Issue - meetings

This report summarises the outcome of the speed assessment for Stoke Road, for the lowering of the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph, which was reported to Committee in September 2014.

In 2014, the speed limit was lowered from 40mph to 30mph.  Extensive utility works on Stoke Road have delayed assessment of the effects of the change in speed limit.  In 2017 surveys have shown that traffic speeds have increased, potentially increasing the likelihood of traffic collisions occurring, and potentially worsening the consequences of traffic collisions that do occur.

That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed:

(i)       That £5,000 be set aside the original CIL contribution and the parking surplus to investigate measures to reduce traffic speeds and report possible options back to Committee for review; and

(ii)      Should viable measures be identified, to identify appropriate funding and implement such measures and monitor the effects on vehicle speeds in line with Surrey’s policy ‘Setting Local Speed Limits’.

Reasons: Recommendations have been made based on Surrey’s policy ‘Setting Local Speed Limits’, in consultation with Surrey Police’s Road Safety and Traffic Management Team.

Declarations of Interest: Mrs Mary Lewis declared a personal interest as a resident in the area.

Officers attending: Nick Healey, Area Highways Manager (NE)

Petitions, Public Questions/Statements:

Three public questions had been received.  The questions and responses were contained in the supplementary papers, together with an additional paper which corrected an incorrect figure in the original report and addressed issues which had been raised following the publication of the report in relation to the validity of the data being used.  This information was noted.

The Chairman indicated that he had received a number of letters from local residents opposing an increase in the speed limit to 40mph, although there were a minority who were in favour.

Mr Elbourne indicated that he was representing over 300 local residents who signed a petition in 2009 requesting the reduction of the speed limit to 30mph.  He had supplied members of the Committee with background information on the issue prior to the meeting.  He drew the Committee’s attention to what he considered to be inaccurate, inconsistent and misleading information contained in the officer report.  He stated that further historic data is available, but as this has not been used for comparison it was only possible to compare data from two sites rather than sites along the length of the road as required by the SCC speed limit policy.  In addition, the recent data had been collected over a three week period, which does not comply with the SCC policy which specifies it should be collected over a one week period.  For the September survey the 30mph signs had been removed from the area.  He did not accept that the other areas cited in the report, where speed limits had been increased from 30 to 40 mph with a reduction in mean speeds, were comparable with this area.

He felt that the installation of 30mph repeater signs, as used on may other roads, would help drivers to comply with the speed limit and asked the Committee to request that the limit is regularly enforced by Surrey Police.  Residents have contacted the police asking to establish a Community Speed Watch in the area but are still awaiting training.  He suggested that speeds could be reduced by means of simple measures including the reactivation of the two vehicle activated (VAS) signs to operate at 30mph and the widening of traffic islands.

There was no indication of any further public questions or statements so the Committee moved to debate the options.

Member Discussion – key points

The Area Highways Manager responded that evidence shows that signs are only one factor in determining a driver’s choice of speed.  Stoke Road appears to be semi-rural in nature and many drivers would interpret this as a road with a 40mph limit.  Setting a limit at a level that drivers expect increases the level of compliance.  He apologised for the one figure in the report which was incorrect and had been amended in the additional information published subsequently.  The information provided is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49