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 responses sent to the petition organisers by officers.

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 responses sent to the petition organisers by officers.

One petition had been referred to the Committee for consideration. This related to Speeding and Safety Hazards on the A230 Maidstone Road, Chatham between the Ridgeway and A229 Junction. It was requested that Medway Council and Kent Police take urgent action to reduce speeding and traffic accident frequency.

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 stretch of road was dangerous with cars overtaking in the hatched area along the middle of the road and the 30mph speed limit was ignored by drivers.
• Pedestrians were unable to cross the road safely due to vehicle speed, traffic volumes and the approximate 10 metre road width.
• Other nearby roads had traffic islands to enhance road safety but there were no islands on this section of the Maidstone Road. Road markings were also worn and the petitioner considered the road condition to be sub-standard for an ‘A’ class road.
• Kent Police and Medway Council had completed multiple speed surveys in recent months, which demonstrated an underlying concern.
• Every resident the petitioner had contacted had signed his petition and there was strong local concern.
• The initial response from Medway Council had been that there would be no physical alterations to the road as there had only been one accident involving injury in the area. The petitioner welcomed that the Council was planning a scheme to extend and renew the road hatch markings.
• Installation of a traffic island was needed as a matter of urgency to promote pedestrian safety. This would stop pedestrians needing to stand in the road as they crossed it. There were significant numbers of pedestrians in the area.
• The petitioner had personal experience of a road traffic accident in the area when a car had left the road and caused extensive damage to his property. It had been due to luck that none of his family had been injured.
• The petitioner had been advised that there had not been enough incidents resulting in injury at the location to warrant installation of a speed camera.
• In conclusion, it was requested that a traffic island be installed at the location to facilitate safe crossing of the road.

The Head of Transport and Parking said that the road was part of a major route into Chatham. The Council had a statutory duty under the Road Safety Act to investigate road accidents and to take appropriate measures to prevent them. There had been one accident at the location which had resulted in a slight injury. There had been no other crashes resulting in injury on this section of the road. A traffic island had been installed to assist pedestrians crossing the road close to nearby Horsted Park and there was ongoing design work to consider replacing the island with a signal-controlled crossing.

Speed surveys undertaken close to the area covered by the petition had shown an 85^th percentile speed of 32mph with 37% of vehicles exceeding the speed limit. It was acknowledged that speeds to the north of this were likely to be slightly higher and that there was currently a lack of facilities to help pedestrians cross the road. The issues raised would be further investigated. It was noted that there was a need to better understand demand and physical constraints in providing facilities, such as access to driveways.

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

Speed indicator devices – The Council operated mobile speed indicator devices to make drivers aware of their speed. These could be used at the petition location as an interim measure.

Costs, timescales and temporary measures – In response to a question asking what the cost of the work requested by the petitioners would be, the Head of Transport and Parking said that this had not yet been assessed and would be dependent on a number of factors. This would be assessed as part of the feasibility study work that was due to take place. It was anticipated that this work would take three to four months to complete. Installation of a temporary crossing was not considered advisable, but use of mobile speed indicators could be made as a temporary measure. 

Difficulty Crossing Road and speed indicator signs – A Member said that the width of the road made it difficult for pedestrians to cross and asked what works were being considered regarding the installation of pedestrian crossings in this area. She suggested that a temporary crossing should be considered. It was also suggested that mobile speed indicators signs were useful while they were deployed but that speeds tended to increase again when they were taken away.

In discussing the lead petitioner’s statement, a number of Members supported the view that road safety was an issue at this location and it was requested that the design of a traffic island and the associated feasibility study should be treated as a priority. It was also requested that mobile speed indicator signs be deployed at the petition location as soon as possible.

Decision:

The Committee noted the petition responses and referral request and the appropriate officer actions, as set out in the report, and as highlighted during the meeting.