Agenda item

Purpose: To review the Individual Decision relating to a proposed 50mph speed limit on the A4 Bath Road, Padworth.

The Commission considered a report concerning the Call In Item ID2470 – A4 Bath Road, Padworth – proposed 50mph speed limit which was approved by Individual Decision on 26 April 2012.

Councillor Brooks noted that although Councillor Dominic Boeck had signed the Call In, his ability to debate the issue as a member of the Commission had not been compromised.

(Note: 6:40pm - Councillor Virginia von Celsing joined the meeting)

Andrew Garratt summarised the background to this item, informing the Commission that in 2006 the national guidance for setting speed limits was altered.  As a result, the Council undertook a review of the speed limits on all ‘A’ and ‘B’ roads, and concluded that this section of the A4 in Padworth should be considered as a candidate for a reduced speed limit.  The proposal was considered by the Speed Limit Task Group consisting of two Officers, two Councillors and the Police, who requested further information before making their recommendation.  Additional surveys were carried out along the section of road, and in December 2010, the Task Group recommended that a 50mph speed limit be set for the single carriageway section.  During the consultation period, one objection was received.

Councillor David Betts clarified that several sections of the A4 had been reviewed by the Task Group, but that only this section had been identified for a reduction in the speed limit.  He further advised that Beenham Parish Council had contacted him to express their support for the new speed limit.

In response to questions received from the Commission, Andrew Garratt was able to clarify that:

·        There were a number of reasons for the recommendation to have been put forward.  These included the changes to national guidelines, the number of accidents, the current mean speed of vehicles, and the nature of the development and junctions along the stretch of road; 

·        There were a number of businesses and residential developments in this location with traffic entering and exiting those sites;

·        Over the last three years there had been 14 injury accidents, four of which had involved turning movements;

·        There had been three survey locations each identifying different mean speeds, the highest of which was 42mph.

Councillor Brooks asked for clarification as to why a speed limit was required when the mean speed limit along the road was lower than the proposed limit.  Andrew Garratt explained that the decision was not based solely on the mean speed of vehicles.  The number of accidents was also considered and guidance indicated that a visible speed limit would highlight the need for greater caution.

Councillor Vickers asked whether speed had been a contributory factor in the accidents that had occurred.  Andrew Garratt responded that it had been a factor in many of them especially where they involved a car moving at low speed when turning or preparing to turn onto or off the road being hit by a car travelling at speed.

The Commission considered the causes of two fatal accidents and were advised that one occurred in a location outside of the proposed speed limit, and one occurred near a roundabout where speed was unlikely to be a factor.

Councillor Rendel questioned whether it was possible to reach speeds exceeding 50mph when travelling eastwards as a roundabout on the section acted as a natural traffic calming measure.  Andrew Garratt responded that it was relatively easy in current vehicles.  Councillor Rendel was concerned that when travelling westwards from the dual carriageway section of road, that the speed limit would drop significantly from 70mph to 50mph.

Councillor Dave Goff asked if it would be possible to model whether a lower speed limit would have affected the accidents that had occurred.  Andrew Garratt replied that it would be difficult to model, however it was known that drivers’ reaction time was an important factor in accidents, and reducing the speed allowed more time to react thereby reducing the likelihood of an accident occurring.  Andrew Garratt continued that 50mph speed limits had been introduced on the A340 towards Tidmarsh, and the A338 towards Great Shefford, and these had proven to be successful in reducing speed and accidents.

Councillor Mike Johnston expressed the view that as many accidents occurred when turning onto or off the road, a better solution would be to improve access and junctions.  He continued that he did not expect there to be a significant improvement to the accident record by reducing the speed limit by 10mph.  Andrew Garratt responded that there was evidence that a change of this order was effective.

Councillor Betts reminded the Commission that all of the facts had been carefully examined by the Speed Limit Task Group, and that these individuals were experts who took their role very seriously.  The Task Group did not recommend changes to speed limits without good cause.

Councillor Quentin Webb considered that a slower and more constant stream of traffic would make it more difficult to turn onto the A4.  Andrew Garratt did not expect this to be a problem and noted that the lower speed limit would make it easier and safer for drivers to match the speed of other traffic.

Councillor Marcus Franks asked how the accident record on this stretch of the A4 compared to the rest of the A4.  Andrew Garratt responded that it was worse, with 14 accidents here and 30 in total between the A340 roundabouts.  He noted that the A4 had a generally good accident record, but there were a greater number of junctions and turnings along this section than elsewhere.  Andrew Garratt informed the Commission of a similar issue at a single junction near Kintbury which had been addressed successfully by the installation of a traffic island, however this would not be suitable in Padworth due to the number of turnings involved.

Councillor Vickers requested further information about the police’s view of the proposed speed limit as they had not responded to the consultation.  Andrew Garratt confirmed that the police were supportive of the proposed limit and, as part of the Speed Limit Task Group, had approved the recommendation, and that they did not routinely respond to consultations unless they had concerns.

Councillor Goff asked whether any other options had been considered.  Andrew Garratt replied that other options would involve significant engineering works with their associated costs and disruption.

Councillor Brooks invited Andrew Garratt to respond to each of the ten reasons put forward for the Call In:

Councillor Richard Crumly was invited to address the Commission and expand on his reasons for calling in the decision.  Councillor Crumly advised that he believed:

·        The decision was inappropriate and would like the Commission to recommend it be reviewed;

·        The speed limit should remain unchanged, and this had been supported by a resident of Sulham who had provided a number of arguments for this;

·        The roundabout on the A4 forced drivers to slow down or stop, acting as a natural speed break;

·        The road was historically the main road between London and Bristol and was largely a wide, straight road suitable for higher speeds;

·        He had never witnessed a pedestrian crossing the road at the point in question;

·        That development along the road did not encourage pedestrians to cross, as where there were built up areas, there was nothing opposite;

·        Neither of the fatal accidents referred to should be used to justify a speed limit, due to the other factors involved;

·        It was inappropriate to reduce the speed limit on the dual carriageway section of road;

·        Restricting movement from the junction with Beenham Road to allow left turns only would improve safety, as it had been seen to be effective elsewhere;

·        That setting a speed limit in line with the 85^th percentile of mean speeds would be more appropriate as fewer drivers would be penalised, and these would be more serious offenders;

Councillor Crumly clarified his statement that the speed limit would be unenforceable by referring to the fact that the police did not comment on the consultation.  In his opinion, he felt they might not have the enthusiasm to patrol the area, and might not have locations in which to set up speed detection vehicles;

Councillor Crumly concluded by asking the Commission not to rely solely on figures, but to use their experience of driving on the road to consider whether the reduced speed limit was required;

Councillor Vickers informed the Commission that he had undertaken an informal consultation on the issue amongst his contacts.  The result had indicated overwhelming support for maintaining the existing speed limit.

Councillor Webb asked how emerging traffic would be prevented from turning right onto the A4 and where this could be implemented.  Andrew Garratt responded that it would be achieved by installing or extending a central reservation which was an expensive option and would require consultation.  Indications were that businesses along the road would object as it would affect their customers.  He reminded the Commission that this method would affect turning in to properties as well as out.

Councillor Webster expressed the view that the Speed Limit Task Group had made an informed decision based on facts and their expert knowledge of the subject.  Councillor Webster proposed that the Commission endorse the Individual Decision.

Councillor Rendel informed the Commission that although he had originally been in agreement with the decision, the discussion had raised issues which caused him to reconsider.  He was particularly concerned about the introduction of a 50mph speed limit at the point that the dual carriageway became single carriageway as drivers would need to slow down in anticipation of the lower limit whilst still on the dual carriageway.   He believed that this would be detrimental to drivers whose ability to overtake on this section of dual carriageway would be compromised.

Councillor Brooks concurred with this point, and noted that drivers would not have another opportunity to overtake a slow vehicle, and this might encourage drivers to risk overtaking on a single carriageway section.

Councillor Betts addressed the Commission and stated that he respected the group and would respect any decision reached, however he pointed out that the decision had been viewed by the Speed Limit Task Group twice, and had been through the ID process during which time it had been open to Member comments.  Given the information that had been presented to him, he had been satisfied with the recommendation from the Task Group.

Councillor Webb proposed that the Commission recommend the decision be reconsidered by the Portfolio Holder for Highways.  This was seconded by Councillor Goff.  At the vote this was carried.

RESOLVED that the A4 Bath Road, Padworth, Proposed 50mph Speed Limit be referred back to the Portfolio Holder for Highways for reconsideration.