Agenda item

This report sets out a response to an issue, raised by Councillor Johnson, concerning road safety.

Discussion:

In accordance with Medway Constitution Overview and Scrutiny rules (Chapter 4, Part 5 Paragraph 9.1) Councillor Johnson had requested that this item be included on the agenda concerning road safety. This related to the effort and expense of the Deanwood Drive speed limit change, which had cost £18,000 to enable vehicles to travel at 40 mph legally for less than half a mile. Councillor Johnson considered that little attention had been given to road safety in Gillingham South.

In introducing his item, Councillor Johnson highlighted concerns of residents and Councillors about road safety in Gillingham South ward. These concerns related to Canterbury Street, Marlborough Road, Nelson Road, Duncan Road, Napier Road, Barnsole Road, Rock Avenue, Sturdey Avenue and Gillingham Road. Residents felt they lived in constant fear due to issues such as speeding traffic, obstructive parking and difficulty crossing roads. Peak traffic time could make these problems worse.

Councillor Johnson welcomed the offer made in the report for officers to meet him but said that he had previously raised many issues over a number of years. A petition had also recently been submitted to the Council in relation to speeding traffic in Gillingham Road. Although officers had responded to previous issues and mobile speed equipment had been deployed, Councillor Johnson considered that little else had changed. Officers had advised that the accident record did not warrant action, funds were limited and that they needed to be used in areas with the highest need. There was concern that a serious accident would be needed before action was taken and that local community intelligence was not being used effectively.

There had been a change in speed limit from 30mph to 40mph for a section of Deanwood Drive that was approximately half a mile long. There were 30mph sections at either end of this section. Councillor Johnson considered that this change had been illogical and had not warranted the £18,000 cost. He welcomed the offer that had been made of a meeting between him and officers and requested that the other ward Councillors for Gillingham South be invited to attend. Councillor Johnson hoped that this meeting would focus on the issues that he had raised and support the development an action plan.

In response, the Head of Transport and Parking said that it was anticipated that the speed limit change made on Deanwood Drive would promote wider speed limit compliance along the whole section of road, including the 30mph areas. Speed limits were kept under review and changes would be made where this supported safe road use. The Council had a statutory duty to prevent casualties. Decisions were predominantly data led and also in response to local community concerns. An example of a data driven scheme was a road safety scheme in Luton where significant investment had been made in road safety infrastructure. An example of a community concern scheme could be installation of vehicle activated speed warning signs and road markings.

A Member said that he was surprised that the change to the speed limit had been made on Deanwood Drive. He said responses to traffic issues sometimes lagged behind the data and considered that this could be one such example. Another Member asked for assurance that data would be the primary driver of changes in the area. The Head of Transport and Parking offered this assurance. He highlighted that there were not always clear trends in accident data as they could be caused by a number of factors. Medway had a data analyst who looked at the detail.

A Committee Member said they could not see the justification for increasing the speed limit in Deanwood Drive. He suggested that there was a lack of consistency and transparency in how some of the Council’s road safety budget was allocated and asked whether a traffic survey had been undertaken before the limit had been changed. It was also requested that a further survey be carried out to establish whether traffic speeds had increased. The Member asked whether such a survey would be carried out on the whole length of the road to include the 30mph and 40mph zones.

The Head of Transport and Parking said that a traffic survey had been undertaken ahead of the changes being made. This had found that traffic speeds in Deanwood Drive were not consistent with the 30mph speed limit and it was considered that this was having an impact within the residential area of Deanwood Drive. Making the change to the speed limit in a section of the road was considered to have emphasised the importance of the 30mph limit in the residential sections of the road. A further survey would be carried out and this would include the 30mph and 40mph zones.

The Director of Place and Deputy Chief Executive proposed that a Briefing Note be produced for the Committee to set out the rationale and outcome of the traffic survey. A Committee Member expressed concern that any further work would be at a cost and might not fully address the issues raised by Councillor Johnson through his Members’ item.

Decision:

a)    The Committee noted the Director’s comments provided in response to the Member’s item.

b)    Requested that a meeting take place between Councillor Johnson and officers take place to discuss the issues raised and that the other ward Councillors for Gillingham South be invited to attend.

c)    Requested that a Briefing Note be sent to the Committee to set out the rationale for and outcome of the traffic survey in relation to the speed limit changes in Deanwood Drive.