APPENDIX A

Objection/Comments Comments from Director Highways & Transportation Police Whilst the speeds recorded Objects to the Order as it does not within the proposed 30mph area meet previous County would not meet previous WSCC Council Speed Limit policies and could criteria, the current WSCC Speed affect the police service, which has Limit Policy (2010) in sections limited capacity. 1.6 and 3.3 give the CLC the option of advertising a 30mph within a village and removes the need to link the decision to recorded speeds.

This is the current policy and the speed limit is being progressed under this.

Resident of North Bersted The section of the A285 where Objects to the Order as although the the speed limit reduction is premise of it is casualty reduction they proposed does contribute to the believe this is naive. The areas in that casualty record of the A285. The accidents have occurred in recent most recent 3 years Personal years are already 40MPH and the Injury Accident data up to 31st causes of these accidents here are January 2015 shows 3 slight, 1 speeding. They would support making serious and 1 fatal accident. the 40MPH stretch longer, to continue towards the turning for the animal This section already has Vehicle rescue centre as they believe this Activated signs present that will would help. However they do not think be changed to reflect the new reducing the speed limit to 30MPH speed limit. By lowering the here is necessary or appropriate to speed limit on this section, not solve the issue. A speed camera or only will it help meet community vehicle activated warning sign would concerns over the speed of be more effective, as would perhaps a traffic through Halnaker, but sign/VAS warning for motorbikes etc. could influence driver speeds Speeding motorists are to blame for throughout the A285 route and the accidents here, not the speed help reduce the current casualty limit. Believe that people who speed record seen on the A285. through a 40mph limit are just as likely, if not even more so, to speed through a 30mph limit. Resident of St Marys Road Whilst not specified in the The Statement of Reasons contains no statement of reasons, the sound reasoning that would justify the section of the A285 where the proposal. DFT Circular 01/2013 speed limit reduction is requires consideration of many proposed does contribute to the factors:- casualty record of the A285. The history of collisions; most recent 3 years Personal road geometry and engineering; Injury Accident data up to 31st road function; January 2015 shows 3 slight, 1 Composition of road users (including serious and 1 fatal accident. existing and potential levels of vulnerable road users);  West Sussex County Council existing traffic speeds; and supports localism, and this

TRO/chs1405/RC APPENDIX A

Objection/Comments Comments from Director Highways & Transportation road environment. speed limit has been progressed There is nothing indicating that any to address the concerns of thorough assessment of these points residents living within Halnaker has taken place. over speed of traffic through the It is stated that the A285 as a whole village and it would be expected has a record of a high collision rate, that road users adhere to the but no evidence is given that a new speed limit that has been significant number of these collisions legally implemented. are occurring in the stretch of road in question. Changing the speed limit in Halnaker cannot be relevant to unsafe overtaking at or vehicles leaving the road at Hill. The A285 in itself is not dangerous and its few hazards are well marked. Collisions occur as a result of bad driving or poor judgement by road users in general. No evidence is given that any incident has occurred in Halnaker as a result of vehicles that adhere to the present speed limit. Proposing to change the speed limit as a means of dealing with those who exceed the current speed limit is illogical. Any such problem, if it exists, should be a matter of enforcement if this is perceived to be the problem, but again no evidence is offered. Changing the speed limit for that reason would fly in the face of DFT Circular 01/2013. The comment that a few local people think the speed limit is too high is a thin emotionally driven argument. Speed limits should fit into a rational and easily understood hierarchy so that drivers observe them. If the prevailing vehicle speed on a road is significantly higher than a proposed lower speed limit, then simply changing speed limits is unlikely to reduce vehicle speeds. Local speed limits cannot, on their own, be expected to reduce vehicle speeds if they are set at a level substantially below that at which drivers would choose to drive in the absence of a speed limit. The road is substantially straight offering excellent visibility for all road users of each other. There is a slight kink between the Anglesey Arms and the crossroads but if pedestrians follow the first rule of the

TRO/chs1405/RC APPENDIX A

Objection/Comments Comments from Director Highways & Transportation green cross code - find a safe place to cross - then by moving to the middle of that kink they can both see and be seen. DFT Circular 01/2013:- Speed limits should not be used to attempt to solve the problem of isolated hazards, for example a single road junction or reduced forward visibility such as at a bend. There is no evidence given about any significant change in the number of pedestrian movements. Residents in the small housing development north- east of Tinwood Lane have ample straight road in which to cross safely and there has been no other increase in housing elsewhere to support arguments about changing composition of road users. In conclusion the reasons given for making this change lack any credible logical proof of a need to make the reduction in speed limit proposed and hence the proposal should be rejected. There is a minor technical error in the supporting map, which shows the speed limit in The Street as 40mph whereas it changes to 30mph within yards of the junction with the A285.

TRO/chs1405/RC