Agenda item

Purpose of report: This report presents an updated version of the Surrey RoadSafe Vision Zero Road Strategy. The strategy has been amended following feedback from a ten-week public consultation.

 

The Committee received a report of the Road Safety and Sustainable School Travel Team of an updated version of the Surrey RoadSafe Vision Zero Road Strategy, which had been amended following feedback from a ten-week public consultation.

 

Witnesses:

 

Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic
?Growth.

Paul Millen, Strategic Transport Group Manager.

Lucy Monie, Director of Highways and Transport.

Ducan Knox, Road Safety and Sustainable School Travel Manager.

Rebecca Harrison, Safer Travel Team Leader.

 

Due to a member of the public arriving late to ask their supplemental question, the discussion briefly shifted to Agenda Item 4. Following this short discussion, the Committee returned to Agenda Item 5.

 

Key points made in the discussion:

 

1. A Member asked how the Vision Zero Road Safety Strategy changed because of the public consultation. The Strategic Transport Group Manager hoped that there would be more support for the 20-mph strategy. The public had expressed preferences for where they wanted the 20-mph limit to be implemented. The Strategic Transport Group committed to provide additional information on how consultations with local people would be conducted.

 

2. A Member asked if the Vision Zero Road Safety Strategy should be reviewed considering the percentage of respondents expressing a lack of confidence that it would lead to improvements in road safety. The Strategic Transport Group Manager replied that respondents’ lack of confidence in the Strategy related to road maintenance.  Significant work was underway to make improvements.

 

3. A Member asked if key performance indicators would be developed to measure progress in achieving the strategy’s goal. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that the strategy included a delivery plan and framework. This would be reviewed by the Road Safety Governance Board (RSGB). There was no established threshold for a high level of compliance with speed limits. However, intervention was prioritised at sites with the most significant speed and casualty issues.

 

4. A Member asked if reducing serious injuries and deaths by 2035 was the primary measure of success and what the RSGB’s relationship was to Surrey County Council and this Committee. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that the data is arranged by road user groups. The relationship between the RSGB and the Committee is determined by the respective Cabinet Member, and the activities of both are subject to scrutiny by this Committee.

 

5. A Member asked about the number of speed surveys conducted and whether a high level of compliance could be measured for most of them. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that data was collected from measuring thousands of sites. The sites requiring the most attention were identified in collaboration with local boroughs and districts. Further data was gathered from telematics devices used by road users.

 

6. A Member said that participants in the public consultation were dissatisfied with measures to ensure driver compliance with speed limits and concerned about the new approach to implementing 20 mph speed limits. However, the consultation results indicated that only 4% of respondents experienced confusion or misunderstanding.

 

7. A Member asked whether the issue surrounding public consultation stemmed from ineffective communication or fundamental disagreement with the proposed strategy. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that there was a lack of understanding to a degree. Some individuals indicated opposition but also supported specific areas of the policy. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that consultations were not the best way to communicate and expressed the need to reevaluate the approach.

 

8. The Chair said that 42% of respondents felt either unconfident or very unconfident about the likelihood of improving road safety. Respondents’ main concern was that funding for road maintenance would be more effective in impacting on road safety.

 

9. The Chair asked if road maintenance should be prioritized in the strategy. In reply, the Strategic Transport Group Manager acknowledged that road maintenance was important; however, it should not overshadow the main objectives of the strategy. The Director of Highways and Transport said that there was already a separate strategy for highway maintenance that prioritized user safety.

 

10. A Member asked if there was any evidence linking road conditions to serious injuries and fatalities. In reply, the Strategic Transport Group Manager said there is a lack of data on the issue, but police records include information about the causes of incidents.

 

11. A Member asked how many reduced speed limits would need to be established to reach the safe road targets of the strategy and what the associated costs would be. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that this was challenging to identify. Early data indicated that reducing 60 mph speed limits as part of the Rural Speed Limit Programme had been effective.

 

12. The Chairman said that a consistent majority of respondents in social media polls opposed 20 mph speed limits in residential areas, town centres, and near schools.

 

13. The Chairman asked about the demographics of the participants. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said they do not have this data.

 

14. A Member asked for elaboration on proposed governing structures. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that a governance board was being set up among the strategy’s decision makers. The board would make major investment decisions using money from the Road Safe Partnership. Also a strategy and delivery group would develop plans for the governance board.

 

15. A Member remarked that both road markings and potholes were critical issues. The Cabinet Member stated that significant investment had been made in road markings.

 

16. A Member asked for clarification of self-enforcing speed limits. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that this indicated where drivers voluntarily choose speeds that complied with the posted speed limit based on a road's physical characteristics without the need for police enforcement. This was accomplished through road width visibility, the presence of parked vehicles, and traffic calming measures.

 

17. A Member said that the Council had an established process for setting local speed limits, allowing residents to submit online requests for reductions. Local councillors were then consulted to determine whether to conduct a speed assessment. However, Annex 5 indicated that feasibility work and speed studies were conducted first, followed by a formal engagement plan with local Councillors. This approach raised concerns about the financial feasibility of achieving the goals from the outset.

 

18. A Member asked whether local Councillor involvement could occur earlier than proposed in Annex 5. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that local Councillors could contribute their local allocation to the feasibility study. If a Councillor did not want to proceed, they would not have to secure a locally funded scheme.

 

19. A Member asked the reason for using the 85th percentile in speed assessments and how to address situations where there is a significant difference between the mean speed and the 85th percentile. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that the 85th percentile represented the speed above which the fastest 15% of vehicles travelled. This metric, along with the mean speed, helped determine the appropriate type and priority of intervention. An explanation and examples could be added to the website for the public about speed measurements.

 

20. The Chairman asked about the level of support required to approve a 20 mph scheme. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that defining the exact level of support required was unhelpful, as anyone could contribute to the consultation process.

 

21. A Member asked about local engagement with Districts and Boroughs and whether their involvement could be included. The Strategic Transport Group Manager would gather the views of the Districts and Boroughs and disseminate information through their media channels as part of the consultation process.

 

22. A Member asked who would conduct the public consultations and whether an officer would be assigned to oversee them. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that when a local Councillor aimed to promote a scheme, the Highways Engagement and Commissioning Team would act on behalf of that Councillor.

 

23. A Member asked who the members of the Road Safety Working Group (RSWG) were, how Councillors could improve collaboration with them, and how to obtain more information about the outcomes of their informal meetings. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that the RSWG was part of the Road Safety Team, which reviewed maps to identify collision hotspots and routes and welcomed public concerns about specific sites. The RSWG collaborated with the police to visit locations and commission speed surveys. When issues were identified, solutions were proposed and implemented. Meeting minutes could be shared and the RSWG welcomed site suggestions from members.

 

24. A Member asked how the Council determined which roads were appropriate for the 20 mph schemes and how many roads would need speed limit reductions to meet this strategy’s target. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that the policy focused on areas outside schools, residential neighbourhoods, and town centres. It was up to the local community to identify which roads were relevant.

 

25. A Member asked how the RSWG’s views regarding the 20 mph limit were incorporated into the speed management planning process, where the speed management plans were published and whether Councillors could access them. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that RSWG’s agenda featured speed management plans. While the data was not published, they could provide a redacted snapshot of the sites requiring the most attention and actions for those locations.

 

26. A Member asked if any concerns from Councillors about various sites could be communicated to the Strategic Transport Group Manager for review. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that they could do this.

 

27. A Member asked where the RSWG gets its data.  In reply, the Strategic Transport Group Manager said that a national system collected data on injuries resulting from traffic collisions. The RSWG also considered other data sources, such as non-injury collisions and information submitted by individuals.

 

28. A Member asked whether sufficient funding existed to implement the strategy, what solutions are available if it did not, and if Councillors could access central funds beyond the ITS scheme. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that by the end of the financial year, the majority of the £3 million allocated for safety outside schools went towards 29 initiatives along with supporting traffic calming measures, safe walking routes to school, and speed limit enforcement. Additionally, funding would be directed towards speed management and road safety capital schemes. There was a £500,000 budget within the capital pipeline for capital schemes, totalling £2.5 million over five years.

 

29. A Member asked how the amount of £2.5 million was determined, whether this was appropriate, and when it would be reviewed. The Director of Highways and Transport said that this amount was a starting point. As with all capital budgets, it would be reviewed in due time. At this early stage, it was unclear whether this amount was appropriate.

 

30. A Member asked about the basis of the £2.5 million and the number of other routes that posed high or similar risks to the A25 between Dorking and Reigate that required funding, and whether it was possible to request financial support from Central Government. The Cabinet Member said that £2.5 million was designated solely for implementing the 20 mph strategy. This was a suggestion rather than a commitment. The review of the capital budget was ongoing. Furthermore, the £500,000 was designated for 20 mph zones and road safety initiatives. This represented the Council’s contribution, with additional funding available for partners. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that £1.8 million was allocated between Dorking and Reigate from central Government, as this route had ranked among the worst nationally. No additional qualifying roads in Surrey had been identified for further funding.

 

31. A Member asked if the strategy fully aligned with the Department for Transport (DfT) Circular of March 2024, about variable speed limits. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that Surrey’s approach aligned to the DfT circular. Although variable speed limits exist in Surrey, they did not significantly impact traffic, and the maintenance involved did not justify such a scheme.

 

32. A Member asked a supplementary question regarding the impact of a new government on this policy area. The Strategic Transport Group Manager said that it is too early to tell what will happen with any new government.

 

33. A Member asked about the principles outlined in the report regarding the implementation of a 20 mph speed limit and supplying additional evidence toward the process. The Strategic Transport Group Manager confirmed the importance of evidence and if the measures did not work further actions could be taken.

 

34. A Member asked which organisation would make the greatest impact in achieving this strategy. The Strategic Transport Group Manager noted that all organizations had worked together and that it was impossible to determine if one was more important than another.

 

Decision:

 

RESOLVED, that the Communities Environment and Highways Select Committee,

 

         1.    Notes the main changes were additional emphasis on ensuring local people are consulted on proposals and on the need for 20 mph speed limits to be self-enforcing;

 

         2.    Notes the public response to the consultation revealed a lack of confidence that the strategy would improve road safety in Surrey, with resident feedback suggesting road condition and potholes had a greater impact on road safety;

 

         3.    Notes there was a mixed response on the proposals for a new approach to 20 mph speed limits which reflected both disagreement to the policy but also a misunderstanding of how the policy would be implemented;

 

         4.    Supports the Vision Zero Roadsafe Strategy in broad terms and the consultative approach that is being taken but notes the public concern about whether the impact of this strategy will succeed and its likelihood of meeting the target to reduce KSIs by 50% by 2035 (758 to 375), and notes that this will be addressed in future communications and engagement plans to better explain the policy to the public;

 

         5.    Expresses concern at the consultation results specifically related to speed limits and lack of clear message/result and supports future work to improve consultation methodologies;

 

         6.    Recommends more detailed targets are produced to monitor progress and ensure impact including a delivery plan with key deliverables aimed at reducing deaths and KPIs;

 

         7.    Recommends appropriate prioritisation of funding and sufficient resources to deliver the strategy;

 

         8.    Recommends that supporting communication and outreach addresses the public perception (raised in the public consultation) that fixing potholes and improving roads would have a greater impact on road safety and highlights the Council’s highways improvement programme;

 

         9.    Recommends revisions to the strategy to address the comments raised by the Committee in discussion to clarify the role of the local Councillor in 20?mph scheme proposals and the process for local engagement (including parish council involvement) and to amend annex 5 accordingly, which should clarify that a pragmatic and flexible approach can be taken to local consultation.

 

Actions/requests for further information:

 

None.

 

Meeting was recessed from 12:06 p.m. to 12:17 p.m.