Meeting: Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Date/Time: Thursday, 7 March 2019 at 2.00 pm Location: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield Contact: Miss C Tuohy (0116 305 5483). Email: [email protected]
Membership
Mr. A. E. Pearson CC (Chairman)
Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC Mr. J. Morgan CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mr J. Poland CC Dr. P. Bremner CC Mrs. J. Richards CC Mr. Max Hunt CC Mrs B. Seaton CC
Please note: this meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s web site at http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk – Notices will be on display at the meeting explaining the arrangements.
AGENDA
Item Report by
1. Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January (Pages 5 - 10) 2019.
2. Question Time.
3. Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
4. To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda.
5. Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.
Democratic Services ◦ Chief Executive’s Department ◦ Leicestershire County Council ◦ County Hall Glenfield ◦ Leicestershire ◦ LE3 8RA ◦ Tel: 0116 232 3232 ◦ Email: [email protected]
www.twitter.com/leicsdemocracy www.http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk
6. Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.
7. Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36.
a. Make Queniborough Roads Safer
A Petition is to be presented by Ms. J. Hardy, Headteacher of Queniborough CE Primary School signed by 687 local residents in the following terms:
We the undersigned ask the County Council to work with the residents of Queniborough to develop a plan for the village so that the children and residents can travel around the village safely and so reduce the need for vehicle journeys. Speeding, traffic, heavy lorries, the lack of pedestrian crossing are all issues in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and we ask the County Council to join us in addressing these issues and improving the quality of life in our village. The petition is supported by Queniborough Parish Council, Queniborough Primary School, Transport Group of the Neighbourhood Plan.
8. National Institute for Health and Care Director of (Pages 11 - 18) Excellence Draft Quality Standards and How Environment and Leicestershire County Council Might Address Transport Them.
9. Environment and Transport Performance Director of (Pages 19 - 28) Report to December 2018. Environment and Transport and Chief Executive
10. Resources and Waste Strategy. Director of (Pages 29 - 50) Environment and Transport
11. Environment and Transport 2019/20 Highways Director of (Pages 51 - 84) Capital Programme and Highways and Environment and Transportation Work Programme. Transport
12. Road Casualty Reduction in Leicestershire. Director of (Pages 85 - 156) Environment and Transport
13. Date of next meeting.
The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on 6 June 2019 at 2pm.
14. Any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent.
QUESTIONING BY MEMBERS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
The ability to ask good, pertinent questions lies at the heart of successful and effective scrutiny. To support members with this, a range of resources, including guides to questioning, are available via the Centre for Public Scrutiny website www.cfps.org.uk. The following questions have been agreed by Scrutiny members as a good starting point for developing questions:-
Who was consulted and what were they consulted on? What is the process for and quality of the consultation? How have the voices of local people and frontline staff been heard? What does success look like? What is the history of the service and what will be different this time? What happens once the money is spent? If the service model is changing, has the previous service model been evaluated? What evaluation arrangements are in place – will there be an annual review?
This page is intentionally left blank 5 Agenda Item 1
Minutes of a meeting of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee held at County Hall, Glenfield on Thursday, 17 January 2019.
PRESENT
Mr. A. E. Pearson CC (in the Chair)
Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC Mr J. Poland CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mrs B. Seaton CC Mr. J. Morgan CC Mrs H. Fryer CC
141. Minutes.
The minutes of the meetings held on 8 November 2018 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.
In attendance.
Mr Rhodes CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Resources. (Minute 148 refers) Mrs Radford CC, Cabinet Support Member.
142. Question Time.
The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35.
143. Questions asked by members.
The Chief Executive reported that a question had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
Mr Hunt asked the following question of the Chairman:- ‘The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has said that new roads and upgrades should prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and public transport to promote more physical activity. Would the Director of Environment and Transport, in conjunction with Public Health officers, report to the Committee on how LCC might address the set of draft guidelines for local authorities from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence?’ The Chairman replied as follows:- “A report will be brought to the next meeting on 7th March 2019 regarding the draft guidelines for Local Authorities from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.”
6
144. Urgent Items.
There were no urgent items for consideration.
145. Declarations of interest.
The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting. No declarations were made.
146. Declarations of the Party Whip.
There were no declarations of the party whip.
147. Presentation of Petitions.
The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36.
148. Medium Term Financial Strategy 2019/20 - 2022/23.
The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of Environment and Transport and Director of Corporate Resources which provided information on the proposed 2019/20 to 2022/23 Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as it related to the Environment and Transport Department. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item ‘8’ is filed with these minutes. The Chairman welcomed Mr Rhodes CC, the Cabinet Lead Member for Resources and Mrs Radford CC, the Cabinet Support Member to the meeting for this item.
Proposed Revenue Budget and Budget Transfers and Service Transformation
In introducing the report, Cabinet Lead Members for Resources advised members of the financial challenges facing the Council. The Revenue Support Grant would reduce from £8.5million to zero. The inflationary and demand pressures on services provided by the Council were increasing. The Cabinet had indicated that it would prioritise adult social care and children services. However, the Cabinet recognised the pressures on the Environment and Transport Department and the need to provide good and sustainable services and had provided growth of £2million for SEN Transport and £800,000 per annum dealing with HS2 and ash dieback forestry. The Government was looking to change the funding formula but this would not happen until 2020/21 at the earliest. It was anticipated that the funding formula would address some of the current anomalies and this might improve the Council’s financial position in the future. If that were not to happen the financial outlook would be severe.
The Director advised of the significant change that had taken place across the Department to enable it to achieve total savings of £43million since 2010/11. The Department faced increasing pressures arising primarily from:- Higher expectations form the public about levels of service and response times;
7
Increasing demand form population growth; Higher rates of inflation particularly within the construction sector; The need to respond to the growth agenda in terms of planning and bidding for infrastructure projects; Increasing difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff.
The savings now expected from the Department were extremely challenging. The Department and its partners were looking at smarter working and delivery and to invest to save schemes. The growth in the staffing budget reflected the need to engage staff to help the Council develop infrastructure bids (such as the Melton Mowbray Distributor Road and Housing Infrastructure Bids) and to ensure that the Council responds to the HS2 project. With regard to HS2 the Council was seeking to mitigate the adverse impacts and maximising opportunities such as the case for classic connectivity as well as supporting businesses to take advantage of potential business opportunities. With regard to inflation this was held centrally and allocated in-year when the position became clearer. In response to questions and comments the Committee was advised as follows:-
Growth
G15– SEN Transport i) This growth was essentially to meet the increasingly complex needs now being presented by some service users.
Savings – Highways and Transport
ET1 – Revised Passenger Transport Policy ii) All supported bus services would be assessed using the new criteria set out in the Passenger Transport Policy which was recently agreed by the Cabinet. It was therefore not possible to give any commitment about the future of any particular bus service ahead of the review. {Mr Bill CC asked that it be recorded that he opposed this savings proposal as it would adversely impact bus service provision}.
ET2– Social Care and SEN Transport iii) The impact of the new eligibility criteria would be reviewed following 12 months of operation and the outcome reported to the Committee. Members were reminded that the policy made provision for exceptions on appeal and a contingency of 20% had been built into the budget for this purpose..
ET 3 – Review of staff absence iv) The proposals now outlined were supported.
8
ET 4 - Alternative Fleet Provision v) The Department was exploring options for bringing in-house some of the most expensive contracts for SEN transport provision.
Savings – Environment and Waste
ET7– Recycling and Household Waste Sites vi) The proposals to increase levels of re-use at household waste sites were welcomed. Members noted that a detailed report on this saving proposal would be made to the Committee in the near future.
ET8– Future Residual Waste vii) Members were advised that there was little likelihood of a reduction in the landfill tax and previous representations on the matter had not been successful. viii)With regard to the recently launched Government strategy document on waste, further information was still awaited on what the Government’s intentions are with respect to the separate collection of food waste and this matter is to be the subject of a consultation exercise.
Savings under Development ix) The Department was now looking at smarter working and delivery and to invest to save schemes and had held ‘brainstorming sessions’ with frontline staff to explore ideas.
Other Funding Sources x) The impact of recently introduced Roadworks Permit Scheme would be assessed and report would be made to the Committee.
Capital Programme xi) The Department had to bid to various Government funding schemes for major projects. The Government expectation was that where funding was provided there should be an element of matched funding form the local authority. Whilst S106 contributions played significant role in this it was increasingly necessary for the County Council’s mainstream capital programme to provide matched funding. xii) Representations had been made to Government regarding the retention of fines from the speed cameras installed by the County Council as a means of funding further installations. The Leader planned to have further discussions on the matter. xiii)The Director indicated that she would write to Mr Bill regarding the current position on works to the Hinckley junctions.
9
RESOLVED:
(a) That the report and information now provided be noted;
(b) That the comments now made be forwarded to the Scrutiny Commission for consideration at its meeting on 24 January 2018.
149. Environmental Performance 2017-18 and Greenhouse Gas 2017-18.
The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning the Council’s environmental performance and greenhouse gas emissions for 2017/18. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.
In response to questions the Director advised as follows:- i) The timescales for undertaking the works at the Refuse and Household Waste Sites would be determined in the context of the capital programme and contracts yet to be entered into; ii) The closure of the MBT was as a result of the collapse in the market for Refuse Derived Fuel caused by environmental issues faced by the end user of the RDF material; iii) The council’s contract for energy provision runs until 2021 and the renegotiation of the contract will address the issue of supplies from green sources.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted
150. LLEP Energy Infrastructure Strategy.
The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport which provided an overview of the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership’s (LLEP) Energy Infrastructure Strategy. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes. In discussion the members welcomed the report but commented as follows:- i) Food production was a major source of greenhouse gases but was not addressed in the report. Members were advised that this was outside the scope of the report and reminded that agriculture and livestock played a key role in the economy. ii) A change in building regulations requiring new build and developments to consider energy efficient homes and local green energy generation schemes on major developments could play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions; iii) Whilst electric cars provided an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases there needed to be substantial investment in providing the appropriate infrastructure. Concern was also expressed about how the additional electricity requirements would be met; iv) The recession had resulted in a number of previous measures aimed at reducing greenhouses gases such as the fuel escalator and proposed tax on work-based parking being shelved.
10
Members were advised that all LLEPs had been asked to undertake such a review and the outcome would be reported to Government. It was hoped that this would lead to Government action to address some of the challenges highlighted.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted
151. A46 - Update on Midlands Connect Work
The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport concerning the work Midlands Connect is carrying out on the A46 Corridor across the East and West Midlands. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes. In response to questions the Director advised as follows:- a) This was a high level study and considerable work remained to be done. b) Whilst a number specific sections for further investigation have been identified in the study these were on the basis that the particular issues and sensitivities at these locations would need particular consideration if they were to be considered in the planning of the route. It was emphasised that there is no defined line for the route; c) Should any of the suggestions for growth areas proceed this would only be after extensive consultations with the local community through the local planning process.
Mr Bill CC expressed concern regarding the study and proposals that would affect the Hinckley area as the focus was purely on growth and seemingly little regard to the environmental impact.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
152. Date of next meeting.
It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Thursday 7 March 2019 at 2pm.
CHAIRMAN 17 January 2019
11 Agenda Item 8
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - 7 MARCH 2019
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE DRAFT QUALITY STANDARDS & HOW LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL MIGHT ADDRESS THEM
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of report 1. The purpose of this report is to respond to the below question as put to the chair of the Environment & Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee (ETOSC) by County Councilor, Mr. Max Hunt:-
‘The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has said that new roads and upgrades should prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and public transport to promote more physical activity. Would the chair ask the Director of Environment &Transport (E&T), in conjunction with Public Health officers, to report to the ETOSC on how Leicestershire County Council (LCC) might address the set of draft guidelines for local authorities from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence?’
Background
2. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Quality Standards set out the priority areas for quality improvement in health and social care and are there for anyone wanting to improve the quality of health and care services. They cover areas where there is a variation in care with each standard providing a set of statements to help improve quality and information on how to measure progress. The standards are not mandatory, but can be used to plan and deliver services to provide the best possible care.
3. NICE has been consulting on the Quality Standard ‘Physical Activity: Encouraging Activity in the General Population’ and the following five draft supporting quality statements:-
Quality Statement 1: Local authorities and healthcare commissioners have physical activity champions to oversee the development and implementation of local strategies, policies and plans;
Quality Statement 2: Local authorities develop and maintain connected travel routes that prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and people who use public transport;
Quality Statement 3: Local authorities involve community and voluntary groups in designing and managing public open spaces; 12
Quality Statement 4: Workplaces have a physical activity programme to encourage employees to move more and be more physically active; and,
Quality Statement 5: Schools and early year’s settings monitor and update travel plans annually to increase active travel.
Addressing the 5 ‘NICE’ Draft Quality Statements
4. A number of local authorities across the country have benefitted from ‘Devolution Deals’ which has enabled them to be in a strong position to fund and drive forward the active and sustainable travel and physical activity agenda. For example, the devolution deal between the Treasury and Greater Manchester has paved the way for the councils and NHS in Greater Manchester to take control of the region’s £6 billion health and social care budget. This has enabled the City Mayor to commit high levels of funding towards walking, cycling and public transport and put them in a strong position to address the guidelines stipulated in the five ‘NICE’ draft quality statements.
5. Leicestershire County Council is not in a position to compete with this, however, its Environment and Transport and Public Health Departments are actively addressing the principles laid down in the five statements and the below sets out some of the work being done. Both departments will continue to work closely together to encourage active and sustainable travel and physical activity.
Quality Statement 1: Local authorities and healthcare commissioners have physical activity champions to oversee the development and implementation of local strategies, policies and plans.
6. Leicestershire County Council is the host organisation for Leicestershire & Rutland Sport (LRS) who fulfill the role as Physical Activity Champion. John Sinnott, Chief Executive of the County Council is an advisor to the LRS board, which drives forward the Physical Activity agenda.
7. The Council have endorsed and adopted the LRS Physical Activity and Sport Strategy. Ambition 3 of the strategy is ‘Active Places’ where there is reference to active travel, active design and use of green spaces: https://www.lrsport.org/uploads/lrs-physical-activity-sport-strategy-2017- 2021.pdf
8. The Council host a Physical Activity Delivery Group to encourage physical activity to be embedded in wider agendas. For example, the County Council and LRS are jointly funding an officer to work with schools to promote and encourage physical activity and active and sustainable travel as part of the ‘Whole School Approach’ strategy: https://www.lrsport.org/activeschools. This officer works closely with the School Sports and Physical Activity Network (SSPAN) officers to widen the coverage of LCC’s safe and sustainable travel agenda, which aims to reduce congestion and improve safety outside schools. The group also explores funding opportunities and prepares funding bids through funding providers such as Sport England. 13
Quality Statement 2: Local authorities develop and maintain connected travel routes that prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and people who use public transport.
9. There is a considerable amount of work already being done by the Environment and Transport Department and Public Health that supports this standard as set out below.
10. Public Health supports this standard and fully recognises that transport systems and the wider built environment can influence peoples’ ability to be active. It is the view of Public Health that when developing and maintaining travel routes, pedestrians, cyclists and users of other modes of transport including public transport that involve physical activity should be given the highest priority over motorised transport (cars, motorbikes and mopeds, for example).
11. The attractiveness of active travel is affected by distance, the nature and quality of a route and its access and safety. Improved travel route design that is maintained to a high standard will provide the greatest opportunity for people to move more in their day-to-day lives. Public Health believes it is important to encourage safe, convenient active travel that is accessible for everyone, including older people and people with limited mobility.
12. Public Health considers that funding should be prioritised to support safe (i.e. segregated where necessary) infrastructure with appropriate speed limits (20mph on residential streets and on roads with possible conflicts between cars and pedestrians, cyclists or other vulnerable road users). Sustrans, the sustainable travel charity, suggest a proxy for this would be that the routes would be safe for a ‘competent 12 year old child to ride unaccompanied.’
13. One way of ensuring this is delivered in practice is to take a Health In All Policies (HIAP) approach to transport, environmental and planning policies and for larger developments to undertake Health Impacts Assessments. This is the approach being taken with a development at Lutterworth and other developments and policies including:-
New Lubbesthorpe; Melton Local Plan; Hinckley West – with focus on physical activity (with LRS); and, The Leicestershire County Council Environmental Strategy.
13. In addition to the above, ‘Active Travel’ is included as a priority in the Public Health Physical Activity Grant. There is a consistent offer for walking / running / cycling across localities and this is a priority for the work of the School Sport & Physical Activity Networks.
14. When designing road improvement schemes, the County Council work to various design standards such as the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; Manual for Streets; Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions as well as take guidance from Department for Transport Local Transport Notes. Whilst working to these standards the County Council has internal processes to ensure that cycling, walking and public transport is inherent within the design 14
process of schemes e.g. non-motorised users audits are a key part of the design process to ensure that all modes are fully considered in the scheme design.
15. To reflect current legislation and to take into account developments in cycle infrastructure design, the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Cycle Proofing Working group is actively engaged in bringing up to date ‘Local Transport Note 2/08: Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 2/08). The DfT want to ensure that the refreshed LTN 2/08 is fully embedded in how local councils and practitioners deliver cycling infrastructure. The County Council will keep a watching brief on progress with this refresh and ensure that best practice arising from this is captured in cycle and road scheme designs going forward.
16. The recent North West Leicester Transport project that was introduced jointly with the City Council is a good example of where cycling and walking infrastructure has been enhanced as part of a scheme to improve traffic capacity along the A50. As part of this project, footways were widened to cater for cycling, shared use facilities were constructed across roundabouts and toucan crossings were introduced. Bus stop infrastructure was also improved.
17. Where possible, the County Council will look to take opportunities to improve existing infrastructure and cater for sustainable travel options as part of any road maintenance schemes it undertakes e.g. widening of footways when undertaking surfacing, introducing dropped kerb crossing points etc.
18. In addition to incorporating sustainable travel infrastructure as part of road improvement and maintenance schemes, the County Council continually look for opportunities to improve sustainable travel infrastructure provision. This is done through the planning process, as well as by ensuring new development layouts have suitable and adequate cycle, walking and public transport infrastructure to ensure their long term sustainability. The cycle, walking and public transport improvements introduced utilising S106 monies from the Glenfield Optimus Point residential and commercial development is a prime example of this. Improvements included the widening and surfacing of the Ivanhoe trail (a disused railway between Glenfield and Ratby), creating an excellent walking and cycling link between the two villages, new bus priority signals onto the A50 from the Brantings estate in Glenfield and new shared use cycle/walking facilities fronting the site providing a link through to Kirby Muxloe. The bus service 13 route has also been extended to cover this development using S106 funding.
19. In 2017, the Government published its first Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS). The Strategy sets out the Government’s ambition to make walking and cycling the natural choices for shorter journeys or as part of a longer journey. Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs), are a new, strategic approach to identifying cycling and walking improvements required at the local level are set out in the CWIS. To drive this forward, the DfT invited expressions of interest for technical assistance and support for the development of LCWIPS. Leicestershire County Council submitted an expression of interest for up to 50 days support and in September 2017 this was successfully awarded. The County Council are now in the process of producing its first LCWIP for Melton utilising this support. The skills and 15
knowledge gained from this support will be used to develop further LCWIP’s across the county, which will help inform the strategic direction for cycle infrastructure investment and any funding bids for such infrastructure in the future.
20. Further to the infrastructure aspects detailed above, the Environment and Transport department actively promotes and encourages safe and sustainable travel in schools and businesses and through its flagship ‘Choose How You Move’ brand and web site. The website provides a range of sustainable travel information, guidance and advice e.g. cycle maps, bus area guides, travel plan guidance, walking routes, car sharing, a journey planner and much more.
21. In 2016, Leicestershire County Council in partnership with Leicester City Council, were successful in securing over £3 million revenue funding over 3 years from the DfT Access Fund to invest in sustainable travel initiatives. The project target area covers Anstey, Glenfield, Groby, Birstall and Lubbesthorpe in the county; business parks around Fosse Park/M1 Junction 21 and New Parks, Braunstone and Leicester City Centre.
22. The partnership is about to enter the third year of its sustainable travel programme which includes initiatives such as personal travel planning, sustainable travel business grants, workplace cycle programmes, business and schools engagement etc. The schools work has included a new ‘School Clear Zone’ initiative being introduced in the vicinity of Millfield L.E.A.D Academy, Braunstone Town to reduce congestion, increase active and sustainable travel and improve safety. This has involved the introduction of physical traffic management measures under an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order and supporting these measures with travel behaviour change initiatives including a new park and stride site using a pub car park. Evaluation of this scheme has shown a positive reduction in school gate traffic, parking and congestion and an increase in sustainable modes of travel to the school.
23. The Environment and Transport department delivers Bikeability (cycle training programme) to around 2600 year 5 and 6 pupils per year. This training provides these primary school pupils with the skills and confidence to cycle safely on the road and helps to encourage cycling from an early age. the department also oversee the School Crossing Patrol service with 90 patrols currently in operation helping pupils cross the road safely and encouraging more walking to school.
Quality Statement 3: Local authorities involve community and voluntary groups in designing and managing public open spaces.
24. Through the Public Health Physical Activity Grant there is a consistent offer for walking, running and cycling and there are a number of projects which use outdoor gyms, forest schools and conservation projects (these vary from locality to locality). The LRS website also promotes the use of outdoor spaces/parks through its self-help/care offer.
25. A needs assessment undertaken by Public Health on active travel to school has supported some of the work that they are now doing around encouraging active travel in schools. 16
26. Public Health also actively encouraging cycling and walking clubs for adults e.g. Walking for Health.
Quality Statement 4: Workplaces have a physical activity programme to encourage employees to move more and be more physically active.
27. Leicestershire County Council actively encourages employees to be more physically active through a range of methods. An overarching Workplace Health Strategy group has developed a strategy and action plan which includes physical activity as one of its priority areas. An example of how this has supported and encouraged staff to become more active includes the provision of a staff Pool Bike and Electric Bike hire scheme (which recently invested in 10 new Electric Bikes) for employees to use for visiting sites/attending appointments away from County Hall or commuting. There are lockers that staff can hire to store clothing and a drying room for them to air wet clothing as well as a range of shower and changing facilities. There is also a number of secure cycle parking facilities located around the County Hall premises.
28. The Environment and Transport department run a number of lunch time walks and there are also a number of lunch time fitness classes in the sports pavilion that staff can take part in.
29. The Council have also invested in a ‘Better Points’ phone app that staff can download and then use to earn points for walking, cycling and other sustainable modes of travel, which can then be redeemed for 1000’s of high street vouchers.
30. Through work at the Unified Prevention Board, a sub-group of the Leicestershire Health and Well Being Board, Public Health and Localities have a Workplace Health Offer to organisations. Organisations can receive a workplace health needs assessment which identifies and supports them to improve areas of employee health and wellbeing. The assessment undertaken by Leicestershire and Rutland Sports is based upon Public Health England and Healthy Working Futures (2017) 'Workplace Health Needs Assessment' and will shortly be launched for all Leicestershire County Council staff to allow us to have a more robust understanding of the health needs of our staff and develop programmes, messages and other resources to address these. .
31. LRS offer Workplace Health Physical Activity Competitions, Champion Training, Business Games and have resources which are available to local businesses
Quality Statement 5: Schools and early year’s settings monitor and update travel plans annually to increase active travel.
32. Supporting schools with the development of a School Travel Plan is an integral part of the Environment and Transport department’s role in encouraging active and sustainable travel at schools. The department has been able to expand the coverage of support through the appointment of the jointly funded ‘Whole School Approach’ officer and through the partnership working with SSPAN’s. Schools are encouraged to sign up to Modeshift STARS (on line travel planning tool with accreditation scheme). Schools can achieve Gold, Silver and Bronze 17
accreditation status dependent on the number of initiatives they take up. To date Elizabeth Woodville Primary School in Groby has achieved Gold status. The school also won primary school of the Region of the Midlands and North West and will be attending the national awards at Parliament in March. Millfield LEAD Academy in Braunstone Town has achieved Silver status and Ibstock Junior School has achieved Bronze status. A further 10+ schools are anticipated to be accredited throughout the next 12 months.
33. Active Travel is a key priority for SSPAN’s. SSPAN’s for each area across the county have to deliver interventions targeting active travel to their primary and secondary schools. Interventions are funded through the Public Health Physical Activity Grant.
34. Active Travel Workshops are to be delivered at the upcoming Public Health ‘Health and Wellbeing’ Conferences for both schools and early years establishments.
35. Active Travel is a key priority in the Healthy Schools Healthy Tots programmes and one of the key priority groups for the Children & Families partnership at LCC: https://www.leicestershirehealthyschools.org.uk/about-us.
Conclusions
36. The 5 ‘NICE’ Quality Statements are noted by Leicestershire County Council and reaffirm the wide range of work and initiatives already being undertaken by its Environment and Transport and Public Health departments to encourage active and sustainable travel and physical activity.
37. Whilst it should be recognised that Leicestershire County Council does not have the funding levels or powers to compete with devolved authorities such as Greater Manchester, this report has emphasised the great deal of work being done by the County Council in line with the guidelines set out in the 5 Quality Statements.
38. Leicestershire County Council’s Environment and Transport and Public Health departments will continue to work closely together to ensure sustainable travel and physical activity are promoted and encouraged.
Background Papers
LRS Physical Activity and Sport Strategy: https://www.lrsport.org/uploads/lrs- physical-activity-sport-strategy-2017-2021.pdf
LRS Active Schools: https://www.lrsport.org/activeschools
Leicestershire Healthy Schools: https://www.leicestershirehealthyschools.org.uk/about-us.
18
Officers to Contact
Ann Carruthers Director, Environment and Transport Department Tel: (0116) 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
Lee Quincey, Team Manager, Safe and Sustainable Travel Tel: (0116) 3056308 Email: [email protected] 19 Agenda Item 9
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 7 MARCH 2019
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE REPORT TO DECEMBER 2018
JOINT REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of the Report
1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee with the latest Performance update of the Environment and Transport Department to December 2018.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
2. The updates in this report reflect progress against the Environment and Transport performance framework including the Strategic Outcomes Framework within the new Strategic Plan and the departments’ high level plans.
Background
3. This report includes Appendix A, containing two performance dashboards and commentary on the Environment and Transport Department’s key priorities and progress against the Council’s Strategic Plan outcomes. The first dashboard summarises Environment and Waste Performance Dashboard to December 2018 and the second summarises Transport Performance Dashboard to December 2018. The indicators included are a mixture of national and locally-developed performance indicators.
4. The frequency in which the indicators are reported varies; some are quarterly, annual and some are less frequent. The time period the data covers is stated in the dashboards in Appendix A 1 & 2. For each indicator reported in Appendix A there is information on: the latest data against the target for the year, which period this covers, if the target has been met, the direction of travel, the trend, the polarity (whether good performance data is high or low data), and the comparison quartile position.
5. Improvement or deterioration in performance is indicated by the direction of the arrows (direction of travel (DOT)) on the performance dashboard. For example, if the number of road casualties has fallen the DOT will show a green arrow pointing upwards. If the indicator doesn’t have a DOT arrow, this is because no update has been received. This may be due to the time taken to obtain data from third parties
20
and to calculate the results or because some indicators are updated less frequently e.g. annually.
6. Where it is available, the dashboards indicate which quartile Leicestershire’s performance falls into. The Council’s quartile position provides insight into how this indicator compares to other two-tier county councils in England. The 1st quartile is defined as performance that falls within the top 25% of two-tier county councils (the best). The 4th quartile is defined as performance that falls within the bottom 25% of two-tier county councils (the worst). The data reported covers data available up to December 2018. Please note that much of the data is normally one to two quarters in arrears.
7. Overall, there are 21 performance indicators in the Environment and Transport performance dashboards reported which are aligned with the Council’s Strategic Outcomes. Two new indicators are yet to be added to the transport performance dashboard which are currently in development (‘Highways Development Management’ and ‘Capital secured to unlock housing development and support delivery of jobs’) within the Environment and Transport Department.
Performance Update – latest data to December 2018
8. 16 of the 21 performance indicators in the performance dashboards have been updated this quarter. Where a direction of travel is available: eight show performance improvements, and four had declined and four remained the same as the previous update. The County Council is in the top quartile (1) for: ‘Total casualties on our roads’, ‘The number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents’, ‘ The percentage of unclassified road network where maintenance should be considered’, and the ‘Overall satisfaction with the condition of roads’. The Council is in the bottom quartile (4) for: ‘The percentage of local authority collected waste landfilled’, the ‘Total household waste per household’, ‘CO2 emissions per capita in the local area’, and the ‘Number of bus journeys’.
Environment and Waste
Great Communities
9. The percentage of municipal waste sent to landfill declined in performance as waste landfilled increased to 34.1% in quarter 1 2018/19 from 33.6% the previous quarter. It has missed its 30% target due to experiencing a loss of alternative (non-landfill) disposal points, which is outside of the Council’s control. Leicestershire is in the fourth quartile for this indicator compared to other two-tier county councils for 2017/18. This is a deterioration in the comparative performance from a third quartile position in the previous year. The authority is in the process of negotiating an increase in the amount of waste delivered to alternative disposal points, which would reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill in future years. Once a new contract is in place an improvement in performance is anticipated.
10. The percentage of household waste sent by local authorities across Leicestershire for reuse, recycling or composting’ remained the same as the previous quarter update (46%) and has not yet met its target (50%). It performs below average when compared to other English two-tier authorities as it lies within the 3rd quartile position (2017/18). This is a deterioration in comparative performance from a second quartile
21
position in the previous year. This indicator hasn’t met target due to: national issues, seasonal fluctuations in garden waste, economic factors, as well as issues specific to Leicestershire; such as the closure of the Cotesbach Mechanical Biological Treatment plant (MBT), (reported to Committee on 11 October 2018) and service changes across the county. The majority of the factors identified are beyond the control of Leicestershire County Council limiting the opportunity to mitigate the impacts.
11. ‘The total household waste per household’ increased from 1,051kg in quarter 4 2017/18 to 1,059kg in quarter 1 2018/19, highlighting a dip in performance. It failed to meet its refreshed target of fewer than 1,041kg and it remains in the fourth quartile (lowest) compared to other two-tier county councils. In order to achieve a 3rd quartile position this indicator would need to be less than 1,040kg. The average median result for participating counties is 1,018kg.
12. ‘CO2 emissions per capita in the local area’ is updated annually and is produced by the government two years in arrears; and was consequently not updated this quarter. This indicator is 5.4tpp for 2016. The latest benchmark position reported for 2017/18 showed this indicator moved from the third quartile position to the bottom quartile (4th) when compared to other two-tier counties, a deterioration of comparative performance. The Council has limited control over this indicator.
Corporate Enabler: Environmental Impact
13. All indicators within this sub outcome met their targets with the exception of ‘Tonnes of waste produced from County Council sites (non-operational)’ which improved in performance from the previous quarter from 466 tonnes to 449 but missed its 433 target. Overall, this indicator has shown a long-term improvement (i.e. reduction in waste) since 2014/15, although since 2017/18 this has begun to level off.
14. The number of ‘Total Business miles claimed’ increased across the authority from 5,833 (‘000s miles) quarter 4 to 5,886 in quarter 1, resulting in a small decline in performance. Despite this the indicator met its target of 5,972. Overall, this indicator has improved in performance since 2014/15 until September 2018.
15. ‘The percentage of staff who say Leicestershire County Council is doing enough to reduce its environmental impact’, remained the same at 91% and continued to meet its target of 79%.
Highways and Transport
Keeping People Safe
16. ‘Total casualties on our roads’ improved in performance as it declined slightly from 1,137 in the previous update to 1,136 to this quarter (September 2018), showing an improvement in performance and met its target of fewer than 1,591. This is in the top quartile compared to other two-tier county councils and Leicestershire is ranked first out of 27. Changes to police reporting procedures need to be considered and the data should be treated with caution due to the possibility of underreporting of accidents. This is reported to this committee in more detail in the ‘Road casualty reduction in Leicestershire’ report on 7 March 2019.
22
17. The number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads increased from 199 the previous quarter to 228 this quarter (September 2018 data on a rolling twelve-month average), showing a decline in performance. Whilst unfortunately the authority has missed its interim target of fewer than 175, this indicator performs better than other comparable authorities, as the authority is in the first comparison quartile, the top quartile in 2017. Leicestershire is ranked second out of 27 (two tier counties).
Strong Economy: Leicestershire has the right infrastructure for sustainable growth
18. Leicestershire continues to have some of the best maintained roads in the country. The ‘percentage of classified roads where structural maintenance should be considered’ remained at 2% during 2018/19 and has met its 6% target. Although, this indicator is not directly comparable through benchmarking a similar indicator on road condition is the ‘percentage of principal roads where maintenance should be considered’ which was ranked 1st when compared to other two-tier English authorities (2016/17) for Leicestershire. In May 2018, Cabinet agreed additional investment of £5m over two years for highways maintenance from returns generated from the Corporate Asset Investment Fund, in response to the adverse weather and its impact on the condition of the network.
19. The ‘percentage of unclassified roads where maintenance should be considered’ increased to 15% this year from 12% in the previous year, resulting in a decline in performance. This indicator has missed its target range of 9% to 13%. However, the benchmark position places Leicestershire in the top quartile (2016/17) ranked fifth out of 27. The decline in the condition of unclassified roads has primarily been due to the weather and the impact this has had on subsoils. The severe and prolonged winter of 2017/18 resulted in damage to roads from the constant freeze/thaw action. This was also aggravated by a long hot/dry summer which baked the road surfaces causing the bitumen on some roads to melt. In addition to this, the subsoils beneath the road dried out in some locations and soil shrinkage beneath the road caused deep cracks to propagate through the road construction. The available funding for Capital maintenance schemes has been targeted at repairing roads that pose the greatest risk to users; this is largely the Principal and Classified road network. The necessity to urgently repair unclassified roads in the current financial situation has placed additional constraints on the budgets for road maintenance. It is also expected that the drought/heat damage caused through 2018/19 will become more apparent in next year’s survey results. It is therefore anticipated that this damage will lead to a further decline in the performance indicator for unclassified roads during 2019/20.
20. Following a recent update to the benchmarking position, Leicestershire remains in the top quartile compared to other two-tier County Councils for the ‘Overall satisfaction with the condition of our roads’ in 2018. This is derived from the National Highways and Transport Network (NHT) Survey Report 2017 (39.5%).
21. The quartile position update for the ‘average vehicle speeds during the morning peak (7am-10am) on locally managed ‘A’ roads in Leicestershire’ remained in the 2nd quartile compared to other English two tier county councils. The data for this indicator remained at 31mph, exceeding its 30mph target. Average vehicle speeds are used as a proxy measure for peak time congestion.
22. Businesses perceptions of congestion in the county are gathered in the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) business survey every 2-3 years. The
23
Business Survey provides a snap shot evidence base of the local business landscape. As reported in the Council’s Annual Report 2017/18, the percentage of employers who perceived a reduction in congestion would significantly benefit them declined from 37% (LLEP Business survey 2015) to 28% (LLEP Business survey 2017), showing an improvement in performance for this indicator since its quarter 1 update. In addition to this, satisfaction with traffic levels and congestion is reported from the National Highways and Transport Network (NHT) satisfaction survey. For 2018 ‘Satisfaction with traffic levels and congestions’ remains in the second quartile compared to other English two tier county councils, (13th out of 27).
23. The latest data for ‘Local bus passenger journeys originating in the authority area’ improved in performance from 13.22 million in December 2017/18 to 13.43m, up-to June 2018/19. Despite having met the authority’s target of 12.8m this indicator remains in the bottom (4th) quartile when compared to other two-tier English two tier county councils. In order to achieve a 3rd quartile position results would need to be at, or above, 22 bus journeys per head. This means it would need to be at or above approximately 14.3m to achieve an improved quartile position (3rd). Since 2015/16 Leicestershire’s passenger journeys have varied between 13-14 million. The national annual figures from the Department for Transport (DfT) showed total bus journeys fell by 85m to 4.36bn over the year (2017/18), a 1.9% fall.
Background papers
Leicestershire County Council’s Strategic Outcomes Framework and Plans 2018-22
NHT (National Highways and Transport Network) 2017/18, Summary Report for Leicestershire , details within the benchmarking 2017/18 file.
Leicester and Leicestershire Business Survey 2017
Benchmarking Tableau 2016/17 report (pdf available on request)
Annual figures from the Department for Transport ‘Bus use slumps as support shrinks’ Local Government Chronicle article 1.2.19
Circulation under Local Issues Alert Procedure
None.
Equalities and Human Rights Implications
There are no specific equal opportunities implications to note as part of this performance report.
List of Appendices
Appendix A – 1. Environment and Waste Performance Dashboard to December 2018 2. Highways and Transport Performance Dashboard to December 2018
24
Officers to Contact
Ann Carruthers Director, Environment and Transport Department Tel: (0116) 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
Nicola Truslove Business Partner, Business Intelligence Service Tel: (0116) 305 8302 Email: [email protected]
1. Environment and Waste performance dashboard, to December 2018 (Q3). 25
2. Transport performance dashboard, to December 2018 (Q3). 26
27
This page is intentionally left blank 29 Agenda Item 10
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 7 MARCH 2019 RESOURCES AND WASTE STRATEGY
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee with an overview of Government’s Resources and Waste Strategy for England (2018) and highlight the interdependency between this and the Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy (LMWMS) which runs until 2020.
2. Attached at Appendix A is a useful glossary of terms which provides additional information on key definitions and references contained in the national Resources and Waste Strategy.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
3. The Resources and Waste Strategy is the first significant Government statement in this area since the 2011 Waste Review and the subsequent Waste Prevention Programme for England. It builds on this earlier work and sets fresh approaches to long standing issues like waste crime, and to challenging problems such as packaging waste and plastic pollution.
4. The LMWMS supports delivery of the Council’s Strategic Plan 2018-2022 and the Strategic Plan Vision of, ‘Working together for the benefit of everyone’, by working in partnership with the districts to deliver our statutory waste disposal authority duties.
5. The first LMWMS was adopted by the County Council in 2002, significantly revised and adopted by County Council on 12 July 2006. The Strategy was subsequently updated in 2011 to reflect changes in performance and the economic climate since 2006 but maintained the objectives of the 2006 strategy.
6. The Leicestershire Waste Partnership (LWP) comprises of the seven districts and the County Council and was responsible for producing the joint strategy.
30
Background
7. Managing waste in England is underpinned by a complex suite of legislation, plans, policies and targets which are substantially European in origin. Key drivers include the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) 2008 and Controlled Waste Regulations (England and Wales) 2012 which sets the basic concepts and definitions related to waste management including the target for reuse and recycling at 50 per cent of household waste by 2020 and adherence to the principles of managing waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy.
8. More recently linked to the UKs anticipated departure from the EU, Government has confirmed that the Withdrawal Bill will transpose all existing EU waste legislation into UK law. This includes more recent commitments contained in the Circular Economy Package (CEP) in relation to waste and recycling.
9. The CEP package includes targets to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill (no more than 10% by 2035) and sets higher targets for recycling of, plastic, paper, cardboard and glass packaging. The municipal waste recycling targets are set at 55% by 2025, 60% by 2030 and 65% by 2035.
10. In relation to the LMWMS, under the Waste and Emissions Trading (WET) Act 2003, all local authorities in two tier areas are required to have in place a joint strategy for the management of their municipal waste.
11. The LMWMS sets out the core strategy for how the LWP intended to manage municipal waste up to 2020 and whilst good practice guidance suggests a review every five years, due to uncertainty at that time (2016) and a lack of EU/National waste policy for the period beyond 2020, and in order to better understand how the LMWMS could be taken forward, consultants were commissioned in November 2016 to appraise the strategy development options. The appraisal concluded in May 2017 and identified that a Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) Plan was the most appropriate option to be taken forward by the County.
12. The Waste Disposal Authority Plan takes account of the change that has occurred since 2011 and aims to provide an updated strategic basis to support the Council’s waste management procurement plans and other decisions ahead of a full review of the LMWMS. The Plan covers the period up to 2030.
13. The release on 18 December 2018 of the Government’s Resources and Waste Strategy aims to move to a circular economy which keeps resources in use for longer and reflects the ambition of the core pledge in the Government’s 25 year Environment Plan to protect the natural world and leave it in a healthier state for the next generation
31
The Resources and Waste Strategy
Overview
14. The Resources and Waste Strategy was released on 18 December 2018. The Strategy focuses on known problems with effective solutions that will reduce reliance on single use plastics, cut confusion over household recycling, tackle the problems of packaging and end food waste. It compliments and helps deliver other government strategies which relate to the environment, they include the Clean Growth Strategy, the Industrial Strategy and the Litter Strategy.
15. The Strategy is aspiring and wide ranging in its ambitions covering a variety of subjects including tackling waste crime, more robust waste data monitoring, including moving away from weight based targets and, subject to consultation, mandatory food waste collections for householders and appropriate businesses. However the details of the specific measures are yet to be consulted on.
16. The Strategy’s aims enshrine the polluter pays principle and make sure those responsible for creating polluting products pay for the costs of that pollution. The Strategy outlines how the Government aims to make the UK more resource efficient and reduce the amount of waste created whilst moving the economy away from a linear model towards a more circular approach which keeps resources in use for as long as possible.
17. The Strategy covers the period up to 2050 and will be refreshed every five years with progress reported every three years. The first revision will occur during the period 2023/2024. It retains the current household waste recycling target of 50% for 2020 and includes the CEP target of 65% recycling rate of municipal solid waste by 2035.
18. The Strategy is framed by natural capital thinking and is guided by two overarching objectives:- To maximise the value of resource use; and To minimise waste and its impact on the environment
19. The Strategy will contribute to five strategic ambitions:-
a) To work towards all plastic packaging placed on the market being recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2025; b) to work towards eliminating food waste to landfill by 2030; c) to eliminate avoidable plastic waste over the lifetime of the 25 yr. Environment Plan;
32
d) to double resource productivity by 2050; and e) to eliminate avoidable waste of all kinds by 2050.
20. The Strategy is comprehensive and divided into eight chapters, focusing on different areas. It is supported by an evidence index and also provides a useful ‘At a Glance’ summary document (Appendix B) which includes a timeline for the period 2019 – 2050.
Emerging areas for future consideration
21. The potential implications for the Council as a Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) and as a member of the Leicestershire Waste Partnership are potentially far reaching and referenced throughout the Strategy. Some of the key areas of potential change are outlined below but in many cases are subject to consultation.
Collection arrangements
22. The Government is considering legislation which specifies a core set of dry recyclables to be collected by local authorities and waste operators with the intention to provide both clarity for householders and improve quality. Greater collection of glass separate from paper and separate food waste collections would also help to improve quality, increase revenue for local authorities and ensure more packaging can be recycled in closed loop applications (cans to cans and paper to paper).
23. Relatedly, for packaging waste, Government commits to reform Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and will ensure that producers pay the net costs of managing packaging waste at the end of its life. EPR is an environmental policy approach through which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-use stage. This incentivises producers to design their products to make it easier for them to be reused, dismantled and/or recycled at end of life. Subject to consultation, a reformed approach to ERP may include collection, recycling, disposal, reduction of littering and fly- tipping, communications, data collection and reporting, compliance monitoring and enforcement.
24. There is a proposal that every householder and appropriate business have a separate food waste collection in place from 2023. More broadly there is a strong focus on food waste with the ambition to work towards eliminating food waste to landfill by 2030 and taking actions to tackle food waste from businesses, including a £15 million pilot scheme designed to facilitate the redistribution of surplus food. The intention is to also make it easier for people
33
to waste less food with measures such as the use of re-sealable packs and labelling that helps people plan and use up food sensibly.
25. The provision of free garden waste collections is also an ambition in the Strategy but there is recognition from Government of the financial implications and they intend to seek views on the impacts and costs for local authorities.
Recycling and Household Waste Site (RHWS) Impacts
26. In relation to Recycling and Household Waste Sites (RHWSs are referenced as Household Waste Recycling Centre’s in Strategy (HWRCs)), Government will amend waste regulations so that HWRCs perform a more effective role in resource efficiency. This includes clarifying their role with regards to reuse and also exploring additional measures and providing guidance linked to setting reuse targets for local authorities.
27. Related to this, Government will also investigate extending the role of HWRC’s to require the collection of hazardous household waste and textiles by 2025, subject to consultation and assessment of potential for new burdens.
28. The intention is to also review the Controlled Waste Regulations to ensure that charging arrangements for HRWCs are clear, especially in relation to waste arising from small scale DIY construction activities carried out by householders. Government has been clear it should not be charged for, though is currently acceptable within the existing legislation. Subject to consultation, the amendments will ensure that the direction set out in the new Strategy for HWRCs remains fit for purpose, charges are fairly applied, the services are accessible, support high levels of recycling and deliver value for money. Government will also explore whether setting minimum service standards would be helpful to local authorities.
29. The Strategy states that by the end of 2025, Government will have reviewed and consulted on measures linked to EPR and product standards for five new waste streams, two of which are to be completed by the end of 2022. The list is not currently fixed but gives examples of textiles, bulky waste (including mattresses, furniture and carpets), vehicle tyres, fishing gear and certain materials in the construction and demolition sector. Whilst these materials are yet to be confirmed, and will be subject to consultation, the final materials and measures could have implications for the operation and management of the County’s RHWSs.
Wider Considerations
30. There is an intention from Government to assess the effectiveness of current arrangements for local authority waste management and joint working and
34
make recommendations for improvement. There is limited information on the scope of this ambition though reference is made to better understanding incentives for recycling services as well as alternative payment methods for recycling credits linked to balancing costs and rewards. Leicestershire already has in place an alternate delivery method which replaced recycling credit payments following Cabinet approval in September 2016 however the County Council will need to carefully consider any outcomes as Leicestershire manages waste across a two tier system.
31. In terms of data management and reporting, Government has developed a suite of strategic indicators which they will use to assess progress. Longer term they will work with local authorities to develop new performance metrics for waste to complement and move beyond current weight based targets to ones which recognise sound waste management, focusing initially on carbon and natural capital accounting.
32. Plastic packaging has been a topical subject recently and there are a number of measures within the Strategy that work towards the priority of preventing plastic entering the environment in the first place and eliminating avoidable plastic waste over the lifetime of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan. This includes the introduction of a new tax on plastic packaging with less than 30% recycled content.
33. Government will also consult on introducing a deposit return scheme (DRS) for single-use drinks containers, to reward people for bringing back bottles and encourage them not to litter. At a high level this could impact on household waste recycling if residents chose to use a DRS rather than their kerbside collection for their bottles and cans. More fundamentally, this could change the composition of household waste streams, including their calorific/financial value with possible implications for contracted services. The consultation on this proposal is one of the first expected.
34. In regards to treatment and disposal, the Government’s long term ambition is to maximise the amount of waste sent to recycling instead of incineration and landfill. They intend to drive greater efficiency of Energy from Waste (EfW) plants by encouraging use of the heat the plants produce and are committed to spending £3bn by 2042 on developing new waste infrastructure. Several proposals in the Strategy, such as maximising separate capture of food waste should also significantly reduce the volume of biodegradable waste sent to landfill. A primary aim is to process more waste within the UK and ensure that any waste sent abroad is fit for recycling and recycled to equivalent standards as required in the UK. As stated in the 2018 autumn budget, should wider policies not deliver the Government’s waste ambitions it will consider the introduction of a tax on the incineration of waste.
35
35. In relation to waste crime, the Government intends to tackle this through a range of measures, including improving and reforming duty-of-care regulations, strengthening intelligence sharing and mandating the digital recording of waste movements.
36. Throughout the document there are references to Government recognising the financial pressures on local authorities and notes that they will therefore receive additional resource to meet new net costs arising from the policies set out in this Strategy once implemented. This includes both set up front transition costs and net ongoing operational costs. There is no detail at this point in time on the level of this additional financial resource to be made available to local authorities.
Consultations
37. The Government’s Strategy is very much formative in its’ early years, with substantial levels of further engagement required and possible changes to primary legislation. There are seven significant consultations planned for 2019. There are other reforms and potential legislative changes referenced in the Strategy which will also be subject to consultations with no dates given at present. Leicestershire County Council will fully engage with these consultations and it is proposed that, where timelines allow, consultation responses will be brought to the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Consultations planned for 2019
38. Consultations due for release in 2019 include:-
a. Introducing a Deposit Return Scheme (early 2019); b. ensuring a consistent set of materials is collected from all households and businesses (early 2019); c. extended producer responsibility for packaging (early 2019); d. standards for bio-based and biodegradable plastics (early/mid 2019); e. consultation on food waste reporting (mid 2019); f. transposition of the Circular Economy Package (mid/late 2019); and, g. waste carriers and duty of care (late 2019).
Next Steps
39. In 2019, due to the substantial level of further engagement proposed and the associated risks around legislative changes, it is difficult at present to clarify
36
what the Government’s goals and ambitions will mean in terms of impacts on County Council services and contracts. Officers will seek to consider the Strategy and fully engage where appropriate to understand the implications including liaising with key stakeholders.
40. In the short term, our WDA duties will continue to be delivered as set out in the Waste Disposal Authority Plan, which supports the objectives contained in the LMWMS. Officers are reviewing the Resources and Waste Strategy for England and any associated impacts on the existing LMWMS for Leicestershire linked to a possible review during 2020, and will update accordingly.
Resource Implications
41. The financial implications of individual actions to deliver priorities of the national Waste and Resources Strategy will be more fully understood as individual consultations are released and subsequent changes to legislation implemented. The financial implications of complying with any future changes will be subject to full financial scrutiny, either as part of individual business cases or as part of future budget setting via the MTFS process.
Background papers
23 May 2012 – County Council – ‘Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy Update 2011’ http://cexmodgov1.ad.leics.gov.uk:9075/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=329 7&Ver=4
Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2011 Update: http://www.lesswaste.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/L0032_A4_WASTE- STRATEGY_DOCUMENT_Final_WEBAW2_150812.pdf
Waste Disposal Authority Plan: https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/conservation-and- sustainability/environmental-policies-and-reports
Circulation under Local Issues Alert Procedure
42. None.
Equality and Human rights Implications
43. As the Resources and Waste Strategy for England is a national strategy for England with many of the objectives and potential changes subject to consultation, an EHRIA is not required at this stage. However, EHRIAs will be
37
produced once there are any future changes to the authority’s approach going forward.
Partnership Working and Associated Issues
44. The current LMWMS is a joint strategy for the County Council and the seven districts which collectively comprise the LWP.
45. Engagement with the districts will be undertaken linked to a possible review of the LMWMS during 2020.
Appendices
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
Appendix B - Resources and Waste Strategy – ‘Resources and Waste Strategy: at a Glance’ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/resources-and- waste-strategy-for-england
Officers to Contact
Ann Carruthers Director, Environment and Transport Department Tel: (0116) 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
Joanna Guyll Assistant Director, Environment and Waste Tel: (0116) 305 8101 Email: [email protected]
This page is intentionally left blank 39
Glossary Appendix A
Anaerobic Digestion - The breakdown of biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. The process is used for industrial or domestic purposes to manage waste or to produce fuels.
Avoidable Waste – Waste that is technically, economically and environmentally feasible to reuse or recycle, or, where this does not apply, it is (technically, economically and environmentally) feasible to replace with alternatives that are reusable or recyclable.
Bio-based Plastic – Bio-based plastics are made using polymers derived from plant-based sources such as starch, cellulose or lignin.
Biodegradable Waste – Organic waste materials which are capable under the right conditions of being broken down rapidly through the action of micro-organisms into simple compounds such as water, carbon dioxide, methane and biomass.
Circular Economy – A circular economy is an alternative to a traditional linear economy (‘make’, use, dispose’) in which we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life.
Circular Economy Package (CEP) – An European Union package of policy and legislation focused on resources and waste and finalised in 2018. The CEP amends the Waste Framework Directive 2008 with the following targets for municipal waste recycling targets: 55% by 2025, 60% by 2030 and 65% by 2035.
Clean Growth Strategy – A UK Government Strategy which sets out the Governments proposals for decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy through the 2020s. It explains how the whole country can benefit from low carbon opportunities, while meeting national and international commitments to tackle climate change.
Compostable – Organic materials that when placed into a composting facility will decay spontaneously into a nutrient-rich material. Some such materials are home compostable in a domestic compost heap; others will only decompose in the higher temperatures found in a commercial in-vessel composter.
Commercial and Industrial Waste - Waste arising from commercial premises (e.g. offices) or industrial developments.
Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D) – Waste arising from the construction and/or demolition sectors. Typically the largest single contribution to total waste arisings. Some examples of C&D waste include, but are not limited to, concrete, wood, panelling and carpet.
Controlled Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 – A statutory instrument which classifies waste as household, industrial or commercial waste and lists they types of waste for which local authorities may make a charge for collection and disposal. 40
Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) – A type of fiscal incentive where consumers are charged an additional deposit when they purchase an affected product such as a drinks bottle and receive a rebate when they return the empty packaging for recycling.
Dry Recyclables – Materials such as paper, glass, textiles and cans that can be collected through kerbside schemes or Recycling Household Waste Centres.
Duty of Care - Anyone who produces, imports, keeps, stores, transports, treats or disposes of waste must take all reasonable steps to ensure that waste is managed properly. This duty of care is imposed under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It also applies to anyone who acts as a broker and has control of waste.
Energy from Waste (EfW) – An operation in which waste is converted into usable energy (electricity and/or heat), generally through combustion.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 - Act of the UK Parliament which defines, within England, Wales and Scotland, the fundamental structure and authority for waste management and control of emissions into the environment.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – A policy approach which requires producers of specified product types to take responsibility for the costs of managing those products at end of life.
Fly-tipping - Refers to dumping waste illegally instead of using an authorised method.
Government 25 Year Environment Plan – A UK Government Plan which sets out the government goals for improving the environment within a generation and leaving it in a better state than we found it. It details how the government will work with communities and businesses to do this and what goals will be progressed over the next 25 years.
Green Waste – Vegetation and plant waste from household gardens and public parks and gardens.
Hazardous Waste – Waste which displays one or more of the hazardous properties e.g. explosive, flammable, listed in annex III to the European Union Waste Framework Directive.
Household Waste – Includes waste from household collection, civic amenity sites, bulky waste and other household waste. It does not include street cleaning/sweeping, gully emptying, separately collected healthcare waste or asbestos waste. It is civic amenity sites (RHWS sites), bulky waste and other household waste.
Household Waste Recycling Centre (HRWCs) – Locally known as Recycling Household Waste Sites throughout Leicestershire, HWRCs are operated by or on behalf of local authorities, where householders can deposit household waste for re-use, recycling, composting or disposal.
Incineration - The combustion of waste materials and substances. Incineration converts the waste into incinerator bottom ash, flue gases, particulates and heat, which can in turn be used to generate electric power. 41
Industrial Strategy – A UK Government Strategy which aims to boost productivity by backing businesses to create good jobs and increase the earning power of people throughout the UK with investment in skills, industries and infrastructure.
Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS) – the strategy developed by the Leicestershire Waste Partnership for waste managed by its member authorities.
Leicestershire Waste Partnership (LWP) – a partnership formed by Leicestershire County Council and the seven district and borough councils to deliver and adopt the JMWMS.
Lifecycle – The lifecycle of a product comprises three stages: production, consumption and end of life.
Litter Strategy – A UK Government Strategy for England which sets out how the Government will work with different local groups, local authorities, Highways England and businesses to reduce litter.
Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW) – all waste collected by local authorities, including non- municipal waste such as construction and demolition waste.
Local Authority Collected Municipal Waste (LACMW) – all household waste and commercial waste that is similar in nature to household that is collected by local authorities.
Municipal Waste – Household waste and waste e.g. from businesses which is similar in nature and composition to household waste.
Natural Capital – The air, water, soil and ecosystems that support all forms of life. The UK government consider this an essential basis for economic growth and productivity over the long term.
Polluter Pays Principle – A principle of European Union environmental law, that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it.
Recycling – The reprocessing of waste material either into the same product or a different one. Many non-hazardous wastes such as paper, glass, cardboard, plastics and scrap metals can be recycled.
Residual Waste – The waste remaining after the separation of recyclable and compostable materials.
Resource Efficiency – Using the Earth’s resources in a sustainable manner.
Resource Productivity – A measure of the value obtained from resources and typically measured as value added per tonne of resources used. At the national level it is measured by Gross Domestic Product/Domestic Material Consumption.
Reuse – Any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived.
Waste Collection Authority (WCA) – Local authority responsible for the collection of waste from its administrative area, typically district or borough councils. 42
Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) – Local authority responsible for the treatment and disposal of waste collected by the WCAs within its administrative area, typically county councils.
Waste Disposal Authority Plan – An internal Plan for Leicestershire County Council as Waste Disposal Authority. The Plan provides an updated strategic basis to support the Council’s waste management procurement plans and other decisions and covers the period up to 2030.
Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (WET) - The Act requires local authorities in two tier areas to have a joint municipal waste management strategy.
Waste Framework Directive - (WFD) A European Union Directive of 17 June 2008. The first Waste Framework Directive dates back to 1975 and was substantially amended in 1991 and 2006. The WFD has recently been updated to reflect future reuse and recycling targets as set by the Circular Economy Package.
Waste Hierarchy – Legally binding priority order of waste management options, starting with prevention, then preparing for re-use, then recycling, then other recovery (e.g. EfW), and finally disposal.
Waste Prevention – Changing behaviour to avoid the generation of waste that would have otherwise occurred e.g. reducing the amount of food waste and using real nappies as opposed to disposables. 43
THE RESOURCES AND WASTE STRATEGY AT A GLANCE 44 AT A GLANCE
Natural capital is one of our most valuable assets. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the land we live on, and the stock of material resources we use in our daily lives are at the heart of our economy, our society and our way of life. We must not take these for granted.
Our Strategy sets out how we will preserve our stock of material resources by minimising waste, promoting resource efficiency and moving towards a circular economy. At the same time we will minimise the damage caused to our natural environment by reducing and managing waste safely and carefully, and by tackling waste crime. It combines actions we will take now with firm commitments for the coming years and gives a clear longer-term policy direction in line with our 25 Year Environment Plan. This is our blueprint for eliminating avoidable1 plastic waste over the lifetime of the 25 Year Plan, doubling resource productivity, and eliminating avoidable waste of all kinds by 2050.
We want to be ambitious. Where existing legislation cannot match our ambitions, we will take new powers to strengthen it.
Introduction – The case for action
In the 25 Year Environment Plan, the Government pledged to leave the environment in a better condition for the next generation. This Strategy will help us meet that commitment. It will be supported by a series of consultations on known problem areas, such as packaging waste, and we encourage you to engage with us in delivering this strategy by sharing your views.
Our plan is to become a world leader in using resources efficiently and reducing the amount of waste we create as a society. We want to prolong the lives of the materials and goods that we use, and move society away from the inefficient ‘linear’ economic model of ‘take, make, use, throw’.
A more circular economy will see us keeping resources in use as long as possible, so we extract maximum value from them. We should recover and regenerate products and materials whenever we can, giving them a new lease of life.
1 We talk about plastic waste being ‘avoidable’ when the plastic could have been reused or recycled; when a reusable or recyclable alternative could have been used instead; or when it could have been composted or biodegraded in the open environment
OUR WASTE, OUR RESOURCES: A STRATEGY FOR ENGLAND 7 45 AT A GLANCE
Raw materials
d recov d an ered cle m cy at e er R ia ls
A R
e Circular
w s
o Economy a
u e s r s t c e u e
d m r e n a c a n o a v n g e io e ry t m p e a m n n u t d ns Co
Chapter 1 – Sustainable production
During the first stage of the resources lifecycle, we turn valuable natural resources and materials into the goods and services upon which modern life and a healthy, vibrant economy depend. Evidence suggests that 80% of the damage inflicted upon the environment when products become waste can be avoided if more thoughtful decisions are made at the production stage2.
This chapter sets out how we will:
• Invoke the ‘polluter pays’ principle and extend producer responsibility for packaging, ensuring that producers pay the full costs of disposal for packaging they place on the market • Stimulate demand for recycled plastic by introducing a tax on plastic packaging with less than 30% recycled plastic • Harness the potential of extended producer responsibility for other product types • Set minimum requirements through ecodesign to encourage resource efficient product design • Manage chemicals sustainably and address barriers to reuse and recycling posed by their use, through a Chemicals Strategy • Develop a model for realising resource efficiency savings, working with businesses through ‘resource efficiency clusters’
2 WRAP (2013) http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Embedding%20sustainability%20in%20design%20%20-%20 final%20v1.pdf
OUR WASTE, OUR RESOURCES: A STRATEGY FOR ENGLAND 8 46 AT A GLANCE
Chapter 2 – Helping consumers take more considered actions
Helping consumers choose and use more sustainable products, is both good for them and the environment. Despite advances in technology in recent decades, the average life span of many products we buy and use in daily life is actually lower than it was 20 years ago3. We want to extend the lives of products through repair, reuse and remanufacture. We want to help consumers to be able to recycle the materials they contain and dispose of them in the most environmentally sensitive ways.
This chapter sets out how we will:
• Incentivise consumers to purchase sustainably • Provide consumers with better information on the sustainability of their purchases • Ban plastic products where there is a clear case for it and alternatives exist • Address barriers to reuse • Support the market for remanufactured goods • Encourage appropriate disposal of used products • Lead by example though procurement and the Greening Government Commitments
Chapter 3 – Resource recovery and waste management
Household waste recycling rates in England have risen from around 11% in 2000/1 to about 45%4. Recycling rates in construction have also improved over the same period5. But since 2013 rates for both have plateaued. We need to drive better quantity and quality in recycling, and more investment in domestic recycled materials markets. This government supports comprehensive and frequent waste collections and is determined to help local authorities and waste management companies act in the most sustainable and resource-efficient way possible. We want to promote UK-based recycling and export less waste to be processed abroad.
This chapter sets out how we will:
• Improve recycling rates by ensuring a consistent set of dry recyclable materials is collected from all households and businesses • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfill by ensuring that every householder and appropriate businesses have a weekly separate food waste collection, subject to consultation • Improve urban recycling rates, working with business and local authorities
3 The German Environment Agency (2017) https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/lifetime-of- electrical-appliances-becoming-shorter 4 Local authority collected waste from households from January 2010 to March 2018. (https://www.gov.uk/ government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local-authority-collected-waste-annual-results-tables) 5 UK Government services and information (2018) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-waste-data
OUR WASTE, OUR RESOURCES: A STRATEGY FOR ENGLAND 9 47 AT A GLANCE
• Improve working arrangements and performance between local authorities • Drive greater efficiency of Energy from Waste (EfW) plants • Address information barriers to the use of secondary materials • Encourage waste producers and managers to implement the waste hierarchy in respect to hazardous waste
Chapter 4 – Tackling waste crime
Waste-related criminal activity costs the economy hundreds of millions of pounds per year6. Rogue operators illegally dump or export waste, undermining legitimate businesses by disposing of waste cheaply and recklessly. This deprives the economy of tax income and harms the environment and local communities. By tackling this crime we will ensure that resources are properly recycled or recovered and fed back into the economy.
This chapter sets out how we will:
• Improve the transport, management and description of waste by reforming existing regulations • Strengthen intelligence sharing and engagement to tackle illegal activity • Prevent illegal activity being hidden through waste exemptions by reforming the existing regime • Mandate the digital recording of waste movements, subject to consultation • Create a Joint Unit for Waste Crime • Toughen penalties for waste criminals • Increase awareness of waste regulations and publicise positive work of enforcement bodies as they tackle waste crime
Chapter 5 – Enough is enough: cutting down on food waste
We have long recognised the need to tackle food waste. In the UK alone, an estimated 10 million tonnes of food and drink are wasted post-farm gate annually, worth around £20 billion. Excess food waste costs us money and is environmentally damaging. Growing excess food that no one eats damages the Earth’s ecosystems when we dispose of it. Moreover, a fifth of UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with food and drink, mostly created during production (agriculture and manufacturing) – and needlessly if the food and drink are wasted7. We are fully committed to reducing food waste, reducing our carbon footprint, and also meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goal to halve global food waste at consumer and retail levels by 2030.
6 DEFRA - Rethinking Waste Crime (2018) https://consult.defra.gov.uk/waste/crime-and-poor-performance-in-the- waste-sector/supporting_documents/Waste_Crime_Cons_English.pdf 7 WRAP (2016) http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/environment- food-and-rural-affairs-committee/food-waste/written/38003.html .
OUR WASTE, OUR RESOURCES: A STRATEGY FOR ENGLAND 10 48 AT A GLANCE
This chapter sets out how we will:
• More effectively redistribute food to those who need it most before it can go to waste • Consult on annual reporting of food surplus and waste by food businesses • Consult on legal powers to introduce food waste targets and surplus food redistribution obligations • Publish a new food surplus and waste hierarchy • Promote awareness of the issue by appointing a new food waste champion • Support cross sector collaboration through the Courtauld 2025 agreement
Chapter 6 – Global Britain: international leadership
Concerns over resources and waste management cut across continents and oceans. Pollution and environmental damage do not respect national borders and tackling them requires a broad coalition. Plastic which pollutes the ocean can be carried by currents and cause damage far from where it originated: there is little to be gained by making improvements in isolation. International leadership is needed.
This chapter sets out how we will:
• Promote the goals of our Resources and Waste Strategy internationally • Drive international political commitments through the ground-breaking Commonwealth Clean Oceans Alliance • Support developing nations to tackle pollution and reduce plastic waste, including through UK aid • Improve the quality of plastics exported for recycling through the Basel and Stockholm Conventions • Establish cross-government oversight of the UK’s natural resource security
Chapter 7: Research and innovation
In some areas where we are seeking transformative change, our knowledge, data or technology has yet to match the breadth of our ambitions. Innovation here is vital – both to developing novel solutions and improving the efficiency, cost and/or effectiveness of existing technologies. As Government, we can support industry and academia to stimulate innovation.
OUR WASTE, OUR RESOURCES: A STRATEGY FOR ENGLAND 11 49 AT A GLANCE
This chapter sets out how we will:
• Support further investment and innovation in resource efficiency, working with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) on our Areas of Research Interest • Launch a call for evidence on the development of standards for bio-based and biodegradable plastics • Support further investment in resource efficient technologies, including through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund • Support the Waste and Resources Action Programme • Encourage innovative waste treatment technologies that create transport fuels through the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO)
Chapter 8 – Measuring progress: data, monitoring and evaluation
High quality data, information and insights are essential for effective policy making.
This chapter sets out how we will:
• Work with our partners and stakeholders to develop a shared vision and bold new approach to data on resources and waste • Move away from weight-based towards impact-based targets and reporting, focusing initially on carbon and natural capital accounting • Maintain the coverage and quality of local authority-collected waste and improve data collection to meet future needs • Work with tech firms to develop innovative digital solutions for tracking waste, and consult on options to mandate the digital recording and sharing of waste movement data
OUR WASTE, OUR RESOURCES: A STRATEGY FOR ENGLAND 12 E LE T NE
Double resource productivity by 2050
Eliminate avoidable waste of all kinds by 2050
Eliminate avoidable plastic waste over the lifetime of the 25 Year Environment Plan
Work towards eliminating food waste to landfill by 2030
Work towards all plastic packaging placed on the market being recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2025
Standards for Extended producer Roll-out of a Introducing a deposit bio-based and responsibility for waste deposit return return scheme biodegradable plastics Transposition electronic and electrical scheme* (early 2019) (early/mid 2019) of the Circular equipment (2020) (2023) Economy Ensuring a consistent Package Revision of Consultation set of recyclable (2019) the Resorces on food waste materials is collected 50% recycling and Waste 65% recycling rate reporting from all households rate for household Strategy for municipal solid (mid 2019) and businesses (early waste (2020) (2023/24) waste (2035) 2019) 50
2019 2020 2023 2025 2030 2035 2042 2050
Extended Extended Stage one of mandatory Waste carriers producer producer Municipal waste to digital recording of and duty of care responsibility responsibility landfill 10% or less waste movements (late 2019) for packaging for packaging (2035) complete (2019) (early 2019) comes into force* (2023) Launch of Reform of Appointment £15m food exemptions from Removal of single- of a food waste redistribution waste permitting use plastics from the Legislation for mandatory 75% recycling rate champion projects (early for high risk central government separate food waste for packaging* (early 2019) 2019) activities (2019) estate (2020) collections* (2023) (2030)
STRATEGIC AMBITIONS CONSULTATIONS TARGETS KEY MILESTONES
51 Agenda Item 11
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 7 MARCH 2019
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT 2019/20 HIGHWAYS CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION WORK PROGRAMME
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to seek the views of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the draft Environment and Transport 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme, which is being presented to Cabinet on 29th March 2019, both of which are appended to this report
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
2. The 2018/19 Highways Capital Programme was considered by the Committee and approved by the Cabinet in April 2018. The Department’s key highways related plans and strategies have been taken into account when developing the 2019/20 Programme and the Highways and Transportation Work Programme. These include:-
The Local Transport Plan (2011 to 2026) – adopted by the County Council 23 March 2011; The Highway Asset Management Policy and Highway Asset Management Strategy – approved by the Cabinet 23 June 2017; The Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (HIAMP) – approved by the Cabinet 15 September 2017; and, The Network Management Plan (NMP) (2014–2026) – approved by the Cabinet 1 April 2014.
3. Consideration was also given to the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2019/20 – 2022/23, and the County Council’s Strategic Plan 2018 – 2022, which were approved by the County Council on 20 February 2019 and 6 December 2017 respectively.
Background
Policy and Strategy
4. The 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work
52
Programme reflects the Environment and Transport Department’s current key highway service related plans and strategies as detailed above, whilst also taking account of the County Council’s future priorities and the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership’s (LLEP) Strategic Economic Plan.
5. These plans and strategies will remain in place for the foreseeable future. However, those developed and owned by the County Council will continue to be assessed and reviewed where appropriate to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. It is likely therefore that elements of these documents and in some cases their entirety will be superseded. Similarly the 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and the Highways and Transportation Work Programme will be updated to reflect any such changes and the Cabinet’s approval will be sought where appropriate.
Financial context
6. The County Council is facing significant financial, demographic and service demand challenges. It needs to deliver savings of £74m over the next four financial years (2019/20 to 2022/23), with £13.3m savings to be made in 2019/20. This is a challenging task, especially given that savings of £200m have already been delivered over the last nine years. In addition, over the period of the MTFS, growth of £49.7m is required to meet demand and cost pressures with £13.9m required in 2019/20.
7. In the Environment and Transport Department, the revenue budget for 2019/20 is £67m, which is net of savings of £2.6m and growth of £5.2m for the four years from 2019/20 to 2022/23.
8. The main four-year highway service related savings are:-
a review of contracts; and,
service reviews.
9. The framework for asset management is set out in the approved Asset Management Policy and Asset Management Strategy (AMP and AMS) and the Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (HIAMP), which adopt a ‘risk based’ approach to asset management. Essentially, this means the Council will need to look after its highway assets in a way that is more reflective of the relative risks to road users (i.e. particular risk of injury or worse) posed by its condition.
10. Going forward, officers will be looking at how this is likely to affect the balance of future years’ spend across all asset management and maintenance activities. This will include levels of funding for reactive maintenance versus preventative maintenance, and funding relating to the appearance of the assets (e.g. grass cutting beyond that required in respect of road safety) versus the condition of assets. It is important that the appropriate balance is achieved to seek to maintain highway assets to the best overall condition possible and to minimise possible future legal liabilities on the County Council (e.g. arising from road user incidents) whilst working within ongoing budgetary pressures and responding to increasing travel demand arising from
53
growth. As a result, future asset management programmes could look very different.
11. The Environment and Transport Department’s capital programme totals £175.4m over the four years 2019-23, £159.2m of which is the Highways and Transportation element. This capital funding comes from a number of sources such as various government competitive funding streams, the County Council’s capital budget and developer contributions. The main areas of highway service related spend in 2019/20 are:-
Melton Mowbray Distributor Road - £2.4m (Total programme is £62m - partly funded by a £49.5m Department for Transport (DfT) grant and the balance is funded by developer contributions that will be received after the road is completed; ensuring transport assets such as roads and footways are well managed - £16m (Total programme £50.7m); Anstey Lane A46 improvements - £2.69m (Total scheme £9m, of which £5m is programmed in 2018/19); M1 Junction 23/A512 improvements - £11m (Total scheme £25m of which £5m is programmed in 2018/19); delivery of a programme of advanced design works to support future major transport schemes and bids to the DfT and Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) for funding such as Melton Mowbray Transport Strategy, Loughborough Growth Area Strategy, Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan development - £2.7m (Total programme £6.6m); investment in new vehicles to replace aged vehicles and reduce running costs - £3m (Total programme £8.1m); junction, traffic management, signage, walking and cycling improvements in Hinckley Area Project Zone 4 - £3.5m; Melton Depot replacement - £3.7m; and, Local Safety Schemes - £0.3m (carried forward from Total programme £0.5m). 12. Going forward, there are likely to be significant additional pressures in terms of the advanced design funding of (and match funding) the transport infrastructure required to enable Leicester and Leicestershire’s growth ambitions, as set out in the Strategic Growth Plan. It will not be possible to meet all of these pressures through the current approach of funding advanced design work and match funding predominantly through the Highways and Transportation Capital Programme or one–off allocations from other County Council budgets. It is intended that the matter of funding for the delivery of infrastructure to support growth will be included in a report to Cabinet on March 29th.
54
2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme
13. The draft 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme have been prepared using the best and most current information available and will be revised as necessary to ensure value for money and to respond to changing circumstances.
14. The 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme (attached as Appendix A) contains a list of schemes for each of the highways programmes.
15. The 2019/20 Highways and Transportation Work Programme (attached as Appendix B) contains actions that may take place over a number of years or which may not be implemented until beyond 2019/20.
16. Key actions outlined in the 2019/20 Highways and Transportation Work Programme include:-
a) the continued development and delivery of schemes to support growth, including the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), Strategic Growth Plan (SGP) and Local Plans; b) maximising the benefits of partnership working, utilising external funding; c) making the best use of available funds and seeking to generate new income streams; d) delivery of the programme of section 106 (developer-funded) schemes; and, e) further development of a robust evidence base to support the delivery of current and future highways and transport infrastructure.
Consultation
17. Individual schemes and projects will continue to be subject to further consultation with local members and the public and reports will be presented to members as appropriate.
18. Consultations on the various service reviews will take place at an appropriate point in their development.
Resource Implications
19. The actions outlined in the Highways and Transportation Work Programme will be funded from a variety of sources, including capital and revenue budgets and external sources of funding, such as the Government’s Single Local Growth Fund and are set out within the 2019/20 – 2022/23 MTFS.
20. The Highways and Transportation Work Programme is resource intensive, both in staff and financial terms. Given this and the significant financial challenges that the County Council continues to face, there is little opportunity under the current
55
resourcing situation for the Department to take on other commitments without affecting its ability to deliver the actions and schemes set out in the 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme.
21. The Director of Corporate Resources and the Director of Law and Governance have been consulted on this report.
Timetable for Decisions
22. This report will be considered by the Cabinet, alongside any views of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee, at its meeting on 29th March 2019.
23. Subject to the Cabinet’s approval, the Environment and Transport 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme will be published in April 2019.
Background Papers
20 February 2019 - County Council – ‘Medium Term Financial Strategy 2019/20 - 2022/23’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=5125&Ver=4
17 January 2019 - Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee – ‘Medium Term Financial Strategy 2019/20 to 2022/23’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1044&MId=5702&Ver=4
15 September 2017 – Cabinet – ‘Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135andMId=4863andVer=4
23 June 2017 – Cabinet – ‘Highway Asset Management Policy and Highway Asset Management Strategy Review’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135andMId=5120andVer=4
10 March 2017 – Cabinet – ‘Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy 2017/18 Refresh’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=4859
1 April 2014 – Cabinet – ‘Network Management Plan 2014-2026’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135andMId=3989andVer=4
Leicestershire County Council’s Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/field/pdf/2017/1/9/Local_transport_plan.pdf
Circulation under the Local Issues Alert Procedure
24. None.
Equality and Human Rights Implications
25. There are no equality or human rights implications arising directly from the
56
recommendations in this report. It has not been necessary to undertake a detailed equality assessment on the 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme.
26. Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessments (EHRIA) will, however, be undertaken, as appropriate, during the review of any appropriate departmental strategies, prior to final decisions being made. This will ensure that any new, proposed or significantly changed policies, practices, procedures, functions or services are assessed for equality and human rights implications.
27. In addition, work undertaken on individual projects contained within the 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme, such as MTFS service reviews, will include EHRIAs when appropriate.
Environmental Implications
28. No detailed environmental assessment has been undertaken on the 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme. However, the County Council will assess the environmental implications of relevant new policies and schemes at appropriate points during their development.
Partnership Working and Associated Issues
29. Working with key partners, such as the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP), Leicester City Council, district councils, Highways England, Network Rail, developers and Midlands Connect will be increasingly important in seeking to secure additional funding to deliver future transport measures and infrastructure.
Risk Assessment
30. The 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme have been risk assessed as part of a wider risk assessment of the Environment and Transport Department’s business planning process.
31. The delivery of both Programmes is supported by the Department’s business planning process and risk assessments will be undertaken for individual teams, schemes and initiatives as appropriate.
Appendices
Appendix A – Environment and Transport 2019/20 Highways Capital Programme Appendix B – Environment and Transport 2019/20 Highways and Transportation Work Programme
Officers to Contact
Ann Carruthers Director, Environment and Transport Tel: (0116) 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
57
Ian Vears Assistant Director, Environment and Transport Tel: (0116) 305 7966 Email: [email protected]
This page is intentionally left blank 59 Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT - CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2019/20 to 2022/23 - Draft
2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Total £000 £000 £000 £000 £000
Commitments b/f
- Zouch Bridge Replacement ** 600** 600 1 - Advance Design / Match funding 2,680 1,570 1,270 1,120 6,640 2 - Melton Mowbray Distributor Road (MMDR) 2,410 25,140 25,000 9,420 61,970 3 - County Council Vehicle Programme (Fleet Vehicles) 3,040 2,890 1,500 650 8,080 4 - Melton Depot Replacement 3,610 50 3,660
11,740 30,250 27,770 11,190 80,950 Major Schemes
5 - Anstey Lane A46 (subject to £4.1m Leicester City 2,690 1,400 4,090 contribution****) 6 - M1 Junction 23/A512 (subject to £7.8m developer 11,030 8,730 19,760 contribution) 13,720 10,130 0 0 23,850
Transport Asset Management* 9,820 9,840 9,770 29,430
7 - Capital Schemes and Design (Carriageway & Heat 4,330*** 4,330 Damage Schemes) 8 - Bridges (Structures) 740 740 9 - Flood Alleviation- Environmental works 240 240 10 - Street Lighting 250 250 11 - Traffic Signal Renewal 140 140 12 - Preventative Maintenance - (Surface Dressing) 4,130 4,130 13 - Restorative (Patching) 6,410 6,410 - Additional Highway incentive fund subject to meeting level 3 criteria 0 1,670 1,670 1,670 5,010 14 - Hinckley Hub (Hawley Road) 3,530 3,530 15 - Highways Maintenance - IT renewals 80 80 30 190 19,850 11,570 11,540 11,440 54,400 Total E&T 45,310 51,950 39,310 22,630 159,200
Notes * Government Grant allocations, indicative 2020/21 onwards. * programme amended by -£3.5m (2019/20), -£3.1m (2020/21) -£3.1m (2021/22) and -£3.1m (2022/23) for substitution to E&T revenue budget ** Zouch Bridge – current allocation carried forward from previous financial years is £2,522,000. Outcome of CPO process will enable scheme delivery timetable to be reviewed and costs to be refined and finalised. ***£830,000 advanced from 19/20 budget to 2018/19 therefore allocation is £3,500,000 £300,000 Local Safety Schemes – due to improved ways of working it has been possible to identify 19/20 Safety Schemes programme in 18/19 and likewise to fund it from within the 18/19 allocation. However in order to allow for necessary consultation the schemes will be delivered in 19/20 – funding is the carry forward to allow for this. ****£4.1m contribution based on current estimates and final contributions will be agreed with Leicester City Council on the basis of the target price and associated contract management processes over the delivery of the scheme Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
Commitments b/f 1 - Advanced Design / Match Funding
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k To investigate potential feasibility, benefits and Countywide A46 Expressway impact of A46 expressway from SW to NE Cost Band D Leicestershire North West Leicestershire / A511/A50 Growth Corridor (New) Development of schemes to support growth Cost Band B Coalville
Fund to support any new initiatives which may 60 County Wide Emerging Priorities Fund arise from funding opportunities during the Cost Band B year
Highway England Growth & Funding to enable future development of County Wide Cost Band C Housing Fund business case/proposals for M1 Junction 20
Subject to outcomes of initial Expression of County Wide Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) Interest bids to Government, funding for Cost Band D development of outline business cases Loughborough Growth Area Charnwood / To develop proposals to support future growth Strategy (Loughborough Town Cost Band D Loughborough of Loughborough Centre)
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k To investigate areas for potential work on the County Wide Major Road Network (MRN) MRN which can be developed for potential Cost Band C funding bids
Harborough / Market Market Harborough Transport Develop proposals for the diversion of the Cost Band C Harborough Study A4304 from the town centre (LLEP funded) 61
Melton / Melton Melton Mowbray Transport To identify transport solutions and develop a Cost Band D Mowbray Strategy (MMTS) transport strategy for Melton Mowbray
Introduction of road traffic micro-simulation (computer models to understand traffic Microsimulation & Scheme movement) within certain areas (Melton, County Wide Assessment Development Cost Band D Market Harborough, Coalville & Programme Loughborough) to support project development and delivery where required To continue to promote the priorities of Leicester & Leicestershire Railway Strategy County Wide Rail Strategy Works Cost Band D including through working with Midlands Connect Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k
To develop the Strategic Transport Plan (including supplying evidence base) to sit County Wide Strategic Transport Plan Cost Band D alongside the Leicester & Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan
To enable new proposals to be identified and Transport Barriers to Growth developed as necessary in the light of County Wide Cost Band D Programme emerging growth proposals (e.g. new Local
Plans) 62
Walking & Cycling Strategy (Local County Wide Cycling Walking Infrastructure To develop a LCWPIS for Melton Cost Band D Planning Strategy (LCWPIS)
Hinckley & Bosworth A47 Desford Crossroads To develop a scheme Cost Band B / Desford To develop initial evidence base for the County Wide South East Leicestershire strategy and possible initial work for early Transport Strategy (SELTS) deliverable Cost Band D
Budget £2,680,000
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
2 - Melton Mowbray Distributor Road (MMDR)
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Planned North & East MMDR work – Project Melton Mowbray / Melton Mowbray Distributor Road management, consultant development of the Cost Band A Melton (MMDR) detailed design and statutory orders required for scheme delivery
Budget £2,410,000
63
3 - County Council Vehicle Programme (Fleet Vehicles)
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k County Council Vehicle County Wide Vehicle replacement programme Cost Band A Programme
Budget £3,040,000
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
4 - Melton Depot Replacement
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k To find alternative depot site to replace Melton Melton Mowbray Melton Depot Replacement Cost Band A depot whose lease is due to expire.
Budget £3,610,000
Commitment b/f Total £11,740,000 64
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
Major Schemes
5 - Anstey Lane A46
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Junction improvement & localised widening. Charnwood Anstey Lane A46 Cost Band A Extension of dual carriageway
65
Budget £2,690,000 6 – M1 Junction 23/A512
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k
Junction improvement, localised widening & Cost Band A Charnwood M1 Junction 23/A512 new access to development
Budget £11,030,000 Major Schemes Total £13,720,000
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
Transport Asset Management
7 - Capital Schemes and Design
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Carriageway Maintenance Schemes Charnwood / A6 Derby Road: Start of dual Strengthen carriageway Cost Band C Hathern carriageway – Northbound Charnwood / A6 Bridge Street & Fennel Street: Strengthen carriageway Cost Band B Loughborough Canal bank to Church gate A607 Fosse Way / Cossington Lane Charnwood / Resurface carriageway / Syston north bound roundabout Ratcliffe on the Cost Band C 66 including Fosse Way down to River Wreake bridge Harborough / Somerby Road: District Boundary Strengthen carriageway Cost Band B Owston & Newbold to Long Lane Owston B590 Trinity Lane: Rugby Road to Hinckley & Bosworth Coventry Road. Northbound side Resurface carriageway Cost Band C / Hinckley only North West A453: Roundabout at the junction of Resurface carriageway Leicester / Breedon A453 and A42 Cost Band C on the Hill North West Station Road: Grange Road to The Leicester / Strengthen carriageway Cost Band B Green Hugglescote Oadby & Wigston / Horsewell Lane: Halcroft Rise to Resurface carriageway Cost Band C Wigston Moat Street
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k A6 Leicester Road: Leicester Road Oadby & Wigston / to Palmerston Way (Racecourse Resurface carriageway Cost Band C Oadby roundabout) Kettering Road: Gores Lane to Harborough / Market Market Harborough side of rail Resurface carriageway Cost Band C Harborough bridge Seagrave Road: Sunnylands Drive Charnwood / Sileby Strengthen edges & overly Cost Band B to Big Lane
A50 Leicester Road: County Hall 67 Blaby / Glenfield roundabout to city Boundary, city Strengthen carriageway Cost Band B bound side only Heat Damage Schemes Harborough / Wood Lane: Knebworth house to In-situ recycling Cost Band C Launde Oakham Road North West Willesley Wood Side: 3 sections Leicestershire / between Railway Line and Willesley In-situ recycling with bituminous overlay Cost Band C Ashby Wolds Lane Wood Lane: 400m length either Melton / Redmile In-situ recycling with bituminous overlay Cost Band D side Ivy Farm house Harborough / Tilton Hyde Lodge Road: Oakham Road In-situ recycling Cost Band D to Washdyke Road – Approximately 50% of the full length of road Harborough / Tilton Launde Road: Wood Lane to In-situ recycling Cost Band C Oakham Road Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Harborough / In-situ recycling Cost Band C Owston and Washdyke Road: Hyde Lodge Newbold Road to Owston Village sign
Harborough / From Loddington Road to Main In-situ recycling Cost Band C Loddington Street: Wood Lane Crossroads - Approximately 400m before 30mph sign at Loddington village Harborough / Allexton Road / Hallaton Road: In-situ recycling Cost Band C Hallaton / Allexton Approximately 600m north of culvert, 200m south of Allexton village sign Harborough / Oakham Road: Owston Wood Road In-situ recycling and carriageway patching Cost Band C 68 Withcote to Sauvey castle farm access Harborough / Foxton Debdale Lane: 2nd gate across In-situ recycling Cost Band D road, 50m past 3rd gate across road Harborough / Launde Road: Oakham Road to In-situ recycling Cost Band C Withcote Launde Abbey, approximately 70% of the full road length. Melton / Cold Somerby Road / Oakham Road: Carriageway Patching & Strengthening Cost Band C Overton / Somerby Knossington Road to Cold Overton Road Charnwood / Paudy Lane: Paudy Crossroads to Carriageway Patching / Strengthening / Joint Cost Band B Seagrave Six Hills Sealing
Budget £3,500,000
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
8 - Bridges (Structures)
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Blaby / Enderby Soar Valley Way (0320) Parapet upgrade Cost Band D Blaby / Huncote Main Street, Huncote Bridge (0678) Brickwork repairs Cost Band D Charnwood / Main Street / Brand Lane (1294) Culvert replacement Cost Band C Swithland
Harborough / Great 69 London Road (0119) Brickwork repairs / de-silting Cost Band D Glen NWL / Whitwick City of Three Waters (0504) Re-decking Cost Band C
County Wide Various - Concrete repairs Preventative maintenance Cost Band C
County Wide Various – Parapet painting Preventative maintenance Cost Band D
County Wide Various – Bollard installations Concrete / brick repairs – Minor maintenance Cost Band C
County Wide Various – Bridge inspections (Y13) Risk based inspections Cost Band C County Wide Various – Bridge Assessments Cost Band C Load carrying capacity calculations (Y14) County Wide Various - Advance Design Cost Band D
Budget £740,000
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
9 - Flood Alleviation – Environmental Works
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k NWL Bath Lane, Moira Works Cost Band C Melton Mowbray Main Street, Sewstern Works Cost Band D NWL Drome Close, Coalville Optioneering / Design / Construction Cost Band D NWL Church Street, Hemmington Optioneering / Design / Construction Cost Band D Charnwood Betty Hensers Lane, Mountsorrel Optioneering / Design / Construction Cost Band D
Charnwood Main Street, Swithland Optioneering / Design / Construction Cost Band D 70 NWL Breedon on the Hill Optioneering / Design / Construction Cost Band D NWL Measham Road, Moira Optioneering / Design / Construction Cost Band C
Budget £240,000
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
10 - Street Lighting
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Bulk Column Replacement County Wide Bulk Column Replacement Programme Cost Band B County Wide Structural Testing Programme - Structural Testing
Budget £250,000 71
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
11 - Traffic Signal Renewal
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Phase 2 – Additional work to finish off in 19/20. Blaby / Braunstone Osiers Bridge (Top) Cost Band C (s106 scheme) Charnwood / Nottingham Road / Queens Road Cost Band D Loughborough Oadby & Wigston / A6 / Sainsbury’s Cost Band C 72 Oadby Charnwood / Leicester Road Cost Band D Mountsorrel
Budget £140,000
Programme Total £197,500 Budget £140,000
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
12 - Preventative Maintenance (Surface Dressing)
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k
County Wide Surface Dressing Programme Surface Dressing (County Wide) Cost Band A - Blaby Surface Dressing - Blaby - Surface Dressing (Blaby) (113,014 m2) - Charnwood Surface Dressing - Charnwood - Surface Dressing (Charnwood) (130,810 m2)
- Harborough Surface Dressing 73 - Harborough - Surface Dressing (Harborough) (288,210 m2) - H&B Surface Dressing Hinckley & Bosworth - Surface Dressing (H&B) (137,504 m2) - Melton Surface Dressing - Melton - Surface Dressing (Melton) (161,880 m2) - NWL Surface Dressing - North West Leics - Surface Dressing (NWL) (87,051 m2) - O&W Surface Dressing - Oadby & Wigston - Surface Dressing (O&W) (16,042 m2) County Wide Surface Dressing Pre-Patching Surface Dressing Pre-Patching Cost Band A
Various Locations – Condition County Wide Condition Surveys Cost Band D Surveys
County Wide Joint Sealing Programme Joint Sealing Cost Band D
Budget £4,130,000
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
13 - Restorative (Patching)
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Various - County Un-planned Carriageway Patching Cost Band A Wide Patching Various - County Planned Carriageway Patching Patching Cost Band A Wide
Budget £6,410,000 74
Appendix A – 2019/2020 Highway Capital Programme
14 - Hinckley Hub (Hawley Road)
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Hinckley & Bosworth Hinckley Hub - Hawley Road Junction Scheme Cost Band A / Hinckley
Budget £3,530,000
75
15 - Highway Maintenance - IT Renewals
Cost Band A = Over £1 Million District / Parish Location / Scheme Name Intervention / Work / Treatment Description B = £200k- £1Million C = £50k to £200k D = Below £50k Highway Maintenance - IT Various County Wide IT Schemes Cost Band C Renewals
Budget £80,000
Transport Asset Management Total £19,850,000 Total E&T £45,310,000
This page is intentionally left blank Appendix B – 2019/20 Highways & Transportation Work Programme
This work programme is an extract from the Environment & Transport Department 2019/20 Action Plan. It does not cover all actions and there will be day-to-day activities that will continue to go on as part of ‘business as usual’.
Departmental Outcome – Head of Service Head of Service Action / Team Objective – Level 3 Date Range Service Area Level 1 Objective – Level 2 DptOC001 - Improved Continue to deliver our Develop and implement service efficiency projects in order 31.03.2022 Highways satisfaction with the Transformation to improve services and support delivery of the service's Commissioning transport system and Programme & review MTFS savings. waste and environmental our commissioning and services amongst both delivery processes in Implement the adopted Passenger Transport Policy and 31.03.2020 Highways users and residents order to optimise Strategy (PTPS) throughout 2019. Commissioning/ efficiency and deliver Transport MTFS Savings Operations Develop and support the implementation in practice of the 31.03.2021 Highways Highway Asset Management Policy and Highway Asset Commissioning Management Strategy (the 'risk based' approach) in line with national guidance and best practice. Take forward outcomes of the Special Education Needs 31.03.2020 Transport 77 (SEN) review. Operations To provide non-statutory pre-application advice to 31.03.2022 Highways applicants in line with the Council's policy Commissioning Undertake a review of design guide for new development. 31.03.2020 Highways Commissioning Undertake project reviews in order to assess the feasibility 31.03.2022 Highways of generating income to support service delivery. Commissioning Continue to develop a Collection, analysis and provision of transport data and 31.03.2022 Highways robust evidence base intelligence to support economy and growth, infrastructure Commissioning to support the delivery development and delivery, both within the Department and of the current and to our partners. future commissioning Continue development of Micro-Simulation models for the 2019/2020 Highways strategies county’s principal market towns in order to assess the Commissioning impact of proposed developments and ensure that those impacts are suitably mitigated. Continue to develop, use and maintain a suite of analytical 31.03.2022 Highways tools, develop and maintain a robust evidence base to Commissioning underpin the departments commissioning strategy and decision making. Provision of data collection services to internal and external 31.03.2022 Highways
1
Appendix B – 2019/20 Highways & Transportation Work Programme
This work programme is an extract from the Environment & Transport Department 2019/20 Action Plan. It does not cover all actions and there will be day-to-day activities that will continue to go on as part of ‘business as usual’.
Departmental Outcome – Head of Service Head of Service Action / Team Objective – Level 3 Date Range Service Area Level 1 Objective – Level 2 clients, including contracted services to Warwickshire Commissioning County Council, Leicester City Council and the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Road Safety Partnership (LLRRSP). Provide business To ensure the appropriate evidence, processes and 31.03.2021 Highways systems, processes systems are in place to support operational delivery, Commissioning and support to deliver transformation and secure external funding – Under the high quality and new code of practice “Well-managed Highway compliant services Infrastructure”. Provision of responses to Property Search (CON29) 31.03.2022 Highways enquiries including creation, maintenance and publication of Commissioning source information to comply with the Authority's duties under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004. DptOC002 - Our transport Continue to manage Conduct a comprehensive review of our strategic approach 31.03.2022 Highways system and assets are and maintain our to network management in line with other key strategies Commissioning 78 effectively managed and highway assets such as HIAMP and emerging actions and projects across well maintained. the department. 19/20 - Deliver and develop a maintenance programme in 2019/2020 Highways line with Well-managed highways, including supporting the Commissioning ongoing commissioning process. Coordinating assessments for highway land asset disposal 31.03.2022 Highways requests, including managing associated procedures to Commissioning stop up, divert, or exchange highway land. Development of the Area Traffic Control (ATC) Service. 31.03.2022 Highways Commissioning Efficient delivery of TRO's - reductions in timescales and 31.03.2022 Highways cost. Commissioning Management of the UK Pavement Management System 31.03.2022 Highways (UKPMS) including coordination of the network condition Commissioning assessments, and provision of asset condition data to inform the Authority's highway maintenance strategy and national performance indicators.
2
Appendix B – 2019/20 Highways & Transportation Work Programme
This work programme is an extract from the Environment & Transport Department 2019/20 Action Plan. It does not cover all actions and there will be day-to-day activities that will continue to go on as part of ‘business as usual’.
Departmental Outcome – Head of Service Head of Service Action / Team Objective – Level 3 Date Range Service Area Level 1 Objective – Level 2 Meet statutory requirements to produce a Rights of Way 31.03.2022 Highways Improvement Plan. Commissioning Support the department's QMS/ISO 9001 accreditation & 31.03.2022 Highways ISO 55000 accreditations. Commissioning Support the development of consistent and up to date 31.03.2022 Highways operating procedures and standards for traffic Commissioning management, traffic signals and accident investigation. Through ongoing development and delivery of our 31.03.2022 Highways commissioning strategy ensure that future works Commissioning programmes are developed and effectively delivered (Cross-cutting with Asset Management and Major Projects). DptOC009 - Effective, cost Continue to manage Reacting to changes in the commercial network. Providing 31.03.2022 Highways efficient and integrated the commercial and Commissioning policy decisions on provision to mitigate impact of 79 public and community subsidised public roadworks on public transport. transport provision, transport network including targeted and meeting the essential innovative travel solutions needs of the customer which meet the essential transport needs of Leicestershire residents DptOC007 - Congestion is Engage with regional & Continue to actively engage and work with national, 31.03.2022 Highways managed through more national partners to regional and local bodies to plan for delivery of Commissioning consistent, predictable and influence infrastructure to support the future population and economic reliable journey times for policies/programmes/pr needs of Leicester and Leicestershire (including study the movement of people oposals which will have work/development of evidence as necessary). and goods an impact on the Provide policy advice / input / support to internal and 31.03.2022 Highways County external partners, stakeholders and bodies. Commissioning To embed partnering principles and construction best 31.03.2022 Highways practise in all its work and throughout the supply chains. Commissioning To establish, implement and develop a continuous 31.03.2022 Highways improvement model for highway term contracts to achieve Commissioning/ convergence to best practise. Midlands Highway Alliance (MHA) 3
Appendix B – 2019/20 Highways & Transportation Work Programme
This work programme is an extract from the Environment & Transport Department 2019/20 Action Plan. It does not cover all actions and there will be day-to-day activities that will continue to go on as part of ‘business as usual’.
Departmental Outcome – Head of Service Head of Service Action / Team Objective – Level 3 Date Range Service Area Level 1 Objective – Level 2 To promote, publicise and manage the work of the Midlands 31.03.2022 Highways Highway Alliance, ensuring it remains an exemplar for other Commissioning/ alliances. Midlands Highway Alliance (MHA) Support & deliver key Continue to work with district councils and other parties to 31.03.2022 Highways infrastructure deliver new development and associated infrastructure. Commissioning improvements to Continue to work with other statutory authorities (such as 31.03.2022 Highways enable planned growth district bodies, local authorities, adjacent highway Commissioning & meet economic authorities, Highways England, the Leicester and needs within the Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership and rail network County providers). Work with districts councils & other parties to plan for & 31.03.2022 Highways support the future population & economic needs of Commissioning Leicester & Leicestershire across all transport modes. 31.03.2022 Highways Deliver a programme of s.106 developer funded 80 improvements. Commissioning/ Highway Delivery Ensure that congestion is minimised through effective 31.03.2022 Highways parking management that is fiscally neutral to the authority. Commissioning Overseeing development and delivery of the County 31.03.2022 Highways Councils own transport projects. Commissioning/ Highway Delivery Prepare/support development of national, regional and local 31.03.2022 Highways funding bids (including Expressions of Interest). Commissioning Provide support to enable the authority's engagement with 31.03.2022 Highways HS2 Ltd, Midlands, East Midlands Councils and other Commissioning bodies as relevant to ensure that proposals for HS2 Phase 2b (including at and around the Toton Hub Station) are developed such that the economic benefits of the project to Leicester and Leicestershire are maximised and disbenefits are minimised. Provide transport policy support for the development and 31.03.2022 Highways implementation of specific development sites/proposals. Commissioning 4
Appendix B – 2019/20 Highways & Transportation Work Programme
This work programme is an extract from the Environment & Transport Department 2019/20 Action Plan. It does not cover all actions and there will be day-to-day activities that will continue to go on as part of ‘business as usual’.
Departmental Outcome – Head of Service Head of Service Action / Team Objective – Level 3 Date Range Service Area Level 1 Objective – Level 2 Support Midland Engine and successful delivery of the 31.03.2022 Highways Midlands Connect Strategy, including supporting Midlands Commissioning Connect Study work and development of business cases for funding from Government. Support the ongoing development and delivery of an 31.03.2022 Highways evidence based pipeline of transport projects, for future Commissioning growth deals and other funding opportunities (evidence includes study work and development of transport strategies). Use of new & improved technology to reduce congestion 31.03.2022 Highways and delays along strategic corridors. Commissioning Work towards the delivery of the Zouch Bridge replacement. 31.03.2022 Highways Delivery 31.03.2022 Highways Work with partners to support the successful delivery of 81 joint transport projects. Commissioning Continue to work with district councils and other parties to 31.03.2022 Highways plan for and support the future population and economic Commissioning needs of Leicester and Leicestershire (including study work/development of evidence as necessary). Continue to work with Leicester City Council on the 31.03.2022 Highways implementation of the Leicester North West Major Transport Commissioning Project (the ‘wedge’, which is a Growth Deal 1 project) Work with districts Support the refresh of the Leicester and Leicestershire 31.03.2020 Highways councils & other parties Enterprise Partnership Strategic Economic Plan and Local Commissioning to plan for & support Industrial Strategy. the future population & Support the delivery of the Strategic Growth Plan as 31.03.2022 Highways economic needs of necessary. Commissioning Leicester & Overseeing technical approval, and the adoption process of 31.03.2022 Highways Leicestershire across development related infrastructure. Commissioning all transport modes To provide statutory support and advice to planning 31.03.2022 Highways applicants and local planning authorities. Commissioning To work closely with each Local Planning Authority to 31.03.2022 Highways ensure co-ordination of important infrastructure lists, and to Commissioning ensure contributions are set at a level which allows highway 5
Appendix B – 2019/20 Highways & Transportation Work Programme
This work programme is an extract from the Environment & Transport Department 2019/20 Action Plan. It does not cover all actions and there will be day-to-day activities that will continue to go on as part of ‘business as usual’.
Departmental Outcome – Head of Service Head of Service Action / Team Objective – Level 3 Date Range Service Area Level 1 Objective – Level 2 and other strategic infrastructure to be provided. Working in partnership with Leicester City Council deliver 31.03.2022 Highways £3m Choose How You Move programme up March 2020 to Commissioning open up opportunities for travel to employment, education and training. Maintain the public transport infrastructure - Shelters, flag 31.03.2022 Highways poles, flags etc. Commissioning DptOC010 - More people Deliver infrastructure Continue to work with Leicester City Council and 31.03.2022 Highways walk, cycle and use public and implement commercial local bus operators to improve travel by bus Commissioning transport as part of their measures, where and enhance viability of services. daily journeys, including to appropriate, to support access key services sustainable travel Work across the Review delivery models for a future countrywide model 31.03.2022 Highways Council & with other including Wheels to Work. Commissioning partners to promote Design area maintenance programmes of public rights of 31.03.2022 Highways sustainable travel & way maintenance in line with statutory requirements. Commissioning 82 identify opportunities to bid for external funding where available DptOC011 - The natural Work with developers & Undertake regular reactive maintenance programmes of 31.03.2022 Highways environment can be partners to promote the public rights of way maintenance in line with statutory Commissioning accessed easily and use of & maintain the requirements. efficiently particularly by Public Rights of Way bike or on foot Network DptOC004 - Minimise the Continue to implement Develop a flood alleviation programme during 2019/20 to 31.03.2022 Highways environmental impact of outcomes from the improve resilience and reduce the number of properties at Commissioning the Council's activities and Flood Risk risk from flooding. improve resilience to Management Strategy Undertake Lead Local Flood Authority statutory duties 31.03.2022 Highways climate change including reviewing Leicestershire’s Local Flood Risk Commissioning Management Strategy (LFRMS). DptOC008 - The number Address road safety Address Highway and Road Safety Issues as per agreed 31.03.2022 Highways of road casualties is issues as identified in procedure. Commissioning reduced line with the agreed casualty reduction Deliver programme of road safety education initiatives – 31.03.2022 Highways 6
Appendix B – 2019/20 Highways & Transportation Work Programme
This work programme is an extract from the Environment & Transport Department 2019/20 Action Plan. It does not cover all actions and there will be day-to-day activities that will continue to go on as part of ‘business as usual’.
Departmental Outcome – Head of Service Head of Service Action / Team Objective – Level 3 Date Range Service Area Level 1 Objective – Level 2 approach Safer driving with AGE (SAGE), Junior Road Safety Officer Commissioning (JRSO), and Pre Driver Days (PDD). Delivery of Driver Education Workshop courses. Delivery of School Crossing Patrol (SCP) service. Supporting the Leicester and Leicestershire Road Safety Partnership (LLRSP) and delivery of programme of initiatives. Deliver programme of Bikeability training. DptOC012 - Optimise Continue to identify Manage and grow our income generating and commercial 31.03.2022 Highways External Funding and funding opportunities to activities for the Department. Commissioning/ Partnership working support Highways Delivery opportunities to support Leicestershire’s Continue to support work to identify funding opportunities 31.03.2022 Highways economic growth and economic growth. and develop bids/provide input to bids as appropriate Commissioning 83 unlock housing for (including Expressions of Interest). Leicestershire
** Examples of Business as Usual:
Departmental Outcome – Head of Service Team Action – Level 4 Date Range Service Area Level 1 Objective – Level 2 DptOC009 - Effective, cost Provide efficient and Provide efficient and appropriate transport to schools for 31.03.2022 Transport efficient and integrated appropriate transport entitled pupils in line with statutory duties and adopted Operations public and community policy. transport provision, including targeted and Process penalty charge notice in accordance with traffic 31.03.2022 Transport innovative travel solutions management act 2004 and undertake performance Operations which meet the essential management of the civil parking enforcement operation. transport needs of Leicestershire residents
7
This page is intentionally left blank 85 Agenda Item 12
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - 7 MARCH 2019
ROAD CASUALTY REDUCTION IN LEICESTERSHIRE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of the Report
1. The purpose of this report is to:-
Provide an update on reported road casualty statistics; and, provide an update on Leicestershire’s approach to casualty reduction.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
2. At its meeting on 23 March 2011, the County Council approved the third Leicestershire Local Transport Plan (LTP3). This contained six strategic transport goals of which Goal 5 was to ‘have a transport system that improves the safety, health and security of residents’. This is achieved in a number of ways, including:-
Improving road safety and reducing road casualties; and, encouraging active and sustainable travel and increasing the number of people who walk, cycle and use public transport.
3. At its meeting on 10 March 2017, the Cabinet approved the 2017/18 refresh of the Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy. This included what action would be taken to reduce road casualties and address road safety issues. It also set out how the Council works with partners to consider other ways of funding services, especially in relation to road safety.
4. At its meeting on 6 December 2017, the County Council approved its Strategic Plan, ‘Working together for the benefit of everyone: Leicestershire County Council’s Strategic Plan 2018-22’, which is part of the Authority’s policy framework. It includes a shared vision of ‘Working together for the benefit of everyone’ and one of its five strategic outcomes is ‘keeping people safe’.
5. At its meeting on 1 March 2018, the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered a report on road casualty reduction in Leicestershire County Council (LCC). This included an update on reported road casualty statistics, an update on LCC’s approach to casualty reduction and a review of the suitability of the casualty reduction targets. This report provides an update to the 1 March 2018 report.
6. The Medium Term Financial Strategy 2018/19-2021/22, which was approved by the County Council on 21 February 2018, included £500,000 in 2018/19 for
86
safety schemes. There are no new cluster schemes requiring additional funding in 2019/20.
7. At its meeting on 10 April 2018, the Cabinet approved the Environment and Transport 2018/19 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme. The work programme included a departmental outcome of the number of road casualties to be reduced. Objectives included consideration of future schemes and preparation of a bid to Department for Transport (DfT) for Safer Roads Funding and the development and implementation of a pilot project, which considered the wider use of safety cameras to address community concerns about road safety.
8. The 2019/20 Capital program includes £300,000 to deliver the remaining Cluster site works form 2018/19 and the full Rural Routes program. This has been achieved through efficiency savings and the holistic look at the measures required.
Background
9. Britain continues to have some of the lowest road casualty rates in the world. Despite significant increases in traffic over the last few decades, the number of road deaths fell by 39% between 2007 and 2017, while the total number of casualties in 2017 was 6% lower than in 2016, and the lowest level on record.
10. Road deaths in Britain have been reducing over the past thirty years. This is due to a variety of reasons, including safer infrastructure, new vehicle technologies, improvements to driver testing including the introduction of the theory test and hazard perception testing, tougher enforcement, shifting social attitudes and better trauma care.
11. The majority of accidents occur on local roads under the direct control of Local Highway Authorities (LHAs), who are key partners in the delivery of the Government’s Road Safety Strategy and casualty reduction objectives. The DfT monitors each LHA’s casualty reduction progress through the national STATS19 road accident database.
12. In December 2015, the Government set out, in the DfT publication ‘Working Together to Build a Safer Road System British Road Safety Statement’, how it would support its delivery partners, who are working to ensure a safer road system. The Government’s key priorities include the following:-
Protecting vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists and horse riders. This would be done through infrastructure and vehicle improvements, promotion of safer behaviour and equipment and ensuring other road users are aware of the risks posed to these groups so that they could adapt accordingly;
taking tough action against those who speed, exceed the drink-drive limit, take drugs or use their mobile phone whilst on the road;
continuing the “THINK!” campaign to provide road user education and influence behaviour in a targeted and engaging way;
87
supporting Highways England and local authorities in improving the safety standards of roads;
supporting further devolution of road safety policy, in a way that meets the needs of the nation as a whole; and,
underpinning policy decisions with robust evidence, research and evaluation.
13. In June 2018, the government published a Road Safety Statement Progress Report, summarising progress made since 2015. Key highlights are:-
Continue with £6.1 billion investment to LHAs in England (outside of London) between 2015/16 and 2020/21. DfT provides capital funding to LHA’s for their road maintenance work to help repair roads and make them safe for all road users. As part of this funding an incentive element (totalling £578m between 2016/17 and 2020/21) has been introduced to reward authorities who can operate efficiently and effectively.
help Highways England to develop an effective star rating system for the safety of its network - baseline created in May 2017;
issued revised legislation on Traffic Signs and General Directions and support Local Authorities in the uptake of safer traffic signalling and signage measures in advance of the new legislation;
the DfT has been researching the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits, a report was released in November 2018. The headline findings presented a mixed picture: there has been a small reduction in median speed (less than 1mph) and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there has been a significant change in collisions and casualties following the introduction of 20mph limits in residential areas;
continue to run THINK! Campaigns. The 2017/18 budget for THINK! is £5.25m which includes investment in promoting road safety messages around drink driving, speed on country roads, motorcycling, drug driving, cycle safety, mobile phone and child/teen road safety; and,
help to ensure that the new CRASH system for recording accidents is rolled out to police forces. 24 forces adopted the system by June 2017.
14. The Authority’s approach to casualty reduction, which is outlined in this report, is consistent with the Government’s priorities.
15. Full detail of Leicestershire’s Road Safety Initiatives and actions can be found in Appendix H. This includes information covering, but not limited to:-
Planning a safer road environment – development control, safety audits;
Managing speed – safety cameras, advisory 20mph school safety zones;
Road safety education programme covering education, training and publicity – driver education workshops, drink-driving campaigns, pre-driver and fleet driver training, publicity campaigns;
88
improving safety for vulnerable road users – motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists; and,
School Keep Clear – Camera Car for improving behaviour outside schools.
Statistical Update
16. A set of definitions used throughout the remainder of this document is shown in Appendix A. The term ‘accident’ is used throughout, as this is the terminology used in the Road Traffic Act 1988. This should not be taken as the Council’s view of the relative merits of the terms ‘accident’, ‘collision’, ‘crash’ or any other term.
Accident Data Management
Collection and Validation – Current Process
17. Leicestershire Police is responsible for reporting accidents using the standardised STATS19 form, a blank version of which is appended to this report shown at Appendix B. This form contains basic information about the accidents, casualties and vehicles involved. It is designed to capture the key circumstances of the accident, to support subsequent investigation should it be required.
18. The standards and specifications for reporting and recording accidents through the STATS19, including what should and should not be reported, are defined in the supporting STATS20 and STATS21 documents.
19. A further benefit of capturing accident information in a standardised format is that the information can be easily shared and understood and this enables software providers to develop applications that help with validating the information on the forms.
20. Leicestershire County Council validates STATS19 forms on behalf of Leicestershire Police for the County Council, Leicester City Council and Rutland County Council. This is achieved using an accident data management system called AccsMap. When entering accidents into this system, it will check that all required information has been entered, that it makes sense, and the co-ordinates match the descriptive location. County Council officers also manually ‘sense’ check the forms received from the police prior to and during data entry. Any queries relating to missing or potentially inaccurate information are directed back to the relevant teams in the police, ensuring that all information entered is as accurate as possible. This can involve speaking to the officer who filed in the accident report after attending the scene.
21. In addition to the information captured on the STATS19 form, officers enter a written description of the accident, based on information that has been provided by the police. Accident descriptions are formatted and abbreviated in line with national standards in order to shorten the data entry process, and provide a consistent output with the rest of Great Britain.
89
Collection and Validation – Potential Changes
22. Leicestershire Police is implementing a digital replacement for the STATS19 paper forms, within a module of a policing data management system called “Pronto”. LCC officers are working closely with Leicestershire Police to ensure that the system fulfils all requirements of the STATS19/20/21 specifications, and improves overall efficiency for both parties without compromising data quality.
23. In February 2018, the DfT consulted on a proposal to allow additional ways to report road traffic accidents to the police. At the moment, if you need to report a road traffic accident you must do so in person at a police station or to a police constable. The proposals in this consultation would allow police forces to offer drivers the option of submitting accident reports by other methods, such as through an internet page or an ‘app’ on a mobile device. The proposals would require changes to Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
24. The Council provided a response to this consultation with the main points of response being as follows:-
Support to general principle, but refinement is needed; it may be difficult to capture all detail required reliably; it could introduce extra inconsistency between force areas; it may result in increase of false/insignificant accidents; and, efficiency savings of proposals may be negated by extra resource required to validate and chase incomplete/inaccurate data.
25. The DfT has not indicated when the results of the consultation will be released.
Data Quality
26. While every effort is made to capture accident data as accurately as possible, there are factors outside of the control of the Council that can affect data quality. For an accident report to be submitted to the Council, it must relate to an accident either attended by a police officer or reported to a police station. Only in these circumstances will the Police complete a STATS19 form and send it to the Council for validation.
27. A statistically significant decline in the number of reported accidents has emerged in Leicestershire, specifically appearing to involve accidents with slight injuries. During 2017, the Council received 30% fewer reports compared with 2016. This appears to primarily be affecting accidents reported in Leicestershire, rather than accidents in Leicester City.
28. It is possible that policy changes at Leicestershire Police have impacted on the reporting of slight injury accidents in rural areas, contributing to an element of this reduction. To establish the degree to which this may be the case, the Police are conducting an exercise to monitor the statistics within the force control room over a prolonged period of time.
29. It is acknowledged that the implementation of the Pronto data management system (see paragraph 20) and the Department for Transport’s proposed change in legislation (see paragraph 21) could improve the completeness of road traffic accident reporting.
90
Data Provision and Sensitivities
30. Accident data is shared on a monthly basis with Leicestershire Police, Leicester City Council, Rutland County Council and Highways England. It is also supplied to the DfT, contributing to the DfT’s assessment and publication of data for the whole of Great Britain.
31. Requests for data are also received on an ad-hoc basis, for both commercial and non-commercial reasons. Accident records contain data that fall under both the personal and sensitive data categories such as:-
Contributory factors, based on the opinion of police officers attending the scene; personal information about the individual casualties involved e.g. age, gender; and, other circumstances of the accident that may prejudice ongoing investigations e.g. description, breath test results, seat belt use.
32. Consequently, some of the information provided by the Police may not be shared, as doing so would infringe information security and data protection legislation. A review of the relationship between accident data and this legislation is currently ongoing, being led jointly by Leicestershire Police and the County Council. While this is dependent on the views of partners in the Road Safety Partnership, it is anticipated to conclude this work by mid-2019.
33. Accident data deemed ‘non-sensitive’ or ‘non-personal’ is currently shared, often as part of commercial data requests or Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Anything further is only provided if it is essential for completion of a safety audit, subject to the agreement of the third-party that it will only be used for this purpose.
Reported Road Casualties 2017
Great Britain
34. The DfT uses data supplied by local authorities to produce ‘Reported Road Casualties Great Britain’ (RRCGB), the official statistical publication of traffic casualties, fatalities and related road safety data in the UK. The RRCGB is normally published in two stages:-
Provisional results (end of June); and, final results and annual report (end of September).
35. Local authorities use these national statistics to compare with their own local accident statistics, highlighting any deviation from the national trend. However, it is recognised that different local factors, including the geographical area, road environment and driver attitude, may also vary in different parts of the country (for example, more affluent areas may have a much greater proportion of new vehicles with advanced safety features). The accident statistics for each local authority area may therefore differ from the national picture to a greater or lesser extent.
36. Both national and local decisions can have an impact on accident statistics. National decisions influence the priorities and resources of local authorities,
91
which affect decisions taken on a wide range of services, including road safety. This may impact on local accident statistics which, in turn, will be used by Government to calculate national accident statistics.
37. The RRCGB 2017 annual report was released at the end of September 2018, and has been used as the basis for comparing Leicestershire in a national context.
Leicestershire
38. A separate document, providing detail on Leicestershire’s road traffic accidents and casualties, is provided in Appendix C of this report. This includes information relating to:-
Accidents and casualties in 2017; short, medium and long-term trends; travel modes; road type (built-up, non-built-up); age groups; and, motorways and trunk roads (the Strategic Road Network).
39. Where possible, all statistics have been placed into a context with national trends by comparing with the information included in the RRCGB 2017.
40. A single-page illustrative summary of the results for Leicestershire has been produced by the Road Safety Partnership, which is provided in Appendix D of this report.
41. The key statistics are shown below:-
19 people were killed in reported road traffic accidents in Leicestershire in 2017. This is a decrease of 17 fatalities when compared with 2016 and 12 less than the 2010-14 average;
in addition to the 19 fatalities, 194 people were seriously injured, bringing the total number of those killed or seriously injured to 213. This is a decrease of 5% from 2016, and a 4% decrease against the 2010-14 average;
there were 1194 reported casualties of all severities. This is a decrease of 30% compared to 2016, 39% compared to the 2010-14 average, and the lowest level on record;
total casualties for every travel mode decreased by at least 13% when compared with both 2016 and the 2010-14 average;
there is a pattern of increased casualties among the older population being seen across Great Britain, although this trend is not as clear in Leicestershire; and,
Leicestershire ranks 4th and 5th out of 16 statistical neighbours when 2013-17 casualty rates are compared against population and traffic flow.
42. The conclusions of this report are:-
92
There were statistically significant changes in 2017 when compared with 2016, with the decrease in overall casualties in Leicestershire (30%) significantly greater than the reduction across Great Britain (6%);
the number of killed or seriously injured casualties decreased in Leicestershire in the face of an increase across Great Britain, although caution must be urged due to the unclear reasons for the reduction in Leicestershire, along with the possible impact of a new system used by many police forces across the country resulting in higher reported serious injuries in these areas;
Leicestershire continues to be a high performing authority when compared with other County Councils, East Midlands authorities and statistical neighbours; and,
generally it appears that Leicestershire performs well over the majority of key statistics compared with the rest of Great Britain, with local trends usually better or consistent with those nationally.
Human Error in Road Traffic Accidents
43. Whilst it is not possible to say precisely what proportion of accidents are caused wholly or in part by human error, the detailed analysis of individual accident reports over many years suggests that it is over 90%. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) states that ‘A road accident is a rare, random, multifactor event that is always preceded by a situation in which one or more road users have failed to cope with their environment, resulting in a vehicle accident’.
44. Engineering measures address this issue by providing a road environment which is more easily understood by drivers, thereby reducing the potential for driver error, whereas road safety education training and publicity targets more general driver attitudes, encouraging drivers to exercise more care and responsibility.
2018 Provisional Update
45. Accident information for any given year is provisional until it is formally submitted to the DfT in the following year (usually in April).
46. Accident reports (except those with fatalities) generally take anywhere up to three months to be received and validated by the County Council, before they can be included in any statistical reports. Therefore, the most recent three months data is generally excluded from any trend analyses, to avoid drawing conclusions on the basis of data that is likely to be incomplete. Fatal accident reports are usually received and validated within days of the accident, providing the necessary information at a very early stage to support investigations.
47. It is therefore only possible to report with relative confidence on fatal accidents for 2018 and on nine months of provisional accident data for 2018 (January to September). However, in order to provide a means of comparison with previous full years, the final three months of 2017 are also included. However, the information provided below should be regarded as potentially subject to change.
93
Reported road casualties
48. 25 people were killed in reported road traffic accidents in Leicestershire between January to December 2018. This is higher than the record low 2017 total (19), but 24% less than the 2010-14 average (31) and still one of the lowest totals on record. 18 of the 25 were on the Local Road Network.
49. The rolling 12 months of “reliable” reported accidents (Oct 17 – Sep 18) includes 7% more reports of casualties killed or seriously injured compared with 2017, with this statistic remaining highly variable year-on-year:
50. The rolling 12 months of “reliable” reported accidents (Oct 17 – Sep 18) displays a reduction of 5% casualties of all severities:
94
Statistical Targets Review
National Targets
51. In 2011, the DfT published its ‘Strategic Framework for Road Safety’. This included six key indicators relating to road deaths, which would be monitored at a national level:-
Number of road deaths (and rate per billion vehicle miles); rate of motorcyclist deaths per billion vehicle miles; rate of car occupant deaths per billion vehicle miles; rate of pedal cyclist deaths per billion vehicle miles; rate of pedestrian deaths per billion miles walked; and, number of deaths resulting from accidents involving drivers under 25.
52. It also identified the following local indicators, for which the current position for Leicestershire is shown in the associated graphs against each indicator:
Number of Killed or Seriously Injured casualties;
95
Rate of Killed or Seriously Injured casualties per million people;
Rate of Killed or Seriously Injured casualties per billion vehicle miles/km.
53. It can be seen that Leicestershire remains consistently below the national rates for those killed or seriously injured, when comparing nationally against both population and traffic volume. Furthermore, Leicestershire follows a downward trend over the past few years against all indicators, at a time where there is an increase across Great Britain.
54. The DfT’s Strategic Framework contained a target that national KSI casualties should reduce by 40% by 2020 (relative to the 2005/09 average) and by 50% if lower performing authorities made stronger progress in reducing casualty rates. There has been an 11% reduction in 2017 across Great Britain compared to the 2005/09 average, while KSI casualties in Leicestershire have reduced by 23% over the same time period.
55. The forecasts also recognised that between 1995 and 2010, the single development that has had the most significant effect on the national casualty total had been the improvement of car secondary safety. Car secondary safety features include such things air bags and seat belts. These do not prevent accidents, but will reduce the impact of the accident on those involved. However, analysis in 2011 suggested that for car secondary safety there would
96
be no further casualty reductions on roads with speed limits up to 40 mph, but that on higher speed roads there would continue to be additional reductions. Further background to these national forecasts looking at the potential impact of casualty reduction measures can be found at Appendix E.
56. In January 2015, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) published a list of priorities for road safety that it felt could substantially reduce the level of death and injury on roads in the UK, with the expectation that it would form the basis for discussions with the Government on the direction of the national road safety strategy. This list has been reproduced in Appendix F for information.
57. In September 2016, PACTS published a report highlighting that, whilst the UK has one of the lowest rates of road death per capita, it compares less favourably to other countries in certain areas. These include:-
More ‘vulnerable user’ road deaths per capita (including pedestrians and motorcyclists); a higher proportion of deaths in the 18-24 age group in relation to other age groups; a higher proportion of deaths on roads with speed limits of 60mph or more; and, more deaths per mile/km of motorway.
58. Leicestershire should be aware of these challenges, which emphasise the importance of following PACTS’ list of priorities for road safety.
Local Targets - LTP3 Casualty Reduction Performance Indicators
59. As part of the LTP Implementation Plan 2012-2015, the DfT’s indicator ‘number of killed or seriously injured casualties’ was adopted by the County Council as a performance indicator (PI), together with PIs for total and slight casualties. Targets for 2020 (in comparison with the 2005-09 average) were set. However, in preparation for the second LTP3 implementation plan in 2013, it was noted that the 2014, 2015, and 2016 annual milestones for total and slight casualties had already been achieved. The opportunity was therefore taken to revise the performance indicators and a 40% reduction (by 2020) across all 3 casualty groups was adopted.
60. At its meeting on 1 March 2018, the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee report ’Road Casualty Reduction in Leicestershire and Future Approach to Casualty Reduction’ reviewed the suitability of the milestones, and determined that:-
There should be no change to the Total or Slight Casualty milestones or targets; and, that the KSI Casualty milestones are reverted to those originally set in the LTP Implementation Plan 2012-15.
61. It was also resolved during this report that the milestones and targets would be reviewed again in the 2019/20 year, due to the ongoing uncertainty over the accuracy of the statistics. An update on this review will be provided in next year’s scrutiny report.
97
62. As of the end of 2017, total casualties are below the target milestone by 27%:
2020 Total Casualties 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Target % Original Target 2049 2010 1970 1931 1891 1851 1812 1772 29% Current Target 1830 1782 1734 1686 1638 1590 1542 1494 40% Casualties 1889 1915 1765 1705 1194
63. As of the end of 2017 slight casualties are below the target milestone by 33%:
2020 Slight Casualties 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Target % Original Target 1821 1790 1760 1729 1698 1667 1636 1605 27% Current Target 1638 1593 1549 1505 1460 1416 1371 1327 40% Casualties 1703 1665 1523 1480 981
64. As the proposed changes to the KSI milestones are yet to be incorporated into the LTP, the comparisons below are based on the revised target, with the original target also shown for reference purposes.
98
65. As of the end of 2017, killed or seriously injured casualties (KSI) are above the target milestone by 20%:
2020 KSI Casualties 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Target % Original Target 228 219 211 202 193 184 176 167 40% Current Target 192 189 185 182 178 174 171 167 40% Total Casualties 186 250 242 225 213
Approach to Casualty Reduction Update
Accident Investigation and Site Prioritisation
66. The following approach to identifying and prioritising sites was described in the report presented to the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 12 September 2016 and reinforced at its meeting on 1 March 2018.
67. A list of ‘cluster sites’ is the starting point to the methods used by the County Council for site prioritisation. A cluster site is a group of accidents that have occurred within a specified distance of each other, between a specified timeframe.
68. The County Council uses 50m as the distance threshold (groups of accidents within a 50m radius), with a date range of the last five years of finalised data plus the current year at the time of generating the list. The site must also be on the local road network (as opposed to the Strategic Road Network managed by Highways England).
69. Cluster site lists are produced at any point in the year where a scheme identification process is undertaken, but are in particular produced shortly after the data has been finalised for the previous year. This can only be used for site prioritisation once the DfT’s ‘Reported Road Casualties Great Britain’ annual report has been released, to enable assessment against national averages and predicted accident rates.
70. The most recently produced cluster site list is shown in Appendix G.
99
71. Only clusters with seven or more accidents will be included on the list for site prioritisation. Any sites that have been investigated in recent years and have treatment ongoing or where treatment is proposed will be removed from the list.
72. Assessment is undertaken to identify sites with patterns of accidents or treatable accidents.
73. Sites are assessed against national averages and predicted accident rates (COBA – Cost Benefit Analysis), to put the local position into wider context. If the number of accidents at a site is higher than the national figure, further investigation will be carried out. If below, the site will generally not be investigated further.
74. Sites which have been identified through this method are then investigated to identify appropriate measures to reduce casualties.
75. If an appropriate scheme is identified, funding will be sought or measures introduced as part of other schemes.
76. Where appropriate, an assessment of accidents involving specific vulnerable users or types of accidents may take place. As an example, these may include accidents in wet/damp conditions, accidents involving pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists or accidents on rural bends. This list would be used to bid for funding that is targeted at specific types of measures. Alternatively, where appropriate, improvements could be delivered as part of other works.
77. The latest list of cluster sites produced (see Appendix G) has shown that most of the sites generated using a minimum threshold of seven accidents have either been treated recently or have been investigated with no further action recommended.
Rural Roads Initiative
78. Additionally, an assessment of accidents may take place on specific classes of road. Following an increase in KSI accidents on rural roads with a 60 mph speed limit from 2014 to 2016, detailed analysis was undertaken and at its meeting on 1 March 2018, the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed the ‘Rural Roads Initiative’.
79. The aim of this initiative is to identify which of these road lengths has an accident rate higher than the national average and to reduce the speed limit on these roads to 50 mph, with complementary signing and lining measures as necessary.
80. A total of 37 route lengths with accident rates above the national average were identified. This has resulted in 35 schemes being developed for implementation. Progress on this initiative is detailed on a site by site basis in the section on ‘Schemes’ below.
Schemes
Schemes Completed or Ongoing
81. During 2016/17, there was a review of how casualty reduction schemes would be delivered by the Council. Whilst no schemes were completed during this period, investigations were undertaken and design work commenced.
100
82. Under the new review 5 safety schemes where investigation work had previously been undertaken were completed in 2017/18. Meaningful performance data is not provided as these schemes have less than 12 months ‘after’ monitoring data. The usual practice is to monitor for three years post-implementation, to establish if the measures implemented have had the desired effect:-
Location Scheme detail Annual before accidents Wistow Crossroads Signing and lining 1.4 One Ash Roundabout, Quorn Shared use footway/cycleway, 3.0 signing and lining Broughton Hill Crossroads Signing and lining 3.2 B676 Route Treatment Reduced speed limit, signing 5.3 and lining Shoby Crossroads VAS, signing and lining 1.4 Total 14.3
83. Additional accident investigation work since July 2017, identified through the cluster analysis process, has resulted in the promotion of low cost works at over 20 sites in Leicestershire. The details of these sites/with locations, measures and progress is detailed below:-
Location Measures Investigated Progress Blaby Road Wigston/Canal Signing 17/18 Completed Street A511 Bardon Road Signing 17/18 Completed Ellistown and Battleflat rbt Lining j/w Beveridge Lane A426 Lutterworth Road Signing 17/18 Completed Whetstone j/w Lining Countesthorpe Road Dominion Road Glenfield Signing 17/18 Completed Crossroads j/w Liberty Reflectivity Road signingC4502 Kilby improvements Road j/w Fleckney Road A607 Newark Road j/w Signing 17/18 Completed Barkby Thorpe Lane Stretton en le Field, A444 Signing 17/18 Completed o/s entrance to Park Farm A6 Loughborough Road Signing 17/18 Completed j/w roundabout Granite Lining Way Loughborough, Frederick Signing 17/18 Completed Street j/w Granby Street C7117 Leicester Road, Signing 17/18 Completed appox 55m north of Lining Gallows Lane Coalville, A511 Signing 17/18 Completed Stephenson Way j/w Lining Thornborough Road speed limit relocation
101
Location Measures Investigated Progress Quorn, C5214 Signing 17/18 Completed Loughborough Road j/w Signal changes Farley Way B4114 St Johns j/w B582 Traffic signals 17/18 Completed Blaby Road Foxhunter Roundabout C3208 Shepshed Road Signing 17/18 Completed Ulverscroft j/w Beacon Lining Road Blaby by pass/Whetstone Signing 17/18 Completed Roundabout Visirail Charley, B591 Signing 17/18 Completed Loughborough Road j/w Resurfacing Charley Road Burbage, B4109 Rugby Lining 17/18 Awaiting final Road j/w Sketchley Road completion Bitteswell, A426 Leicester VAS 17/18 Awaiting final Road j/w Ullesthorpe Road Signing completion Lining Dunton Bassett, A426 Signing 17/18 Awaiting final Lutterworth Road j/w Lining completion Coopers Lane A47 Uppingham Signing 17/18 Awaiting final Road/B6047 VAS completion Aston Flamville, B4669 VAS 17/18 Awaiting final Hinckley Road approx. Lining completion 30m E of Smithy Lane B5366 Saffron Road Traffic calming 18/19 In design Wigston j/w Gloucester Signing Crescent A5199 Leicester Road j/w Signals 18/19 In design Carlton Drive Signing changes A426 Leicester Road Glen Speed limit 18/19 In design Parva j/w Little Glen Road changes Signing A426 Rugby Road Lining 18/19 In design Lutterworth j/w Lutterworth Road A6 Harborough Road, VAS changes 18/19 In design Market Harborough j/w Kettering Road A512 Ashby Road / B5324 Yet to be approved 18/19 In design Rempstone Road A563 Ashby Road JW The Yet to be approved 18/19 In design Green, Castle Donington
84. Throughout the year as schemes are developed the costs are revised and schemes already identified are then included to the budget available, this is a reiterative process until the budget is spent
102
85. Due to efficiencies in how Leicestershire Highways and the staff are procuring these works, the costs of the schemes is reducing thus we are constantly adding to the programme.
86. We have now been able to include all schemes identified for 19/20 into the 18/19 programme without bidding for funding in the 19/20 capital program.
Rural Roads Initiative
87. As detailed above, the Rural Roads Initiative was reported at Scrutiny 1 March 2018. Significant progress (including completing the Traffic Regulation Order process on the first ‘batch’ of routes) has been made in moving these schemes forward and this is detailed below.
Designed / Local Member Consultation / TRO Progressing B591 (Ingleberry Road to Flying Horse rbt) Fleckney Road, Wistow. Oakham Road, Tilton. Fenn Lanes, Sutton Cheney. C8314 Sproxton. Long Lane & Wood Lane, Redmile B676 Burton on the Wolds A606 Broughton & Old Dalby Oaks Road & Abbey Road
Design Brief Issued for scheme to be developed C5402 Kibworth Harcourt, Tur Langton C7701 Ashby Parva, Bittesby Melton Road, Scalford Melton Road, Clawson Shepshed Road, Charley, Ulverscroft Gallow Field Road, Foxton Wymondham Drift, Drift Hill, Wymondham C6604 Peatling Parva, Shearsby & C6601 Lutterworth to Gilmorton Oakham Road, Somerby to Cold Overton A5199, Kilby, Arnesby, Shearsby, Knaptoft
Initial surveys and investigation commenced A47 Earl Shilton, Thurlaston, LFE A426 Lutterworth, Bitteswell, Ashby Parva A444 Stretton-en-le-Field A512 Belton, Shepshed A606 Burton & Dalby, Somerby A607 Croxton Kerrial, Waltham A6006 Broughton, Old Dalby, Grimston B585 Ibstock B4114 Sharnford, Sapcote, Stoney Stanton B4669 Sapcote, Burbage B6047 Melton Mowbray, Burton & Dalby C4308 Houghton on the Hill, Billesdon Green Lane, Eaton
103
Community Speed Enforcement
88. To combat issues around speeding and safety on the roads, the Council is trialling average speed cameras in seven locations across the county. The areas chosen are Sharnford, Woodhouse Eaves, Measham and Walcote due to speeding, the B676 Melton due to accident rates, A6 Harborough Road at Oadby (speeding) and the A50 Field Head (speeding). The Council will evaluate the trial and, if appropriate, expand the programme in the future. However, this will depend on a number of factors, including effectiveness, support from the public and whether a portion of the speeding fines can be returned to the Council in order to fund the installation and running costs of the cameras rather than all fine money going to HM Treasury.
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Road Safety Partnership (LLRRSP)
89. The LLRRSP brings together the following organisations:-
Leicester City Council; Leicestershire County Council; Rutland County Council; Leicestershire Police; Highways England; Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service; Public Health; and, East Midlands Ambulance.
90. The overall objective of the LLRRSP is to reduce the numbers of people killed and injured on the highway network within the Partnership area through collaborative working. The LLRRSP seeks to achieve this through the provision of camera enforcement and evidenced based programmes of road safety education, training and publicity.
91. The Safety Camera Scheme is directly managed by Leicestershire Police. The Police run and manage the static and mobile cameras and the processing of offences from their ‘Road Safety Unit’ (RSU). The Police offer Driver Education Workshop (DEW) course to drivers within a prescribed threshold.
92. The County Council run and manage the DEW operation; currently in excess of 23,000 drivers a year attend a DEW course.
93. There is a memorandum of understanding between the main LLRRSP partners which was renewed in 2017 and will last until 2022.
94. The LLRRSP structure consists of:-
A Board represented by senior managers from the individual organisations; and, delivery groups – Camera Operations, Data, Communications and Publicity, and DEW all represented by officers from across the Partnership.
95. A key focus for the Camera Operations Group in 2018 has been the replacement of the existing wet film cameras with digital cameras. Significant progress has been made with this project with many of the new cameras now operational. DEW has resilience plans in place to cope with higher client numbers should this
104
happen as a result of digitalisation and the introduction of the seven average speed camera locations. DEW provision has continued to improve efficiency and reduce costs in 2018. Work is also ongoing to review the accommodation strategy for DEW. The Data Group will produce casualty information to highlight trends and issues to inform the work of the Communications and Publicity Group, and be requested to study the decline in reported accidents.
96. A full programme of communication and training initiatives for 2018/19 was developed and approved by the Board. There has been a focus on the use of social media which matches the national approach from the THINK! campaign. This work is managed by the Partnership Communications Officer.
Safer Roads Funding
97. The DfT Safer Roads Fund totals £175million between 2017/18 and 2020/21.
98. The DfT invited proposals from eligible LHAs to improve the safety of 50 specific sections of local A-roads where the risk of fatal and serious accidents is highest based on the analysis by the Road Safety Foundation.
99. No roads in Leicestershire were identified as being eligible for Safer Roads funding. It is assumed (but unwritten) that this is because the risk of fatal and serious accidents on any specific sections of Leicestershire A-roads was not sufficiently high to warrant additional resources, compared to roads in neighbouring authorities in the East Midlands region.
100. Further background on the Safer Roads Fund can be found in Appendix I.
Consultations
101. Individual road safety schemes will continue to be subject to consultations with local members and the public, and reports will be made available to members, as appropriate.
Resource Implications
102. The Council’s short and medium term priority is to support the development of the economy. Whilst many of the measures supporting this objective will assist road safety, the changes to national funding mechanisms has removed the previous block allocations from Government for casualty reduction schemes.
103. At its meeting on 10 March 2017, the Cabinet approved the Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy 2017/18 Refresh. It proposed measures to achieve the required four year MTFS savings and included the four year Environment and Transport capital programme of £83million (2017-21), with a safety scheme spend of £1.0million across these four years.
104. Due to efficiencies in working and the reduced number of cluster sites (ie no sites have been identified for 2019/20), the Rural Route Initiative has been accelerated and will be completed within the Approved Safety Scheme funding.
105. In addition to the safety scheme funding, there is the potential for a limited number of small schemes (e.g. signing and lining) to be funded from the Environment and Transport Traffic and Signals Forward Programme Revenue Budget.
105
106. Potential schemes will need to demonstrate that they can achieve their objectives and offer value for money against agreed criteria. The challenge is significant, as most of the available capital monies have already been committed to meet Government’s match-funding requirements for transport schemes. Therefore, casualty reduction schemes are likely to either be implemented as part of other projects, or funding will need to be sought from other sources, such as developer contributions or bids for Government funding.
107. The Director of Corporate Resources and the Head of Law have been consulted on the contents of this report.
Timetable for Decisions
108. None.
Conclusions
109. Overall, it should be noted that roads in Leicestershire are significantly safer than they were in 2000, despite increases in motor vehicle traffic (16% since 2000).
110. Whilst targets and milestones provide an ongoing reference point, it is the long term trend in accident and casualty statistics that is of most significance.
111. Key points can be summarised as follows:-
There were statistically significant changes in 2017 when compared with 2016, with the decrease in overall casualties in Leicestershire (30%) much greater than across Great Britain (6%);
Leicestershire continues to be a high performing authority when compared with other County Councils, East Midlands authorities and statistical neighbours;
generally, it appears that Leicestershire performs well over the majority of key statistics compared with the rest of Great Britain, with local trends usually better or consistent with those nationally;
the statistically significant reduction in overall casualty numbers means total and slight casualty numbers are well within LTP target milestones, although the KSI casualty total remains higher;
it is important not to draw strong conclusions on the basis of the reduced statistics, due to the potential data quality issues that are under investigation by Leicestershire Police;
secondary safety within cars has been the most important single contributor to reduced casualty numbers;
traffic volume, which has a dominant influence on casualty numbers, is itself strongly influenced by national policy decisions and the level of employment which is currently at a record high;
the Council is facing significant challenges relating to declining funding; and,
106
the approach to casualty reduction aims to maximise benefits and ensure a continued customer focussed approach.
112. Cluster sites will be investigated, based on the cluster sites identified in this report for 2013-2018, using the methodology agreed in 2016. The approach taken to identifying sites and investigating concerns has been designed to ensure that benefits are maximised within the framework of the significant challenges that the Authority faces.
113. The County Council’s road safety education programme, consisting of education, training and publicity initiatives will complement this process in targeting measures in an evidence led approach
Background Papers
15 June 2010 – Cabinet – ‘Report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on Road Safety Measures’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=2908&Ver=4
8 March 2011 – Cabinet – ‘Final Draft Leicestershire Local Transport Plan (LTP3) Proposals’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=3122&Ver=4
23 March 2011 – County Council – ‘Final Draft Local Transport Plan (LTP3) Proposals’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=3057&Ver=4
16 March 2015 - Cabinet – ‘Local Transport Plan, Draft LTP3 Implementation Plan 2015-16’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=4360&Ver=4
3 September 2015 – Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee – ‘Road Casualty Reduction in Leicestershire’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1044&MId=4279&Ver=4
12 Sept 2016 – Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee – ‘Road Casualty Reduction in Leicestershire and Future Approach to Casualty Reduction’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1044&MId=4781&Ver=4
10 March 2017 – Cabinet – ‘Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy 2017/18 Refresh’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=4859&Ver=4
19 July 2017 – Scrutiny Commission – ‘Strategic Plan and Single Outcomes Framework’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=137&MId=5132&Ver=4=
6 December 2017 – County Council – ‘Strategic Plan and Single Outcomes Framework’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=5104&Ver=4
21 February 2018 – County Council – ‘Medium Term Financial Strategy 2018/19 – 2021/22’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=5105&Ver=4
107
1 March 2018 – Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee – ‘Road Casualty Reduction in Leicestershire’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1044&MId=5327&Ver=4
10 April 2018 – Cabinet – ‘Environment and Transport 2018/19 Highways Capital Programme and Highways and Transportation Work Programme’ http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=5179&Ver=4
Circulation under the Local Issues Alert Procedure
None.
Officers to Contact
Ann Carruthers Director, Environment and Transport Telephone: (0116) 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
Ian Vears Assistant Director, Environment and Transport Telephone: (0116) 305 7966 Email: [email protected]
List of Appendices
Appendix A Road Traffic Accident Definitions Appendix B Accident Report Form (STATS19) Appendix C Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Appendix D Leicestershire Road Safety Infographic 2017 Appendix E Estimated Effectiveness of Current/Ongoing Road Safety Measures Appendix F PACTS' Campaign Priorities for Road Safety Appendix G Cluster Sites Appendix H Leicestershire’s Road Safety Initiatives Appendix I Safer Roads Fund
Equality and Human Rights Implications
Initiatives to reduce road casualties benefit all road users, but are particularly important for vulnerable groups such as pedestrians, motorcyclists, cyclists, the young / elderly and those with a disability.
This page is intentionally left blank 109
Appendix A
Road Traffic Accident Definitions
Accident*: Involves personal injury occurring on the public highway (including footways) in which at least one road vehicle or a vehicle in collision with a pedestrian is involved and which becomes known to the police within 30 days of its occurrence. One accident may give rise to several casualties. “Damage-only” accidents are not included.
Casualty: A person killed or injured in an accident. Casualties are sub-divided into killed, seriously injured and slightly injured
Fatal accident: An accident in which at least one person is killed.
Injury accident: An accident involving human injury or death.
Killed: Human casualties who sustained injuries which caused death less than 30 days after the accident. Confirmed suicides are excluded.
KSI: Killed or seriously injured.
Serious accident: One in which at least one person is seriously injured but no person (other than a confirmed suicide) is killed.
Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushing, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.
Severity: Of an accident; the severity of the most severely injured casualty (either fatal, serious or slight). Of a casualty; killed, seriously injured or slightly injured.
Slight accident: One in which at least one person is slightly injured but no person is killed or seriously injured.
Slight injury: An injury of a minor character such as a sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention. This definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment.
* The term ‘accident’ is used throughout, as this is the terminology used in the Road Traffic Act 1988. This should not be taken as the Council’s view of the relative merits of the terms ‘accident’, ‘collision’, ‘crash’ or any other term. This page is intentionally left blank 111 May 2011 Incident URN MG NSRF/A ACCIDENT
STATISTICS Other ref. 1.3 ACCIDENT REFERENCE *FATAL / SERIOUS / SLIGHT
1.9 TIMEHHMM DAY* Su M T W Th F S 1.7 DATE D D M M 2 0 Y Y 1st Road Class & No. 1st Road or (Unclassified - UC) Name (Not Known - NK) Outside House No. or Name or Marker at junction with / or metres N S E W * of Post No. 2nd Road Class & No. 2nd Road or (Unclassified - UC) Name (Not Known - NK)
Town Sector /Beat No.
County or Borough
Parish No. or Name 1.10 Local Auth No. (if known) 1.11 Grid Reference E N
REPORTING Name Number OFFICER BCU/Stn 1.2 Force Tel Number
1.5 Number of vehicles 1.20a PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 1.21 LIGHT CONDITIONS 7 - HUMAN CONTROL 7 1.6 Number of casualties Daylight: 1 None within 50 metres 0 Darkness: street lights present and lit 4 Control by school crossing patrol 1 1.14 ROAD TYPE 7 Darkness: street lights present but unlit 5 Control by other authorised person 2 Roundabout 1 Darkness: no street lighting 6 1.20b PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Darkness: street lighting unknown 7 One way street 2 - PHYSICAL FACILITIES 7 Dual carriageway 3 No physical crossing facility within 50m 0 Single carriageway 6 1.24 SPECIAL CONDITIONS AT SITE 7 Zebra crossing 1 Slip road 7 None 0 Pelican, puffin, toucan or similar non- 4 Unknown 9 Auto traffic signal out 1 junction pedestrian light crossing Auto traffic signal partially defective 2 1.15 Speed Limit (Permanent) Pedestrian phase at traffic signal 5 junction Permanent road signing or marking 3 defective or obscured Footbridge or subway 7 1.16 JUNCTION DETAIL 7 Roadworks 4 Central refuge — no other controls 8 Not at or within 20 metres of junction 00 Road surface defective 5 Oil or diesel 6 Roundabout 01 1.22 WEATHER 7 Mud 7 Mini roundabout 02 Fine without high winds 1 T or staggered junction 03 Raining without high winds 2 Slip road 05 Snowing without high winds 3 1.25 CARRIAGEWAY HAZARDS 7 Crossroads 06 Fine with high winds 4 None 0 Junction more than four arms (not RAB) 07 Raining with high winds 5 Dislodged vehicle load in carriageway 1 Snowing with high winds 6 Using private drive or entrance 08 Other object in carriageway 2 Fog or mist — if hazard 7 Other junction 09 Involvement with previous accident 3 Other 8 Pedestrian in carriageway - not injured 6 Unknown 9 JUNCTION ACCIDENTS ONLY Any animal in carriageway 7 (except ridden horse) 1.23 ROAD SURFACE CONDITION 1.17 JUNCTION CONTROL 7 7 Dry 1 Authorised person 1 Wet / Damp 2 1.26 Did a police officer attend the scene Automatic traffic signal 2 Snow 3 and obtain the details for this report? 7 Stop sign 3 Frost / Ice 4 Yes 1 Give way or uncontrolled 4 Flood (surface water over 3cm deep) 5 No 2 Subject to local directions, boxes with a grey background need not be completed if already recorded * Circle as appropriate UNCLASSIFIED MG NSRF/B VEHICLE RECORD112 May 2011
2.26 VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK 2.23 BREATH TEST 7 VEHICLE 2.11 SKIDDING AND VEHICLE 7 1234 OVERTURNING 1234 Vehicle 001 Not applicable 0 No skidding, jack-knifing or 0 Vehicle 002 Positive 1 overturning Negative 2 Skidded 1 Vehicle 003 Not requested 3 Skidded and overturned 2 Jack - knifed 3 Vehicle 004 Refused to provide 4 Driver not contacted at time of col’ 5 Jack - knifed and overturned 4 Not provided (medical reasons) 6 Overturned 5 2.35 WAS THE VEHICLE VEHICLE 7 7 LEFT HAND DRIVE 1234 2.24 HIT AND RUN 7 2.12 HIT OBJECT IN CARRIAGEWAY
No 1 Not hit and run 0 None 00 Yes 2 Hit and run 1 Previous accident 01 Non-stop vehicle, not hit 2 Roadworks 02 Parked vehicle 04 2.5 / 2.5a TYPE OF VEHICLE 7 2.21 SEX OF DRIVER 7 Bridge - roof 05 Car 09 Bridge - side 06 Male 1 Taxi / Private hire car 08 Bollard / Refuge 07 Female 2 Van - Goods vehicle 3.5 tonnes 19 Open door of vehicle 08 Not known 3 mgw and under Central island of roundabout 09 Goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes 20 2.9 VEHICLE LOCATION AT TIME OF ACCIDENT Kerb 10 mgw and under 7.5 tonnes mgw RESTRICTED LANE/AWAY FROM MAIN C’WAY 7 Any animal (except ridden horse) 12 Goods vehicle 7.5 tonnes mgw & over 21 Other object 11 Goods vehicle - unknown weight 98 On main carriageway not in 00 restricted lane M/cycle 50cc and under 02 7 Tram / Light rail track 01 2.13 VEHICLE LEAVING CARRIAGEWAY M/cycle over 50cc and up to 125cc 03 Bus lane 02 Did not leave carriageway 0 M/cycle over 125cc and up to 500cc 04 Busway (inc. guided busway) 03 Left carriageway nearside 1 Motorcycle over 500cc 05 Cycle lane (on main carriageway) 04 Left carriageway nearside and 2 Motorcycle - cc unknown 97 Cycleway or shared use footway 05 rebounded Electric Motorcycle 23 (not part of main carriageway) Left carriageway straight ahead 3 at junction Pedal cycle 01 On lay-by / hard shoulder 06 Left carriageway offside onto 4 Bus or coach (17 or more 11 Entering lay-by/ hard shoulder 07 passenger seats) central reservation Leaving lay-by / hard shoulder 08 Minibus (8-16 passenger seats) 10 Left carriageway offside onto 5 Footway (pavement) 09 central reserve and rebounded Agricultural vehicle (include 17 diggers etc) 7 Left carriageway offside and 6 2.10 JUNCTION LOCATION OF VEHICLE crossed central reservation Ridden horse 16 Mobility scooter 22 Not at or within 20m of junction 0 Left carriageway offside 7 Tram / Light rail 18 Approaching junction or waiting 1 Left carriageway offside and 8 /parked at junction approach rebounded Other 1 90 vehicle 2 90 Cleared junction or waiting/ 2 parked at junction exit 2.14 FIRST OBJECT HIT OFF CARRIAGEWAY 7 3 90 4 90 Leaving roundabout 3 None 00 Entering roundabout 4 Road sign / Traffic signal 01 2.6 TOWING AND ARTICULATION 7 Leaving main road 5 Lamp post 02 Entering main road 6 Telegraph pole / Electricity pole 03 No tow or articulation 0 Entering from slip road 7 Tree 04 Articulated vehicle 1 Mid junction– on roundabout or 8 Bus stop / Bus shelter 05 Double or multiple trailer 2 on main road Central crash barrier 06 Caravan 3 Nearside or offside crash barrier 07 2.7 MANOEUVRES 7 Single trailer 4 Submerged in water (completely) 08 Entered ditch 09 Other tow 5 Reversing 01 Parked 02 Wall or fence 11 Other permanent object 10 2.22 AGE OF DRIVER (Estimate if necessary) Waiting to go ahead but held up 03 Slowing or stopping 04 2.16 FIRST POINT OF IMPACT 7 Vehicle 001 Vehicle 002 Moving off 05 U turn 06 Did not impact 0 Vehicle 003 Vehicle 004 Turning left 07 Front 1 Waiting to turn left 08 Back 2 2.27 DRIVER HOME POSTCODE Turning right 09 Offside 3 or Code: 1- Unknown 2- Non UK Â Waiting to turn right 10 Nearside 4 Resident 3 - Parked & unattended Changing lane to left 11 2.29 JOURNEY PURPOSE OF DRIVER/RIDER 7 Changing lane to right 12 Vehicle 001 O’taking moving veh on its offside 13 Journey as part of work 1 Vehicle 002 O’taking stationary veh on its offside 14 Commuting to / from work 2 Overtaking on nearside 15 Taking school pupil to/from school 3 Vehicle 003 Going ahead left hand bend 16 Pupil riding to / from school 4 Going ahead right hand bend 17 Other 5 Vehicle 004 Going ahead other 18 Not known 6 Subject to local directions, boxes with a grey background need not be completed if already recorded UNCLASSIFIED MG NSRF/C 113 May 2011 2.8 DIRECTION OF VEHICLE TRAVEL Vehicle 001 Vehicle 002 FROM TO FROM TO N 1. Using the Example shown complete the NW 1 NE FROM and TO boxes for the vehicles EXAMPLE 8 2 concerned, indicating direction of travel W 7 E FROM and TO Vehicle 003 Vehicle 004 FROM TO 3 2. If PARKED enter ‘00’ FROM TO FROM TO 1 3 6 4 SW 5 SE S CASUALTY RECORD
3.4 VEHICLE REFERENCE NUMBER 3.7 SEX OF CASUALTY 7 CASUALTY 3.20 CYCLE HELMET CASUALTY Enter VEH No. which CASUALTY occupied WORN 7 123456 (for pedestrians, code vehicle that struck them 123456 first) e.g. 001,002 etc. Male 1 Not a cyclist 0 Female 2 Yes 1 Casualty 0010 Casualty 002 0 No 2 3.8 AGE OF CASUALTY (Estimate if necessary) Casualty 0030 Casualty 004 0 For children less than a year enter 00 Not known 3 Casualty 0050 Casualty 006 0 Casualty 001 Casualty 002 3.15 CAR PASSENGER (not driver) 7 Casualty 003 Casualty 004 3.18 CASUALTY HOME POSTCODE
 Not a car passenger 0 or Code: 1- Unknown Casualty 005 Casualty 006 Front seat passenger 1 2- Non UK Resident 7 Rear seat passenger 2 Casualty 001 3.6 CASUALTY CLASS Driver/Rider 1 Casualty 002 3.16 BUS OR COACH PASSENGER 7 Veh./pillion Passenger 2 (17 passenger seats or more) Casualty 003 Pedestrian 3 Not a bus or coach 0 passenger Casualty 004 3.9 SEVERITY OF CASUALTY 7 Boarding 1 Casualty 005 Fatal 1 Alighting 2 Serious 2 Casualty 006 Slight 3 Standing passenger 3 Seated passenger 4 LOCAL STATISTICS
3.14 SEAT BELT IN USE 7
Not applicable 0 Worn and inde- 1 pendently confirmed Worn but not inde- 2 pendently confirmed Not worn 3 Unknown 4
3.10 PEDESTRIAN CASUALTY PEDESTRIAN CASUALTIES ONLY 3.11 PEDESTRIAN CASUALTY 7 LOCATION 7 123456 MOVEMENT 123456 3.12 PEDESTRIAN CASUALTY In carriageway, crossing 01 7 Crossing from driver’s 1 on pedestrian crossing DIRECTION 123456 nearside facility Standing still 0 Crossing from driver’s 2 In carriageway, crossing 02 nearside-masked by Northbound 1 within zig-zag lines at parked or stationary veh’ crossing approach Northeast bound 2 Crossing from driver’s 3 In carriageway, crossing 03 Eastbound 3 offside within zig-zag lines at crossing exit Southeast bound 4 Crossing from driver’s 4 offside-masked by Southbound 5 In carriageway, crossing 04 parked or stationary veh’ elsewhere within 50m of Southwest bound 6 pedestrian crossing In carriageway, stationary 5 Westbound 7 - not crossing (standing In carriageway, 05 or playing) crossing elsewhere Northwest bound 8 In carriageway, stationary 6 Unknown 9 On footway or verge 06 -not crossing (standing or playing), masked by On refuge, central island 07 or central reservation parked or stationary veh’ Walking along in 7 In centre of carriageway, 08 3.19 PEDESTRIAN ROAD carriageway-facing traffic not on refuge, island or MAINTENANCE WORKER 7 central reservation Walking along in 8 No / not applicable 0 carriageway-back to In carriageway, not 09 traffic crossing Yes 1 Unknown or other 9 Unknown or other 10 Not known 2
Subject to local directions, boxes with a grey background need not be completed if already recorded UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTED MG NSRF/D CONTRIBUTORY114 FACTORS May 2011 1. Select up to six factors from the grid, relevant to the accident. 5. The same factor may be related to more than one road user. 2. Factors may be shown in any order, but an indication must be 6. The participant should be identified by the relevant vehicle or given of whether each factor is very likely (A) or possible (B). casualty ref no. (e.g. 001, 002 etc.), preceded by "V" if the factor 3. Only include factors that you consider contributed to the applies to a vehicle, driver/rider or the road environment (e.g. accident. (i.e. do NOT include "Poor road surface" unless relevant). V002), or "C" if the factor relates to a pedestrian or passenger 4. More than one factor may, if appropriate, be related to the same casualty (e.g. C001). road user. 7. Enter U000 if the factor relates to an uninjured pedestrian.
103 102 101 110 108 107 109 104 105 106 Traffic Sunken, Road Deposit on Poor or Road layout Temporary Inadequate calming Slippery raised or Animal or Defective Environment road (e.g. defective (e.g. bend, road layout or masked (e.g. speed road (due to slippery object in traffic oil, mud, road hill, narrow (e.g. signs or road cushions, Contributed weather) inspection carriageway signals chippings) surface carriageway) contraflow) markings road humps, cover chicanes) 201 202 203 204 205 206 Overloaded Vehicle Tyres illegal, Defective Defective Defective or or poorly Defective Defects defective or lights or steering or missing loaded brakes under-inflated indicators suspension mirrors vehicle or trailer 308 306 302 301 307 310 305 304 309 303 Disobeyed Disobeyed Cyclist Vehicle Injudicious Disobeyed Travelling Illegal turn pedestrian Disobeyed Following Exceeding Give Way or entering travelling Action automatic too fast for or direction crossing double too close speed limit Stop sign or road from along traffic signal conditions of travel facility white lines markings pavement pavement
405 406 403 408 409 401 402 404 407 410 Driver/ Failed to Junction Failed to Too close to Rider Failed to judge other Poor turn or Sudden Junction restart signal or cyclist, horse Loss of Error or look Swerved person’s path manoeuvre braking overshoot (moving off misleading or control properly Reaction or speed at junction) signal pedestrian
501 502 508 503 509 510 505 504 507 506 Not Impairment Illness or Impaired by Driver using Distraction Uncorrected, Rider displaying or Impaired by Distraction disability, drugs (illicit mobile Fatigue outside defective wearing dark lights at night alcohol in vehicle mental or Distraction or medicinal) phone vehicle eyesight clothing or in poor physical visibility 602 605 601 603 607 606 604 Behaviour Driving too Careless, Learner or Nervous, Unfamiliar Inexperience slow for or Aggressive reckless or inexperienced uncertain or with model of of driving on conditions or driving Inexperience in a hurry driver/rider panic vehicle the left slow vehicle (e.g. tractor) Driver/Rider Only (Includes Pedal Cycles and Horse Riders) 701 703 706 707 708 705 710 702 704 709 Visor or Road layout Buildings, Vision Affected Stationary Spray windscreen (e.g. bend, Dazzling Rain, sleet, Dazzling Vehicle road signs, or parked from other Vegetation dirty, by winding road, sun snow or fog headlights blind spot street vehicle(s) vehicles scratched or hill crest) furniture frosted etc. 802 808 803 801 806 807 805 804 809 810 Crossing Pedestrian Only Failed to Dangerous Wrong use of Pedestrian Disability Failed to Careless, road masked Impaired by (Casualty or judge Impaired by action in pedestrian wearing or illness, look reckless or by stationary drugs (illicit vehicle’s path alcohol carriageway crossing dark clothing mental or Uninjured) properly in a hurry or parked or medicinal) or speed (e.g. playing) facility at night physical vehicle 901 902 903 904 *999 Vehicle door Vehicle in Emergency Other – Special Codes Stolen opened or course vehicle Please vehicle closed of crime on a call specify negligently below
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Factor in the accident Which participant? (e.g. V001, C001, U000) Very likely (A) or Possible (B)
*If 999 Other, give brief details (Note: Only use if another factor contributed to the accident and include it in the text description of how the accident occurred) These factors reflect the reporting officer’s opinion at the time of reporting and may not be the result of extensive investigation RESTRICTED 115
Appendix C
REPORTED ROAD CASUALTIES
LEICESTERSHIRE 2017
There were 213 reported killed or seriously injured casualties in 2017, a decrease of 5% compared with 2016. Compared with 2007, there were 20% fewer killed or seriously injured casualties in 2017 and 51% fewer casualties overall.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This report provides an overview and commentary of reported road casualties in 2017 in Leicestershire. This is created to support the annual report on casualty reduction to the Council’s Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
CONTENTS
Introduction p.2
Summary and headline figures p.3
Casualties by road user type p.4
Casualties by road type p.11
National comparisons p.13
Definitions & sources p.16
CONCLUSIONS
There were statistically significant changes in 2017 when compared with 2016, with the decrease in overall casualties (30%) significantly greater than the reduction across Great Britain (6%)
The number of killed or seriously injured casualties decreased in Leicestershire in the face of an increase across Great Britain, although caution must be urged due to the possible impact of a new system used by many police forces across the country resulting in higher reported serious injuries in these areas
Leicestershire continues to be a high performing authority when compared with other County Councils, East Midlands authorities and statistical neighbours
Generally it appears that Leicestershire performs well over the majority of key statistics compared with the rest of Great Britain, with local trends usually better or consistent with those nationally
Produced January 2019 Page 1 of 16 116
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
INTRODUCTION
This report provides the number of personal-injury road traffic accidents in Leicestershire that were reported by the police in 2017 using the STATS19 reporting system. It also includes the number of people killed or injured in these accidents and which road user group they were in.
The current set of definitions and detail of information goes back to 1979, providing a long period for comparison.
The information used to create these statistics are collected by police forces, either through officers attending the scene of accidents or from members of the public reporting the accident in police stations after the incident.
There is no obligation for people to report all personal-injury accidents to the police (although there is an obligation under certain conditions, as outlined in the Road Traffic Act). These figures, therefore, do not represent the full range of accidents or casualties in Leicestershire.
All accidents that were reported by the police and that occurred on a public highway involving at least one motor vehicle, horse rider or pedal cyclist, and where at least one person was injured are included. Accidents that happened on private land (including private drives) or car parks are not included in the statistics. Damage only accidents that do not result in personal injury are also excluded from these statistics.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE DATA
Comparisons of road accident reports with death registrations show that very few, if any, road accident fatalities are not reported by the police. However, it has long been known that a considerable proportion of non-fatal casualties are not known to the police, as hospital, survey and compensation claims data all indicate a higher number of casualties than police accident data would suggest.
A study by the Department for Transport suggests that across Great Britain between 2012 and 2016, only around 24- 32% of personal-injury accidents were reported by the police and recorded in STATS19. This is based on an estimate from National Travel Survey data, where people are asked if they had been in a personal-injury accident and, if so, whether that accident was reported by the police.
Furthermore comparison with other authorities and Great Britain will become increasingly difficult, due to the adoption of the Collision Recording and Sharing (CRASH) system among approximately half of English police forces by early 2016. This system is purported to increase severity accuracy by eliminating the uncertainty arising from individual officer judgements, and forces that have migrated to CRASH are estimated to have added 20% to the Great Britain total for serious injuries. There is currently no indication that Leicestershire Police have any intention of migrating to CRASH in the near future.
Leicestershire Police is monitoring a sudden and dramatic decline in the number of reported accidents, evidenced by the statistics within this document for 2017. Data from the Police’s Force Control Room is being analysed by Leicestershire Police to determine the extent that the decline may be caused by procedural changes, as opposed to a genuine reduction in the number of reported accidents.
The data used as the basis for these statistics is therefore not a complete record of all personal injury road accidents, and this should be borne in mind when using and analysing the figures. Furthermore, police data on road accidents, whilst not perfect, remain the most detailed, complete and reliable single source of information on road casualties covering the whole of Great Britain, in particular for monitoring trends over time.
Produced January 2019 Page 2 of 16 117
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
SUMMARY FIGURES
The table below shows the number of reported road casualties in Leicestershire in 2017 compared with previous years, and the percentage change reported by DfT in comparison with 2017 casualty figures for Great Britain (GB):
Last year Five years ago 2010-2014 average1 Leicestershire 2017 2016 2012 Leics GB Leics GB Leics GB All casualties 1194 1705 -30% -6% 1878 -36% -13% 1952 -39% -13% Killed 19 36 -47% +0% 27 -30% +2% 31 -39% -0% Seriously injured 194 189 +3% +3% 169 +15% +8% 190 +2% +10% Slightly injured 981 1480 -34% -7% 1682 -42% -16% 1731 -43% -16% KSI 213 225 -5% +3% 196 +9% +7% 221 -4% +9%
HEADLINE STATISTICS
A total of 19 people were killed in reported road traffic accidents in Leicestershire in 2017. This is the lowest number of fatalities on record, and represents a significant statistical reduction from 2016 (47%), a year which saw the highest number of fatalities since 2011.
This bucks the trend across Great Britain, which has seen no significant change from 2016. The trend in the number of fatalities across Great Britain has remained broadly flat since 2010, while the trend between 2006 and 2010 was for fatalities to fall, as was also the case in Leicestershire.
Since that point however, most of the year on year changes are either explained by one-off causes or natural variation. The evidence points towards Britain being in a period when the fatality numbers are fairly stable and most of the changes relate to random variation.
Consequently it is more meaningful at a local authority level to analyse killed and seriously injured casualties together, a nationally recognised statistic with the acronym “KSI”. A total of 213 people were killed or seriously injured in reported road traffic accidents in Leicestershire in 2017.
This represents a decrease of 12 casualties (5%) from 2016, and d 4% decrease against Leicestershire’s KSI casualty average between 2010 and 2014. This is significantly better than the rest of Great Britain, which has seen a 3% increase in KSI casualties from 2016, and a 9% increase on the 2010-14 average.
There was a total of 1194 casualties of all severities in reported road traffic accidents in Leicestershire in 2017. This decrease of 30% on 2016 is significantly greater than the 6% seen across Great Britain, and is the lowest number of reported casualties on record. It also signifies a decrease of 36% against 2012, and 39% against the 2010-14 average. These are both greater than the Great Britain decreases of 13% since 2012, and 13% against the 2010-14 average.
1 The 2010-2014 average is used as a comparison time frame in this report, for both consistency and enabling comparison with Department for Transport statistics.
Produced January 2019 Page 3 of 16 118
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
CASUALTIES BY ROAD USER TYPE
TOTAL CASUALTIES BY ROAD USER TYPE
Last year Mode 2017 % share 2010-2014 average 2016
795 1202 -34% 1352 -41%
122 145 -16% 167 -27%
106 147 -28% 174 -39%
112 129 -13% 155 -28%
Other 59 82 -28% 106 -44%
In 2017 car occupants account for 67% of all reported road casualties in Leicestershire, which is unsurprising given that cars account for around 80% of traffic on British roads.
However a comparison over the whole of Great Britain by the Department for Transport comparing the casualty and fatality rates per billion passenger miles by road user type clearly defines the more vulnerable road user groups:
Source: DfT RRCGB 2017 Annual Report
The pattern for pedal cycles is an interesting one: the overall casualty rate of around 5,600 casualties per billion miles cycled is close to the motorcycling casualty rate, whereas the fatality rate of 30.9 per billion miles cycled is much closer to the pedestrian rate. It is not possible to replicate the analysis for Leicestershire, as traffic mileage is not broken down to local authority level by the Department for Transport for most of the user groups shown above.
Produced January 2019 Page 4 of 16 119
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
CAR OCCUPANTS
Last year 2010-2014 average Severity 2017 2016 Leics GB Leics GB All Severities 795 1202 -34% -8% 1352 -41% -17%
Killed or Seriously Injured 99 115 -14% -1% 116 -15% +7%
Car occupants continue to account for the largest proportion of casualties of all severities. A total of 99 car occupants were killed or seriously injured in 2017, which is around a 15% reduction against 2016 and the 2010-14 average. This is despite a notable increase in KSI car casualties across Great Britain. Of the 99, 10 were fatal casualties.
There were a total of 795 car occupant casualties of which 68% were drivers and 32% were passengers, which mirrors the rest of Great Britain. Of the drivers 21% were aged 17-24, compared to 11% in 2016.
Overall car occupant casualty numbers decreased by 34% from the 1202 in 2016, and 41% from the 2010-14 average of 1352. The general long-term trend for car occupant casualties appears to be downwards, albeit with little decrease over recent years, with 2017 being the exception.
Car and taxi traffic in Great Britain increased by 1% from 2016 to 2017, and is currently 5% above the 2010-14 average. Although increases in car and taxi traffic can lead to an increase in accidents, other factors can have a stronger influence on road safety.
Produced January 2019 Page 5 of 16 120
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
PEDESTRIANS
Last year 2010-2014 average Severity 2017 2016 Leics GB Leics GB All Severities 122 145 -16% +1% 167 -27% -6%
Killed or Seriously Injured 37 27 +37% +9% 30 +22% +7%
A total of 37 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured in 2017, up 37% from 27 in 2016. Of the 37 casualties, 4 were fatal.
A total of 122 pedestrian casualties were reported in 2017, down 16% from 2016 and 27% from the 2010-14 average. This the lowest total on record.
There are 37% fewer pedestrian casualties since 2007, compared with 27% across Great Britain. The small numbers of KSI pedestrian casualties make comparison of this statistic difficult. Due the small numbers involved, the change in KSI casualties is most likely to be a result of natural variation and cannot be easily attributed to underlying causes.
Produced January 2019 Page 6 of 16 121
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
PEDAL CYCLISTS
Last year 2010-2014 average Severity 2017 2016 Leics GB Leics GB All Severities 112 129 -13% -1% 155 -28% -5%
Killed or Seriously Injured 29 21 +38% +9% 16 +79% +18%
There were 29 killed or seriously injured pedal cyclists in 2017, up from 21 in 2016, with two fatalities. This represents a 38% increase from 2016 and a 79% increase from the 2010-14 average.
However the picture across Great Britain would suggest a national increase of killed or seriously injured pedal cyclists in the last ten years, suggesting this is not necessarily a local issue.
Overall pedal cyclist casualties were at their lowest on record, with 112 pedal cyclist casualties reported in Leicestershire in 2017. This represents a 28% reduction from the 2010-14 average, better than the Great Britain reduction of 5% over the same timeframe.
Due to the significant year-on-year variation, there is no current clear trend for pedal cyclist casualties.
Produced January 2019 Page 7 of 16 122
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
MOTORCYCLISTS
Last year 2010-2014 average Severity 2017 2016 Leics GB Leics GB All Severities 106 147 -28% -7% 174 -39% -7%
Killed or Seriously Injured 40 48 -17% +1% 48 -17% +10%
There were 40 motorcyclists reported killed or seriously injured in Leicestershire in 2017, down from 48 in 2016 which was also the 2010-14 average. Of the 40, three were fatal.
This is a considerably better picture than Great Britain which saw KSI casualty numbers increase by 10% in 2017, although there has been considerable year-on-year variance so it is difficult to identify a trend for killed and seriously injured casualties.
In total there were 106 motorcyclist casualties in Leicestershire in 16, the lowest number on record for the second consecutive year, a 28% decrease from 2016 and 39% from the 2010-14 average. Of the 106 casualties about 35% were aged 17-24, which is slightly higher than the same statistic across Great Britain (30%).
However with a decrease of 50% motorcyclist casualties in Leicestershire since 2007, there is a clear downward trend for motorcyclist accidents in Leicestershire.
Produced January 2019 Page 8 of 16 123
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
CHILDREN (AGED 15 OR UNDER)
Last year 2010-2014 average Severity 2017 2016 Leics GB Leics GB All Severities 94 139 -32% -2% 151 -38% -11%
Killed or Seriously Injured 14 11 +27% +2% 13 +6% -5%
There were 14 children seriously injured in Leicestershire in 2017, three more than 2016 but with no fatalities (compared to one in 2015). The small numbers and natural variation make it difficult to identify any clear trends.
There were 94 reported child casualties in total in 2017 in Leicestershire, the lowest total on record. Of the 94, 28% are pedestrians (lower than the 37% across Great Britain).
KSI casualties are one higher than the 2010-14 average, while overall casualties are 38% lower. Clearly there is good progress being made nationally with respect to overall child casualty numbers, although there is potentially an emerging national trend of KSI child casualties increasing.
Produced January 2019 Page 9 of 16 124
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
OLDER CASUALTIES (AGED 60 AND OVER)
Last year 2010-2014 average Severity 2017 2016 Leics GB Leics GB All Severities 180 232 -22% -4% 238 -24% +3%
Killed or Seriously Injured 40 45 -11% +2% 30 +33% +18%
There were 40 killed or seriously injured older casualties in Leicestershire in 2017, an 11% decrease from 2017 and a 33% increase from the 2010-14 average. While the scale of this increases can partially be explained by natural variation due to the small numbers involved, the picture across Great Britain also suggest significant increases in this category.
The total number of older casualties was 180 in Leicestershire in 2017, a 22% decrease from 2016 and a 24% decrease from the 2010-14 average. Of the 180, 62% were drivers, 25% passengers and 13% pedestrians.
Across Great Britain there has been an increase in fatalities among those aged 60 and over, driven primarily by an increase in older car occupants and pedestrians. Furthermore the older population has increased by 8% with the 2010-14 average, and by 18% compared with 2007. It is theorised by the Department for Transport that this relatively rapidly growing population may partly explain the slight upturn in casualties for this age group in the last few years.
Produced January 2019 Page 10 of 16 125
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
CASUALTIES BY ROAD TYPE
BUILT-UP VS NON BUILT-UP ROADS
Last year 2010-2014 average Type Severity 2017 2016 All Severities 621 829 -25% 940 -34% Built-Up (20/30/40mph) Killed or Seriously Injured 93 88 +6% 86 +8%
All Severities 573 876 -35% 1013 -43% Non-Built-Up (50/60/70mph) Killed or Seriously Injured 120 137 -12% 135 -11%
There were 93 killed or seriously injured casualties reported on built-up roads, and 120 on non-built-up roads in 2017. This represented a slight increase from 2016 and the 2010-14 average for built-up roads, but a decrease from both measures for non-built-up roads. Generally there is no clear trend on built-up roads although the long-term trend on non-built up roads continues to decrease.
Meanwhile there were 621 total casualties on built-up roads and 573 on non-built up roads in Leicestershire in 2017. This represented a significant reduction from 2016, and against the 2010-14 average.
Produced January 2019 Page 11 of 16 126
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
LOCAL V STRATEGIC ROADS
Highways England is responsible for the strategic road network (SRN), comprised of motorways and trunk roads. Leicestershire County Council is responsible as Local Highway Authority for all non-strategic adopted roads in Leicestershire (local roads).
The SRN comprises of motorways and major trunk roads which are managed by Highways England (HE). Across England, they comprise just 2.4% of road length but 34% of road traffic.
Last year 2010-2014 average Type Severity 2017 2016 All Severities 1045 1462 -29% 1626 -36% Local (LCC) Killed or Seriously Injured 185 196 -6% 186 -1%
Strategic All Severities 149 243 -39% 326 -54% (Highways England) Killed or Seriously Injured 28 29 -3% 35 -21%
Both strategic and local roads are seeing a continuing decline, with killed or seriously injured casualties starting to decrease again after a noticeable spike in 2014.
Produced January 2019 Page 12 of 16 127
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES
When comparing with other authorities it is far more worthwhile comparing casualty rates, rather than absolute numbers. This allows the statistics to take into account demographics, which in this case are population (per million people) and amount of traffic (billion vehicle kilometres).
STATISTICAL NEIGHBOURS
The authorities listed below were identified as being similar enough characteristically to Leicestershire, in order for direct comparison to be of particular use.
Leicestershire ranks 4th and 5th out of 16 statistical neighbours when 2013-17 casualty rates are compared against population and traffic flow respectively.
Produced January 2019 Page 13 of 16 128
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
COUNTIES
Leicestershire continues to perform well in comparison with other County Councils, ranking 4th out of 27 when the total number of casualties are calculated per million population between 2013-17. When comparing against traffic flow over the same time period, Leicestershire are ranked 6th out of 27.
Produced January 2019 Page 14 of 16 129
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
EAST MIDLANDS
In the East Midlands, Leicestershire is the second highest performing County when looking at the 2013-17 casualty rate per million population, and third when comparing the casualty rate per billion vehicle kilometre.
Produced January 2019 Page 15 of 16 130
Reported Road Casualties in Leicestershire 2017 Leicestershire County Council Network Data & Intelligence
DEFINITIONS
Accident*: Involves personal injury occurring on the public highway (including footways) in which at least one road vehicle or a vehicle in collision with a pedestrian is involved and which becomes known to the police within 30 days of its occurrence. One accident may give rise to several casualties. “Damage-only” accidents are not included.
Casualty: A person killed or injured in an accident. Casualties are sub-divided into killed, seriously injured and slightly injured.
Fatal accident: An accident in which at least one person is killed.
Injury accident: An accident involving human injury or death.
Killed: Casualties who sustained injuries which caused death less than 30 days after the accident. Confirmed suicides are excluded.
KSI: Killed or seriously injured.
Serious accident: One in which at least one person is seriously injured but no person (other than a confirmed suicide) is killed.
Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushing, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.
Severity: Of an accident; the severity of the most severely injured casualty (either fatal, serious or slight). Of a casualty; killed, seriously injured or slightly injured.
Slight accident: One in which at least one person is slightly injured but no person is killed or seriously injured.
Slight injury: An injury of a minor character such as a sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention. This definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment.
* The term ‘accident’ is used throughout, as this is the terminology used in the Road Traffic Act 1988. This should not be taken as the Council’s view of the relative merits of the terms ‘accident’, ‘collision’, ‘crash’ or any other term.
OTHER SOURCES
Department for Transport: Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2017 Annual Report
Department for Transport: Road Lengths in Great Britain 2017
Department for Transport: Road Traffic Estimates: Great Britain 2017
Produced January 2019 Page 16 of 16 131 Leicestershire Road Safety Report 2017
KEY STATS change since ‘16
19 ▼47% Fatalities
194 Serious ▲3% injuries
981 ▼ 34% Crash Location Slight injuries
Injuries sustained in 2017
18% 82% Killed or Slight serious injury injury
KSIs by road user type compared to 2016
99 ▼14%
40 ▼17%
29 Follow Us: ▲38%
37 www.speedorsafety.com ▲37%
8 @LLRRoadSafety ▼43% This page is intentionally left blank 133
APPENDIX E
Estimated Effectiveness of Current/Ongoing Road Safety Measures
E1. The effectiveness of measures to reduce casualties through drink driving publicity/education, engineering measures and improved standards of car secondary safety can at a national level be estimated with reasonable accuracy. These measures are collectively known as the DESS measures
E2. When producing casualty forecasts to support the 2010 national targets the Transport Research Laboratory (working for the DfT) estimated that between 1983 and 1998 KSI casualties would have been 14.7%(-1.7%) higher if improved secondary safety had not been introduced into cars, 10.6%(8.9%) higher without drink/drive initiatives and 6.5%(6.5%) higher without road safety engineering measures. Figures in brackets are the corresponding reductions for slight casualties and the estimated increase in slight casualties from secondary safety improvements is the result of a change in severity, from KSI to slight.
E3. Further research at this time indicated that between 1985 and 1995 the combined DESS measures had been as effective as all of the other road safety initiatives combined in containing the growth of slight casualties, whilst for KSI casualties, the other initiatives had proved more effective. Table E1 demonstrated this point.
Casualty Rate Reduction, % Achieved DESS Measures Other Measures KSI Motorways 13 45 Urban A Roads 13 39 Rural Roads 16 33 Minor Roads 16 33
Slight Motorways 3 2 Urban A Roads 6 2 Rural Roads 4 10 Minor Roads 7 3 Table E1. Estimates of the Reduction in (non motorcyclist) Casualty Rates Achieved Between 1985 and 1995.
E4. Whilst similar/updated figures were not available to support the 2020 forecasts within the Strategic Framework for Road Safety, the DfT did nevertheless consider the impact of the DESS measures on the number of car occupants, pedestrians, pedal cyclists, motor cyclists and other road users between 1998 and 2009. As a result of this work the following table was published.
134
Casualty Car Motor Pedal Pedestrians Others Severity Occupants Cyclists Cyclists Killed 39% 5% 3% 11% 5% Serious 24% 5% 3% 11% 5% Casualties Table E2. Estimated Effectiveness of Secondary Safety, Drink/Drive and Engineering Measures on 2020 Forecasts.
E5. In producing the 2010 and 2020 forecasts no attempt to quantify the benefits of other road safety measures was made, it was simply assumed that such activity would continue at about the same level and that the production of reliable forecasts was therefore not dependent on knowing their impact.
E6. When estimating the benefits of preventing injury accidents it is the average cost for injury accidents for built-up roads (non-motorway, 40mph or less) and non-built up roads (non-motorway, >40mph) that is used. This information is provided annually by the Government in the DfT’s Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain Annual Report. An extract from the latest report is provided below.
Table E3: DfT Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain Annual Report 2017
E7 Table E4 below shows the number of accidents saved as a result of implementing Local Safety Schemes (LSSs) up to 2015/16. This is based on an ‘after’ monitoring period of a full three years. Where this data is not available (because schemes have been implemented more recently) the latest ‘after’ period has been used on a pro-rata basis in order to estimate the three year saving.
E8 Following a review of how the County Council was to deliver casualty reduction schemes no schemes were completed during 2016/17. Whilst schemes were completed during 2017/18 (and are detailed in the main body of the report) meaningful performance data is not provided as these schemes have less than 12 months ‘after’ monitoring data.
135
Year of scheme Number of Number of Average budget schemes accidents saved spend to save one annually accident 2006/7 * 35 34 £22,058 2007/8 * 19 76 £11,184 2008/9 * 14 27 £27,777 2009/10 * 10 16 £46,785 2010/11 * 8 19 £39,473 2011/12 15 55 £13,636 2012/13 11 29 £25,862 2013/14 9 21 £35,714 2014/15 11 17 £44,117 2015/16 4 5 £22,000 Totals 136 299 £288,426
Averages 17 34 £29,392 Table E4 * data included in Leicestershire County Council annual Casualty Report
E9 2015/16 saw a reduction to the road safety budget.
‘Number of ‘Number of ‘Annual budget schemes’ trend: accidents saved spend to save one annually’ trend: accident’ trend: There has been a
gradual decrease The overall trend The overall trend
of the number of shows a shows an
schemes decreasing increasing cost.
implemented number of
annually. accidents saved. This may be due
This may be due to:
This reflects an to:- the increased
increasing difficulty fewer sites cost of larger
in identifying with treatable schemes
schemes that can accidents fewer accidents deliver sufficient schemes saved value for money targeting a and the move wider range of towards objectives (not implementing a just accident smaller number of savings) larger schemes, Note: there are which meet wider two years that objectives. show a statistical fluctuation, which is due to the specific nature of the schemes implemented in these years.
This page is intentionally left blank 137
Appendix F
PACTS’ Campaign Priorities for Road Safety
F1. Adopt a long-term vision for a safe transport system free from death and serious injury
A widely adopted vision is for a transport system which is eventually free from death and serious injury. The aim is to galvanise all relevant parties to take shared responsibility for safety results, especially on the roads, where most death and injury in transport occurs. Safety goals should be aligned with sustainable development goals to secure social, economic, environmental and health benefits alongside safety benefits.
F2. Set challenging national quantitative targets for road safety
Set time-limited quantitative targets – an international success story in which Britain has been a leader – to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries in road collisions, including rate-based targets for reducing pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist casualties. Measure and set targets for related intermediate outcomes such as the safety quality of the network and vehicle fleet, reductions in mean speeds, decreases in drink-driving, increases in use of protective equipment and effective emergency medical treatment of the injured.
F3. Lead by example with in-house safe travel policies and safe transport procurement policies
Promote use of the safest forms of transport. Where this is road transport fast-track uptake of the safest available vehicles and the adoption of a range of safer practices in government itself and by road haulage, bus, taxi and other companies. This should be done by mandating required EuroNCAP star ratings for all vehicles operated by or for government as well as compliance with ISO 39001 by all levels of government and by any company undertaking any government contract.
F4. Adopt the Safe System approach in road safety management
Safe System is the term used internationally for an approach which:
recognises that, despite preventive efforts, road users are fallible and collisions continue to happen on the roads; places responsibility upon providers of the transport system for the safety of the system and responsibility upon users of the system for complying with its rules and constraints; aligns safety management goals with wider sustainability goals including social, economic, environmental and health goals; and seeks out and shapes actions to reduce death and serious injury with the vision in mind.
138
These actions will proactively and coherently address shortcomings in the road system, in vehicles, in user behavior and in the care of people injured in collisions.
These initiatives will represent a substantial reorientation of road safety policy and practice. Incoming Ministers wishing to achieve this may find independent outside advice helpful. For this purpose they are recommended to
F5. Commission an independent Road Safety Management Capacity Review (RSMCR)
RSMCR has been developed internationally as a valuable tool to deploy when it is timely for a country to embark on a new phase in the longstanding effort to make use of the roads safer for all. It provides a fresh basis for affirming national ambition, leadership, accountability and management capacity for key functions across government and its partners to deliver best practice in the form of results-focused strategies, programmes and projects.
Act with others in systematic pursuit of the vision:
F6. Improve knowledge and understanding of collisions and casualties in UK road transport
Improve the reporting of transport-related casualties by hospitals in order to fill gaps resulting from the incomplete coverage provided by police reports (based on STATS19) of road traffic accidents and to include for the first time the deaths and injuries resulting from walking and cycling incidents that are not road traffic accidents covered by STATS19. In particular, arrange for hospitals to record the numbers of pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle users they treat as a result of collisions or falls on footways, cycle paths and carriageways so that this information can be combined with that provided by the police to enable a larger proportion of the resulting deaths and serious injuries to be counted in the national statistics for reported road casualties. Introduce a more systematic and comprehensive system of investigation of fatal and serious road collisions, focused on learning and dissemination of results, as already happens in rail and aviation. Improve the presentation of collision and casualty data through better integration with exposure data and involvement factors.
F7. Improve road network safety
In order to protect people against exposure to forces leading to death or serious injury in collisions, upgrade the strategic and local road network on Safe System principles targeting sections and areas of highest risk. To this end, network design should seek to separate on-coming traffic on high-volume, high-speed roads to prevent head-on collisions; provide crash protective roadsides to address run-off- road collisions; achieve safe speeds at intersections to reduce the incidence and severity of side impacts; separate motor traffic from unprotected users except where speeds are low; achieve safe speeds to provide freedom for all responsible users 139
wherever motor vehicles mix with other users of the street or space; and improve highway surfaces, particularly on busy footways and those parts of the carriageway used by crossing pedestrians and cyclists.
F8. Adopt Single/Double Summer Time
Create safer conditions for the use of the network by adopting Single/Double Summer Time. Analysis indicates this would save about 50 lives annually because reductions in numbers of collisions in the hours made lighter would outweigh increases in the hours made darker.
F9. Improve vehicle safety
Support EU legislation for mandatory fitment of proven vehicle safety technologies including intelligent speed assistance/adaptation, seat belt reminders for all seating positions, autonomous emergency braking and alcolocks (for commercial transport and repeat offenders). Participate fully in the ongoing European New Car Assessment Programme, use its safety ratings in national road safety strategy, target setting and fleet safety quality assessment and encourage demand for safer vehicles. Promote regulatory change at European level to introduce large/heavy vehicle designs which present less threat to pedestrians and cyclists by means of underrun guards, elimination of blind spots and other measures.
F10. Improve road user standards
Reduce the exposure to risk of young drivers in their first years of driving by measures which include the introduction of an effective graduated driver licensing scheme. On the basis of many studies of experience in other countries and analysis of collision data for GB, TRL estimate that at least about 30 lives per year could be saved in collisions involving 17-19 year-old drivers, with further savings among those learning to drive at later ages. Evaluate the safety impacts of telematics and similar technologies for young drivers, business and commercial drivers. Disseminate the results and publicise best practice. Reduce the general drink-drive blood alcohol limit to 50mg /100ml. This could save at least about 40 lives each year, and improve the efficiency of enforcement; Follow up the new drug driving legislation with effective and practicable initiatives, including enforcement and publicity measures, to reduce drug driving. Reduce risks due to driver fatigue. Fatigue can impair drivers to at least the same extent as is seen at the legal alcohol limit for driving. The problem must be reviewed with a view to identifying effective incentives for drivers, their employers and the governing bodies so that effective education and monitoring will be carried out and to promote risk-reducing changes in behaviour. Improve compliance with key road safety rules and improved risk awareness through enhanced and combined police enforcement, technology, 140
publicity and education initiatives. This would include measures to reduce road user distraction. Publicise best practice guidance on effective training for drivers, motorcyclists, pedal cyclists and young pedestrians and monitor outcomes.
F11. Review emergency medical response to collisions and enhanced trauma care
Studies in other countries show that many more people involved in collisions, especially those in remote places, would probably have survived and avoided long term disability if they had reached hospital sooner and received even more appropriate care. The scope in different parts of the UK for more rapid emergency response to collisions and best use of enhanced trauma care to reduce deaths and the consequences of serious injuries should be reviewed and the findings acted upon.
Looking beyond the UK, the government should, with the help of the UK road safety community.
F12. Support road traffic injury prevention in international development work
Road traffic injury is a major global public health problem. Rapid motorisation in developing countries is often accompanied by poor safety quality of road traffic systems and the lack of institutional capacity for managing outcomes. These combine to create a growing and costly humanitarian crisis. Without urgent action, it is forecast that road traffic injury will be the 7th leading cause of death for all worldwide by 2030. In support of the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety, international development assistance should be provided to low and middle-incomes countries to build capacity for road safety management.
Appendix G
Cluster Sites
(Leicestershire Injury Accidents 1st January 2013 to 17th July 2018 with 7 or more accidents)
Rank Location Injury Severity Status SC = Scheme Completed SP = Scheme proposed/In Design NP = Investigated, not Fatal Serious Slight Total progressed
UI = Under Investigation PI = Pending Investigation
141
A563 LUBBESTHORPE WAY ENDERBY JW 1 0 2 23 25 NP NARBOROUGH ROAD SOUTH.
C7207 ABBEY ROAD SHEPSHED CROSSROADS JW 2 0 4 18 22 SC CHARLEY ROAD.
A6 DERBY ROAD LOUGHBOROUGH CROSSROADS JW 3 0 1 19 20 SC BELTON ROAD.
B4114 LEICESTER ROAD ENDERBY ROUNDABOUT JW 4 0 2 13 15 SC BLABY ROAD.
A5460 NARBOROUGH ROAD SOUTH BRAUNSTONE 5 0 0 15 15 NP ROUNDABOUT JW FOSSE PARK AVENUE.
A6 LOUGHBOROUGH ROAD QUORN ROUNDABOUT JW 6 0 1 14 15 SC TERRY YARDLEY WAY. A606 NOTTINGHAM ROAD AB KETTLEBY CROSSROADS 7 0 2 11 13 SC JW SIX HILLS LANE.
A50 ROUNDABOUT MARKFIELD. EXACT LOCATION 8 0 1 11 12 SC UNKNOWN.
A426 BLABY BY-PASS WHESTSTONE ROUNDABOUT JW 9 0 2 10 12 SP ENDERBY ROAD.
A563 LUBBESTHORPE WAY ENDERBY ROUNDABOUT 10 0 2 9 11 NP JW NARBOROUGH ROAD SOUTH.
A5199 WELFORD ROAD SHEARSBY CROSSROADS JW 11 0 5 6 11 SC SADDINGTON ROAD.
A607 NEWARK ROAD THURMASTON JW ROUNDABOUT 12 0 1 10 11 SC
MELTON ROAD. 142
B582 BLABY ROAD WIGSTON MINI ROUNDABOUT JW 13 0 0 11 11 SC CANAL STREET.
A444 STRETTON EN LA FIELD. OUTSIDE ENTRANCE TO 14 0 2 8 10 SC PARK FARM.
C3209 BEACON ROAD WOODHOUSE CROSSROADS JW 15 0 2 8 10 SC SHEPSHED ROAD.
16 C7312 MELTON ROAD WYMONDHAM JW THE MERE. 0 0 10 10 UI
A426 RUGBY ROAD LUTTERWORTH ROUNDABOUT JW 17 0 0 10 10 SP LUTTERWORTH RD.
18 A6 HARBOROUGH ROAD MARKET HARBOROUGH JW 0 3 7 10 SP KETTERING ROAD.
A5199 BULL HEAD STREET OADBY ROUNDABOUT JW 19 0 1 9 10 NP OADBY ROAD.
19 A6006 PADDYS LANE GRIMSTON JW SIX HILLS LANE. 0 3 7 10 SC
B591 LOUGHBOROUGH ROAD CHARLEY CROSSROADS 21 0 2 7 9 SC JW CHARLEY ROAD.
A5460 NARBOROUGH ROAD SOUTH BRAUNSTONE 22 0 2 7 9 NP CROSSROADS JW BRAUNSTONE LANE.
C4501 LEICESTER ROAD WISTOW JW KIBWORTH 23 0 1 8 9 SP ROAD. 143 A6 LEICESTER ROAD LOUGHBOROUGH JW EXIT DRIVE 23 0 1 8 9 NP FROM GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
A6 DERBY ROAD LOUGHBOROUGH JW BRIDGE 25 0 1 8 9 NP STREET.
A6 LEICESTER ROAD OADBY JW PRIVATE DRIVE TO 26 1 0 7 8 NP SUPER MARKET.
A563 LUBBESTHORPE WAY ENDERBY JW 26 1 1 6 8 NP NARBOROUGH ROAD SOUTH.
A563 PALMERSTON WAY OADBY. APPROX 25M S/W 28 0 0 8 8 NP LEICESTER ROAD ROUNDABOUT.
A5199 LEICESTER ROAD WIGSTON JW CARLTON 29 0 1 7 8 SP DRIVE. A50 FIELD HEAD NEWTOWN LINFORD JW LEICESTER 30 0 0 8 8 NP ROAD.
A453 ASHBY ROAD CASTLE DONINGTON JW THE 30 0 2 6 8 UI GREEN.
C3210 NANPANTAN ROAD CHARLEY JW INGLEBERRY 30 0 0 8 8 UI ROAD.
A511 BARDON ROAD ELLISTOWN & BATTLEFLAT 33 0 1 7 8 SC ROUNDABOUT JW BEVERIDGE LANE.
A512 ASHBY ROAD LOUGHBOROUGH JW SNELLS NOOK 33 0 0 8 8 NP LANE.
A511 LITTLE SHAW LANE MARKFIELD ROUNDABOUT JW 35 0 1 7 8 NP
STANTON LANE. 144
B4109 RUGBY ROAD BURBAGE ROUNDABOUT JW 35 0 0 8 8 SP SKETCHLEY ROAD.
A6004 EPINAL WAY LOUGHBOROUGH JW PARK ROAD. 35 0 1 7 8 NP EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.
B4669 HINCKLEY ROAD ASTON FLAMVILLE APPROX 38 0 1 6 7 SP 30M E SMITHY LANE.
A607 MELTON ROAD CROXTON KERRIAL APPROX 1KM 39 2 1 4 7 UI E GREEN LANE.
C4502 KILBY ROAD WISTOW CROSSROADS JW 39 0 2 5 7 SC FLECKNEY ROAD A511 STEPHENSON WAY COALVILLE CROSSROADS JW 39 0 0 7 7 NP BROOM LEYS ROAD.
B5324 REMPSTONE ROAD COLEORTON JW ASHBY 42 1 2 4 7 SP ROAD.
A426 LEICESTER ROAD BITTESWELL CROSSROADS JW 43 0 1 6 7 SP ULLESTHORPE ROAD.
B4667 ASHBY ROAD HINCKLEY CROSSROADS JW 43 0 1 6 7 NP MIDDLEFIELD LANE.
A47 HINCKLEY ROAD BRAUNSTONE CROSSROADS JW 45 0 3 4 7 NP BRAUNSTONE LANE.
B5380 RATBY LANE KIRBY MUXLOE CROSSROADS JW 145 46 0 0 7 7 SC WEMBLEY ROAD.
46 B4666 COVENTRY ROAD HINCKLEY JW BROOKDALE. 0 0 7 7 NP
C6204 MEADOW LANE LOUGHBOROUGH CROSSROADS 46 0 0 7 7 SC JW CLARENCE STREET.
B5366 SAFFRON ROAD WIGSTON MINI JW 46 0 1 6 7 SP ROUNDABOUT GLOUCESTER CRESCENT.
A5460 NARBOROUGH ROAD SOUTH BRAUNSTONE. 50 0 2 5 7 NP EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.
A6004 EPINAL WAY LOUGHBOROUGH ROUNDABOUT 50 0 0 7 7 NP JW ASHBY ROAD.
50 B4669 LONDON ROAD HINCKLEY JW FOREST ROAD. 0 0 7 7 NP A6 LEICESTER ROAD LOUGHBOROUGH JW BEECHES 53 0 2 5 7 NP ROAD.
A5630 ANSTEY LANE ANSTEY ROUNDABOUT. EXACT 53 0 0 7 7 UI LOCATION UNKNOWN.
B4114 COVENTRY ROAD CROFT JW BROUGHTON 55 1 1 5 7 NP ROAD
C4604 LEICESTER ROAD BLABY CROSSROADS JW 55 0 1 6 7 NP ENDERBY ROAD.
B4109 RUGBY ROAD HINCKLEY CROSSROADS JW 55 0 0 7 7 NP WESTFIELD ROAD.
A6 LEICESTER ROAD LOUGHBOROUGH JW 55 0 0 7 7 NP
SHELTHORPE ROAD. 146
B5366 SAFFRON ROAD WIGSTON JW ST THOMAS 55 0 0 7 7 NP ROAD.
A511 LITTLE SHAW LANE MARKFIELD JW ROUNDABOUT 55 0 0 7 7 NP JCT 22.
B5350 BEDFORD SQUARE LOUGHBOROUGH JW 55 0 1 6 7 NP WARDS END.
147
APPENDIX H
Description of Leicestershire’s Road Safety Initiatives
Providing a Safer Road Environment
Development Control
H1. The majority of individual applications are for quite small sites and, in total during 2017, we made approximately 1450 minor responses to consultations on planning applications. In granting planning permission, the local planning authority takes into account comments made by Leicestershire County Council as the local highway authority. When making comments on planning applications, we take account of where the proposal is located and whether it is in an accessible location with appropriate provision for walking, cycling and public transport. We also aim to ensure that the highway infrastructure required to serve new development is designed to minimise the risk of road traffic accidents.
H2. These principles also apply to large sites. Throughout Leicestershire, a number of strategic development sites are planned for delivery over the next 10 -15 years to meet housing need across the County. These strategic sites can vary in size from a few hundred to several thousand dwellings. During 2017, we worked on plans for highway infrastructure at a number of these strategic development sites across the County, and in total made approximately 720 major responses to these consultations.
Safety Audit
H3. Whilst road improvement schemes are designed in accordance with established guidance and standards, unintended safety problems can arise. To guard against this, improvement schemes are subject to safety audit by accident investigation staff that use their experience of looking into why accidents have happened at other locations throughout the County to identify and correct potentially dangerous features within an improvement scheme. The design of the scheme is checked at least once before construction commences and the scheme is checked again once construction is complete. Fifteen completed audits were undertaken on improvement schemes in 2017.
H4. Safety audits are also undertaken on developer schemes by the private sector, as part of the development process.
Traffic Management Schemes
H5. There is an ongoing programme of low cost improvements aimed at managing existing traffic flows more effectively and thereby enhancing road safety. Such schemes generally deal with:
148
the provision of double yellow lines around junctions to prevent parking and improve visibility, the imposition of parking restrictions to prevent parking at locations where a potential hazard existed, the implementation of signing and lining schemes to improve driver perception of hazards and consequently their behaviour the imposition or amendment of weight restrictions to reduce the dangers caused by HGV’s using inappropriate roads.
Managing Speed
Safety Cameras
H6. The Safety Camera Scheme is administered by the Road Safety Partnership and operates 81 safety camera sites (14 fixed, 55 mobile, 3 enforcement routes and 9 red light camera sites) across the partnership area, of which 37 are in Leicestershire. Locations and further information on the scheme itself can be found at www.speedorsafety.com. The Partnership is procuring new digital camera technology to replace the existing wet film cameras, this work is progressing well with many sites now operating with digital cameras.
H7. Since the break-up of the National Camera Scheme in 2007, we have used the national site selection guidance when considering the potential for new permanent camera sites. This guidance has allowed camera enforcement at locations where traffic speeds and accident numbers are insufficient to justify a permanent camera site, but there are genuine local road safety concerns. In 2016 there were some local revisions to criteria however, they fundamentally adhere to national guidelines as recommended by DfT.
H8. Throughout 2017, the Camera Scheme identified 66,760 drivers travelling at excessive speeds and / or running red traffic signals across the police force area (City, County & Rutland). Many drivers (24,817) caught speeding or committing other offences attended driver education workshops held locally at Thurmaston, County Hall and Beaumanor Hall.
Driver Education Workshops
H9. Driver education is an increasingly important part of speed management and, in 2017, some 20,797 drivers opted to attend a Speed Awareness course in Leicestershire as an alternative to receiving a fine and points on their driving licence. These classroom-based workshops are offered to offenders in 30 and 40 mph speed limit areas and last for four hours. The aim of the courses is to help drivers understand the adverse consequences of their driving behaviour. Drivers pay to attend the courses and, after the workshop running costs are accounted for, any operating balance is invested in other road safety initiatives throughout the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Road Safety Partnership. In total around 100,000 hours of training per year is provided through the Driver Education Workshops in Leicestershire.
149
Advisory 20 mph School Safety Zones
H10. Since 2002, we have been implementing advisory 20mph safety zones at schools that have produced School Travel Plans. The zones include prominent signing and flashing amber lights to indicate their extent and times of operation. They are aimed at reducing vehicle speeds to improve safety and encourage walking and cycling to school. In summer 2014 we completed the programme, with over 250 zones being created.
H11. The County Council continues to be of the view that 20mph restrictions are only effective when supported by physical measures and in the current financial climate, unless there is a proven injury accident problem at a location, we cannot justify the installation of such measures.
Traffic Management
H12. It is important for the safety of all road users that drivers are advised of the maximum speed that they should be traveling at along any particular length of road, this is the speed limit. In 2013, speed limits on a number of our roads were changed in order to ensure, as far as we can, that the speed of traffic was reduced to a level consistent with the environment of the road and the hazards on it.
H13. Any speed limit changes implemented are in line with the Department for Transport published national guidance on setting local speed limits, January 2013.
Community Speed Watch
H14. Community Speed Watch continues to be a popular initiative which encourages local communities to get involved in identifying speeding motorists; and thereafter encouraging them to drive at more appropriate speeds. In 2017, there were 16 schemes and the details of more than 3,000 speeding vehicles were passed through to the police, who where possible wrote to the registered keeper of the vehicles reminding them of the dangers associated with speed. The scheme also incorporates the ongoing use of mobile vehicle activated signs and 40 are now being deployed within 48 communities across Leicestershire. (Some communities share signs). The community speed watch website has been updated and has further details of both schemes www.communityspeedwatch.org.uk
Education Training and Publicity
H15. Human error is a significant factor in many accidents. Education training and publicity educates alerts and informs road users about hazardous behaviours and the following outlines the diverse array of initiatives which are currently employed within the County.
150
Driver Education Workshops
H16. In addition to the Speed Awareness Workshops discussed previously, many drivers accused of other motoring offences were offered the opportunity to attend workshops. Over 3,500 drivers have completed the national What's Driving Us? course in Leicestershire in 2017. This three-hour classroom based course can be offered to drivers committing traffic light offences and other offences such as using a mobile phone whilst driving.
H17. Driving 4 Change was introduced in 2013. This is a two-hour practical course with a focus on driver skills rather than attitudes. The police decide on which course to refer the drivers to. A relatively small number of drivers have been offered this course.
H18. In 2017, 205 drivers accused of careless driving (often involving an accident) chose to attend a National Driver Alertness Course, which combines classroom activities and practical driving instruction, as an alternative to prosecution.
Drink-Driving
H19. Whilst the police continue to target drink-drivers throughout the year, the two main month-long campaigns reminding drivers of the risk they take if they choose to both drink and drive are held throughout December and June.
H20. Local media, including daily and weekly newspapers, radio and TV remain very supportive of the drink-drive campaigns and there was continued newspaper coverage along with regular interviews of police spokespersons to remind people not to drink and drive and/or consider alternative means of transport such as buses, taxis or identifying designated sober drivers in order to get home safely and legally.
H21. During December 2017, 78 people were caught drink driving, along with 21 for drug driving, across the Leicestershire Police force area. This is a significant increase on December 2016 when we saw 46 drink and 4 drug drive arrests. Thirty five of these arrests were made following a road traffic accident, and while over a third (37) of the arrests were made in Leicester City, there were also significant numbers in Charnwood (21), North West Leicestershire (12) along with Hinckley & Bosworth (9). Drivers aged 24 or under continue to account for about a third of all roadside arrests, suggesting that a persistent minority of younger drivers are not heeding our drink/drug drive messages. There is unfortunately no formula to determine how much any one person can drink in an evening and be okay to drive the next day. It depends on a number of factors, including weight, gender, age, metabolism and how much food has been eaten. The penalties for drinking and driving are a minimum 12-month disqualification, which rises to three years for a second offence within 10 years, a fine of up to £5,000 and up to six months in prison.
H22. Leicestershire Police now use roadside drug testing kits to help enforce legislation introduced in March 2015 which makes it illegal to drive with certain 151
levels of illegal and prescription drugs in the bloodstream. The new law can be enforced with the use of kits that detect traces of cannabis and cocaine in saliva. More traditional “field impairment tests”, including measuring the size of a driver’s pupils or asking them to walk in straight line can also be used where impairment through other drug groups is suspected.
Pre- Driver and Fleet Driver Training
H23. Pre-driver days continued to be held at Mallory Park during 2017; dates are posted on our website www.tjunction.org.uk. There were 5 events and over 180 participants, concentrating on driver responsibility, peer pressure, impairment and the costs of motoring. Each participant has two driving sessions with approved driving instructors on the Mallory Park circuit where they were introduced to the basics of car control. The Official Theory Test is also explained and tried by the participants.
H24. Drivers of Council vehicles within the Environment and Transport Department have previously undertaken a one-day defensive and green driver training course, aimed at improving safety and fuel economy. Drivers of many larger vehicles have to undertake 35 hours (five days) of training every five years as part of the requirements for a ‘Certificate of Professional Competence’ (CPC). Driver CPC is an initiative introduced across Europe to raise driving standards and it is a legal requirement. The defensive and green driver training course gained Driver CPC accreditation and counts towards the required 35 hours of training.
H25. Work has also continued to deliver training sessions for other council services including presentations and practical driving sessions for the Council Registration Service. Presentations have also been provided for local businesses for their fleet drivers, in 2017 this has included Schneider Electric in Ashby.
Older Car Drivers
H26. The ‘Safer Driving with Age’ (SAGE) scheme for drivers aged 60 and over operates throughout the County. Older drivers need to ensure that they have undertaken an eyesight check, answer a health questionnaire and undertake a driving assessment in their own vehicle with an Approved Driving Instructor. During 2017 there was continued interest in the scheme with more than 25 drivers taking part. The scheme is going to be reviewed and ways to encourage greater take up explored. It is noted that continuing to drive safely helps to tackle social isolation and can contribute to general wellbeing.
Winter Driving
H27. Driving conditions throughout the winter months can be very different from those experienced by motorists throughout the remainder of the year, with clear road safety implications. Alerting motorists to these changing conditions is an integral part of our ongoing road safety advice.
152
Publicity Campaigns
H28. Much of the campaign work is now channelled and supported by the Road Safety Partnership. In 2017, there have been a number of social media road safety campaigns reminding drivers to:
ensure vehicle occupants wear a seat belt not use mobile phones behind the wheel not drink drug drive watch their speed, particularly on rural roads
The Fatal4 Clinics
H29. Over the past six years, Leicestershire Police, with the support of the Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland Road Safety Partnership, have held a series of FATAL4 clinics at locations across the Police force area. These are designed to reinforce concerns about speeding, using mobile phones (while driving), not wearing seatbelts along with drink/drug driving.
H30. Since May 2015 roads policing has been delivered through East Midlands Operational Support Services (EMOpSS) which is a collaboration providing specialist support for Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire police forces.
H31. Since 2013 FATAL4 operations targeting HGV drivers and other drivers using the local motorway and trunk road network have taken place. Police officers travelling in an unmarked HGV tractor unit covertly filmed those drivers seen to be committing FATAL4 offences who were then escorted by a following patrol car to a nearby safe place off the motorway to be dealt with accordingly.
Improving Road Safety for Vulnerable Road Users
H32. In looking to improve safety for vulnerable road users, we primarily target motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists. Details of the initiatives employed for these three groups are given below.
Motorcyclists
H33. The Enhanced Rider Scheme (ERS) is a national rider training scheme for post-test riders. The cost is typically £130 but, with a £70 subsidy from the Road Safety Partnership the rider only pays £60. In the Financial Year 2017/18, more than 130 riders took advantage of this scheme. A variety of different methods were used to publicise the scheme, including Twitter, and promotion through events and with training providers.
H34. Bike Safe workshops are run by Police Class 1 Advanced riders from the police motorcycle section, accredited for the delivery of training. The purpose of Bike Safe is to reduce casualties among bikers by giving them an insight into safer/ smoother riding and a heightened awareness of possible hazards. 153
H35. The Road Safety Partnership in conjunction with Leicestershire County Council purchased a Triumph motorcycle to be used for Road Safety purposes including the promotion of training for motorcycle riders. To help promote this further the bike has been transferred to staff at Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service who have capacity to use this resource. The bike has been re-branded as “FireBike”. The bike has attended many events and biker meets.
H36. We remain supporters of The Shiny Side Up Partnership (SSU) an East Midlands motorcycle safety partnership. The group is presently made up of Leicestershire County Council, Leicester City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Nottingham City Council and Derbyshire County Council. Originally set up to try and drive down casualties relating to Sports Bike riders this has now broadened to include lower capacity scooters and motorcycles. The website has a wealth of useful information. www.shinysideup.co.uk.
H37. The County Council uses a variety of SSUP roadside posters at sites that have a poor motorcycle casualty history these messages include Bike Crash Site Ahead and Think Bike. The roadside posters are bright yellow and have become a regular seasonal way of reminding riders and other road users to take extra care and look out for each other.
Pedestrians and Cyclists
H38. The Junior Road Safety Officer scheme entered its 30th year of operation with a good number of Leicestershire primary schools involved. JRSO is now primarily a website based scheme. There were three main themes for academic year 2017/18: pedestrian safety; cycle/scooter safety and active travel to my school. http://www.junior-rso.org.uk/
H39. Road Safety Tutors continued to provide cyclist training to primary school children, training to National Standards – Bikeability. In 2017/18 over 2400 were trained on roads at Level 2. This training usually takes place in the last year of primary school and can encourage children to cycle when they move to high school. Funding has been granted to March 2020 to support the delivery of Bikeability. Training using balance bikes has also been undertaken for more than 250 children aged 4 to 6. This ‘Bikeability Balance’ training gives children the confidence to begin riding. Funding for this also continues to March 2020.
H40. Cyclist training has been offered to those over 16s who either cannot cycle, have not cycled for a while or who wish to develop their skills and confidence through on and/or off-road training. The Fire Service is developing a cycle safety virtual reality film as part of their VR education programme (existing young driver film). Such films are very engaging and use 360 degree camera footage and are played using a mobile phone connected to a VR headset.
H41. The School Crossing Patrol (SCP) service continues to help children and parents across busy roads at school journey times. A number of the patrollers 154
have involved themselves in wider aspects of road safety work, particularly in cyclist and road safety talks in schools. A small number of SCPs have undertaken a two-day training course to be nationally recognised and qualified assistant Bikeability trainers.
H42. Walking to school is a genuine safety concern for many parents as children living less than 3 miles from the catchment area school for their home address (2 miles for primary school age children) are only provided with free transport by the Council if their walking route is assessed as ‘not available’. The availability of such a route is assessed against local criteria (based on national statutory guidance) which look at highway-related safety issues. Walking route assessments look at the issues which might affect a child walking to school, accompanied (as necessary) by a responsible adult. When walking along the road, the main issue is the presence or otherwise of a footway but, where there is no footway, the assessment asks:
Is there a verge to step onto to avoid oncoming traffic? What is the traffic flow? Are there suitable sightlines?
H43. Crossing of the road is also assessed and here the main issues are the visibility of approaching traffic and how long pedestrians have to wait for a suitable gap in that traffic. In 2017, assessments on 6 routes were undertaken.
H44. School keep clear – Camera Project which aims to change the behaviour of parents when taking their children to school by ensuring the entrances to schools are clear of traffic, reducing the risk to children. 155
Appendix I
Safer Roads Fund The Safer Roads Fund totals £175m between 2017/18 and 2020/21. The Department for Transport invited proposals from eligible local highway authorities to improve the safety of 50 specific sections of local A-roads where the risk of fatal and serious accidents is highest, based on the analysis by the Road Safety Foundation. In the East Midlands, the DfT invited proposals from local highway authorities to upgrade some of the most dangerous local roads in the East Midlands area where the risk of fatal and serious accidents is highest, based on analysis by the Road Safety Foundation. These were:
A619 – 6.1 miles, Bakewell-Baslow A1084 – 15.3 miles, Brigg-Caistor A631 – 5.2 miles, Bishopbridge A631-Market Rasen A631 – 22.3 miles, Market Rasen – Louth A16 A634 – 12.7 miles, Maltby-Blyth A261 – 6.6 miles, Kilsby A5-Daventry A5012 – 15.2 miles, A515-A6 Cromford A5004 – 12.4 miles, Buxton-Whaley Bridge For grid references for these sections, see pp. 8-9 of this document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/583263/roads- funding-information-pack.pdf No roads in Leicestershire were identified as being eligible for Safer Roads funding. It is assumed (but unwritten) that this is because the risk of fatal and serious accidents on any specific sections of Leicestershire A-roads was not sufficiently high to warrant additional resources, compared to roads in neighbouring districts in the East Midlands region. Other applications To give an indication of the casualty rates on roads that were deemed eligible for funding, three examples of applications have been investigated.
In their application to the Safer Roads Fund for the A634 (Maltby to A1 Blyth), Nottinghamshire County Council and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council note that the route is ranked 25th in the High Risk category of the nation’s roads. There were nine KSI accidents, including one fatal, on this stretch of road in 2012-14.
In their application to the Fund for the A161 Goole to A18 junction, East Riding Council note that there were 11 fatal and serious injury accidents and 15 fatal and serious casualties between 2012 and 2014 on this stretch of road.
In their application to the Fund for the A36 between the A35 and the A36(T), Hampshire County Council noted that this stretch of road was the 9th most persistently high risk road in the country. Road Safety Foundation Report The Road Safety Foundation Report, ‘Making Road Travel as Safe as Rail and Air,’ from which these sections of road were based, reached the following conclusions: 156
Deaths on the roads decreased between 2014 and 2015, but 65 people are still killed or seriously injured on the roads every day;
51% of fatal casualties occur on non-built-up roads;
the British EuroRAP network of motorways and A-roads outside built-up areas accounts for 10% of the total road network but 50% of road deaths;
fatal and serious crashes on this network decreased by 6% between 2009-11 and 2012-14 but increased by 5% between 2013 and 2014;
single carriageway A-roads have 8 times the risk of motorways and 3 times the risk of dual carriageways;
5% of motor vehicle travel is on unacceptably higher risk roads;
2% of the network was rated as high risk and 14% at medium risk; and
Only 2% of single carriageway roads are rated as low risk. All higher risk roads are non-primary rural A-roads. While in previous reports, higher risk roads were concentrated in the North West and East Midlands, roads in the South East now account for five out of the ten roads identified. No roads in Leicestershire were included in this list. The table of the ten persistently higher risk roads includes sections of the:
A285, A27, A32, A631 and A36 – in the South East; A16 and A643 – in Yorkshire and the Humber; and A588, A532 and A6 – in the North West. Pages 11-13 of the report maps Britain’s motorways and A-roads by risk rating. In Leicestershire, the following roads are rated as Medium-high risk roads:
A606 from Melton Mowbray to the A646; and A5199 from the A6563 to the southern county boundary. The highest risk road in the East Midlands (outside Leicestershire) is the A427 from the A6003 to the A43 (Corby), which is rated medium-high risk. The report can be found here: http://www.eurorap.org/wp-content/uploads/britisheurorapresults2016-1.pdf