Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of petitions received by the Council which fall within the remit of this Committee including a summary of the response sent to the petition organiser by officers. One petition has been referred to the Committee for consideration at this meeting.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which advised the Committee of petitions received by the Council which fell within the remit of the Committee, including a summary of the response sent to the petition organiser by officers.

One petition had been referred to the Committee for consideration which asked for speed calming measurers at Edwin Road, Rainham.

A representative of the lead petitioner was invited to speak to explain why the Council’s response to the petition had been referred to the Committee and made the following points:

-       the 30mph speed limit was often exceeded.

-       This was a busy road and used as a cut through by commuters as well as being on a school run.

-       There had been several near misses and there were concerns about potential fatalities.

-       Residents wished to see a reduction in the speed of vehicles, a change in driver behaviour, the Speed Indicating Device (SID) reinstated as soon as possible and for the Council to reconsider if speed calming measures could be introduced. How the SID captured data was also queried.

-       Local residents had agreed to join aKent police pilot Speed Watch volunteers group.

The Head of Transport and Parking advised that the road carried around 2,000 vehicles per day and the last survey showed 85% of vehicles travelled at just under 30mph. 2% of vehicles travelling north were at, or in excess of, 40mph and 4% of south bound vehicles.

The Council intervened on the basis of road safety and prioritised interventions based on road casualties. The number of crashes in Edwin Road had been low. The SID had been installed but this moved around according to need, although it was possible it could be brought back to Edwin Road in the future. How the SID secured data would need to be looked into. The Council was happy to support the Speed Watch pilot where it could.

In discussing the petition the following responses were made to comments from  Members:

-     Police enforcement – there were no police mobile speed cameras on Edwin Road.

-     Live traffic monitoring and data – traffic cameras were placed in strategic places and not usually in urban areas. The data from cameras was used to monitor traffic flows and not crashes. The Council would only collect data from cameras in response to concerns from residents or councillors.

-     Police reports – the official report from the police on accidents could take some time to be sent to the Council but the authority would be aware of such incidents soon after they occurred and would start to consider a response before receiving the police report.

-     Police speed camera – Members were advised Edwin Road was unlikely to meet the criteria for this.

Some Members felt the Council should use data from other sources when considering whether an intervention was justified and also considered that, in effect, the Council’s approach was that a poor accident record was needed before it would intervene.

Members were advised that the Council’s road safety action plan was being revised and officers would take on board Members’ comments around using existing data.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)    note the petition responses and appropriate officer action set out in paragraph 3 of the report.

b)    note the petition referral request set out in paragraph 4 of the report and the Director of Place and Deputy Chief Executive’s response.

c)    request that the data from the Kent Police Speed Watch pilot be sent to Members and that existing data held by the Council be re-visited as part of revising the road safety action plan.