Agenda Item 11

Committee Lead Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment

Date 20 April 2009

Report By Director of Transport and Environment

Title of Report Petition for a 40mph speed limit, weight and width restrictions and traffic calming on the Road (C17).

Purpose of Report To consider a petition from the Wartling Village Residents Association requesting a 40 mph speed limit, weight and width restrictions and traffic calming on the Wartling Road between and Church Hill.

RECOMMENDATION: The Lead Member is recommended to advise the petitioners that:

1. Consideration will be given to the introduction of a 40 mph speed limit on Wartling Road as part of the Rural Review of Speed Limits on C and unclassified Roads, commencing post 2011;

2. A traffic survey will be commissioned to assess the amount of heavy goods vehicles using the C17 as a through route and the results will be discussed with Sussex Police, local members and the Parish Council; and

3. Wartling Road does not meet the pre qualification criteria for traffic calming as its crash score is less than 4 per km as outlined in Policy Summary 4/25.

1. Financial Appraisal

1.1 The cost for a 12 hour registration plate survey at two locations is £750 and this will be funded by the 2009/10 revenue budget.

2. Supporting Information

2.1 At the County Council meeting on 20 February 2009 Councillors Bentley and Thomas presented a petition to the Chairman requesting a 40mph speed limit, weight and width restrictions and traffic calming on the Wartling Road.

2.2 A copy of the petition is available in the Members’ room. Standing Orders provide that where the Chairman considers it appropriate, petitions are considered by the relevant Committee or Lead Member and that a spokesperson for the petitioners be invited to address the Committee. The Chairman has referred this petition to the Lead Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment.

3. Comments / Appraisal

3.1 Wartling Road is located to the north of Wartling and forms part of the C17 route linking the A27 at with the A271 at Boreham Street. The section through Wartling is subject to a 30mph speed limit, but the length to the north leading up to the A271 is subject to the national speed limit of 60mph.

3.2 The popular tourist attractions of Castle and Science Museum are accessed via Wartling Road and this attracts large numbers of visitors each year.

3.3 During the last 3 calendar years, Sussex Police has recorded 1 serious and 3 slight injury crashes on Wartling Road. A plot showing the location and severity of the recorded accidents is included at Appendix 1.

3.4 In respect to the request for a reduced speed limit, the County Council is presently carrying out a review of speed limits on all rural A and B class roads in the county. This work has been programmed over a 4 year period ending in 2012. Once this review has been completed, it is intended that it will be followed by a review of all C and unclassified roads.

3.5 In respect of the request for a weight and/or width restriction to be imposed on Wartling Road, it would first need to be established that the route was being used as a through route by heavy goods vehicles. To this end, arrangements will be made to carry out a detailed traffic survey, as outlined in Policy Summary PS4/5, and then review the results with Sussex Police, local members and the parish council. It should be noted that the policy also lays down a condition that a more suitable alternative route must be available. In this instance the most likely alternative route for heavy goods vehicles would be the B2095 through Hooe Common. A copy of Policy Summary PS4/5 is included at Appendix 2.

3.6 In respect pf the request for a traffic calming scheme to be introduced on Wartling Road, the County Council receives numerous requests for traffic calming which far outweigh the funding available for such schemes. For that reason, each request goes through a ‘pre-qualification’ criteria, as set out in Policy Summary PS4/25 and that must be met before a site can be considered for traffic calming. In this instance the pre-qualification criteria is not met, the road having a score less than 4 per km. A copy of Policy Summary PS4/25 is included at Appendix 3.

4 Conclusion and Reason for Recommendation

4.1 The speed limit on the C17 (Wartling Road) should be assessed as part of the rural C and U/C road review, which is expected to start post 2011. If the speed limit is reviewed ahead of the programme it will deflect from the priority set by national government to review all A and B roads by 2011.

4.2 In order to establish the justification for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) restricting the use of the route by heavy goods vehicles, a detailed traffic survey will be commissioned and the results shared with Sussex Police, local members and the parish council.

4.3 Wartling Road does not meet the ‘pre-qualification’ criteria for traffic calming as set out in Policy Summary PS4/25 having a score of less than 4.

RUPERT CLUBB Director of Transport and Environment 07 April 2009

Contact Officer: Michael Higgs Direct dial (01273) 482106 Local Member: Councillor Bentley and Councillor Thomas

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS The petition

EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - POLICY SUMMARY

PS4/5 CONTROL OF HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES

Purpose of Policy

To establish a pattern of control reconciling, so far as is possible, the conflicting demands of the transport of goods and the environment.

Specific Policies

1. A Traffic Regulation Order prohibiting goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes gross weight*, except for loading or unloading, may be made where the following conditions are met:-

[a] The road concerned is both physically and environmentally unsuitable for lorry traffic [see Appendix for details]; and

[b] An average of not less than one "through" lorry per hour for the peak 10 hour period in a day [as distinct from journeys by vehicles requiring access for loading/unloading purposes in the affected length]; and

[c] A more suitable alternative route is available. /Continued Overleaf

* 7.5 tonnes gross weight is the close metric equivalent of the former 3 tons unladen weight.

Supporting Statement

As few roads in the County are really suitable for heavy lorries, it has been the deliberate policy of the Committee to allow the lorries to disperse over the available road network rather than to concentrate them on selected roads, themselves perhaps little more suitable than the rest. At the same time, the Committee has placed restrictions on particularly unsuitable roads, which were much used by heavy lorries perhaps as short cuts, with the aim of improving the environment for residents and other users of these roads.

This policy relates to individual roads. Area type restrictions in towns will be dealt with individually.

References – Further Information Date of Approval

H & T Committee - 16 December 1990 Agenda Item 11A 16.12.80 H & T Committee - 31 May 1989 Agenda Item 11 31.05.89

6/92

Specific Policies [continued]

2. An Order may also be made if, following a “deflectograph” survey, the structural condition of the road pavement is found to be unsuitable to carry the heavy vehicle loading being imposed upon it, and total failure is likely to result if action is not taken.

3. It is axiomatic that national “A” and “B” roads should be available for heavy lorries. Such roads will be improved if economically justified or reduced in classification if a restriction is to be imposed.

APPENDIX TO PS4/5

EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE MERIT TATING - FACTORS AND SCORE

FACTOR SCORE FACTOR SCORE

PHYSICAL FEATURES TRAFFIC FLOWS

Width [excepting Pinch Points] Traffic Flow [6am – 10pm]

Under 4.5m 20 Over 1000 12 4.5m - 4.8m 12 Over 700 6 4.8m - 5.1m 8 Over 400 4 5.1m - 5.5m 4 Over 200 2 Over 5.5m 0

Pinch Points % of HGV Traffic that is “Through” [eg narrow bridge, close buildings, archway] Over 70% 7 Over 50% 3 Under 3.0m wide 10 Over 20% 2 3.0m - 3.8m 6 3.8m - 4.5m 3 HGV Flow [per day in Peak 10hr Period] 4.5m - 5.5m 1 Over 5.5m 0 Over 40 15 Over 30 9 Hilliness Over 20 6 Over 10 4 Over 50m/km 5 1 - 10 2 15m/km - 50m/km 2 Under 15m/km 0 INJURY ACCIDENTS

Development HGV Accidents [last 3 years]

In depth 6 Over 2 10 Slight/Ribbon 2 1 - 2 4

Worst Kilometre of Bendiness Total Accidents [last 3 years]

Over 140°/km 15 Over 10 8 110°/km - 140°/km 11 Over 5 4 85°/km - 110°/km 6 1 – 5 2 60°/km - 85°/km 2 Under 60°/km 0

A SCORE OF 55+ INDICATES THAT A BAN MAYBE JUSTIFIED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS [b] AND [c] OF THE POLICY BEING MET

EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL

LEAD MEMBER - TRANSPORT AND ENVIROMENT POLICY SUMMARY

TRAFFIC CALMING PS 4/25

Purpose of Policy

To reduce road casualties and minimise the adverse effects of motorised traffic by traffic calming techniques.

Specific Policies

Pre-Qualification Criteria

1. Sites will only be considered for traffic calming if: a) an initial review indicates there is a problem that might be solved by a general lowering of speeds and that traffic calming is an appropriate solution, and, b) either the ‘treatable accident’ rating is ‘4’ or more, or a vulnerable road user was involved in a ‘treatable accident’. For this purpose, accidents will not be regarded as treatable if it is clear they could not have been prevented by traffic calming. The accident rating is calculated over the most recent three-year period by scoring 1 for each treatable slight accident, 2 for each treatable serious accident and 3 for each treatable fatal accident. Where the assessment length is greater than 1km the resulting score will be divided by the study length in metres and multiplied by 1000 to give a rate per kilometre. / continued overleaf Supporting Statement Traffic Calming Schemes are expensive and invariable the cost of treating all the sites awaiting treatment far outweighs the available funding. A policy is therefore required to ensure that appropriate sites are selected for investigation and that effective use is made of resources by only progressing worthwhile schemes. Traffic calming measures can adversely affect emergency vehicles and bus operations and inconvenience local residents. Schemes should therefore only be progressed where it can be demonstrated that the potential benefits outweigh these disadvantages. References – Further Information Date of Approval

Cabinet Committee - Agenda Item 19 12.12.2000 Lead Member for Transport and Environment Meeting - Agenda Item 5 04.03.2002 Lead Member for Transport and Environment Meeting - Agenda Item 7 03.03.2003 Lead Member for Transport and Environment Meeting - Agenda Item 8 16.10.2006 Lead Member for Transport and Environment Meeting – Agenda Item 10 25.06.2007

Specific Policies (continued)

Detailed Assessment

2 Sites that are to be considered will be prioritised using an approved assessment procedure that takes into account factors such as treatable accidents, speeds, traffic flow, through traffic, pedestrian and cycle flows, severance, schools and development. (See Appendix A to this policy)

3 Where traffic calming one route could displace traffic onto equally unsuitable routes an area-wide study will be undertaken.

4 Proposals to impose or change speed limits as part of a traffic calming scheme should follow the principles contained in Policy PS4/2 (Local Speed Limits) and Policy PS4/30 (20mph Speed Limits).

5 Where possible and beneficial, traffic calming measures will be considered as part of highway, traffic management, safety, structural maintenance and development schemes.

6 Provided they are acceptable in highway terms, sites that are externally funded may be progressed irrespective of their priority on the County Council’s programme.

Appendix A

TRAFFIC CALMING REQUESTS - Priority Assessment Procedure

Part 1a - Total Treatable Accident Rating

Treatable Accidents Involving Personal Injury for the latest 3 years:-

Total Fatal ...... x 3 = ...... points Total Serious ...... x 2 = ...... points Total Slight ...... x 1 = ...... points

Total = …………….……………….points

Where length is greater than 1km Multiply by study length in metres /1000 =…...... points

Score:

Part 1b - Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Accident Rating

Treatable accidents Involving VRUs (i.e. pedestrians & cyclists), whether or not the VRU was one of the casualties

Total Fatal ...... x 3 = ...... points Total Serious ...... x 2 = ...... points Total Slight ...... x 1 = ...... points

Total = …………….……………….points

Where length is greater than 1km Multiply by study length in metres /1000 =…...... points

Score:

Part 2 - Speed/Volume Relationship

Mean Speed Vehicles per day (two-way AAWDT Flow) above appropriate limit mph <2500 2501 - 4000 4001 - 6000 6001 - 8500 >8500 0 - 4 1 2 3 4 5 5 - 9 2 3 4 5 6 10-14 3 4 5 6 7 >14 4 5 6 7 8 Score:

Part 3 - Traffic Flow

Property Vehicles per day Facade to Centre Line of Carriageway (metres) <2500 2501 - 4000 4001 - 6000 6001 - 8500 >8500 7+ 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 6 - 6.9 ½ 1 1½ 2 2½ 5 - 5.9 1 1½ 2 2½ 3 4 - 4.9 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ <4 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 Score:

Part 4 - Pedestrian Activity

Level of Pedestrian Vehicles per day Activity <2500 2501 - 4001 - 6001 - >8500 4000 6000 8500 High All Day 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 High in peaks, 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ moderate at other times Moderate all day 1 1½ 2 2½ 3 Moderate in peaks, ½ 1 1½ 2 2½ low at other times Low all day 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 Score:

Part 5 – Footways

Width <1.2 Width >1.2 No footway provision 4 4 Footway one side 3 2 Footway both sides 1 0 Score:

Part 6 - Cycling Activity

Level of Cycling Vehicles per day Activity <2500 2501 - 4001 - 6001 - >8500 4000 6000 8500 High All Day 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 High in peaks, 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ moderate at other times Moderate all day 1 1½ 2 2½ 3 Moderate in peaks, ½ 1 1½ 2 2½ low at other times Low all day 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 Score:

Part 7 – Equestrian Activity

Level of Equestrian Vehicles per day Activity <2500 2501 - 4001 - 6001 - >8500 4000 6000 8500 High All Day 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 High in peaks, 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ moderate at other times Moderate all day 1 1½ 2 2½ 3 Moderate in peaks, ½ 1 1½ 2 2½ low at other times Low all day 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 Visible presence of stables in assessment length add 2 Score:

Part 8 – Public Access

Proximity of National / Strategic Locally Un - Promoted Assessment Route Promoted Local Route Length to Public Access NCN, South Downs Route Route Way, Weald Way or (metres) similar On Route 4 3 2 <250 3 2 1 251 - 500 2 1 1/2 501 - 1,000 1 0 0 Score:

Part 9 - Schools

Proximity of Assessment Length Points to Schools (metres) On Route 4 <250 3 251 - 500 2 501 - 1,000 1 Score:

Part 10 – Severance

600m band each side of the centre line over the assessed length

% of built development split by assessed

Points 50% - 50% 4 40% - 60% 3 30% - 70% 2 20% - 80% 1 10% -90% ½ 0% - 100% 0

Score:

Summary

Total Score: Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

+ + + + + + + +  9 10 + Total Score = Lead Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment 20 April 2009 Petition for a 40mph speed limit, weight and width restrictions and traffic calming on Wartling Road (C17)

Wartling Road

Location Plan

Site

Scale 1:50,000

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Rupert Clubb Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Rupert Clubb the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office BEng (Hons) CEng MICE Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. BEng (Hons) CEng MICE © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright DDirireecctotor,r ,T Trraannssppoorrt ta anndd E Ennvvirioronnmmeenntt Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. ScSalcea 1le: 1:15000 and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. East Sussex County Council, 100019601, 2007 EEaasst tS Suusssseexx C Coouunntyty C Coouunnccilil East Sussex County Council, 100019601, 2008