Agenda item

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth to request approval to progress a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to introduce a 30mph speed limit throughout Daddry Shield and Bridge End (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Strategic Traffic Manager gave a detailed presentation that highlighted the traffic regulation order which included aerial photographs of the area and details of the proposal and enhanced measures.

The Traffic Management Officer, Durham Constabulary addressed the Committee in objection to the application. He advised that from the outset he had a good relationship with Durham Highways. He clarified that he was not objecting to the speed limit being reduced but that it should be reduced to 40mph rather than the proposed 30mph. The Police believed that 30mph was not credible and said 70% of people who sped would question the credibility.

He referred to the enhanced measures in the presentation which showed the dragons teeth and stated that due to the environment which included hedges and trees, a 30mph limit was not appropriate. 

Furthermore, statistics showed that the average speed for the road was 37.2mph indicating that a 40mph speed limit would be more suitable and more likely to be adhered to. He added that there had been no accidents in the area for the previous four years and explained that introducing an incorrect speed limit could be dangerous.

He concluded that the speed limit should be reduced to 40mph not 30mph and stated that this speed limit would be easier to enforce and that 86% of drivers would comply.

Mr Hunter addressed the Committee in support of the application. He advised that he had lived in the area since 1977 and explained that the road was crossed regularly with livestock to gain access to fields and bridleways. He raised concerns regarding the noise from traffic and explained that accidents over the years had happened but as they were minor accidents they had not been officially recorded.  He pointed out that the area of Daddry Shield was previously a 30mph zone and expressed his disappointment when previous letters detailing this were submitted to Durham County Council and the Police and were failed to be addressed. He hoped the application would be approved.

Dr Nattrass addressed the Committee in support of the application. She advised that she lived on a local farm with her husband and four children, commenting that she had a privileged position where she could see both ends of the road. She explained that there had been a noticeable increase in traffic and road users over the last 11 years and that the speed of road users had increased. She advised that her husband was a farmer and drove a tractor. She explained that despite moving their livestock at times when traffic is naturally lower, they must still slow traffic down themselves. She went on to advise that she had seen first-hand several near misses and stated that her daughter had commented on the current speed limit of 60mph stating it was nearly as fast as a motorway.

Mr Pattinson addressed the Committee in support of the application. He advised that he had lived in the area since 1941 and that there had been a 30mph speed limit then when there were horse and carts on the road. He explained that there was a bus stop in the middle of village which was used by elderly people but that the view was limited due to the blind bends at either end of the road. He added that people with defected hearing were at further risk as they were unable to hear vehicles approaching, making the road dangerous to cross. He advised that if the speed limit was reduced to 30mph it would allow those crossing the road almost double the amount of time to do so increasing their safety. He informed members that that there had been accidents in the village advising that he had helped clean up after four of them.  

Councillor Jopling noted that the application went against policy. She was sympathetic to the residents and understood it was upsetting for them but confirmed that consistency and fairness had to come into their judgement.

Councillor Sterling agreed with Councillor Jopling. She believed the speed limit of the road should be reduced to 40mph rather than 30mph and asked for clarification on the speed limit.

The Strategic Traffic Manager acknowledged that it was outside policy but only marginally. He clarified that residents would not accept a speed limit of 40mph, and he explained the engineering measures that were to be put in place. He advised that it was a trial case and that policies would be amended accordingly should the trial be successful.

Councillor Bell advised that he was familiar with the area and accepted that a speed limit of 30mph was necessary for the road due to the built-up environment, blind bends, tractors, and livestock on the road. He added that motorcycles in the dales were an issue and that these travelled at considerable speed. He stated that the residents needed to be listened to and moved the application to be approved in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Robson observed that people drove electric cars which are especially difficult to hear. He noted the concerns raised regarding crossing the road and the speed of motorbikes and emphasised the need to protect people’s safety. He confirmed he was in support of the application.

Councillor Higgins confirmed that he welcomed the trial, and he acknowledged the residents accounts of minor accidents in the area. He Seconded that the application be approved in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Tinsley understood the rationale for the trial but raised concerns regarding the speed limit. He suggested there be an evaluation following a two-year period to establish whether the speed limit is correct, and it be increased to 40mph if necessary. He advised that this was not included in the recommendation and asked if it could be amended at this stage.

The Strategic Traffic Manager clarified that if the application was approved, the speed of vehicles would be regularly monitored. In terms of an evaluation, he explained that if it concluded that the speed limit should be increased to 40mph, the speed limit would then need to be re-advertised and the statutory consultation process started which could result in objections. Councillor Tinsley accepted this but believed it would provide the Committee with the evidence needed to make an informed decision.

Councillor Boyes raised his concerns regarding the speed limit being 30mph and stressed that it was not credible and could be dangerous. He sympathised with residents but believed reducing the limit to 30mph would cause problems as people who were unfamiliar with the area would naturally drive faster. He believed a speed limit of 40mph would be more appropriate and confirmed that he rejected the application.

Councillor Manchester advised that he was familiar with the road and believed a speed limit of 30mph was credible. He confirmed he was in support of the application. 

Councillor Wood commented that he did not know the area of Daddry Shield but that he had seen an image and noted that properties were close to the front of the road and that there were streetlights and therefore a speed limit of 30mph appeared to be appropriate.  He went on to ask where the average reading of 37.2 mph was taken. It was established that this was taken to the west of the village near the A689. He commented that this was the least built-up area. Further to this he pointed out that a reduction in speed would result in a reduction in accidents and therefore confirmed that he was in support of the application.

Councillor Bell suggested that additional pictures showing the built-up area would have been beneficial for those members not familiar with the area and felt that this would have demonstrated the need for a speed limit of 30mph. In terms of an evaluation, he raised his concerns regarding the cost implications to officers and the Police.

Further to this, Councillor Sterling noted that it would be difficult to change the speed limit in the future, particularly if residents were satisfied with it, and stated that it was important for the decision made to be final.

The Solicitor (Planning and Development) clarified that the proposal was for a permanent traffic regulation order, not a temporary one and clarified that it was for a speed limit of 30mph not 40mph.

Upon a vote being taken it was

Resolved

That the proposal in principle, to proceed with the implementation of the 30mph application be endorsed. With the final decision to be made by the Corporate Director under delegated powers.