Agenda item

Report to be presented by Neil O’Leary, Network Safety Team Leader, Buckinghamshire Highways (see report attached).

Questions/Consider recommendations and agree next steps

To be led by Cllr Matthew Walsh.

NOL queried how the reports should be presented. JB stated that if meeting attendees had read the petition reports then an overview would be suffice. It was therefore agreed that NOL would read the Executive Summary and the Recommendations and then hand over to the CB for questions.

NOL read the Executive Summary and Recommendations for this petition – see petition report in the agenda pack.

Questions:

Stephen Reading (SR – Lead Petitioner) referred to Recommendation 2 in terms of analysing the speed data in accordance with Bledlow cum Saunderton’s Neighbourhood Plan 2017. SR stated that as per the presentation (Powerpoint slides) he forwarded as part of the supporting information, a speed survey which the Parish Council had commissioned from Transport for Bucks in November and December 2022. SR said that this information had also been presented to the NWC CB Transport and Road Issues Action Group (TRIAG) some months ago. The speed data showed that 25% or more of vehicles throughout the survey were travelling at 35mph or more.  SR did not think that Recommendation 2 was accurate.

SR added that the Parish Council were looking for something more than what Recommendation 1 described.  SR confirmed that the Parish Council would like more than a redesigned sign as the Parish had these already and a Vehicle Activated Signed.

NOL responded and said that he was aware that speed data had been collected, but was not aware of the level it had been analysed. SR advised that very comprehensive data was produced by Buckinghamshire Council which was also detailed in his presentation. Furthermore, some drivers had historically driven at speeds of 60 to 70mph to the end of village, so that’s why the Parish Council felt that further traffic measures were required. SR said that he would be happy to have a conversation on what might be possible.

NOL stressed that it was not that he wasn’t aware that the data existed, it was more that the data had not been analysed by designers who would determine what might be the best options in terms of traffic calming.

Jim Stevens (JS) then introduced himself as the Chair of the NWC CB’s Transport and Road Issues Action Group. JS confirmed that TRIAG had a met SR a few months ago and discussed at length the traffic conditions in Bledlow Ridge. JS stated that TRIAG supported the petition and the need for physical traffic calming in the village. JS said that it was a linear village, a long straight road with houses either side, and there was not much encouragement for drivers to slow down.

JS confirmed that the Parish Council had over the years implemented softer measures. There were two Vehicle Activated Signs in the village and red friction surfacing and road markings where the speed limit changed, but drivers still drove at speed. TRIAG believed that physical measures were now required which was the basis of the petition and referenced in item 3.7 of the petition report.

JS advised that the NOL’s report stated that a chicane/build out could potentially block visibility for people driving to the Cricket Club. JS said that a chicane/build out would really slow traffic down to give way to traffic coming in the other direction.  He said chicanes and build outs were used within Buckinghamshire and across the country. JS said that in his opinion a chicane/build would be an effective solution and would slow traffic and create a much safer entrance into the Cricket Club which now had a café and recreation ground as well.

JS asked that the NWC CB ask for an amendment to Recommendation 1 to include an assessment of a chicane/build out.

MW asked NOL what his thoughts were on this. NOL stated that it came down to whether this aligned with the CB’s priorities.

In terms of costing, MW confirmed that the report from Bledlow cum Saunderton estimated that chicanes cost approximately £40,000. MW advised that he had not had the opportunity to read the new Highways Toolkit (submitted today) so asked if this was the ballpark figure. NOL stated that he couldn’t confirm with any confidence but didn’t believe that there was a schedule of costs in the new guidance.

SR reported that Chinnor Town Council had provided that ballpark figure, so although the cost has not been researched, it was based on experience.

JS advised that in terms of the priorities for the NWC CB which had been mentioned by NOL, TRIAG had a series of priorities for the CB. One was around ensuring speed limits were appropriate and enforced and the other was that road safety issues were addressed (there were other priorities too). The chicanes/build out’s would fit well within the CB’s priorities.

Steven Broadbent (SB) advised that he was talking as a member of the CB at this meeting and not as a Cabinet Member. SB believed that the reference to priorities related to money and funding, and whether formal consideration of the report was carried out at full Board where it would decide on next steps – this may be to go through the new toolkit process. SB confirmed that there were trigger points in that it brought it back to the CB along with the lead person. SB accepted there were CB priorities, but there were three petitions to discuss and that there may be relative priorities in those as well.

With his Cabinet hat on, SB informed the meeting that there were certain design elements in the toolkit which the CB should be aware of. There would be resources for all CB’s where a design would be agreed against a schedule of rates, but the cost was driven by the context. When the work was considered it would factor in how much traffic management was required etc. so it was difficult to give a figure until we had the correct information. SB thought it was better to obtain an accurate figure rather than speculating.

SR requested that we progress the chicane/build out solution. If it was found to be too expensive then at least it had been explored.  It was in the petition and SR did not want to let it go as he had a Parish Council meeting on Monday (11/9) and he did not want to report that at the very first hurdle the chicane/build out idea had been rejected.

MW asked if local Bucks Council Members had anything to add – none had anything further to say.

MW asked NOL if the chicane/build out could be included in the petition report. MW stated that it was a key part of the petition and met our CB priorities and said there were funding partnerships with Parish Council’s in the area that may assist. NOL advised that it was essentially included in Recommendation 2. NOL added that we needed to make sure the Cricket Club was accessible and the visibility wasn’t impaired for residents opposite and for people entering and exiting.

SR asked if timescales to meet, discuss and commission the work could be agreed with NOL (Action BR/01). SB stated that he wasn’t sure if NOL commissioned a chicane/build out assessment and that it would have to be presented to the CB to do it.

JB felt that the NWC CB needed to consider the new procedures as the chicane/build out proposal may have to follow a different procedure. SB believed that for this one, the soft measures had already been considered by TRIAG, so the technical measures could be reviewed quite quickly.

Summary of the actions discussed:

Action BR/01: SR and NOL to arrange a meeting to discuss the chicane/build out proposal and any another other traffic calming solutions.

In addition - Action BR/02:SR to consider Recommendations 2, 3 and 4

MW thanked SR for attending the meeting.