Agenda item

(Representatives from the Association of British Drivers were present for this item)

(1)       The results of the work carried out on the speed limit review to the south of Maidstone were set out in the report.  This was the latest in a series of HAB reports (September 06 & January 07) on the speed limit review. It explored the results of the demonstration area south of Maidstone and a “rough sort” of the remaining “A” and “B” road network to establish the way forward. The principle aim of the project was to provide a consistent standard for speed limits across the county. The report also considered the circular as a potential policy document for the county.

(2)       The demonstration area lies to the south of Maidstone and included a total of 12 roads. Key to the work being undertaken was that it should produce the opening statement of Circular Roads 1/2006 that being “Speed limits should be evidence led, self explaining and seek to reinforce people’s assessment of what was a safe speed to travel. They should encourage self-compliance and not be seen by drivers as being a target speed at which to drive in all circumstances.”  It was essential that the right balance between the needs of local residents and drivers was met. In the past, some lower speed limits had produced little or no change in driver behaviour and in some cases brought into disrepute previously well observed speed limits.

(3)       The reports were split into three specific areas. Speed limit changes, signs and TRO’s. They indicated changes to some 27% of existing speed limits, improvements to signs and this issue was covered in greater detail in paragraph 7 of these Minutes plus modifications to TRO’s. Work on improving signing, particularly gateways would take place over the next two years. Detailed design and full consultation of the demonstration area would take place during the next financial year 08/09 with implementation of the demonstration area in 2009/10.

(4)       Rough sort work indicated that the county should be split into three areas on a rolling programme with completion in 2012/13 starting in Mid Kent.

(5)       In communications with the parish councils it was clear that enforcement was a key issue. Although enforcement of speed limits rested with the Chief Constable it was clear that all limits must be properly signed. Of equal importance was that all speed limits were understood and accepted by drivers so that enforcement levels were kept to a minimum.

(6)       Meetings with Kent Police had taken place and they had accepted the methodology used to determine the speed limits within the demonstration area. They had in the past raised concerns and objections regarding the implementation of some lower speed limits.

(7)       Local communication with Parish Councils in the demonstration area had been through John Wilson of East Farleigh PC who had agreed to act for all councils within the demonstration area. His role was to reassure the Parish Councils within the area that the County Council’s approach was robust and in line with the Government’s guidance.

(8)       During 08/09 once detailed designs and draft TRO’s had been produced then full consultation would begin. This would follow the normal Kent process with adverts and a formal request to statutory bodies. We would also discuss the methodology used with formal groups and organisations.

(9)       At this time there was insufficient time and funding to also consider “C” and unclassified roads although they should not be completely ignored. Where a crash analysis indicated that a lower limit was wholly or partly the measure required to reduce crashes then a crash remedial report could be produced and funding for that scheme provided through the Transport and Safety Package PIPKIN.

(10)     One key objective of the report was to test circular roads1/2006 to see if it was fit for purpose. The report concluded that in the main the document provided a consistent standard to be applied. There were a few issues to resolve and further work would be undertaken along with consultation with the DfT, other highway authorities and Kent Police to see if national or local flexibility was required.

(11)     The work carried out indicated that although the review of the counties “A” and “B” road network would be completed by 2011, implementation of the recommendations would not be completed until 2012 / 2013 at the earliest. Bids for the funding of the review would need to be included within the LTP process but it must be noted that with limited crash savings likely to come from the review PIPKIN assessments might be low. Funding for this should not therefore be at the expense of crash remedial works as to do so might endanger the chances of achieving the government’s 2010 target of reduced casualties.

(12)     It was also clear that Circular Roads 1/2006 offered us the chance to achieve a consistency of standard for speed limits on Kent’s Roads. We would need to ensure that the balance between the needs of residents and drivers was fairly maintained. Further work, assessment and consultation was needed before 1/2006 could be recommended as a county policy.

(13)     The Board noted the recommendations of the reports and the progress towards the 2011 target.