Agenda Item No: 6 Scrutiny Management Committee Minutes Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Agenda Item No: 6 Democratic Services County Hall Northampton NN1 1DN Scrutiny Management Committee Minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2016 Venue: Blue Room, County Hall (Meeting held in public) PRESENT:- Councillor Jim Hakewill (Chair) Councillor Sally Beardsworth Councillor Phil Larratt [from Item 20/16] Councillor Paul Bell Councillor Mick Scrimshaw Councillor Elizabeth Coombe Councillor Michael Tye (substituting for Councillor Dudley Hughes Councillor Stephen Legg) Also in attendance for all or part of the meeting Councillor Cecile Irving-Swift Northamptonshire County Council James Edmunds Democratic Services Assistant Manager (minutes) Andy Leighton Community Engagement Manager Chris Wragg Transport Planning Team Leader Five members of the public were in attendance. The meeting commenced at 2.00pm. Min ref: 16/16 Apologies for Non-Attendance Apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillor Legg and from the Strategic Manager Transport & Highways. 17/16 Notification of requests from members of the public to address the meeting Item 21/16 – Request to review the response to a petition submitted to Northamptonshire County Council • Mr Michael Corner • Mrs Ann Corner 18/16 Declarations of Members’ Interests None declared. 19/16 Chair’s Announcements The Chair welcomed all those present and advised that he intended that the meeting should proceed in a formal but friendly manner. 20/16 Minutes of the Scrutiny Management Committee meeting on 24 th May 2016 RESOLVED that: the minutes of the Scrutiny Management Committee meeting on 24 th May 2016 be agreed. [Councillor Larratt entered the meeting at this point]. 21/16 Request to review the response to a petition submitted to Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) The Democratic Services Assistant Manager presented the report (copies of which had previously been circulated), highlighting the following points: • The request for the Committee to review the adequacy of NCC’s response to the petition concerning a reduced speed limit in Great Oxendon had been made in accordance with the NCC Petition Scheme. • In considering the adequacy of the response the Committee should recognise that NCC might not be able to do what was sought by any petition. The Committee was therefore invited to consider the adequacy of the response in terms such as whether the response reflected relevant policies or whether it was communicated clearly to the lead petitioner. The Chair then invited Mr Corner to address the Committee and he made the following points: • He was a resident of Great Oxendon. • The petition had been organised in light of concerns about the volume and speed of traffic on the A508 in Great Oxendon and the two roads – Main Street and Braybrooke Road – leading off it. • Residents were concerned about the number of accidents in the village, which had included some that had resulted in the air ambulance being called out. They were also aware of vehicles speeding: one vehicle had been seen travelling at 62 mph. • The signatures on the petition had been collected very quickly. • The issue had caused concern over several years but no assistance seemed to be forthcoming from NCC. • NCC’s response to the petition had referred to monitoring carried out in 2012, which was now four years out of date. This was not adequate. • He did not see any logic in the statement in NCC’s response that drivers would ignore a lower speed limit if it was introduced. This did not seem to be a reason not to change the speed limit. • The existing speed limit through Great Oxendon created the impression that it was just a standard stretch of the A508, whereas a 30 mph limit would encourage drivers to be aware that they were passing through a residential area. • NCC’s response to the petition referred to houses in Great Oxendon being set back from the road and less visible to drivers. This seemed to be a reason for having a lower speed limit not a higher one. • Great Oxendon should be treated the same as Maidwell, which had a lower speed limit. • Residents wanted NCC to do all it could to resolve the problem. The Chair invited Mrs Corner to address the Committee and she made the following points: • The village church in Great Oxendon was in an area with a 60 mph speed limit, which caused danger to church goers. • An 11-year old resident had told Mrs Corner that she was afraid to cross the road outside her house to get the school bus due to the danger from traffic. There had been four road accidents outside her house in a year after road markings had been changed. • Residents had been told that accident data for the village did not warrant a change to the speed limit. However, not all accidents seemed to have been considered. During the past 18 months the air ambulance had needed to come out twice on the same day. • On-street parking had also caused an accident in the past 18 months. • The A508 was a red route when the A14 was closed, which resulted in large lorries coming through Great Oxendon. • Poor lighting meant that drivers passing through Great Oxendon might not be able to see houses and drives and appreciate why the speed limit was necessary. • Making a small reduction in the speed limit for drivers was better than endangering residents. The data from 2012 was too old and too limited. NCC should take action rather than wait for an accident to occur. Mrs Corner circulated photos of the junctions where the two side roads joined the A508 in Great Oxendon and highlighted to the Committee that it was necessary for drivers to edge out onto the A508 to see oncoming traffic. The Chair invited the Transport Planning Team Leader to comment on the matter. He showed the Committee drivers’-eye view photos of the A508 through Great Oxendon using Google Maps Streetview and made the following points: • Apart from at the crossroads in Great Oxendon most properties were set well back from the A508. There were large verges rather than walls right at the edges of the road. • Experience suggested that reducing the speed limit would have little effect in these circumstances due to drivers’ perceptions. In fact it could make the situation worse if a lower speed limit appeared unreasonable to drivers. • The 85 th percentile speed was a good guide to the appropriate speed limit on a road. The 2012 survey in Great Oxendon had found that 85% of vehicles were travelling at or below 50 mph, which was already above the existing speed limit. Reducing this further would not by itself affect driver behaviour. • The Community Engagement Manager had been working with Great Oxendon Parish Council to identify other ways of addressing the situation. This might include gateway features at the edge of the village; refuge areas in the centre of the road to assist pedestrians to cross; or white lines at the edge of the road to narrow it and cause drivers to slow down. Northamptonshire Highways considered that these were more practical options for reducing traffic speeds, which was what residents wanted to achieve. The Community Engagement Manager also made the following points: • Northamptonshire Highways was seeking to work with the community in Great Oxendon not to obstruct it. • The 85 th percentile speed was the accepted way of considering the speed limit for a road. • Recent survey work by Northamptonshire Police showed that the 85 th percentile speed for the A508 through Great Oxendon was now 45 mph. Police accident data for the village, which Northamptonshire Highways had to work from, showed that there had been four accidents in the last three years. The Transport Planning Team Leader and Community Engagement Manager subsequently provided additional information in response to questions from members as follows: • All cases concerning the speed limits in communities were considered on their own merits. A key factor that had led to the speed limit in Maidwell being reduced was that properties were located closer to the road than in Great Oxendon. • The average annual daily traffic flow on the A508 south of Great Oxendon in 2012 had been 5,653. In 2015 this had increased to 6,367. Data was available back to 2002 and there had been both increases and decreases in this time. The data could be shared with the petitioners if this would be helpful. • The original petition had not referred to speed limits in Maidwell compared to Great Oxendon. This had only been mentioned in the request for a petition review. The Committee considered the report and members made the following points during the course of discussion: • Flashing speed indicator signs were effective at slowing down responsible drivers. • Driving through the area showed that there were differences between the situation in Great Oxendon and in Maidwell. • It was surprising that the 40 mph sign on the A508 at the southern edge of Great Oxendon was well within the village, when it would be better for it to be located level with the village sign. There was a 40 mph marking on the road surface coming into Great Oxendon from the north but it was faded and needed repainting. • The current level of enforcement activity in Great Oxendon was queried. • Drivers did need to be able to see the reasons for a speed limit. • More of a case needed to be made that changing a speed limit had little effect by itself. • The response to the petition would have been improved by including the recent data showing that the 85 th percentile speed in Great Oxendon had reduced to 45 mph. It was also possible to see why the petitioners did not accept the case that lowering the speed limit would cause drivers to ignore it more.