Term and Future Targets For further information contact the author of the report
Appendices: Appendix A Summary of CPI Scores for 2018-19 Appendix B RIS Rectification Action Plans Appendix C Climate Change Impact Assessement
54 ITEM 6
Summary of PPI Scores for 2019-20 Primary Performance Indicators (PPIs) Performance 2018/19 Reference No. PPI Measure 2019/20 Technical Notes Performance Target Actual Pass/Fail
WINTER MAINTENANCE:
Max no. scores <10 9 1.00 Pass Pass 0.00 Average score (based on 42 returns) 9.65 9.98 Pass Pass 10.00 Client Satisfaction Max total no. failure points 52 1.00 Pass Pass 0.00 PPI WM01 –Winter Maintenance Max no. 1 pt deductions 9 1.00 Pass Pass 0.00 Gritting Routes Max no. 3 pt deductions 6 0.00 Pass Pass 0.00 Max no. 5 pt deductions 4 0.00 Pass Pass 0.00 Overall Performance Pass SCHEMES (surface dressing, resurfacing and reconstruction (R&R) schemes, integrated transport schemes, bridge schemes, section 38 and section 278 works, and street lighting [if included in final contract]): All allocation of party responsible for delays taken as having been agreed by operational PPI S01 Start on Time % on time or better 91% 98.10% Pass Pass 100.00% teams. Of the 158 schemes programmed to start 155 were started on time All allocation of party responsible for delays taken as having been agreed by operational PPI S02 Finish on Time % on time or better 91% 94.24% Pass Pass 99.38% teams. Of the 139 schemes programmed to finish, 131 were finished on time. 8 were not Number of completed works orders To date 65 sites have been found to have no that require works notices as a % 50 65 Fail authorised/deemed permit from driving the Pass 39 based on a random sample network as part of other duties.. To date of the 95 inspections, 42 have been PPI S04 Street works Noticing Number of compliant notices 90% 44.21% Fail compliant. 53 were not compliant with their Fail 31.94% permit conditions. Number of notices that over run the To date there have been 7,777 stop notices, 6% 1.41% Pass Pass 2.87% proposaed notice end date 110 have been overruns. Overall Performance Fail Fail
55 ITEM 6
Primary Performance Indicators (PPIs) Performance 2018/19 Reference No. PPI Measure 2019/20 Technical Notes Performance Target Actual Pass/Fail ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (grass cutting and weed killing, gully emptying, street lighting, other routine maintenance including lining, sign installation and repair, tree maintenance, pothole repair, drainage repair and the like and GMUs):
% Completion of road marking Based on RIS data, of the 389 beds which have PPI RM05 Road Markings 90% 90.49% Pass Pass 95.20% schemes within deadline been lined, 352 were lined in time.
Achievement of 2,986,691 of the programmed 2,986,691 surface % Completion of surface dressing PPI RM06 Programme – Surface 97% 100.00% Pass dressing beds have been completed. 2,986,691 Pass 98.42% programme by 15th August, annually. Dressing of this is prior to 15th August.
Highway Dangerous % of dangerous defects made safe 654 instructions that have been raised, of those PPI RM08 99% 99.08% Pass Pass 100.00% Defects CAT 1 within 24 hours of identification 648 were completed in time.
Completion on Time – 2,165 instructions that have been raised, of PPI RM09 % on time 99% 99.82% Pass Pass 100.00% Emergency Call Outs those 2,161 were completed in time.
Completion in time Of the 1,675 instructions 1,488 were completed Number of jobs completed as % of PPI OB7 option B (minor works) 7 75% 88.84% Pass on time, or commenced on time and were Pass 76.98% those planned to be completed. day response completed within a timely manner. Completion in time Of the 4,393 instructions 3,745 were completed Number of jobs completed as % of PPI OB8 option B (minor works) 80% 85.25% Pass on time, or commenced on time and were Pass 84.29% those planned to be completed. 30 day response completed within a timely manner. Completion in time Of the 1,232 instructions 1,097 were completed Number of jobs completed as % of PPI OB9 option B (minor works) 3 85% 89.04% Pass on time, or commenced on time and were Pass 88.79% those planned to be completed. month response completed within a timely manner.
56 ITEM 6
Primary Performance Indicators (PPIs) Performance 2018/19 Reference No. PPI Measure 2019/20 Technical Notes Performance Target Actual Pass/Fail
FLEET MAINTENANCE (Maintenance of the County council’s vehicle fleet and management of the fuel supply and storage facilities):
Compliance with % Completion of servicing within Of the 676 services carried out 676 have been PPI FM01 95% 100.00% Pass Pass 99.85% Servicing Schedule deadline carried out as planned.
PPI FM02 MOT Pass Rate % of MOTs passed 97% 99.10% Pass Of the 111 MOT's carried out, 1 have failed. Pass 97.56%
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE [if included in final contract]
To date 5,136 seven-day repairs have been Street Lighting Fault Mitigated Mitigated PPI SL01 % of defects repaired within 7 days 92% 90.69% received and 478 have not been completed on 93.06% Repair Pass Pass time.
Achievement of Programme – Street PPI SL02 % Completion of programme 90% #N/A #N/A This CPI was not scored in 2019/20. Pass 93.79% Lighting Cyclical Maintenance
57 ITEM 6
Summary of SPI Scores for 2019-20 Secondary Performance Indicators (SPIs) (Only to be taken account of by the Evaluation Panel on failure of one or more of the PPIs. To be considered as part of “NYCC’s discretion”): Performance Reference 2018/19 SPI Measure 2019/20 Technical Notes No. Performance Target Actual Pass/Fail
SCHEMES
This CPI was unable to be scored in 2019/20 Defects – Impact at SPI S03 % schemes defect free at handover 92.00% #N/A #N/A due to no completion certificates being #N/A #N/A Handover received.
Actual cost reports have been unable to show net SPI S06 Value of Gain Achieved Value of pain + gain >£0.00 £ - Fail Fail £ - 'gain' against the 2019/20 option D schemes.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (grass cutting and weed killing, gully emptying, street lighting, other routine maintenance including lining, sign installation and repair, tree maintenance, pothole repair, drainage repair and the like and GMUs): Achievement of % of rural grass cutting routes 27 'villages' have been programmed to be cut SPI RM02 Programme – Grass completed within 14 calendar days of 97% 100.00% Pass Pass 100.00% of which 27 were cut in time. Cutting Rural programme Achievement of % of weed spraying routes completed 21 sites have been treated, 21 were within SPI RM03 Programme –Weed within 14 calendar days of 97% 100.00% Pass Pass 100.00% time. Spraying programme Achievement of To date 138,409 gullies have been % of gullies cleaned within 14 SPI RM04 Programme – Gully 97% 88.87% Fail programmed to be cleaned of those 123,005 Fail 78.22% calendar days of scheduled cleanse Emptying have been cleaned within time. SPI RM07 Defects Max No. of Defect Notices issued 140 0 Pass 0 defects have been received Pass 9
HEALTH AND SAFETY:
LTIFR (Lost Time Number of lost time incidents per A total of 626,950 hours have been recorded. SPI HS01 Through Injury 2.50 4.89 Fail Fail 3.27 1,000,000 hours worked 3 lost time incidents have been recorded. Frequency Rate)
58 ITEM 6
Secondary Performance Indicators (SPIs) (Only to be taken account of by the Evaluation Panel on failure of one or more of the PPIs. To be considered as part of “NYCC’s discretion”): Performance Reference 2018/19 SPI Measure 2019/20 Technical Notes No. Performance Target Actual Pass/Fail
PUBLIC AND CLIENT SATISFACTION
334 cards have been returned of which 306 Public Satisfaction – All were satisfactory or better. To date 2,785 SPI PCS01 % satisfied or very satisfied 90% 91.62% Pass Pass 95.39% Schemes cards have been posted out.
A - % Satisfaction Management of 85% 90.31% Pass Pass 88.34% the Contract SPI PCS05 Annual Client Survey B - % Satisfaction Service Provision 85% 93.33% Pass Pass 93.21% Overall Performance 91.82% Pass Pass 90.77%
CONTRACTOR – SELF EVALUATION AGAINST ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
Contractor Progress % actions complete against Annual SPI AAP01 against Annual Action 90% 95.00% Pass Pass 100.00% Action Plan Plan – self evaluation
59 ITEM 6
Section 1 Business Ref: RIS Division and/or Action Report No: RAP 2020 04 SPI Location: North HS01 LTIFR Yorkshire
Section 2 Issued by: J Nicholson Issued to: Date: 06/04/2020 North Yorkshire Contract Number: MU 5382 Works Order Number: N/A Delivery Note Number: N/A
Section 3 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE
Failure of Secondary Performance Indicator HS01 LTIFR
Section 4 STATE THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE ISSUE
Failure to hit the target of 2.50 due to avoidable H & S incidents
Section 5 WHAT ACTION IS PLANNEDTO ADDRESS THE ABOVE ROOT CAUSE? 5a CORRECTIVE ACTION (To address the issue)
Better communications at SHE meetings and Depot Meetings Better planning of schemes Heightened awareness of the possibility of an incident occurring More near miss reporting
5b PREVENTIVE ACTION (To prevent recurrence)
More debate and consistent and effective investigations into incidents More management focus on Near Miss reporting All level to ensure site safety audits are carried promoting visible management Better communications down through the workforce and supply chain to ensure the messages are received and understood Ensuring everyone is fully trained and competent
5c RESPONSIBILITY CHART REQUIRED (PAGE 2)? Y
Note: When you have completed this section please send copy to originator. Section 6 CONFIRM ACTION HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED (Supply supporting evidence)
Action closed by: Date:
60 ITEM 6
Business Ref: Division and/or Location: Action Report No:
Date Prepared: 02/05/2019 Responsibility of: J Nicholson
Improvement/Concern Persons Involved
ers
Manag Management
Planned Completion Date: Task gents No Task Description A Contract Senior By When Complete 1 Ensure all communications are cascaded down to the X X Ongoing workforce until APR 21
2 Management focus on Near Miss reporting X X Ongoing until APR 21
3 Ensure training has been given X X Ongoing until APR 21
4 Good investigations into incidents drilling down to the root X Ongoing cause and learning from the findings until APR 21
5 Ensuring site audits are carried out as per programme X X X Ongoing until APR 21
6
7
Note ONLY ONE PERSON CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ACTIVITY
(X = RESPONSIBLE, I = INVOLVED
Distribute to: CSU, OMG, SMG, Jill Davies
61 ITEM 6
Section 1 Business Ref: RIS Division and/or Action Report No: RAP 2020 04 SPI Location: North RM04 Gullies Yorkshire
Section 2 Issued by: J Nicholson Issued to: Date: 06/04/2020 North Yorkshire Contract Number: MU 5382 Works Order Number: N/A Delivery Note Number: N/A
Section 3 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE
Failure of Secondary Performance Indicator RM04 Gully Cleansing
Section 4 STATE THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE ISSUE
Failure to clean the gullies to the programme agreed. Introduction of New ESRI system (Rectification of Teething issues) Not achieving outputs - plant breakdown Insufficient information to plan effectively (Cycle info not being available in ESRI until Nov 19)
Section 5 WHAT ACTION IS PLANNEDTO ADDRESS THE ABOVE ROOT CAUSE? 5a CORRECTIVE ACTION (To address the issue)
Complete the ESRI development to utilise the system to its potential
5b PREVENTIVE ACTION (To prevent recurrence)
Hold regular monthly meetings with the Area teams to review progress Use the ESRI software to monitor outputs of individual teams and compare against each other. Review gully running order with the Operatives. Manage gully cleaning vehicles maintenance schedule and plan downtime into the programme. (MOT, Servicing and tank pressure check) Schedule unplanned gully cleans during weekend shifts
5c RESPONSIBILITY CHART REQUIRED (PAGE 2)? Y
Note: When you have completed this section please send copy to originator. Section 6 CONFIRM ACTION HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED (Supply supporting evidence)
Action closed by: Date:
62 ITEM 6
Business Ref: Division and/or Location: Action Report No:
Date Prepared: 02/05/2020 Responsibility of: J Nicholson
Improvement/Concern Persons Involved
te Planned Completion Date: Task
No Task Description Liam Taylor Whitaker Richard TeamHub By When Comple 1 Review Schedule and assign Cleansing teams to Areas X 31/5/2020 X
2 Review programme to match the new schedule and include X 31/5/2020 X Vehicle down time.
3 Log outputs of individual teams using the ESRI software X Ongoing until APR 21
4 Report monthly, actual output verses planned output. X Ongoing until APR 21
5 Address any shortfalls in production quickly and monitor I X Ongoing against CPI targets until APR 21
6 Provide NYCC with monthly data to upload into Symology I X Ongoing until Apr 21
7 Prove NYCC with ESRI dashboard I X Ongoing until Apr 21
Note ONLY ONE PERSON CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ACTIVITY
(X = RESPONSIBLE, I = INVOLVED)
Distribute to: CSU, OMG, SMG, Jill Davies
63 ITEM 6
Section 1 Business Ref: RIS Division and/or Action Report No: RAP 2020 04 SPI Location: North S06 Value of Yorkshire Gain Acheived
Section 2 Issued by: J Nicholson Issued to: Date: 06/04/2020 North Yorkshire Contract Number: MU 5382 Works Order Number: N/A Delivery Note Number: N/A
Section 3 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE
Failure of Secondary Performance Indicator S06 Value of Gain Achieved
Section 4 STATE THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE ISSUE
Failure to calculate Gain Share for 2019-20 Schemes Not following agreed process for finalisation 20 weeks after scheme completion. Failure to agree final Target Values upon scheme completion. Delay in producing cost reports.
Section 5 WHAT ACTION IS PLANNEDTO ADDRESS THE ABOVE ROOT CAUSE? 5a CORRECTIVE ACTION (To address the issue)
Follow process agreed between NYCC and RIS.
5b PREVENTIVE ACTION (To prevent recurrence)
Add the this to the Commercial Meeting Review Agenda Ensure Tripartite programmer provides monthly up dates on schemes which have finished. Create tracker for all schemes, to include completion dates, CF12 Target sign off’s, production of cost reports and final sign off date, tracked against completion date. QS’s to ensure CF12 Targets are signed off with 5 weeks of completion Commercial Manager to ensure cost reports are produced and agreed within 20 weeks of completion.
5c RESPONSIBILITY CHART REQUIRED (PAGE 2)? Y
Note: When you have completed this section please send copy to originator. Section 6 CONFIRM ACTION HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED (Supply supporting evidence)
Action closed by: Date:
64 ITEM 6
Business Ref: Division and/or Location: Action Report No:
Date Prepared: 02/05/2019 Responsibility of: J Nicholson
Improvement/Concern Persons Involved
se
Planned Completion Date: Task eme Wheldon ichard Orr ichard
No Task Description Rodger Joanne R Mike Plews Gra James Smith Matt Williams Liam Taylor Craig Winter Andy Ambro By When Complete 1 Add scheme sign offs to Commercial review Agenda X Ongoing X until APR 21
2 Monthly update to be provided to JR on completed X Ongoing schemes until APR 21
3 Timely sign off of Target Values on CF 12’s X X X X X I I I Ongoing until APR 21
4 Create Tracker to monitor progress X August 20
5 Completion of Costs reports within 20 weeks of completion X Ongoing until APR 21
6 Agreement of final costs with client X X X X X I I I Ongoing until Apr 21
7 Monthly update on progress X Ongoing until Apr 21
Note ONLY ONE PERSON CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ACTIVITY
(X = RESPONSIBLE, I = INVOLVED)
Distribute to: CSU, OMG, SMG, Jill Davies
65 ITEM 6
ACTION REPORT FORM PROCESS OWNER: Group IMS Manager Issue: 5A Date: August 2011 Page 1 of 2
Section 1 Business Ref: RIS HMC2012 Division and/or North Yorkshire Action Report No: RAP 2020 01 Location: PPI SO4
Section 2 Issued by: M Francis Issued to: Date: 12/5/2020 North Yorkshire Contract Number: MU 5382 Works Order Number: N/A Delivery Note Number: N/A
Section 3 DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE
Not achieving the minimum target of CPI PPI SO4 during the contract year 2019/20
Of the 3 parts to the CPI measure pt B (Inspections) didn’t meet the target and Part A non permitted sites did not meet the target
Section 4 STATE THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE ISSUE Gangs not following process Gangs not complying with the imposed conditions Inspectors not introducing themselves and not reporting to the gang any problems at time of inspection. Inspectors recording their findings from the boundaries of the site and not fully checking the site was compliant Multiple changes in the programme due to type of work, late information and lack of control in the areas. Section 5 WHAT ACTION IS PLANNEDTO ADDRESS THE ABOVE ROOT CAUSE? 5a CORRECTIVE ACTION (To address the issue)
Exploring ways of introducing a stop point on the tablets to force the gang to confirm they have met the conditions and put out the permit board including taking a photo Similar for schemes where the gang have to fill in an additional section on the 5 minutes on safety and take a photo For permitted sites, the areas will be instructed to complete a daily/weekly return on what has started, completed and been paused so that the HUB can accurately reflect on the permits what is going on out in the field. 5b PREVENTIVE ACTION (To prevent recurrence)
Photos will be checked by the agents along with documentation The HUB will check that the reports on start stop etc have been submitted and escalate if they are not receiving them. 5c RESPONSIBILITY CHART REQUIRED (PAGE 2)? Y
Note: When you have completed this section please send copy to originator. Section 6 CONFIRM ACTION HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED (Supply supporting evidence) The actions were implemented but we still did not achieve the required percentage pass this year. There is still debate about the way the inspections are carried out and what is recorded. We have also had new supply chain on board that have not followed process. This has since been rectified.
66 ITEM 6
ACTION REPORT FORM PROCESS OWNER: Group IMS Manager Issue: 5A Date: August 2011 Page 2 of 2
Business Ref: Division and/or Location: Action Report No:
Date Prepared: 02/05/2019 Responsibility of: Mike Francis
Improvement/Concern Persons Involved Meet the CPI Targets for Streetworks noticing.
Planned Completion Date: Task
No Task Description Francis Mike Beecroft Ashley TeamArea By When Complete 1 Monitor Inspections as they are reported to the Hub. I X X Ongoing Forward details on to Area team and Operations manager until Mar 2021 each time there is a failure.
2 Speak to the gang each time a failure is reported and X Ongoing establish the circumstances. until Mar 2021 Establish whether the Inspector made contact with the gang and informed them of the result on site.
3 Report finding of each failure investigation to the I X Ongoing Operations Manager until Mar 2021
4 Report performance to the Ringway SMT and OMG each X Ongoing month until Mar 2021
5 Produce weekly report on start stop etc I X Ongoing until Mar 2021
6 Review details and report accordingly I X Ongoing until Mar 2021
Note ONLY ONE PERSON CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ACTIVITY
(X = RESPONSIBLE, I = INVOLVED)
Distribute to: CSU, OMG, SMG, Jill Davis
67 ITEM 6
Climate change impact assessment
The purpose of this assessment is to help us understand the likely impacts of our decisions on the environment of North Yorkshire and on our aspiration to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030, or as close to that date as possible. The intention is to mitigate negative effects and identify projects which will have positive effects.
This document should be completed in consultation with the supporting guidance. The final document will be published as part of the decision making process and should be written in Plain English.
If you have any additional queries which are not covered by the guidance please email [email protected]
Please note: You may not need to undertake this assessment if your proposal will be subject to any of the following: Planning Permission Environmental Impact Assessment Strategic Environmental Assessment
However, you will still need to summarise your findings in in the summary section of the form below.
Please contact [email protected] for advice.
Title of proposal Ringway Performance – 2019/20 Brief description of proposal The purpose of this report is to advise Members of Ringway’s (RIS’s) performance under the Highways Maintenance Contract (HMC2012) during the period 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020 and of the outcome of the Evaluation Panel held on 20 May 2020 which was to keep the term of the Contract at 9 years but extend the whole Contract completion date to 31 May 2021 and the surface dressing element to September 2021. Directorate BES Service area Highways and Transportation Lead officer Barrie Mason – Assistant Director, Highways and Transportation (BES) Names and roles of other people involved Nick Burgess - Commercial Services Contracts Officer in carrying out the impact assessment Date impact assessment started 28 September 2020
68 ITEM 6
Options appraisal Were any other options considered in trying to achieve the aim of this project? If so, please give brief details and explain why alternative options were not progressed.
n/a - The decision by the Evaluation Panel was made following the procedures set out in the contract and as part of transitioning the Service from RIS to NY Highways
What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?
Please explain briefly why this will be the result, detailing estimated savings or costs where this is possible.
Cost neutral due to this being an extension to an existing contract.
How will this proposal impact on Explain why will it have this effect and over Explain how you plan to Explain how you plan to the environment? what timescale? mitigate any negative improve any positive impacts. outcomes as far as N.B. There may be short term negative Where possible/relevant please include: possible. impact and longer term positive Changes over and above business as impact. Please include all potential usual impacts over the lifetime of a project
Evidence or measurement of effect and provide an explanation. Figures for CO2e
Links to relevant documents impact
impact
Positive (Place relevant) box a below the where X in impact No (Place relevant) box a below the where X in Negative (Place relevant) box a below the where X in Minimise greenhouse Emissions x There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a gas emissions e.g. from travel because the current contract and method of reducing emissions from working is being extended. travel, increasing energy Emissions X There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a efficiencies etc. from because the current contract and method of construction working is being extended.
69 ITEM 6
How will this proposal impact on Explain why will it have this effect and over Explain how you plan to Explain how you plan to the environment? what timescale? mitigate any negative improve any positive impacts. outcomes as far as N.B. There may be short term negative Where possible/relevant please include: possible. impact and longer term positive Changes over and above business as impact. Please include all potential usual impacts over the lifetime of a project
Evidence or measurement of effect and provide an explanation. Figures for CO2e
Links to relevant documents impact
impact
Positive (Place relevant) box a below the where X in impact No (Place relevant) box a below the where X in Negative (Place relevant) box a below the where X in Emissions X There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a from because the current contract and method of running of working is being extended. buildings Other X There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a because the current contract and method of working is being extended. Minimise waste: Reduce, reuse, X There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a recycle and compost e.g. reducing use because the current contract and method of of single use plastic working is being extended. Reduce water consumption X There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a because the current contract and method of working is being extended. Minimise pollution (including air, X There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a land, water, light and noise) because the current contract and method of working is being extended.
70 ITEM 6
How will this proposal impact on Explain why will it have this effect and over Explain how you plan to Explain how you plan to the environment? what timescale? mitigate any negative improve any positive impacts. outcomes as far as N.B. There may be short term negative Where possible/relevant please include: possible. impact and longer term positive Changes over and above business as impact. Please include all potential usual impacts over the lifetime of a project
Evidence or measurement of effect and provide an explanation. Figures for CO2e
Links to relevant documents impact
impact
Positive (Place relevant) box a below the where X in impact No (Place relevant) box a below the where X in Negative (Place relevant) box a below the where X in Ensure resilience to the effects of x There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a climate change e.g. reducing flood risk, because the current contract and method of mitigating effects of drier, hotter working is being extended. summers
Enhance conservation and wildlife x There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a because the current contract and method of working is being extended. Safeguard the distinctive x There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a characteristics, features and special because the current contract and method of qualities of North Yorkshire’s working is being extended. landscape
Other (please state below) x There will be no impact to business as usual n/a n/a because the current contract and method of working is being extended.
71 ITEM 6
Are there any recognised good practice environmental standards in relation to this proposal? If so, please detail how this proposal meets those standards. n/a
Summary Summarise the findings of your impact assessment, including impacts, the recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.
It is anticipated that there will not be a negative or positive impact upon any key environmental indicators, such green-house gas emissions and carbon dioxide emissions
Sign off section
This climate change impact assessment was completed by:
Name Nick Burgess Job title Commercial Services Contracts Officer Service area Highways and Transportation Directorate BES Signature Completion date 06/10/2020
Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature):
Date:
72 ITEM 7
North Yorkshire County Council
Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
22 October 2020
Review of North Yorkshire County Council’s 20mph Speed Limit Policy
1 Purpose of the Report
This report asks the Committee to:
a) Discuss and note the information in the report of the task group’s review of North Yorkshire County Council’s 20mph Speed Limit Policy (attached at Annex A). b) Consider the recommendations to the Executive set out on pages 31 to 32 of the task group’s report.
2 Introduction
2.1 At the meeting of the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 12 July 2018, Members agreed to convene a task group to review the County Council’s current 20 mph Speed Limit Policy, once the report of the National Research project by the DfT examining 20 mph speed limits had been published. The report was published in November 2018. The Committee approved the task group’s terms of reference at its meeting on 17 April 2020.
2.2 The task group met five times between May and December 2019 to gather and take account of the evidence, leading to its recommendations. The report was finalised during the COVID-19 pandemic and so by way of a postscript makes reference to the possible longer-term transport and environmental legacy that the crisis could have upon the use of our roads, with possibly more support for car free spaces or 20mph speed limits in some of our town centres.
3 The Task Group
3.1 The task group was chaired by County Councillor Stanley Lumley, working with County Councillors David Goode, Robert Heseltine, David Jeffels, Clive Pearson and Roberta Swiers.
4 Aims of the Review
4.1 The aims of this review were:
73 ITEM 7
To consider the findings of the 20mph Research Study: National Research Project (the ‘Atkins report’); To examine the DfT’s guidance on 20mph speed limits (Setting Local Speed Limits: DfT Circular 01/2013.) and relevant legislation; To examine the County Council’s current policy on the introduction of 20mph speed limits and how it is applied; To consider whether there is a need to change the County Council’s current policy on the introduction of 20mph speed limits; To consider other measures to be adopted; To take evidence from NYCC Highways Officers, NYCC Road Safety, 95 Alive Partnership, North Yorkshire Police and the 20s Plenty Campaign.
5 Process
5.1 The task group held a series of meetings to take evidence including from North Yorkshire County Council’s Road Safety department/95 Alive Partnership, North Yorkshire Police and the 20s Plenty Campaign Group. The task group also researched into what other shire authorities were doing in response to the ‘Atkins’ Report and also researched the findings of those authorities that had or were in the process of implementing wider 20 mph speed limits in their area.
6 Financial & Legal Implications
6.1 The review did not undertake any detailed financial assessments or legal implications.
7 Recommendation
7.1 The Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee is recommended to agree the report of the task group including the recommendations to be presented to the Executive.
Report compiled by: Jonathan Spencer Principal Scrutiny Officer
County Hall, Northallerton
Tel: 01609 780780 E-mail: [email protected] Date: 29 May 2020
Background documents: None
Annexes: Annex A: Draft report of the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the Review of North Yorkshire County Council’s 20mph Speed Limit Policy.
74 ITEM 7 Annex A
Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Review of North Yorkshire County Council’s 20 mph Speed Limit Policy
May 2020
75 ITEM 7
Contents Page
Background and summary of findings 4
Policy Background 6
Findings from other local authorities 11
Evidence Hearings 17
Conclusions 28
Recommendations 31
Appendices 33 Appendix 1: North Yorkshire County Council’s 20 mph Speed Limit Policy Appendix 2: Other shire council policies: 20 mph speed limits policy
------If you would like this document in another language or format such as Braille, large print or audio, please ask us. Tel: 0845 8 72 73 74 Email: [email protected]
2 76 ITEM 7
Background and summary of findings
The current version of North Yorkshire County Council’s Policy for 20mph Speed Limits was approved by the County Council’s Executive on 5 December 2006.
At the meeting of the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 12 July 2018, Members agreed to convene a task group to review the County Council’s current 20 mph Speed Limit Policy, once the report of the National Research project by the DfT examining 20 mph speed limits had been published. The report was published in November 2018. The Committee approved the task group’s terms of reference at its meeting on 17 April 2020.
The committee set up a task group made up of the following Members: o Cllr. Stanley Lumley (Task Group Chairman) o Cllr. David Goode o Cllr. Robert Heseltine o Cllr. David Jeffels o Cllr. Clive Pearson o Cllr. Roberta Swiers
The task group held a series of meetings to take evidence including from North Yorkshire County Council’s Road Safety, Traffic Engineering and Public Health teams, North Yorkshire Police and the 20s Plenty Campaign Group. The task group also researched into what other shire authorities were doing in response to the ‘Atkins’ Report1and also researched the findings of those authorities that had or were in the process of implementing wider 20 mph speed limits in their area.
The aims of our review were: To consider the findings of the 20mph Research Study: National Research Project (the ‘Atkins report’) To examine the DfT’s guidance on 20mph speed limits (Setting Local Speed Limits: DfT Circular 01/2013.) and relevant legislation To examine the County Council’s current policy on the introduction of 20mph speed limits and how it is applied To consider whether there is a need to change the County Council’s current policy on the introduction of 20mph speed limits To consider other measures to be adopted To take evidence from NYCC Highways Officers, NYCC Road Safety, 95 Alive Partnership, North Yorkshire Police and the 20s Plenty Campaign.
Issues that were considered: Why and how were 20mph limits introduced – their objectives/what would our objectives be for a wider area rollout? Have speeds and driver behaviour changed in areas where 20mph limits have been introduced, including in North Yorkshire – how is this monitored?
1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757307/20mph-headline- report.pdf
3 77 ITEM 7
Have 20mph zones/20mph limits reduced the number and severity of collisions? Areas suitable/not suitable for introduction of 20mph speed limits (existing mean speeds/nature of the road environment). What level of capacity would there be for Police enforcement of 20mph limits? Utilising alternative/complementary approaches to Police enforcement (e.g. Speedwatch, use of vehicle activated signs). Impact of new vehicle technologies for self-enforcement. Driver education initiatives to embed a culture of slower speeds in residential and pedestrian environments. Our current approach is to design out speed at the planning stage on new developments by designing streets where 30mph speed limits apply to restrain speed (e.g. put in bends, speed platforms etc.) without requiring the extra signage of 20mph speed limits, speed humps, chicanes and TROs which might not be deliverable through the planning process anyway. What would the financial and other resourcing costs to the Highways Authority be of retrospectively introducing 20mph in the existing built environment? Extent of public support for 20mph speed limits: need to supported by the local community and consulted before the speed limit is lowered. Should 20mph speed limits cover a wide area or targeted to specific areas such as outside schools? Is there an issue with the way in which the NYCC policy is currently applied (rather than the wording of the existing policy itself)? Could further work be undertaken to establish if improvements could be made to the consistency of its application across the Area Highway areas in particular in relation to the wording at subsection 2 of the policy?
The task group concluded the following: o It is unrealistic for there to be 20mph speed limits existing in all settlements in the county where there are vulnerable road users. In enforcement terms, speed limits should reflect the nature of the road and in essence be ‘self-explaining’. The costs of introducing 20mph schemes are also an unknown but findings from other local authorities show that larger schemes generally having higher implementation costs and a range of ancillary costs have to be taken into account. o The economic impact has to be taken into account with regards to extending journey times by a wide area introduction of 20mph speed limits. o Most collisions are in relation to roads with a 50mph or 60mph speed limit as this is where most collisions are so this is where most targeting is required. o Ongoing improvements in car technology are seeing the introduction of enhanced driver safety driver aids such as automatic braking and speed limiters. o There is an existing County Council policy on 20mph speed limits. This allows a degree of flexibility already to allow our communities to introduce 20mph speed limits in their areas. The policy though would benefit from some updating and needs to be more publicly accessible on the County Council’s website.
4 78 ITEM 7
o The policy should be more explicit in considering 20mph speed limits around schools and consideration given to extending the distance traditionally considered around schools in order to encourage greater use of active modes of transport. o With reference to KSI figures, the County Council’s highways department should ascertain the percentage of 30mph speed limits against the percentage of 50mph or 60mph speed limits in the county. o The County Council’s highways department should draw up a list of high risk collision areas using three years’ worth of data to examine whether an area would benefit from a 20mph speed limit, taking into account the function of the road and the road environment. o An examination should be undertaken of the consistency of how the 20mph Speed Limit Policy is applied by each of our Area Highways Offices. o A list of schools should be drawn up that have a 20mph speed limit in the county. o The policy should reference links to the wider policy agenda in relation to driver education (promoting behavioural change), supporting alternative modes of transport and shaping the built environment. This is so that the wider policy focus is not exclusively constrained by historical accident statistics in determining 20mph speed limits, if an otherwise strong case can be made for a 20mph speed limit to be introduced in a specific area. Added to this, the terrible legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic does at least provide a further opportunity to consider how our highways network can be used in the future, taking into account the full range of road users and its use for leisure and work purposes. North Yorkshire County Council should do this in in partnership with a range of stakeholder interests. o Specifically, for 20mph limits to be adhered to, now and in the future, there needs to be a partnership approach involving a wide number of organisations including planning departments. o Education, as part of the 95 Alive Partnership, also needs to continue to be a strong theme in relation to getting motorists to keep to the speed limit and avoid being distracted – the latter being the main cause of motor vehicle accidents in the county. This needs to be included in the refresh of the 95Alive Strategy. o When considering planning applications for new housing or commercial development, North Yorkshire County Council, in its capacity as the lead Highways Authority and as statutory consultee to the planning process, makes recommendations to local planning authorities based on written national policy indicating the appropriate best practice and guidelines for the implementation of measures, to design out speed as part of the condition of approval and also to put in place infrastructure to create safe walking and cycling routes.
5 79 ITEM 7
Policy Background
Department for Transport Circular 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits2
The key points in the DfT Circular are that:
o Speed limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to reinforce people's assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. They should encourage self-compliance. Speed limits should be seen by drivers as the maximum rather than a target speed.
o Traffic authorities set local speed limits in situations where local needs and conditions suggest a speed limit which is lower than the national speed limit.
o Traffic authorities are asked to keep their speed limits under review with changing circumstances, and to consider the introduction of more 20 mph limits and zones, over time, in urban areas and built-up village streets that are primarily residential, to ensure greater safety for pedestrians and cyclists, using the criteria below:
o Traffic authorities can, over time, introduce 20mph speed limits or zones on: a) Major streets where there are – or could be - significant numbers of journeys on foot, and/or where pedal cycle movements are an important consideration, and this outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times for motorised traffic. b) Residential streets in cities, towns and villages, particularly where the streets are being used by people on foot and on bicycles, there is community support and the characteristics of the street are suitable.
o Where they do so, general compliance needs to be achievable without an excessive reliance on enforcement.
o The standard speed limit in urban areas is 30 mph, which represents a balance between mobility and safety factors. However, for residential streets and other town and city streets with high pedestrian and cyclist movement, local traffic authorities should consider the use of 20 mph schemes.
‘Go slow: an umbrella review of the effects of 20 mph zones and limits on health and health inequalities’, Journal of Public Health, September 2014
The review3 published in the Journal of Public Health concluded that 20mph schemes can reduce accidents, injuries and traffic volume, and improve perceptions of safety, while being cost effective. However, of the ten studies included in the review, only two focused specifically on speed limits (use of 20mph signage without physical interventions such as speed bumps).
2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01-2013.pdf
3 https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/37/3/515/2362676
6 80 ITEM 7
There was also some evidence of positive attitudes to such schemes by local residents, who generally favoured the schemes. However, effects on physical activity, in particular walking and cycling and children playing outside, were less clear.
The review noted the potential environmental benefits of implementing such schemes, particularly for noise and air pollution but also noted the counter argument that lowering traffic speed could lead to increased congestion and consequently increased air pollution. On the other hand, if 20mph speed limits were successful in encouraging more sustainable travel modes then this would result in a reduction in air pollution.
The authors noted at the time that the evidence to date was somewhat limited because of a lack of robust, long-term evaluations. In particular, there had not been enough investigation into their economic impact and cost effectiveness. However, this was before the ‘Atkins report’ was published and other schemes introduced.
20mph Research Study Process and Impact Evaluation Headline Report4
In July 2014, Atkins, AECOM and Professor Mike Maher of University College London, were commissioned by the Department for Transport to evaluate the effectiveness of 20mph (signed only) speed limits, based on twelve case study schemes in England and various comparator areas with a 30mph limit in place.
The report was published in November 2018. It’s overall conclusion on the schemes’ impacts on collisions and casualties, was that the evidence available to date showed no significant change in the short-term in the majority of the case studies, albeit with some evidence to suggest a positive impact in one location (Brighton).
However, the majority of 20mph case studies were implemented on roads where the average speed prior to implementation was typically less than 24mph, and where the schemes would be self-enforcing, with no expectation of additional police enforcement.
In this context the report found that following implementation ‘a substantial proportion’ of drivers are exceeding the 20mph limit, with 47% of drivers in residential areas and 65% of drivers in city centre areas (equating to 51% across both categories) complying.
The report found when the results of the 20mph limit (without traffic calming) was compared to the effects of 20mph zones (with traffic calming) 20mph zones were more effective in terms of casualty and speed reduction (though in Portsmouth roads with higher initial speeds – an average speed greater than 24mph – saw an average 7mph speed limit reduction by the implementation of the 20mph limit). The report pointed out that accident reduction was not a key driver behind many of the case study schemes and that in general, 20mph limit schemes seek to address a
4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757307/20mph-headline- report.pdf
7 81 ITEM 7
wide range of policy areas and have a range of objectives spanning road safety, promotion of active travel modes, perceived quality of the environment, health and wellbeing, and community benefits.
It found that overall, 20mph limits are perceived to be beneficial for cyclists and pedestrians, with 69% of residents agreeing that the limits are beneficial for cyclists and pedestrians and 74% and 77% respectively of non-resident drivers agreeing that they are beneficial for cyclists and pedestrians.
The report pointed out the need for behavioural change amongst drivers and integration of road safety with other policy areas especially planning to create safer environments for people to walk or cycle.
A key finding is that the speed at which people drive at is influenced more by the look and feel of the road, than whether a 20mph or 30mph limit is in place. Implementation of a 20mph limit has formalised existing behaviour. On faster roads more needs to be done to achieve compliance.
There was insufficient evidence of a significant reduction of collisions in areas where 20mph speed limits had been introduced.
The impact of new vehicle technologies was not considered in the evaluation but the report noted that it could have a substantial impact on vehicle speeds and compliance with speed limits in the future.
The 20s Plenty Campaign group has argued that the report fails to provide any credible analysis of the effect of 20mph limits on casualties in residential roads as the report only looked at a few small case studies of residential roads in its casualty analysis. The size of those areas varied a lot and the case studies areas chosen had insufficient casualties to be able to show whether or not the evidence was statistically significant.5
Third Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety, February 2020
At a conference held in February 2020, Road Safety Ministers and Heads of Delegations from 130 countries adopted the ‘Stockholm Declaration’. This amongst other resolutions calls for there to be a: ‘Focus on speed management, including the strengthening of law enforcement to prevent speeding and mandate a maximum road travel speed of 30 km/h (20mph) in areas where vulnerable road users and vehicles mix in a frequent and planned manner, except where strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe, noting that efforts to reduce speed in general will have a beneficial impact on air quality and climate change as well as being vital to reduce road traffic deaths and injuries’6.
Whilst there may have been a collective agreement among those attending the conference this resolution does not mandate the UK to this approach. That instruction would need to be done through the Department for Transport with the
5 http://www.20splenty.org/dft_20mph_evaluation 6 https://www.roadsafetysweden.com/contentassets/b37f0951c837443eb9661668d5be439e/stockholm-declaration-english.pdf
8 82 ITEM 7
appropriate amendment made to DfT Circular 01/2013. A full consultation with local authorities as part of making any change would also likely be undertaken.
North Yorkshire County Council’s Policy for 20mph Speed Limits
The County Council’s current Policy for 20mph Speed Limits was last revised in December 2006 following publication of new Department for Transport guidelines on setting local speed limits in August 2006. The then new DfT guidelines stated that “the aim should be to align the local speed limit so that the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit for that road.” The guidelines also suggested that 20mph speed limits are only suitable where mean vehicle speeds are 24mph or below, or where additional traffic calming measures are planned. This differed from the previous guidance given by the Department namely that if observed 85th percentile speeds are above 24mph, then it is unlikely a 20mph speed limit would be appropriate, unless traffic calming measures can be provided.
Since the policy was produced, the DfT updated its guidelines in 2013 in DfT Circular 01/201. We were informed though during the course of our discussions with Highways Officers that the County Council’s Policy remains complaint with this latest circular due to the policy being generally worded.
The criteria in the County Council’s current 20mph speed limit policy states:
2.0 CRITERIA 2.1 The basic criteria for a 20mph speed limit or zone to be introduced are: a) The proposal is appropriate to the area; b) It would be beneficial following an assessment of the impact of the proposal in terms of accessibility, safety, environment and congestion (the four shared priorities) and added value; and c) Would not be dependent on an unreasonable level of enforcement by the Police, which means that the Police should not then be expected to enforce them as a matter of course. 2.2 In addition, the following more detailed criteria will be followed: a) 20mph speed limits/zones should be restricted to residential areas, roads fronting schools, main shopping streets of town centres and “honeypot” locations where a high concentration of pedestrian traffic is generated. They might also be suitable for rural minor roads that have been designated as 'quiet' routes by virtue of their appropriateness and suitability for recreational use by large numbers of vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders. b) 20mph speed limits by signs alone should only be used where mean vehicle speeds are 24mph or lower. c) Where mean vehicle speeds are in excess of 24mph traffic calming measures must be introduced to reduce mean vehicle speeds to 24mph or below for a 20mph limit or zone to be introduced. d) For a 20 mph zone to be installed, the appropriate traffic calming features as defined in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 must be introduced.
9 83 ITEM 7
In summary, in order for a 20mph speed limit to be approved it needs to be appropriate to the area; would be beneficial in road safety and environmental terms; and would not be dependent on an unreasonable level of enforcement by the Police, which means that the Police should not then be expected to enforce them as a matter of course. The policy is compliant with the latest DfT guidance: Department for Transport Circular 01/2013: Setting Local Speed Limits.
We as in the Highway Authority have the power to set speed limits as appropriate to the road concerned. The policy makes the point that speed limits should also be evidence-led and should not be set in isolation but part of a wider package of road safety measures.
We were informed during our discussions with Highways Officers that some of the key things that are taken into account when setting speed limits include collisions history, road geometry, the composition of road users – for example cars, HGVs, pedestrians and cyclists, existing road speeds and the road environment.
10 84 ITEM 7
Findings from other local authorities
Findings from other shire counties
Findings from a number of other shire counties (see Appendix 2) undertaken in May 2019 showed that they had no plans to review their current guidance in light of the findings of the DfT commissioned ‘Atkins Report’. Where 20 mph speed limits existed in their county little or no evaluation has been undertaken. The same is true for North Yorkshire.
In Wales work is being undertaken to identify the practical actions needed to implement 20mph speed limits in residential areas across Wales. The rates of Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) rates in Wales have historically been higher than the UK average. This is likely to be due to the fact that KSI numbers are on the whole higher in urban areas and areas of deprivation such as in the Welsh valleys.
Findings from local authorities where 20mph speed limits have been applied more widely
In summary Bristol, Calderdale, Edinburgh and Portsmouth councils report a reduction in speeds and casualties (though in Edinburgh’s case it is not clear that the 20mph speed limit is directly attributable to the reduction in casualties). Lancashire County Council also has rolled out 20mph schemes to most residential areas. Manchester City Council withdraw the rollout of 20mph schemes due to it seeing no evidence for reducing speeds7. Bath and North East Somerset Council reported an increase in casualties but critics including the 20s Plenty Campaign group state that the robustness including statistically validity of the research is flawed.
Bath and North East Somerset Council
A report in 2017 produced by Bath and North East Somerset Council found that over a period of 12 months since 13 new 20mph zones were introduced, casualty severity had worsened marginally in Bath and more so in outlying towns in areas where 20 mph speed limit zones had been introduced. The report stated that there was no simple explanation for this adverse trend but it could be that local people perceived the area to be safer due to the presence of the 20mph restrictions and so were less diligent when walking and crossing roads, cycling or otherwise travelling. The report acknowledged that a number of the schemes had not yet been in place for three years and so the casualty picture might alter over the remaining months. The report concluded that there was little in the way of persuasive argument for continuing the programme in the future. It cost £871,000 to roll out the 13 schemes and the council reported that it would probably cost the same to reverse them8.
7 https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/n-a-5623/ https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/20mph-speed-limit-manchester-stopped-12706663 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/nearly-nine-out-10-motorists-15419554 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4294454/Council-scraps-20mph-limit-no-difference.html
8 https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/s46582/20mph%20Zones%20Review%20Report.pdf
11 85 ITEM 7
However a number of critics dispute the robustness and statistical validity of the report and also point out the short assessment period that was involved9.
Bristol City Council
The roll-out of the 20mph speed limits in Bristol was about more than reducing road traffic casualties, although this was one of the aims. The roll-out sought to improve health and well-being across the city, taking a holistic perspective as to how slower traffic speeds might impact on people’s lives.
This independent research study10 that was carried out in 2018 found: Statistically significant reductions in average traffic speeds of 2.7mph across the city of Bristol, following the introduction of 20mph speed limits. This was a larger reduction than seen in previous evaluations in other cities. The authors of the report claim that this was because the study employed a more sophisticated analysis than previous studies of 20mph limits, including using individual speed data from over 36 million vehicle observations and controlling for other factors that might affect changes in traffic speeds. There has been a reduction in the number of fatal, serious and slight injuries from road traffic collisions, equating to an estimated overall economic saving of over £15 million per year (based presumably on DfT collision values11). Although there was still majority support for 20mph speed limits in Bristol, there remained concerns about compliance and behaviour of other drivers. Walking and cycling across Bristol has increased, both among children travelling to school and adults travelling to work. The introduction of 20mph speed limits in Bristol offers a model for other towns and cities across the UK, who are seeking to reduce traffic speeds, cut road traffic casualties, and promote community health and well-being through road danger reduction. In order to assess effectiveness of 20mph speed limits, it is vital that other towns and cities follow Bristol’s example, and prioritise the ongoing collection and analysis of appropriate data on vehicle speeds, road traffic casualties and wider public health impacts.
Calderdale Council
In May 2014, Calderdale Council agreed to introduce 20 mph areas in all residential streets by the end of 2017.12
The motivation for the introduction of 20mph area speed limits was a stated recognition of the part that lower speeds can play in improving health outcomes in
9 https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/local-news/bath-council-wrong-20mph-zones-954096 http://www.20splenty.org/banes-report
10 https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/875541/the-bristol-twenty-miles-per-hour-limit-evaluation-brite-study https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/no-changes-20mph-speed-limits-2918785
11 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras60-average-value-of-preventing-road-accidents
12 https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/3465/calderdale-20mph.pdf
12 86 ITEM 7
communities and in reducing the number of accidents and injuries on roads, and by creating a more positive environment to encourage people to walk and cycle. An interim evaluation13 was carried out in March 2017 in Sowerby Bridge and the results were: Opinion of the 20mph scheme had improved between baseline and follow up with most residents in support of the scheme (over 80%). An increase in the percentage of people who travelled by foot. Significant increase in the percentage of respondents who felt that traffic speeds were about right in their local area, although there was a significant increase in the percentage of respondents who felt that traffic speeds were too slow on busier roads. Significantly more residents felt that the 20mph limits were beneficial to residents, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers and there was a significant decrease in perceived disadvantages of the 20mph speed limits. Child safety was still a main concern for parents when considering whether to allow children to play out or walk to leisure facilities. Bike ownership or usage had not increased with the main barrier being that people did not want to use a bike.
The main findings14 of the wide area introduction of 20mph areas, reported by Calderdale Council in April 2018, were that since wide area 20mph speed limits had been introduced there had been:
A 30% casualty reduction over a three-year period, with later schemes indicating a 40% reduction. This equated to 154 fewer injuries - 51 from the three years’ data available (a statistically significant reduction) and 103 from the projected three years’ data for the later schemes. Cost effective intervention – total investment of £821,000. Given reduction in injuries a public saving in the region of £3 million - based on DfT road traffic casualties’ slight injuries cost of £23.500 per person. A 1.9mph mean reduction in speed taken from 3.5 million+ readings but variations in some areas. Continuing public support for 20mph (over 80%) based upon attitudinal surveys in Todmorden and Sowerby.
The report noted that indications suggested that the 20mph roll out had been effective in reducing casualties by 30% but that further monitoring would be required over the next three years for a full picture of all areas that had been implemented. Also the report noted that whilst there was still majority support for 20mph speed limits in Calderdale, there remained concern about compliance and behaviour of other drivers. Whilst there has been a reduction in speed of an average of 2mph, education and engagement needed to be maintained to encourage drivers to think of 20mph as the norm in residential areas to create
13 https://www.calderdale.gov.uk/council/consultations/engage/view.jsp?id=15493
14 https://calderdale.gov.uk/council/councillors/councilmeetings/agendas-detail.jsp?meeting=24991
https://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/calderdale-council-20mph-zones-are-saving-accidents-and- money-1-9143082
http://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/calderdale-20mph-scheme-triumph-of-safer-community-streets/
13 87 ITEM 7
‘healthy streets’ where everybody can enjoy spending time and being physically active.
A report in the local media highlighted comments from some residents questioning the cost and effectiveness of the rollout of 20mph schemes15. However, the responses cannot be said to be statistically significant or representative of the population as a whole. Calderdale Council spent a significant amount of time prior to the rollout of the scheme engaging with residents through social media, events and consultation.
Edinburgh City Council
In March 2018, Edinburgh became Scotland’s first city to implement a city-wide network of roads with a 20mph speed limit at a cost £3 million16. A public consultation exercise was carried out prior to the implementation, using OS mapping data, free through the One Scotland Mapping Agreement (OSMA), to create visuals17.
In October 2019 the findings18 carried by the independent body National Institute of Health Research of the 20mph speed limit roll-out were reported to Edinburgh City Council’s Transport and Environment Committee.
The key findings in the report were: There had been a statistically significant reduction in average speeds of - 1.34mph across the 66 speed survey locations where the limit was reduced; The highest reduction in average speed (-2.41mph) was for sites in rural west Edinburgh; Findings revealed no evidence of displacement of traffic from 20mph streets to 30mph streets after implementation of the 20mph limit; Support for 20mph was increasing but concerns remained regarding compliance; Casualties had fallen substantially since implementation, but it was not possible at the time that the evaluation was undertaken to ascribe reductions to the 20mph limit as opposed to an overall falling trend. Concerns remained regarding compliance and possible actions were cited on streets where there might be continuing non-compliance. These could include signage and road markings, targeted enforcement from Police Scotland or short-term deployment of mobile vehicle activated speed signs (VAS) The Council subsequently agreed to add additional streets to the 20mph network.
15 https://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/traffic-and-travel/debate-rumbles-on-over-the-success-of-calderdale-s-20mph-speed- zones-1-9353502
16 https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/new-20mph-speed-limit-edinburgh-17048226
17 https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/products/case-studies/edinburgh-speed
18 https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s9492/Item%207.3%20- %20Evaluation%20of%2020mph%20with%20appendices.pdf
14 88 ITEM 7
Lancashire County Council
20 mph speed limits were introduced in 2011 to reduce accidents and to educate drivers. Some parts of Lancashire had among the worst accident records in the country for children being injured in residential areas which involved pedestrians and cyclists. Almost seven out of 10 of all KSIs in Lancashire happened in 30mph areas and not on faster roads19.
Most residential areas across the county and outside schools now have 20mph limit but not on major through-routes so traffic can keep moving efficiently. The cost reported in 2018 was £5.8million20.
Lancashire County Council states that it works closely with the police, and enforcement takes place in the same way it does on any other road. However, as with other roads, the key aim is not to prosecute people but to encourage drivers to keep to the speed limits because they value the reasons for doing so21.
In 2015 the press reported that no drivers had been prosecuted with no funding provided for additional cameras for the Police22.
In 2017 no speeding tickets had been issued but drivers had gone to court for speeding in 20mph limit areas23.
In 2018 a pilot scheme was scrapped in one area. The pilot was designed with the primary focus of being sign-only with no engineering features to establish if this would bring the speeds down. The conclusion was that without any engineering features and or physical alterations to the highway that 20mph signs did not affect driver behaviour in that area24.
Portsmouth City Council
Portsmouth City Council was the first local authority in England to implement an extensive area-wide 20 mph speed limit scheme covering the majority of its residential roads and using speed signing alone.
The Council’s aim was to ensure the schemes that were introduced were self- enforcing to avoid additional police enforcement.
The average speed after the 20 mph speed limits were imposed (after a period of 12 months) was 0.9 miles per hour lower than the average speed before the speed limits were imposed (averaged out over the previous period of three years). At sites
19 https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/strategies-policies-plans/roads-parking-and-travel/20mph-areas/
20 https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/15896363.council-criticised-scrapping-20mph-limit-three-year-trial/
21 https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/strategies-policies-plans/roads-parking-and-travel/20mph-areas/
22 https://www.lep.co.uk/news/no-money-to-catch-speeding-drivers-in-20mph-zones-in-lancashire-1-7389538
23 https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/lancashire-s-20mph-zones-going-under-the-radar-1-8974670
24 https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/15896363.council-criticised-scrapping-20mph-limit-three-year-trial/
15 89 ITEM 7
where the average ‘Before’ speed was greater than 24mph the average speed reduced by 7mph. This change was statistically significant. Despite a reduction in the number of sites with average speeds above 24mph (21 sites) before the implementation of the 20mph speed limit, 14 were found to still have average speeds between 24mph and 29mph after the schemes were implemented25.
------
The task group’s research only related to local authority areas in the United Kingdom. Whilst wide area 20mph speed limits are fairly new in England26 on the continent 30kph/20mph speed limits have been in place for longer and so the 20s Plenty Campaign Group argue that there is more evidence there on the efficacy of 20mph speed limits on reducing the number of casualties.
25 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme4/interimeval20mphspeedl imits.pdf
26 https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf
16 90 ITEM 7
Evidence hearings
The task group met five times between May and December 2019 to gather and take account of the evidence, leading to its recommendations.
The themes listed below were considered at the task group meetings.
The Road Safety case for introducing 20mph speed limits The County Council’s statutory duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004 is to reduce the number and severity of collisions on the network; this involves taking action in those areas where there is an accident record.
Killed and Seriously Injured data formed part of our discussions. This is in view of the fact that the DfT Circular calls on Highways authorities to keep their speed limits under review with changing circumstances, and to consider the introduction of more 20 mph limits and zones, over time, in urban areas and built-up village streets that are primarily residential, to ensure greater safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
At its meeting in July 2019, the task group examined district-based statistics to show the number of speed-related accidents in 30mph speed areas, as listed in the table below.
Headline figures for the three-year period 2015/16 to 2017/18 showing the differences in Killed and Seriously Injured (KSIs) between 20mph and 30mph areas in a three-year period were as follows: In total across the three year reporting period, there were 59 collisions in areas with a 20mph speed limit where collisions had resulted in personal injury. Of those 59 collisions, eight had been associated with careless/reckless driving or in a hurry and two were recorded as exceeding the speed limit being the main contributory factor to the collision. Therefore 10 out of 59 collisions resulting in injury were possibly speed-related. In total across the same three year reporting period, areas with a 30mph speed limit there were 1626 collisions. Police records showed that of those, 70 were attributed to speed (just over 4% of the total), averaging out at 23 per year.
At its meeting with North Yorkshire Police and a road safety officer from North Yorkshire County Council in September 2019, it was reported that in relation to the Speed Management Protocol27, 2500 sites had been assessed and of those 90% did not identify as having a speeding issue.
The following evidence was also submitted:
27 The ‘95 Alive’ Partnership Speed Management Protocol York and North Yorkshire
17 91 ITEM 7
Overview of the number of KSI collisions by Speed Limit, North Yorkshire 2014- 2018: Of the 2051 KSI collisions 153 (7.5%) involved children and of those most were in 30mph and 60mph speed limits (62 (3%) in 30mph speed limit areas and 64 (3.12%) in 60mph speed limit areas). Only 29 (1.4%) of all collisions and 5 (0.24%) involving children were in 20mph speed limit areas but account had to be taken of the fact that there were few 20mph speed areas in the county. The number of KSI road casualties by Speed Limit, North Yorkshire 2014-2018: Of the 2389 KSI casualties, 117 (4.9%) involved children and of those most were on roads with a 30mph and 60mph speed limits (58 (2.4%) in 30mph speed limit areas and 41 (1.7%) in 60mph speed limit areas). Only 29 (1.2%) of all casualties and 5 (0.2%) involving children were in 20mph speed limit areas in the county. This again though reflected the fact that there were few 20mph speed limit areas in the county. Total urban child casualties by Road User Type with Speed Related Casualties 2015 to 2017. Of the total child casualties of 270, two (0.7%) were fatal and 28 (10.4%) were serious. Of the 270, 13 (4.8%) were speed related with two of those (15%) involving serious collisions. Driving with excessive speed was not the main issue but was instead more down to inappropriate behaviour such as driver distraction. In relation to the 13 speed related casualties, eight (62%) were occupants in a car and so not classed as a vulnerable road user.
In North Yorkshire there is a consistent downward trend in the number of KSI collisions at the same time as traffic is increasing. Speed-related KSI figures in the county are low and in North Yorkshire the evidence and targeting appears to be needed in relation to roads with a 50mph or 60mph speed limit as this is where most collisions are. However further work is needed to ascertain the percentage of 30mph speed limits against the percentage of 50mph or 60mph speed limits in the county to ensure a fair comparison is being made. At the time of writing this report that information was not available.
With casualty data there is a degree of under-reporting but they are the only consistent statistics that local authorities had at a national level to compare and contrast at a local level.
Over 30% of collisions are the result of the driver failing to look properly, 6% were speed related and 6% were due to drunk-driving.
However, this does not mean that we should be resting on our laurels and the task group sees the benefit of the County Council’s highways department drawing up a list of high risk collision areas using three years’ worth of data to examine whether an area would benefit from a 20mph speed limit, taking into account the function of the road and the road environment.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is a degree of subjectivity involved in investigation the cause of an accident, driver distraction does appear to be the most significant cause of collisions in North Yorkshire at this present time. Consequently the 95 Alive
18 92 ITEM 7
Partnership28 is undertaking a range of initiatives including generic campaigns such as ‘what’s round the bend’ and programmes focused on particular age groups (younger and older people) and users of different transport modes.
Dash cam footage can be used to capture dangerous driving. Badged by North Yorkshire Police as ‘Operation Spartan’, members of the public can send in their dash cam footage to the Police. A high proportion of the clips have been used to secure convictions. We were not aware previously of Operation Spartan and believe that the 95 Alive Partnership could do more to promote this initiative.
The recognition that the vast majority of collisions are down to driver error has led to recent changes to the driving test in particular the introduction of hazard perception. This is intended to reduce the number of collisions amongst new drivers. Changing peoples’ behaviour amongst those who do not want to change their driving habits is of course the most difficult challenge and so far there has been no easy solution to this beyond reinforcing road safety messages. Since the task group last met in December 2019, North Yorkshire County Council’s Public Health Team has been developing links with a number of universities. There is potential to consider research opportunities around behaviour change with regards to road safety and active travel.
We have to acknowledge of course, as the 20s Plenty Campaign Group argues and as stated in DfT Circular 01/2013, that nationally there is “clear evidence” that reducing traffic speeds reduces collisions and casualties, as collision frequency is lower at lower speeds; and where collisions do occur, there is a lower risk of fatal injury at lower speeds. The DfT notes that on urban roads with low average traffic speeds any one mile per hour reduction in average speed can reduce the collision frequency by around 6%. There is also clear evidence confirming the greater chance of survival of pedestrians in collisions at lower speeds.29
As the DfT Circular recognises though there has to be a balance when setting speed limits: “The objective should be to seek an acceptable balance between costs and benefits, so that speed management policies take account of environmental, economic and social effects as well as the reduction in casualties they are aiming to achieve.”30
In car technology such as emergency brake assist, automatic braking and the advent of driverless cars will help to reduce the number of collisions further.
Self-enforcement
DfT Circular 01/2013 notes that if speed limits are set unrealistically low for the particular road function and condition, it may be ineffective and drivers may not comply with the speed limit. Successful 20 mph zones and 20 mph speed limits are generally self-enforcing, that is the existing conditions of the road plus measures
28 https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/95-alive 29 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01- 2013.pdf 30 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01- 2013.pdf
19 93 ITEM 7
such as traffic calming or signing, publicity and information as part of the scheme, lead to a mean traffic speed compliant with the speed limit. To achieve compliance there should be no expectation on the police to provide additional enforcement beyond their routine activity, unless this has been explicitly agreed31. The point was made by the North Yorkshire Police representative at our meeting in September 2019 that speed limits cannot be artificially changed if they are to remain enforceable. Compliance with speed limits relies on regular Police enforcement and compliance will fail if the speed limit is unrealistic in relation to the design and layout of the road.
In response to our assessment of whether it would be feasible to introduce 20mph speed limits on all residential estates, the Police representative noted that the problem of enforcing speed limits in urban areas is that it is difficult to park camera vans in urban areas that are visible from a long distance. This is particularly common on newer estates, whereby in order to design out speed clear sight lines do not exist. Also due to the vastness of the county, it is not possible for the Police’s 12 camera vans to be put in towns and villages on a frequent basis. He went on to note that in the first instance the Speed Management Protocol allows residents to raise their concerns about speeding. Speeds can then be measured to see if there is a problem, and in the vast majority of case there are not. If a speeding problem is established actions can then be taken. On residential estates it is probably the case that most vehicles travel below 30mph but there will always be up a minority of drivers who will ignore the speed limit and drive at excessive speeds.
The Police representative went on to note that there is no point in putting 20mph speed limits in residential areas which are not self-enforcing. The most effective way of reducing speeding in those areas is in relation to physical obstructions being in place and parked cars often provide this obstruction. This ensures self-compliance with the speed limit.
Self-enforcement therefore is key with an evidence-led approach with regards to setting speed limits.
Indeed where 20mph speed limits are introduced on roads which are not self- enforcing, a high percentage of drivers will ignore the 20mph speed limit.32
Wide area coverage
As ROSPA notes33 20mph speed limits are considerably less expensive to implement than 20mph speed zones, which means that wider areas can be covered. It notes that 20mph limits are most appropriate for roads where average speeds are already low, below 24mph, and the layout and use of the road also gives the clear impression that a 20mph speed or below is the most appropriate.
31 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01-2013.pdf 32 Brake, the road safety charity, reported in 2017 that more than half of UK drivers had admitted to speeding in 20 mph areas and another that eight out of 10 drivers ‘ignored’ the limit. https://www.brake.org.uk/media-centre/1728-more-than-half-of-uk-drivers-admit-to-speeding-in-20mph-areas
33 https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/20mph-zones-and-speed-limits-factsheet.pdf
20 94 ITEM 7
We agreed with the point raised by the 20s Plenty Campaign Group representative giving evidence to us at our meeting in October that in order for 20mph speed limits to be effective a zone approach around schools does not work as a zone does not provide enough distance to cover door to door the whole of a child’s walking route to school. 1.7 km is the average distance for a child to walk to school from their home, whereas school zones are often only 300 meters.
An issue with 20mph speed zones is that because they cannot cover a large area, motorists will often speed up once out of the zone even though the neighbouring streets might be similar in character. This also does nothing to encourage alternative modes of travel such as walking and cycling particularly for children going to and from school.
North Yorkshire County Council funds school crossing patrol wardens at all sites where the school meet specific criteria (the number of pedestrian journeys, road crossing movements to school and the number of vehicles etc.). If the school did not meet the criteria the local community has the option of raising funds to pay for a school crossing patrol warden. However, school crossing patrol wardens only cover the immediate area around a school site and so we feel that in most areas schools should be encouraged to apply for a 20mph speed limit. As the DfT 01/2013 Circular notes, drivers are likely to expect and respect lower limits, and be influenced when deciding on what is an appropriate speed, where they can see there are potential hazards, for example outside schools34.
Indeed, one of the findings arising from an unpublished study in Wakefield regarding 20mph speed limits is that their introduction made people feel safer around schools and hospitals. However, it did not have the same impact in other areas including in residential streets or villages. This highlights again that motorists drive to the conditions surrounding them. The RAC also states that there is evidence that 20mph limits are beneficial near schools.35
We acknowledge the KSI statistics for North Yorkshire show that child casualties are very low but if parents do not feel that it is safe for their child to walk or cycle to school they will end up continuing to be ferried to and from school by car with all that that entails in terms of increased traffic congestion and air pollution.
It is worth noting though that there are other alternatives available where it is not possible to introduce 20mph speed limits around schools such as the school being on an arterial road away from a main settlement or where there is not a sufficient level of public support for a 20mph speed limit. For example, we were informed about North Yorkshire’s Healthy School Zone programme with particular reference to Selby High School’s Park & Stride initiative36. The Park & Stride scheme aims to
34 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01- 2013.pdf 35 http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/motoring/motoring-news/concern-over-pupil-road-safety-11363805412115 36 North Yorkshire County Council was fortunate that when it put in an Expression of Interest to the national Childhood Obesity Trailblazer Programme, it was one of 13 local authorities to receive funding. As part of the initiative the Public Health team in North Yorkshire has gathered a lot of insight from pupils and parents regarding travel behaviours around the county. In Selby concerns related to unsafe paths and roads being narrow for cycling to be safe. The Headteacher of Selby High School had been trying for a while to have parking restrictions on the road opposite the school but it had not been well received from parents. Public Health wanted to explore the Park & Stride concept linking with the district council to do that. In Selby there
21 95 ITEM 7
discourage parking near the school gate at dropping-off and picking-up times and to encourage a short walk to and from school. This in turn helps to reduce congestion around schools. Although the focus of the scheme is on Harrogate and Scarborough districts due to the highest proportion of North Yorkshire’s population living there, any area in North Yorkshire can take part in the Park & Stride concept.
In North Yorkshire, the Healthy School Zones have been set at a one-mile radius of the school (nationally it is 400 metres but there are longer walking distances in North Yorkshire to and from school). Linked into this initiative is active travel planning, the Healthy Schools Award and safer routes to school. Selby High School and George Pindar School, Scarborough are currently participating in the Healthy School Zones project. Their findings will be evaluated to inform any future rollout.
More generally and in addition to areas around schools, the 20s Plenty Campaign group advise that the County Council could start by introducing 20mph speed limits in the centre of a settlement and working out in a ‘pizza shape’ slice. This reflects the fact that people travel out or into the centre of a settlement. The Council could also focus on introducing 20 mph speed limits in the more deprived parts of the county where casualties are higher and/or where a local community is supportive of it allowing the 20mph speed limits there to be self-enforcing.
We were informed by the 20s Plenty Campaign group representative at our meeting that the group is not expecting to see a blanket 20 mph speed limit across the whole of North Yorkshire. The 20s Plenty Campaign group is of the view that if public health best practice is followed there should be 20mph speed limits in place where there are vulnerable road users. The rationale is to put in place 20mph speed limits where there are settlements. This is because it is here that vulnerable road users most frequently share the roads with motorists, rather than on open country roads where there are no settlements close by.
However, we feel that this approach is not suitable in our predominantly rural county where there are lots of small linear settlements. Imposing 20mph speed limits more widely would lead to increase journey times which in turn might have a negative economic impact and could also lead to aggressive driver behaviour, leading to drivers taking more risks especially if the road does not have the look or feel of a road with a 20mph speed limit. North Yorkshire Police informed us that journey times in the county have in fact already increased over the years due to more traffic being on the roads, representing a reduction in speed overall. The DfT Circular notes that: ‘speed limits should be considered only as one part of rural safety management. Where collision and casualty rates are high, traffic authorities should first seek to understand the particular types of crashes taking place and their causes, to allow them to choose effective solutions to reduce the risk.’37
We noted that a wide area 20mph speed limit would go well beyond the centres of many of our linear settlements – with Knaresborough and Pateley Bridge cited as examples. As the DfT Circular notes: ‘The aim of speed management policies was parking at the local leisure centre with pre-school activity there so the car park could be used by parents to drop their children off, with healthy food available at the drop-off area. 37 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01- 2013.pdf
22 96 ITEM 7
should be to achieve a safe distribution of speeds consistent with the speed limit that reflects the function of the road and the road environment.’ In other words, speed limits need to reflect the look of a road in order for drivers to comply. There is also a concern that having a wide area approach to 20mph speed limits could dilute their impact in areas where there are real hazards such as around schools and hospitals.
The AA and RAC motoring organisations also argue that a wide area approach inspires little respect in terms of compliance. Speed limits should reflect the nature of the road and be 'evidence-led and self-explaining and for many drivers the AA argues, 20mph speed limits, particularly on main roads, are not.38 The RAC supports “the introduction of 20mph limits wherever there is an over-riding road safety case”, but states that “the mobility and productivity needs of road users must also be taken into account”10. The RAC goes on to note that: ‘Any suggestions of blanket 20mph limit in urban zones don't make sense to motorists who readily recognise that different roads and different environments warrant different speed limits and driving behaviours.’39
The cost of implementing wide area coverage of 20mph speed limits
DfT Circular 01/2013 notes that: ‘before introducing or changing a local speed limit, traffic authorities will wish to satisfy themselves that the expected benefits exceed the costs. Many of the costs and benefits do not have monetary values associated with them, but traffic authorities should include an assessment of the following factors: collision and casualty savings conditions and facilities for vulnerable road users impacts on walking and cycling and other mode shift congestion and journey time reliability environmental, community and quality of life impact, such as emissions, severance of local communities, visual impact, noise and vibration costs, including of engineering and other physical measures including signing, maintenance and cost of enforcement’.40
The 20s Plenty Campaign group suggest that to pay for wide area coverage of 20mph speed limits, the local authority could utilise its public health and social services budget and believes that the cheapest way to change driver behaviour in urban environments is to put in place 20mph speed limits. The more roads that are included from 20mph speed limits the less expensive it will be to introduce 20mph speed limits. Once a decision has been made to introduce 20mph speed limits more widely in the county the money will follow. A single Traffic Regulatory Order could also be introduced to minimise costs.
38 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4294454/Council-scraps-20mph-limit-no-difference.html 39 http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/motoring/motoring-news/concern-over-pupil-road-safety-11363805412115 40 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01- 2013.pdf
23 97 ITEM 7
We heard from the officer representing our Highways department at our task group meetings that expenditure has to be evidence-led in line with the DfT guidance. The County Council does not have a large pot of funding for road safety and so cannot implement 20mph speed limits wholesale. Instead the County Council has to take into account collisions data and its statutory duties in terms of providing a moving network. Retrospectively trying to design out speed on existing roads that do not have the look and feel of roads with 20mph speed limits will be difficult to do so and costly. It is more effective in terms of self-enforcement and cost if roads on new housing and commercial developments can be engineered from the start to design out speed.
In relation to Public Health its budget alongside the highways budget is constrained which means having a wide area approach of introducing 20mph speed limits is difficult.
The County Council does though access funding streams to promote encourage walking and cycling. Also on new developments the County Council seeks to engineer out speeds through the development control planning process. In terms of the existing built environment the Council regularly keeps an eye out on the various grant funding streams that it could apply for to make the county’s roads safer. The 95 Alive Partnership helps fund road safety measures and campaigns aimed at changing road users’ behaviour. However, there is a far greater cost to retrofit safety measures in the existing built environment. Behavioural change is resource intensive and the reality is that the highway’s revenue budget needs to focused on maintaining a safe road network.
The actual cost of introducing 20mph speed limits obviously varies area to area and will depend upon the number of 20mph speed limits and amount of signage to be introduced within a given local authority area. In addition to the standard signage, Vehicle Activated Speed Signs can be used as advisory signs to remind motorists of the 20mph speed limit where such a speed limit is in force41. The findings from other local authorities in this report provides some indicative figures of the cost of introducing 20mph speed limits though they tend to relate to local authorities in urban areas.
The research published in the ‘Atkins Report’ found that of the schemes it researched their cost ranged from £10,000 to £1.7 million, with larger schemes generally having higher implementation costs. The research found that many local authorities found it difficult to provide precise costs for the case study areas, particularly for area-wide schemes where implementation phases overlapped. They were also unable to calculate the amount of staff time spent on the scheme. Staff costs and costs associated with signs and carriageway markings, including sign production, road painting, and labour costs were the most expensive elements. Costs for signs and carriageway markings were provided by both of the small-scale residential schemes included in the research study, equating to £1600 per kilometre
41 Parishes in North Yorkshire can purchase and maintain Vehicle Activated Speed Signs subject to conditions prescribed by North Yorkshire County Council under its Process for the Installation of Third Party Owned Vehicle Activated Signs in North Yorkshire, adopted in March 2019 https://democracy.northyorks.gov.uk/Committees.aspx?commid=18&meetid=3788
24 98 ITEM 7
for each scheme. Both were categorised as ‘moderate’ in terms of frequency and visibility of signing. However, information provided for some of the larger area-wide schemes suggested a much lower unit cost, but it is unclear whether labour costs were included. The costs of public consultation and engagement activities also have to be factored in and estimates of £250,000 and £300,000 were cited for some of the larger area-wide schemes.42
Encouraging other modes of transport
As the DfT Circular notes, there are important benefits of 20 mph schemes including quality of life and community benefits, and encouragement of healthier and more sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling. The guidance also goes on to note that: ‘Fear of traffic can affect peoples’ quality of life and the needs of vulnerable road users must be fully taken into account in order to further encourage these modes of travel and improve their safety. Speed management strategies should seek to protect local community life’.43
The ‘Atkins report’ pointed out that accident reduction was not a key driver behind many of the case study schemes and that in general, 20mph limit schemes seek to address a wide range of policy areas and have a range of objectives spanning road safety, promotion of active travel modes, perceived quality of the environment, health and wellbeing, and community benefits44. Indeed, local authorities such as Bristol City Council acknowledged that the introduction of wide area 20mph speed limits in Bristol was about more than reducing road traffic casualties, although this was one of the aims. The roll-out sought to improve health and well-being across the city, taking a holistic perspective as to how slower traffic speeds might impact on people’s lives.
The ‘Atkins report’ also noted that research shows fear of collisions may suppress travel by modes such as walking and cycling; and that improving driver behaviour has the potential to encourage active travel.
Engineering-in road safety reduces speed by its very nature. North Yorkshire County Council as the lead Highways Authority applies the DfT’s ‘Manual for streets 2’45 – a document to be used to assist those in the planning, construction and improvement of our streets to deliver more contextually sensitive designs. However, we need to ensure when considering planning applications for new housing or commercial development, we make recommendations to local planning authorities, based on written policy, to design out speed as part of the condition of approval and also to put in place infrastructure to create safe walking and cycling routes.
42 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757302/20mph-technical- report.pdf 43 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01- 2013.pdf
44 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757307/20mph-headline- report.pdf 45 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets-2
25 99 ITEM 7
In the course of our meetings we heard about the work that the County Council including Public Health does to encourage alternative travel modes and active travel schemes. The Public Health team have a three pronged approach: discussions with planning departments around the building and design of new developments; interacting with individual groups e.g. schools; and related to this, promoting a modal shift in behaviour change, such as by the creation of healthy school zones. The 95 Alive Partnership has several initiatives in place to promote road safety and an Active Travel Strategy is in its early stages of development.
We do feel though that North Yorkshire County Council’s 20 mph policy should reference links to the wider policy agenda in relation to driver education (promoting behavioural change), supporting alternative modes of transport and shaping the built environment. This is so that the wider policy focus is not exclusively constrained by historical accident statistics in determining 20mph speed limits, if an otherwise strong case can be made for a 20mph speed limit to be introduced in a specific area. This would also be in accordance with DfT Circular 01/2013.
The current terrible situation of the COVID-19 pandemic does at least provide a further opportunity to consider how our highways network can be used in the future, taking into account the full range of road users and its use for leisure and work purposes. In the immediate term, social distancing will need to continue and we are seeing behavioural change in terms of the increase in bike sales. This could result in more longer-lasting behavioural change, with the potential in some of our larger town centres such as in Harrogate and Scarborough to become traffic free or have more limited vehicle access than they did before the pandemic.
At the time of writing this report, temporary cycle lanes are being opened in Liverpool46 as lockdown eases, and large areas of London are to be made car-free in order to aid social distancing and promote cycling and walking47. In cities in Germany, road markings are being re-drawn to create “pop-up” cycle lanes for the duration of the Covid-19 lockdown. This is in order to allow cyclists more space to physically distance on their commutes to work48.
Significantly, the Department for Transport (DfT) announced on 9 May 2020, a £2 billion package to help encourage more people to choose alternatives to public transport such as walking and cycling when they need to travel49. Statutory guidance50 was also published on the same day to enable local authorities to respond to COVID-19 by allocating road space for significantly increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians. On 23 May 2020, the DfT announced an Emergency Active Travel Fund linked to the COVID-19 Recovery. The emergency grant funding, to be delivered in two tranches, will support local transport authorities with producing cycling and walking facilities. The first tranche of funding will support the installation of temporary projects for the COVID-19 pandemic and the second tranche will support the creation of longer term projects. In respect of the first tranche, North Yorkshire County Council has been earmarked an indicative allocation of £266,000
46 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-52653006 47 https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/car-free-zones-in-london-as-cc-and-ulez-reinstated 48 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/pop-up-bike-lanes-help-with-coronavirus-social-distancing-in-germany 49 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-billion-package-to-create-new-era-for-cycling-and-walking 50 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local- authorities
26 100 ITEM 7
and in respect of the second tranche an indicative allocation of £1.1 million, subject to submission of successful bids. The focus of this first round of funding will be very much about temporary measures that can be implemented quickly and can allow for more space for walking and cycling. An updated Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is also planned to be launched by the Prime Minister in the summer, with further measures to promote cycling and walking to deliver the government’s aims to double cycling and increase walking by 2025.
Communications
North Yorkshire County Council’s 20mph speed limit policy does not appear as a stand-alone document on the County Council’s website and is instead only an appendix to a report that was submitted to the Executive in 2006. Understandably most people will not know where to look for the document. There is a specific webpage on the County Council (Speed limits, speeding, and road safety concerns) where it should appear.
Overall, North Yorkshire County Council’s Policy for 20mph Speed Limits should be made more apparent to local communities that we are flexible as a council in considering 20mph speed limits. We believe that a lot of communities currently do not realise that. The more we can do to signpost our strategy and create links to our 20mph speed limit policy document the better as it then links into a wider strategy. The 20mph speed limit policy links to York and North Yorkshire’s Road Safety Strategy: ‘Safer Roads, Healthier Places’. This strategy is due to be refreshed so there could be a reference inserted in it and also in the County Council’s 20mph Speed Limits Policy for both to be read in conjunction.
There is also a need to make clear the policy is in relation to 20mph signs and not 20mph zones.
The policy also needs to reference the latest DfT Circular 01/2013 as it currently only refers to DfT Circular 01/2006 which was super-ceded by 01/2013. As stated in DfT Circular 01/2013, it builds upon the underlying principles of DfT Circular 01/2006 but provides additional evidence of the safety and wider benefits of setting appropriate speed limits.51
Few 20mph speed limits have been introduced in North Yorkshire in the last two years and so consequently the 20mph speed limit policy has not been regularly referred to by the Area Highways Offices. Whilst the Area Highways Offices follow the process set out in the policy it is difficult to measure consistency of application. Consideration needs to be given going forward about this will be measured in the updated policy. There also does not appear to be a definitive list held by the Area Highways Office of which schools in their areas have a 20mph speed limit.
51 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01- 2013.pdf
27 101 ITEM 7
Conclusion
People might in theory be supportive of reducing speed limits, particularly in their local area, but in practice might be less likely to be so especially in other areas that they have to drive through with the increase in their travel times from A to B – the reverse of the ‘not in my back yard’ effect. The 20s Plenty Campaign group representative who attended our meeting in October to give evidence stated that a few selfish motorists should not stop policy change towards healthier, safer public realm environments for all and our duty of care to the vulnerable. However, we feel that there is a need for pragmatism here, that is the need to keep road users moving as efficiently as possible. This is important particularly for the wider economy when balanced against the low numbers of KSIs on roads in our lower speed roads. Also it cannot be assumed that local residents in our towns and villages will want a 20mph speed limit, and the DfT Circular refers to the need to understand the requirement of local communities.
Arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, there might in fact be a profound and long- lasting change in attitudes (and take-up) amongst the public to supporting alternative modes of transport and car-free spaces. This in turn might lend itself to more support for 20 mph speed limits as part of this approach. Conversely there might be an increase in people using their cars due to them being more reluctant to travel by public transport. Also at the same time Britain looks like it will be heading into the deepest recession in living memory. Therefore, there will remain more than ever a need to promote the economy. However, there is also the opportunity arising from behavioural change and transport policy changes backed up by funding at the national, regional and local level to create a renewed drive to create a greener low carbon economy in the post COVID-19 world.
Regardless of whether there is now or in the future public support for lower speed limits, in order for speed limits to be effective they should reflect the nature of the road and in essence be ‘self-explaining’. It is unrealistic therefore in such a diverse and vast area as North Yorkshire for there to be 20mph speed limits existing in all settlements where there are vulnerable road users, even if some exceptions were introduced.
In North Yorkshire there is a downward trend in the number of KSI related-collisions even though the amount of traffic on our roads is increasing. Ongoing improvements in car technology are seeing the introduction of enhanced driver safety driver aids such as automatic braking and speed limiters which should reduce KSI rates further. Speed-related KSI figures in the county are low and in North Yorkshire the evidence and targeting appears to be needed in relation to roads with a 50mph or 60mph speed limit as this is where most collisions are. However further work is needed to ascertain the percentage of 30mph speed limits against the percentage of 50mph or 60mph speed limits in the county to ensure a fair comparison is being made.
The existing County Council policy on 20mph speed limits already allows a degree of flexibility already to allow our communities to introduce 20mph speed limits in their areas. The policy though would benefit from some updating (in particular it needs to reference the latest Department for Transport Circular 01/2013 Setting Local Speed
28 102 ITEM 7
Limits) and to be promoted including being uploaded on to the County Council’s website as a stand-alone document. Some communities might not be aware of the policy but could benefit from the introduction of 20mph speed limits.
We believe though that there is a specific focus required around schools and where there have been personal injuries in areas with 30mph speed limits, with a view to reducing the speed limit down to 20mph. 20mph speed limits around schools should cover a wider area in order to encourage greater use of active modes of transport. 20mph speed limits around the immediate vicinity of a school are not going to be as effective in this regard as parents are likely to still feel that it is not safe for their child to walk or cycle to school.
We acknowledge that the road layout where the school is located has been the determining factor for deciding on the speed limit rather than the existence of the school itself. However, many residents might not be aware of the 20mph speed limit policy and so locations in and around schools or other areas that might warrant a 20mph speed limit might be missing out.
We accept that for the 95Alive Partnership, the key rationale for changing speed limits and introducing other road engineering initiatives is about reducing the number of casualties. However, when it comes to schools having 20mph speed limits outside could serve to encourage more pupils to walk and cycle to school. We agreed with the point raised by the representative from the 20s Plenty Campaign group that in order to encourage alternative modes of travel there is a need to make the road environment safe and beyond the immediate vicinity of the school. This assumes however that there is the facility to do so.
The policy should also reference links to the wider policy agenda in relation to driver education (promoting behavioural change), supporting alternative modes of transport and shaping the built environment. This is so that the wider policy focus is not exclusively constrained by historical accident statistics in determining 20mph speed limits, if an otherwise strong case can be made for a 20mph speed limit to be introduced in a specific area. Our findings show that other local authorities have introduced 20mph speed limits for quality of life reasons, alongside the aim of reducing road traffic casualties. The 20s Plenty Campaign Group has informed us that during the pandemic, doctors and campaigners have been calling on central and local government for an emergency national urban 20mph limit, filtering residential ‘rat runs’, creating emergency low traffic neighbourhoods, suspending on-street parking on major routes, installing emergency wide protected cycle lanes or car one- way systems.52 In May 2020, the government fast-tracked statutory guidance to enable local authorities to allocate road space for significantly increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians. Post the coronavirus pandemic we will see more such initiatives and North Yorkshire County Council needs to take account of those and fully exploit the recently announced DfT funding package to promote walking and cycling53. At the same time, we will need to continue to balance the interest of the full range of road users and the use of our highway network for leisure and work purposes.
52 http://www.20splenty.org/doctors_demand_20mph 53 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-billion-package-to-create-new-era-for-cycling-and-walking
29 103 ITEM 7
Education, as part of the 95 Alive Partnership, also needs to continue to be a strong theme in relation to getting motorists to keep to the speed limit and avoid being distracted – the latter being the main cause of motor vehicle accidents in North Yorkshire. As has been highlighted during the coronavirus pandemic, some motorists have taken advantage of the much reduced traffic levels on our roads to travel at excessive and dangerous speeds, posing a risk to themselves and to other road users.
Engineering-in road safety in new housing or commercial developments reduces speed by its very nature. To this end there could be written policy to oblige the planning authorities with such planning applications to consider putting in measures to design-out speed as part of the condition of approval. At the same time consideration should be given to including infrastructure to create safe walking and cycling routes.
When considering planning applications for new housing or commercial development, North Yorkshire County Council, in its capacity as the lead Highways Authority and as statutory consultee to the planning process, needs to ensure that it makes recommendations to local planning authorities based on written national policy indicating the appropriate best practice and guidelines for the implementation of measures, to design out speed as part of the condition of approval and also to put in place infrastructure to create safe walking and cycling routes.
30 104 ITEM 7
Recommendations
We recommend that:
1) The policy should be more explicit in considering 20mph speed limits around schools and consideration given to extending the distance traditionally considered around schools in order to encourage greater use of active modes of transport.
2) With reference to KSI figures, work is undertaken by the County Council’s highways department to ascertain the percentage of 30mph speed limits against the percentage of 50mph or 60mph speed limits in the county.
3) The County Council’s highways department draws up a list of high risk collision areas using three years’ worth of data to examine whether an area would benefit from a 20mph speed limit, taking into account the function of the road and the road environment.
4) An examination be undertaken of the consistency of how the 20mph Speed Limit Policy is applied by each Area Highways Offices.
5) A list of schools be drawn up that have a 20mph speed limit in the county.
6) Communications should be improved in relation to North Yorkshire County Council’s Policy for 20mph Speed Limits by: The document appearing as a stand-alone document on North Yorkshire County Council’s Speed limits, speeding and road safety concerns webpage so that it is easier to search for and be known to members of the public; Reference to the policy inserted in the ‘Safer Roads, Healthier Places, York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Strategy’ and vice versa; All references to DfT Circular 01/2006 be removed and replaced with references to DfT Circular 01/2013; Making it clear that the policy does not relate to 20mph zones.
7) The 95 Alive Partnership actively promotes North Yorkshire Police’s ‘Operation Spartan’ initiative, in order to raise awareness that dash cam footage can be used to capture dangerous driving and potentially lead to a conviction.
8) When considering planning applications for new housing or commercial development, North Yorkshire County Council, in its capacity as the lead Highways Authority and as statutory consultee to the planning process, makes recommendations to local planning authorities based on written national policy indicating the appropriate best practice and guidelines for the implementation of measures, to design out speed as part of the condition of approval and also to put in place infrastructure to create safe walking and cycling routes.
31 105 ITEM 7
9) More broadly, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, for North Yorkshire County Council in partnership with a range of stakeholder interests to consider how our highways network can be used in the future to create a greener economy, taking into account the full range of road users and its use for leisure and work purposes.
32 106 ITEM 7
Appendices
Appendix 1: North Yorkshire County Council’s 20 mph Speed Limit Policy Appendix 2: Other shire council policies: 20 mph speed limits policy
33 107 ITEM 7
NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
REPORT TO EXECUTIVE
5 DECEMBER 2006
A REVIEW OF THE CURRENT 20MPH SPEED LIMITS POLICY
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To advise Members of the outcome of a review of the County Council’s current policy regarding the introduction of 20mph speed limits.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 A review of the current 20mph speed limit policy has been carried out which takes into account the latest guidance published by the Department for Transport and best practice and addresses the feasibility of introducing variable speed limits outside schools. This review will be considered by the Transport and Telecommunications Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 29 November and their views will be reported at your meeting.
3.0 DISCUSSION
3.1 The Department for Transport published new guidelines on setting local speed limits in August 2006. This guidance states that “the aim should be to align the local speed limit so that the original mean speed driven on the road is at or below the new posted speed limit for that road.” The guidelines also suggest that 20mph speed limits are only suitable where mean vehicle speeds are 24mph or below, or where additional traffic calming measures are planned. This differs from the previous guidance given by the Department namely that if observed 85th percentile speeds are above 24mph, then it is unlikely a 20mph speed limit would be appropriate, unless traffic calming measures can be provided. The County Council’s current 20mph speed limit policy complies with the previous guidance.
3.2 It is considered that the County Council’s 20mph speed limit policy requires amending in order to make the guidance more specific and take account of the new national guidance and the new scheme prioritisation system contained in the second Local Transport Plan (LTP2). The policy has therefore been updated to reflect this and is attached as Appendix A. The changes from the previous policy are shown in italics in Appendix A. For purposes of comparison the current 20mph speed limit policy is attached as Appendix B.
NYCC – 05.12.2006 - Executive Review of current 20mph speed limits policy/1 108 ITEM 7
3.3 North Yorkshire Police have been consulted on the updated policy and have indicated their support.
4.0 VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS OUTSIDE SCHOOLS
4.1 The County Council as a Highway Authority has the power to introduce variable speed limits under a Traffic Regulation Order.
4.2 Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/99 states: “It is of doubtful benefit to have a short length of either a 20mph speed limit or a 20mph zone outside a school. Apart from the uncertainty of whether drivers will observe the limit, they may subsequently speed up significantly in an area where children, in relatively large numbers, will be approaching or leaving the school. Forming a self- enforcing 20mph zone in roads surrounding the school would be likely to reduce the frequency of accidents not only in the immediate vicinity of the school, but also on the routes that children take to school”.
4.3 Research in Scotland into the effectiveness of full time advisory 20mph speed limits in residential areas concluded that the majority of trial sites had not been successful in obtaining an average speed of 20mph although 60% of sites showed a reduction in speeds.
4.4 Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/03: Vehicle Activated Signs advises that research on part time 20mph zones found that this measure as a speed reducing feature had little effect on vehicle speeds. Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) report 363 showed that the use of static signs only has a small effect on mean and 85th percentile speeds, and for 20mph zones this has been found to be about 1mph on average. Added to this, the cost of installation means that such measures offered poor value for money.
4.5 The cost of installing the variable message signs required for a variable 20 mph speed limit would be in the order of £50k per site. There would be a minimum of eight signs (two double faced terminal signs showing 20 and 30 at each end of the scheme) plus any repeater signs. The whole life cost is likely to be relatively high due to ongoing maintenance requirements. Permanent signs would require approval from the Secretary of State and GOYH have indicated that such approval is unlikely to be forthcoming.
4.6 In addition, a variable speed limit outside a school could be counter productive if speeds only reduced by about 1mph as parents and pupils may have a false sense of security due to the new speed limit which may lead to reduced awareness of traffic.
NYCC – 05.12.2006 - Executive Review of current 20mph speed limits policy/2 109 ITEM 7
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 This review has considered the latest guidance and best practice with regard to 20mph speed limits and has concluded that an updated County Council policy is required to reflect the need to make the guidance more specific and to reflect developments due to the second LTP. The possibility of introducing variable speed limits outside schools has been considered but is not recommended due to the evidence suggesting that such limits would not have the desired speed reducing effect and would therefore not represent effective use of the limited funds available for highway schemes.
6.0 RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Members are asked to approve the updated policy for the introduction of 20mph speed limits attached in Appendix A to this report.
GORDON GRESTY Corporate Director, Business & Environmental Services
NYCC – 05.12.2006 - Executive Review of current 20mph speed limits policy/3 110 ITEM 7
APPENDIX A
POLICY FOR 20 MPH SPEED LIMITS (changes from previous policy shown in italics)
1.0 APPLICATION IN NORTH YORKSHIRE
1.1 There are two different ways of implementing 20mph speed limits, which are:-
a) Use of speed limits, indicated by terminal and repeater signs generally without traffic calming measures, referred to as 20mph speed limits.
b) A zonal approach using terminal signs together with suitable traffic calming measures to provide a self enforcing element, referred to as 20mph zones.
1.2 20mph limits or zones shall only be introduced in particular circumstances, where specific criteria are met. A blanket 20mph approach should not be applied.
1.3 Part time 20 mph limits or zones should not be implemented.
2.0 CRITERIA
2.1 The basic criteria for a 20mph speed limit or zone to be introduced are:-
a) The proposal is appropriate to the area;
b) It would be beneficial following an assessment of the impact of the proposal in terms of accessibility, safety, environment and congestion (the four shared priorities) and added value; and
c) Would not be dependent on an unreasonable level of enforcement by the Police, which means that the Police should not then be expected to enforce them as a matter of course.
2.2 In addition, the following more detailed criteria will be followed:-
a) 20mph speed limits/zones should be restricted to residential areas, roads fronting schools, main shopping streets of town centres and “honeypot” locations where a high concentration of pedestrian traffic is generated. They might also be suitable for rural minor roads that have been designated as 'quiet' routes by virtue of their appropriateness and suitability for recreational use by large numbers of vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders.
b) 20mph speed limits by signs alone should only be used where mean vehicle speeds are 24mph or lower.
NYCC – 05.12.2006 - Executive Review of current 20mph speed limits policy/4 111 ITEM 7
c) Where mean vehicle speeds are in excess of 24mph traffic calming measures must be introduced to reduce mean vehicle speeds to 24mph or below for a 20mph limit or zone to be introduced.
d) For a 2 mph zone to be installed, the appropriate traffic calming features as defined in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 must be introduced.
On strategic road corridors regard would need to be taken of the effect of 20mph limits on overall journey times and any resulting economic impact.
3.0 PRIORITIES
3.1 Criteria to be used in assessing the relative priority of individual proposals are required to determine the allocation of the funding necessary to implement them. This will ensure a consistent approach in dealing with proposals for the introduction of 20mph speed limits and zones.
All proposals or requests for 20mph speed limits or zones will be assessed, initially, against the guidelines set out in Section 2 above. Provided the requirements of the guidelines are met, then the specific proposal will be prioritised as follows:-
a) For 20mph speed limits by signs only where the observed mean vehicle speed at the mid-point of the length of road under consideration is 24mph or less.
Such locations will require only an appropriate traffic regulation order and the speed limit signs, and as such will be a relatively low cost to implement. Funding priority will be allocated to those locations with the highest level of personal injury accidents over the preceding 5 year period.
b) For traffic calmed 20mph zones and 20mph speed limits, where the observed mean vehicle speed is in excess of 24mph and which will therefore require traffic calming measures to bring speeds down to 20mph
Such locations will involve significantly greater funding and will, therefore, be placed on the relevant traffic calming reserve list for priority rating based on the relevant scheme prioritisation system.
NYCC – 05.12.2006 - Executive Review of current 20mph speed limits policy/5 112 ITEM 7
APPENDIX B
POLICY FOR 20 MPH SPEED LIMITS (01/00)
1.0 APPLICATION IN NORTH YORKSHIRE
1.1 There are two different ways of implementing 20 mph speed limits, which are:-
• Use of speed limits, indicated by terminal and repeater signs alone.
• A zonal approach using terminal signs together with suitable traffic calming measure to provide a self enforcing element.
1.2 20mph limits or zones shall only be introduced in particular circumstances, where specific criteria are met.
2.0 CRITERIA
2.1 a) The proposal is appropriate to the area;
b) It would be beneficial in road safety and environmental terms; and
c) Would not be dependent on an unreasonable level of enforcement by the Police, which means that the Police should not then be expected to enforce them as a matter of course.
2.2 In addition, the following more detailed criteria will be followed:-
• 20mph speed limits by signs alone would be most appropriate where 85 percentile speeds are already low and further traffic calming measures are not needed. If the 85 percentile speed is above 24mph, then it is unlikely a 20mph speed limit by signs alone would be appropriate.
• 20mph zones should be used where the site is suitable for a 20mph in respect of all other criteria yet vehicle speeds are in excess of 24mph and where traffic calming measures will be needed to ensure speeds are at, or below, 20mph.
• 20mph zones would be particularly appropriate where there is an existing record of accidents to children occurring over an area, or where concentrations of pedestrians and/or cyclists exist or are anticipated. They can help to protect children walking and cycling to and from school and may encourage other children to walk or cycle.
• In applying this advice, 20mph speed limits/zones might typically be expected to be introduced in residential areas, on roads fronting schools, in the main shopping streets of town centres and in “honeypot” locations where a high concentration of pedestrian traffic is generated. They might also be suitable for rural minor roads that have been designated as 'quiet' routes by virtue of their appropriateness and suitability for recreational use by large numbers of vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders.
NYCC – 05.12.2006 - Executive Review of current 20mph speed limits policy/6 113 ITEM 7
On strategic road corridors regard would need to be taken of the effect of 20mph limits on overall journey times and any resulting economic impact.
3.0 PRIORITIES
3.1 Criteria to be used in assessing the relative priority of individual proposals are required to determine the allocation of the funding necessary to implement them. This will ensure a consistent approach in dealing with proposals for the introduction of 20 mph speed limits and zones.
All proposals or requests for 20mph speed limits or zones will be assessed, initially, against the guidelines set out in Section 2 above. Provided the requirements of the guidelines are met, then specific proposal will be priorities as follows:-
a) For 20mph speed limits by signs only where the observed 85 percentile speed at the mid-point of the length of road under consideration is 24mph or less.
Such locations will require only an appropriate traffic regulation order and the speed limit signs, and as such will be a relatively low cost to implement. Funding priority will be allocated to those locations with the highest level of personal injury accidents over the preceding 3 year period.
b) For traffic calmed 20mph zones and 20mph speed limits, where the observed 85 percentile speed is in excess of 24mph and which will therefore require traffic calming measures to bring speeds down to 20mph
Such locations will involve significantly greater funding and will, therefore, be placed on the relevant traffic calming reserve list for priority rating in relation to the personal injury accident record and scheme cost.
Whilst priorities will normally be established in accordance with the personal accident criteria set out above, there may be instances of schemes promoted under integrated transport initiatives where expenditure on 20mph speed limits to achieve environmental objectives alone can be justified. Proposals in this category will not be included in the priority lists referred to in (a) and (b) above.
NYCC – 05.12.2006 - Executive Review of current 20mph speed limits policy/7 114 ITEM 7 Appendix 2
Other shire council policies: 20 mph speed limits policy (as at May 2019)
Authority 1) Is your local authority going to review its current 1) Do you already have 20mph speed limits in the policy in light of the findings of the National county and if so has any evaluation of the Research project? Do you have a written policy effectiveness of these being undertaken? Please on your current approach to 20mph speed limits? provide details of findings if available.
Bucks CC The new DfT guidance published on the 22 November Yes. 2018 is still to be reviewed in detail. There is a lot of information contained within the new documents and Please find below information regarding some 20 mph the Council’s Network Safety Team will need some time speed limits that were installed as part of a ‘trial / pilot’. to review the information to see if there are implications to change the guidance for 20mph limits. Any change The trial took place on two different roads in the county would also be discussed with Thames Valley Police. where changes were made just by changing the signs only on the roads – no traffic calming measures were 1. New DfT 20mph Guidance installed.
For information, the following tables show the before and after speeds on Hedsor Road and Askett Village. Speeds shown are for the 12 hour period between 7am to 7pm:
Hedsor Road Before (Sept 2011) After (March 2016) Direction Average 85%ile Average
Westbound 24.7 30.2 22.1
Eastbound 24.2 29.5 22.7
Askett Village (opposite Askett Barn) Direction Before (March 2010) After (March 2016)
1
115 ITEM 7 Appendix 2
Authority 1) Is your local authority going to review its current 1) Do you already have 20mph speed limits in the policy in light of the findings of the National county and if so has any evaluation of the Research project? Do you have a written policy effectiveness of these being undertaken? Please on your current approach to 20mph speed limits? provide details of findings if available.
85% Average Average 85%ile ile
Westbound 24.4 29.4 23.0 28.2
Eastbound 23.1 28.5 23.0 28.4
The speeds shown on Hedsor Road show a decrease in speeds – this scheme was partially supported by Thames Valley Police (including the section where the speeds survey was undertaken.)
The speeds on Askett Village show that in one direction there was a 1mph decrease and no tangible change in the opposite direction.
Therefore, Askett Village represents the only scheme implemented which Thames Valley Police did not support in its entirety, the speed data overall suggests Thames Valley Police were correct in their views that the limit alone would not achieve the desired speed reduction. All speeds obtained are in excess of the threshold which Thames Valley Police would accept a 20 mph limit.
Cumbria CC Cumbria CC has no plans to review its current policy in Yes, there are 20mph speed limits in the county. light of the findings of the National Research project. Evaluation has not been undertaken of their Cumbria CC has a written policy on its current approach effectiveness. to 20mph speed limits.
2
116 ITEM 7 Appendix 2
Authority 1) Is your local authority going to review its current 1) Do you already have 20mph speed limits in the policy in light of the findings of the National county and if so has any evaluation of the Research project? Do you have a written policy effectiveness of these being undertaken? Please on your current approach to 20mph speed limits? provide details of findings if available.
The Council will only establish 20mph speed limits within the priorities of the Local Committees as follows:
If the average speed is already at or below 24 mph and if so only within residential or distinct shopping areas.
The Council will only establish 20mph zones within the priorities of the Local Committees as follows:
If the average speed is already at or above 24 mph and if so only within residential or distinct shopping areas.
The Council will only establish Part time advisory 20mph speed limits within the priorities of the Local Committees as follows:
Outside schools where the roads are classed as main access routes. Dorset Council Dorset has recently become a unitary authority, though Yes. There are in the region of 30 in the county, a fundamental change on the existing policy is not including those outside schools. No evaluation has been anticipated. The current approach is to take account of undertaken regarding their effectiveness. the national guidance and apply it as see fit. There are examples where an area has met the criteria for 20 mph speed limits but they have not been installed as they have not been seen as a priority by the Council and there is no significant need when balanced against the cost to install.
3
117 ITEM 7 Appendix 2
Authority 1) Is your local authority going to review its current 1) Do you already have 20mph speed limits in the policy in light of the findings of the National county and if so has any evaluation of the Research project? Do you have a written policy effectiveness of these being undertaken? Please on your current approach to 20mph speed limits? provide details of findings if available.
Communities also have the option of paying for the installation of 20mph speed limits if the criteria are met. In these instances, the Council specifies that Speedwatch should be used in conjunction with 20mph limits and that Speedwatch should have been in place for at least 12 months before a 20mph speed limit is granted.
After running a community Speed Watch initiative for at least 12 months, and there is still a wish to request a 20mph speed limit or zone the town or parish council should ensure this is fully supported by the community and approach Dorset County Council. Dorset Highways will undertake a speed survey and provide general advice as to what is required to deliver a scheme that is compliant with the National Guidelines or alternative ways of reducing speed that do not require 20mph limits or zones. Indicative costs of providing a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), signing and engineering works will also be made available. Further investigation, design, TRO process and implementation/future maintenance will then be at the town’s or parish’s expense. Future maintenance will be paid for as a single payment commuted sum to simplify future management of the scheme.
The parish needs to raise the funding (commutable sum in order to cover maintenance costs in the future). There also needs to be evidence of local support as the issue of installing 20mph speed limits can split local communities with some people objecting to the parish
4
118 ITEM 7 Appendix 2
Authority 1) Is your local authority going to review its current 1) Do you already have 20mph speed limits in the policy in light of the findings of the National county and if so has any evaluation of the Research project? Do you have a written policy effectiveness of these being undertaken? Please on your current approach to 20mph speed limits? provide details of findings if available.
precept being raised for the works to be carried out and not seeing speeding as a significant issue. Others have been installed within traffic calming areas to deter motorists from using ‘rat runs’ instead of the main routes. Others have been installed in market towns. Local communities that meet the criteria and wish to install 20mph speed limits are required to use external resources e.g. employ a contractor to carry out the works including marking up the area and installing the signs. The Council has preferred suppliers that local communities can use.
Durham CC Durham CC’s 20mph policy can be found at Yes, they currently exist in the county. https://www.durham.gov.uk/article/6757/Slow-to-20-for- safer-streets-. Durham CC has no plans to review the As yet, no evaluation of the 20mph speed limits has been policy at the present time and have undertaken no undertaken. We use the evaluations undertaken by detailed evaluation of the 20mph speed limits that the others as an indication of the likely outcomes of our Council has introduced. At present Durham CC is using schemes. It is likely to be something we undertake in the the information contained in the DfT 20mph Research future, possibly when our 20s programme has been Study as an indication of the effectiveness of the completed (we still have 6 schools left to do which were Council’s own 20mph schemes. funded from a Public Health Grant of roughly £1 million)
East Riding We continue to monitor research into the effectiveness In the past we have introduced 20mph restrictions Council of 20 mph limits, including but not exclusively the outside schools as part of a Safer Routes to School Portsmouth monitoring data, the DfT review and the programme and 20mph limits and zones as casualty more recent evaluation of the Bristol 20mph reduction measures. We do have monitoring data for limits.https://www.citymetric.com/transport/does-cutting- those projects undertaken as part of our Local Safety speed-limits-20mph-actually-work-4250 Schemes programme but this would mainly focus on collision data rather than compliance with the speed limit. It is not currently our intention to further review our
5
119 ITEM 7 Appendix 2
Authority 1) Is your local authority going to review its current 1) Do you already have 20mph speed limits in the policy in light of the findings of the National county and if so has any evaluation of the Research project? Do you have a written policy effectiveness of these being undertaken? Please on your current approach to 20mph speed limits? provide details of findings if available.
Speed Limit Policy. This confirms our approach of following the most recent DfT guidance (Circular 1/2013) on setting speed limits to ensure consistency. Our policy does not differentiate for 20mph restrictions.
Our current approach to 20mph limits and zones is based on the understanding that to be effective a 20mph restriction should be self-enforcing. We give priority to locations where there is evidence of an injury collision issue and where data analysis indicates that a reduction to 20mph would reduce those casualties.
Norfolk CC We are not reviewing our speed management strategy Yes, we do have some signed-only 20mph schemes in at this stage. We reviewed the policy following the DfT Norfolk. We are currently planning to fill a vacant Data Circular 01/13 which was approved by our cabinet in Analyst post which covers road safety, and looking to 2014. More recently, our Communities Committee expand the role to include the speed management area, approved a report which sets out how we are going to so that could offer further opportunities to strengthen the review the overall approach to road safety strategy, in evidence around this in future. line with Safe Systems thinking, and that work is now underway. The committee agreed to retain the current approach to speed management, and we note the research report does not at this stage amend the latest guidance from DfT. On that basis we will await further developments.
Northamptonshire Our current speed limit policy includes 20mph Yes, they currently exist in the county. CC restrictions based upon our assessment of the recent Atkins Report. It is self-explanatory but included below We have not undertaken any evaluation. Quite a few of is some of the rationale which forms part of the general the legacy 20 mph limits have non-compliance issues but advice the Council provides in response to 20mph we are not in a position to retrospectively calm any of
6
120 ITEM 7 Appendix 2
Authority 1) Is your local authority going to review its current 1) Do you already have 20mph speed limits in the policy in light of the findings of the National county and if so has any evaluation of the Research project? Do you have a written policy effectiveness of these being undertaken? Please on your current approach to 20mph speed limits? provide details of findings if available.
speed limit submissions. them.
Policy excerpt: The evidence supporting 20 mph signed only schemes is inconclusive in terms of the benefits delivered particularly in relation to the primary objectives of reduced speeds and casualties. The most comprehensive and wide ranging study into the effectiveness of 20 mph speed limits was published by the Department for Transport in November 2018. It assesses the outcomes of introducing 20 mph speed limit schemes (i.e. reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph) in residential areas and town centres. This research provides no clear insight for local authorities into the value or positive changes created by a 20mph scheme. In taking a pragmatic view we therefore remain cautious in terms of implementing 20mph speed restrictions.
The Council has relatively few 20 mph limits in the county and the majority of those currently in place were implemented prior to the formation of the Council’s Speed Limit Review Panel in 2014. Most of those that are currently accepted are generally in new developments around the county where road design will clearly achieve a self-enforcing outcome. The Council’s policy also makes it clear that the Panel takes account of a wide range of influencing factors and are not just restricted to the DfT Guidance. This pragmatic approach helps us to manage community expectations
7
121 ITEM 7 Appendix 2
Authority 1) Is your local authority going to review its current 1) Do you already have 20mph speed limits in the policy in light of the findings of the National county and if so has any evaluation of the Research project? Do you have a written policy effectiveness of these being undertaken? Please on your current approach to 20mph speed limits? provide details of findings if available.
particularly when there is little prospect of conformity with a lower speed limit demand.
Evidence in the report, and universally demonstrated in similar research conducted over the years, indicates that there is very little change in the mean or 85th percentile speed as the result of merely raising or lowering the posted limit. It is clearly evident therefore that the implementation of a 20mph restriction in isolation will not translate into compliant speed as there is disparity between a community aspiration for a lower limit and the reality of conformity. In addition, any associated modal shift, health or environmental benefits are unlikely to be achieved. In the Council’s experience the consequence of unrealistic speed limit reductions is a constant and insistent level of expectation from local communities for retrospective engineering interventions or enforcement activity from our police colleagues. Additionally, in sections where the self-enforcing nature of the road geometry means that the vast majority of vehicles are already travelling close to, or below 20mph, there would seem little point in imposing such a limit under those conditions. To do so would only increase signage clutter and road markings which can often have an adverse aesthetic and visual impact on an urban or village environment.
The Council also advises that reduced limits can easily produce an illusion of change and a false sense of safety for a local community which may mislead individuals into assuming that traffic will be travelling at
8
122 ITEM 7 Appendix 2
Authority 1) Is your local authority going to review its current 1) Do you already have 20mph speed limits in the policy in light of the findings of the National county and if so has any evaluation of the Research project? Do you have a written policy effectiveness of these being undertaken? Please on your current approach to 20mph speed limits? provide details of findings if available.
a slower speed than is actually the case, thus increasing the likelihood of conflict.
Suffolk CC Existing policy : Yes, they are in existence but with regards to evaluation https://suffolkroadsafe.com/speeding/speed-limits because we have few and very short 20 mph limits a The only element that we are likely to review in the light comprehensive evaluation has not taken place. of experience is the consultation element. In future we may require reassurances of majority community support.
Surrey CC Surrey CC recently completed a “Members Reference Group” review of its speed limit policy in January with particular reference to 20 mph speed limits. (See Review of Surrey County Council’s Policy “Setting Local Speed Limits” Internal Advice Note.) In summary it was concluded that the Council’s existing speed limit policy was fit for purpose and did not need to be changed.
20 May 2019
9
123 ITEM 8
North Yorkshire County Council
Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
22 October 2020
Work Programme
1 Purpose of Report
1.1 This report asks the Committee to: a. Note the information in this report. b. Confirm, amend or add to the areas of work shown in the work programme schedule (Appendix 1).
2 Background
2.1 The scope of this Committee is defined as:
Transport and communications infrastructure of all kinds, however owned or provided, and how the transport needs of the community are met. Supporting business, helping people develop their skills, including lifelong learning. Sustainable development, climate change strategy, countryside management, waste management, environmental conservation and enhancement flooding and cultural issues.
3 Updates
Single Use Plastics Task Group
3.1 The task group met on 27 February 2020 to set the direction of the review and to discuss the general policy environment including relevant aspects in the Environment Bill.
3.2 The task group met again on 7 October 2020, later than planned due to the national covid-19 lockdown. At that meeting, the task group received a briefing from staff in our procurement and property services on North Yorkshire County Council’s supply chain and the initiatives undertaken to date, plus further measures that could be put in place to reduce the council’s use of single-use plastic. We also looked at the action plans produced by local authorities that have taken the lead to date on producing policy statements and accompanying action plans to reduce their use of single-use plastic. Staff from procurement and property services attended.
124 ITEM 8
3.3 At the time of writing this report, the task group will meet again on 14 October 2020 to discuss with a representative from the York and North Yorkshire Local Enterprise Partnership, the LEP’s work on promoting the circular economy including examples of good business practice.
20mph speed limit policy task group
3.4 The task group’s report with recommendations has been brought to today’s committee meeting for approval for submission to the Executive on 24 November 2020.
3.5 The report was finalised during the COVID-19 pandemic and so by way of a postscript refers to the possible longer-term transport and environmental legacy that the crisis could have upon the use of our roads, with possibly more support for car free spaces or 20mph speed limits in some of our town centres.
4 County Council Motion
4.1 The following Notice of Motion was discussed at the County Council meeting held on 22 July 2020:
NHS Parking
“That this council makes known to all NHS Hospital Trusts in North Yorkshire that this council supports and encourages free on-site parking for NHS staff at their workplaces.”
Proposed by County Councillor Geoff Webber Seconded by County Councillor David Goode
4.2 The following amendment was proposed by Cllr Richard Cooper and seconded by Cllr Zoe Metcalfe.
“That this council makes known to all NHS Hospital Trusts in North Yorkshire that this council supports and encourages measures which enable their staff to travel to and from work sustainably in accordance with carbon reduction and sustainable travel commitments. The council invites them to consider how parking policy and grants for using sustainable travel options for NHS staff at their workplaces can best achieve this alongside the understandable wish for NHS staff to be recognised for the work they do.”
4.3 The following second amendment was proposed by Cllr Liz Colling and seconded by Cllr Eric Broadbent.
“That this council makes known to all NHS Hospital Trusts in North Yorkshire that this council supports and encourages free on-site parking for NHS staff at their work place. We invite them to consider how parking policy and grants for using sustainable travel options for NHS staff can best achieve a long-term aim for carbon reduction and sustainable travel across our County”
4.4 The Chairman, Cllr Jim Clark, chose to refer the matter to the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.
125 ITEM 8
4.5 An informal meeting was held on 19 August 2020 inviting County Councillors Webber, Goode, Cooper, Metcalfe, Colling and Broadbent to attend with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the issues and to establish if a general agreement could be reached to inform the Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 22 October 2020.
4.6 The outcome of the meeting was that the Liberal Democrats agreed to support the second amendment proposed by Cllr Colling and seconded by Cllr Broadbent.
4.7 The proposers of the first and second amendments were not able to be present at the meeting. However, County Councillor Richard Cooper subsequently expressed concerns that the original motion would also provide free parking for non-frontline NHS staff. This would serve to encourage greater car use and so increase carbon exhaust emissions.
4.8 The issues of carbon reduction and sustainable transport are relevant considerations for the Committee, as well as whether all NHS staff should be provided with free travel, or for this benefit to be confined to NHS staff working on the frontline.
4.9 The motion does not specify for how long free on-site parking should be provided for NHS staff at their workplaces. However, placing a timescale upon how long the coronavirus will impact upon NHS admissions is not possible at this stage. The recent rise in infections has shown that the coronavirus is going to be with us for some time. There is also an argument to suggest that it is in the best interests of NHS frontline staff to travel to work in their own car during this time, rather than by public transport, in order to reduce their and their patients’ chances of getting the coronavirus. County Councillor Geoff Webber has confirmed that the intended purpose of the motion was to secure free on- site parking for NHS staff during this particularly difficult time.
4.10 In the spirit of trying to reach a compromise so that the rationale of the original motion is not lost whilst at the same time encouraging the NHS to promote sustainable travel options in the longer-term, the Committee might wish to refer the County Council to consider the following wording:
“That this council makes known to all NHS Hospital Trusts in North Yorkshire that this council supports and encourages free on-site parking for frontline NHS staff at their work place for the duration that covid-19 places a strain on the NHS. We also invite them to consider how parking policy and grants for using sustainable travel options for NHS staff can best achieve a long-term aim for carbon reduction and sustainable travel across our County.”
126 ITEM 8
5 Recommendations
5.1 That the Committee: a. Notes the information in this report. b. Recommends to the County Council that it approves the following wording as the agreed amendment to the NHS Parking Motion: “That this council makes known to all NHS Hospital Trusts in North Yorkshire that this council supports and encourages free on-site parking for frontline NHS staff at their work place for the duration that covid-19 places a strain on the NHS. We also invite them to consider how parking policy and grants for using sustainable travel options for NHS staff can best achieve a long-term aim for carbon reduction and sustainable travel across our County.”
Jonathan Spencer, Principal Scrutiny Officer
Tel: (01609) 780780 Email: [email protected]
12 October 2020
Appendices:
Appendix 1 – Work Programme Schedule 2020/21
Background documents:
North Yorkshire County Council Forward Plan https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/council-forward-plan
127 ITEM 8 Appendix 1 Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Work Programme Schedule 2020/21
Scope ‘Transport and communications infrastructure of all kinds, however owned or provided, and how the transport needs of the community are met.
Supporting business, helping people develop their skills, including lifelong learning.
Sustainable development, climate change strategy, countryside management, waste management, environmental conservation and enhancement flooding and cultural issues.’
Meeting dates
Scheduled 22 Oct 21 Jan 14 April 12 July 21 Oct 20 Jan 13 April Committee Meetings 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022
10am 10am 10am 10am 10am 10am 10am
Scheduled Mid Cycle 10 Dec 25 Feb 1 June 9 Sept 9 Dec 24 Feb Briefings 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 Attended by Group 10am 10am 10am 10am 10am 10am Spokespersons only
Reports Meeting Subject Aims/Terms of Reference Consultation, progress and performance monitoring reports Corporate Director and / or Executive Regular update report as available each meeting Each meeting as Member update available Work Programme Regular report where the Committee reviews its work programme
128 TEE O&S work programme ITEM 8 Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Work Programme Schedule 2020/21 Meeting Subject Aims/Terms of Reference 22 October 2020 Apprenticeships To provide an update on the County Council’s progress in supporting apprenticeships in North Yorkshire including responding to the Apprenticeship Levy introduced in 2017
North Yorkshire County Council’s Update on Economic Growth Plan refresh including the prospects of a ‘green Economic Growth Plan recovery’
Highways Maintenance Contract To receive the annual report on actions being put in place by the highways maintenance & highways improvement contractor (Ringway)
Review of North Yorkshire County To receive the task’s group report and consider the recommendations to the Executive Council’s 20mph Speed Limit Policy set out on pages 31 to 32 of the task group’s report.
21 January 2021 York and North Yorkshire LEP Annual update on the work of the York and North Yorkshire Local Enterprise Partnership and a briefing on the LEP-led Covid Economic Recovery plan for York and North Yorkshire North Yorkshire County Council’s Air To be consulted on North Yorkshire County Council’s Air Quality Strategy Quality Strategy
Road casualties To advise Members of the road casualty figures in 2019 and initiatives being undertaken by the work of the 95Alive Partnership
Highways England Regular annual update
14 April 2021 Rural Commission (North Yorkshire) To discuss the findings and recommendations of the Rural Commission
Rural transport Community transport and bus services: the sustainability of some commercial services particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of the council in market shaping/development; and matters arising from the call for evidence on rural transport by the Rural Commission
2 N:\ceg-data\Democratic Services\Committees\TE&E TEE O&S work programme Page129 of 4
ITEM 8 Transport, Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Work Programme Schedule 2020/21 Allerton Waste Recovery Park To receive an update on the performance of Allerton Waste Recovery Park
Items where dates Civil Parking Enforcement To provide a review of countywide Civil Parking Enforcement in 2018/19 and 2019/20 have yet to be confirmed Grass-cutting To provide an update on grass-cutting arrangements with parish councils
Tourism in North Yorkshire Overview of the work and future plans of Welcome to Yorkshire
Traffic management in the county: Overview of the ways that the County Council can tackle traffic congestion problems in tacking traffic congestion the county such as through the use of smart traffic lighting to control traffic flow. Road junction road improvements in Harrogate and Scarborough town to be taken as examples
Countryside access Overview of the County Council’s countryside service and priorities (including unclassified roads, prioritisation of the public rights of way network and improving the definitive map processes)
In-depth Scrutiny Projects/Reviews
Subject Aims/Terms of Reference Timescales 20 mph speed limit Response to the publication of the National Research project by the Department for Transport examining Completed – task policy 20mph speed limits group report to be submitted to 22 October 2020 Committee meeting
3 N:\ceg-data\Democratic Services\Committees\TE&E TEE O&S work programme Page130 of 4
ITEM 8 Single-use plastics To explore ways to reduce the use of single-use plastics by North Yorkshire County Council staff and Commenced review visitors, partner organisations, local businesses and residents. February 2020
Please note that this is a working document, therefore topics and timeframes might need to be amended over the course of the year.
4 N:\ceg-data\Democratic Services\Committees\TE&E TEE O&S work programme Page131 of 4